MenAreGood
Maryland Commission for Men's Health Report on Domestic Violence (2010)
tgolden
July 23, 2024

I wrote this report when I was the vice-chair of the Maryland Commission for Men’s Health in 2008-2010. This was one of three reports that The Maryland Department of Health tried to deep six. It took us a year to track down what they had done and the reports finally made their way to the legislators. (The story of this event was a chapter in Janice Fiamengo’s excellent book Sons of Feminism: Men Have Their Say.) They really didn’t want this to get out and they succeeded since it was a year late. It was written with the idea of giving legislators a good sense of the bigoted path the domestic violence industry had taken in Maryland. It continues to be a good summary of how the feminists have built a lethal anti-male industry. It is amazing and shocking how little has changed since that time. Sad too.

The attached image was not a part of the original report. lol I couldn’t resist.😀

 

 

Perhaps the most confusing, perplexing, and controversial area in which men’s health needs are overlooked is the issue of male victims of domestic violence. One immediately noticeable trend is the strong tendency to focus solely on female victims and ignore male victims. This tendency is seen repeatedly.  Most media, whether print or electronic, focuses on female victims of domestic violence and all too often fails to mention male victims. Almost every article in the newspaper and every program on TV about domestic violence focuses on female victims.  We see the same focus in academia: courses in sociology and women’s studies repeat the message that women are the primary victims of domestic violence and rarely mention male victims. If you look on the internet at web sites of domestic violence agencies you will likely see a similar bias.1 One oft-quoted statistic is that according to a Department of Justice report, there are 1.5 million women each year in the United States who are victims of domestic violence.  What you don’t see is that the same report also found that there are 834,000 male victims of domestic violence each year in the United States.2  Rather than adding the two and saying 2.3 million Americans suffer from domestic violence each year, all too often the only statistic highlighted is the one about women. One side of the story is told and the other side is ignored, as 834,000 men are omitted. Nationally, we have the “Violence Against Women Act” which boldly excludes men from its name. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (a national group that teaches judges on the issue of domestic violence) offers a typical description which includes women but seems to minimize men: “Domestic violence puts millions of women and their families at risk each year and is one of the single greatest social ills impacting the nation.”3 There is no mention of men who might be at risk.  Most organizations promote the idea that females are the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence.  The general public has heard that message for decades and believes it to be the sole truth.  But is it?

The National Council Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) offers a similar message that women are the vast majority of the victims of domestic violence. According to their definition of domestic violence: “There is not a typical woman who will be battered – the risk factor is being born female.”4 If “the” risk factor is being born female, that seems to exclude men from sharing the risk. But a look at their own statistics compiled from state governments tells a very different story. In the state of Maryland, according to NCADV statistics, men comprise 23% of the victims of domestic violence, and women are 23% of the perpetrators.5 Maryland State Police statistics reveal similar estimates, listing men as 25% of all victims of domestic violence.6 These numbers are confirmed and even exceeded when compared with peer-reviewed research. What you find is that men are a sizable portion of the victims of domestic violence, a much larger portion than is usually mentioned through a variety of sources. In fact, peer-reviewed research reveals that most domestic violence is characterized not by one person abusing the other, but by what is termed as “reciprocal” violence: a brawl between two partners.7 The bulk of the research also suggests that women are more often the initiators of the violence.8  This sharp contrast between the commonly-held public view of women as the vast majority of domestic violence victims with men as the sole perpetrators, versus the research and statistics compiled by authoritative sources, paint pictures that are hard to reconcile.

The domestic violence agencies in Maryland are obviously comprised of a compassionate group of people dedicated to fighting a horrible problem.  The Maryland Commission for Men’s Health wholeheartedly agrees with them that domestic violence needs our attention and our resources. The issue that the commission finds worrisome is that it appears that only a part of the problem of domestic violence is being addressed in earnest: the female victims. The other parts are taking a back seat: male victims and female perpetrators. Due to this imbalance, some Marylanders go unserved and left in great pain.

There is a saying among NASA engineers that “an ounce of thrust at takeoff can mean thousands of miles down course.”  The ounce of thrust that has thrown the domestic violence industry off course is the idea of holding men and masculinity solely responsible for the incidence of domestic violence. In its early years as a cause, many of those working in domestic violence assumed that men were the sole cause of domestic violence and, of course, women were seen as the only victims.  It was this contention that has limited their vision to see the complexity of domestic violence and its many victims both male and female, heterosexual and homosexual. Over the years, various organizations and individuals have tried to offer feedback that males are in need of treatment as victims and females are in need of attention as perpetrators, but all too often their voices go noticably unheard.

 

How did things get to this point?

When domestic violence activism first started in the 1970’s, the leaders were mostly feminists who were rightly concerned about the lives and safety of women. What they saw was shocking: situations where muscular men were beating innocent women. Very quickly these stories started making their way to the media. People were shocked and outraged. The activists kept the stories flowing to the media and the media continued to alert the public to the truly awful horror stories. The feminist activists applied their ideological template to the issues of domestic violence. In the 1970’s, the feminist template presumed men were a major cause of women’s problems and were a large inhibiting factor holding women back from a variety of opportunities.  Phrases like “all men are rapists” and “men are pigs” were commonplace.  Men were routinely disdained and blamed.  The horror of males committing domestic violence gave some reason to believe that these early misandrist stereotypes of men might hold some truth.  Uncaring men, using their power to control and beat women, were observed repeatedly in these domestic violence situations, and this led to the assumption that it was men who were the underlying cause of a grievous social problem.  Sadly, we now know that this idea of men being the underlying cause of the problem represents a truth but simply not the whole truth.  What we now know is that although the stories of women being beaten by bullying men were certainly true, they told only part of the story.  Researchers today characterize domestic violence as being 25% men beating women, 25% women beating men and 50% being more of a brawl between the two people.9  The brawling and the violent women had been overshadowed by the more shocking and outrageous examples of helpless women being beaten by bullying men.

This statistical breakdown of 25%-25%-50% is a shock to many and very difficult to believe.   However, we have already seen how the premier national domestic violence organization, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), verifies that in Maryland, for example, men comprise 23% of the victims and females 23% of the perpetrators of domestic violence.  Why would people not believe this to be the case?  Could it be that an ideology that holds men as the primary culprits in incidences of domestic violence continues to inhibit them from seeing situations in which men are victimized by abusive women?

The feminist idea that men are wholly responsible for domestic violence found immediate traction.  The horrible situations that were being reported were all of abusive men terrorizing defenseless women.  This sort of scenario struck a chord in both men and women who heard these reports.  The women were moved due to their own compassion for other women and children who might be vulnerable and in need.  The men were moved since an important part of the man’s biological and social sex role is to provide and protect for women and children.  Seeing women abused by out-of-control men was a very strong call to action for most men.  It is little wonder then that most states quickly developed laws and the beginnings of support for these female victims.  By the 1980s, only a few short years from the early activism of the 1970s, many states had already put domestic violence laws on their books. That’s moving pretty fast, for legislative bodies, who are known for their tendency to be circumspect when introducing whole new classes of penal laws.

What prevented evidence of other forms of domestic violence from coming to the surface? One answer to this question comes from one of the original domestic violence activists, Ellen Pence. Pence was the author of an important book about domestic violence and the influential Duluth Model (discussed below). She was also the founder of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project.  Pence admits that there was an effort to avoid issues related to women’s violence and highlights the neglect of female abusers:

In many ways, we turned a blind eye to many women’s use of violence, their drug use and alcoholism, and their often harsh and violent treatment of their own children.10

Why would the original activists “turn a blind eye?”  Did they not see that turning a blind eye put many innocent people in jeopardy?  One of the reasons was surely that the theoretical framework of men being the “only abusers” left no room to see women as anything but victims.  The norm for viewing female abusers came to be that a female abuser was considered to have been “abused in the past” and was acting this way out of hurt and self-defense, not evil or anything else. Their view of domestic violence simply did not allow room for the possibility of the woman as the abuser, plain and simple.  As in all things, if your theoretical framework doesn’t account for a phenomenon to exist, it is much less likely to be recognized.  It is also probably true that the media showed more interest in the stories where women were abused by men.  These stories touched a cultural nerve and therefore sold more papers and air time.  People wanted to read about female victims, but were not so interested in hearing about males who were abused by women. The early activists must have found that they could get the word out much more quickly and more powerfully by focusing on stories about men beating women.

The focus on male batterers and female victims has left us knowing a good deal less about female batterers. How could the less-physically powerful women ever batter or intimidate men?   What we have since found out through research is that violent women make up for their lack of physical strength by using weapons and the tactic of surprise.11  In domestic violence situations, women will often use weapons when men are vulnerable.  Think of Lorena Bobbitt who severed her husband’s penis while he slept or Mary Winkler who shot her husband in the back with a shotgun while he was sleeping, or Clara Harris who ran over her husband with her car as her daughter sat next to her.  All are examples of women committing domestic violence by using the element of surprise paired with lethal weapons. Interestingly, none of these murders or incidents was ever portrayed by the media as domestic violence.  The words “domestic violence” seem to be reserved exclusively for male-on-female violence only.  When women do choose to be violent as in the above examples, muscles simply don’t matter.  A shotgun will beat muscles every time.  The national figures for the United States show that 30% of spousal murders, the most lethal form of domestic violence, are committed by women against their husbands or partners.12

It wasn’t just the domestic violence activists who intentionally ignored women’s violence.  Our culture also tends to look the other way.  For whatever reasons, a woman’s violence is simply not as upsetting to see.  Just watch television shows or movies to see the frequency of women hitting or kicking men. In today’s world it is a given for women to hit men on TV but not the other way around.  Everyone sees this but few seem to get upset or to protest.  We are living with a huge double-standard where a woman’s violence against a man is something we see in cartoons, movies, commercials, or TV as innocuous or even comical. We see plenty of violence from men towards other men but when we see violence from men towards women it is seen as anything but comical or innocuous; it is seen as deadly.  This double-standard likely increases the chances for women’s violence in relationships to be overlooked by the media, the general public and by domestic violence workers.

It is also likely true that once these activists were looking for funding for their endeavors from the government or private institutions, the stories about “vulnerable women in great need of safety” brought much more attention and promises of funding than did a similar story of a man being abused by his wife.  Every politician wanted to be seen as the one helping solve this problem by “making women safe in their own homes”.  Those stories about men as victims simply didn’t have the same traction.  No politician wanted to touch those.  For them, rather than help male victims in their lobbying for funds, the stories of abused men would likely muddy the waters and detract from the powerful images of women-in-need.  The stories about men-in-need were also completely counter to the growing ideology that men were the source of all domestic violence.  An abused man simply didn’t fit into that framework and would likely have decreased the success of any unisex funding efforts.

It is easy to see how the ideology of men as the source of the domestic violence problem likely developed over the initial years of domestic violence activism.  It fit with the image that the media was helping to portray. It fit with the feminist idea that men were “the problem” and it surely helped in advocating for domestic violence funding.  There were good reasons simply to not bring up men-as-victims.

 

The Duluth Model

In the early 1980s an important event transpired in the history of domestic violence prevention.  A group of domestic violence activists met in Duluth, Minnesota after a particularly gruesome murder of a wife by a husband.  The group started to put together what would eventually become the “Duluth Model”, which has since become a staple ideological protocol for most domestic violence agencies in the US.  In some states, its use is mandated.  In many ways it has become the handbook for those working with domestic violence victims and situations.  It is important to understand the initial questions asked by the Duluth gathering at the inception of the Duluth Model theory.  Here are questions asked by those at the initial gathering: “Why is she the target of his violence”  “Why does he think he is entitled to have power?”  “How does the community support his violence?”13  As you can see from the questions, the Duluth Model at its very beginnings was only about male violence towards women.  It was never about mutual violence or a woman’s violence towards a man. It was only about men beating women.  It had no remarks or suggestions for abused men or about female perpetrators.  The flagship theory of the industry only focused on women as victims and men as perpetrators.  Australian author Tom Graves has evaluated the Duluth Model and lists its major problems.  Here are the first three:

1.  It believes that violence is masculine and that men are responsible for violence
2.  It refuses to remark or address the fact that men can be the recipients of violence
3.  It holds only men responsible as change agents.14

These three errors play a huge part in the failure of the Duluth Model to address the needs of male victims and the needs of female perpetrators.  Let’s hypothesize a possible example of the damage that can occur from stereotyping victims of domestic violence:  Imagine both wife and husband have been drinking.  The wife, in a burst of anger, throws a wine bottle at her husband who was hit on the arm as he blocked the bottle.  The wife next comes after him with a wine glass and tries to throw wine in his face.  He blocked that also and in the process, the wine glass breaks and cuts his wife.  The police arrive.  They find a bleeding and crying wife and a husband who claimed that he had been attacked.  Their Duluth Model training has taught them that the vast majority of victims of domestic violence are female and so, what do they do? Arrest the man and put him in jail!  No matter how much the man might try to explain his actions, the police would likely refuse to listen.  In fact, once the wife realizes her husband was going to jail, she would probably start to tell the truth, that she was the attacker.  The police would of course hear none of it and off to jail the man would go.

This man would be placed into a mandatory Duluth Model domestic violence “educational” group.  He would not be allowed to speak the truth of what had happened. When he would try to explain that it was his wife who had attacked him, he would be told to be quiet and focus on his violence. The truth of his being abused would be seen by the group leaders as an “excuse” that keeps him from taking responsibility for his violence.  He would be forced never to mention his wife’s violence.  He would have two choices.  One would be to tell the truth and not “graduate” from the educational sessions, which would leave him legally vulnerable.  The other would be to lie and say he was the abuser.  We could guess that this man would choose to lie simply in order to ”graduate” from the “training”.

This sort of example shows how the system can take on the role of what is being called a “third party” abuser.  The spouse no longer has a need to batter.  The police and community agencies are now taking over that role by treating the falsely-accused man in a manner that lacks respect for him as a human being who has been abused or as a citizen with the right to be presumed innocent or to have his side of a given unwitnessed incident fairly considererd.  This is what can happen when pre-judgments arising from stereotypes are used instead of impartial mindsets coupled with factual analysis.

Since its inception, the Duluth Model has been reworked and made more “gender neutral”, but it continues to fail miserably in its capacity to address the needs of men who are victimized and of women who are violent.

If you visit the Duluth Model web site, you can see that their primary focus on female victims continues to this day.  The Duluth site claims that women account for as many as 97% of the victims of domestic violence.15  We know from both police reports and from peer-reviewed research that this is far from the truth.  It does however show that the Duluth Model continues to be focused on female victims and has failed in taking current thinking and research into account, thus placing male victims at risk and allowing female perpetrators to go unchecked or psychiatrically untreated for their abusiveness.

 

The Duluth Model spreads to the community

As the domestic violence industry grew, the Duluth Model took a greater and greater hold on the theoretical practices of domestic violence agencies.  As it took this greater hold, the ideas of domestic violence being only about men beating women spread farther.  As funding grew for domestic violence agencies, the funding for trainings grew correspondingly.  The 1994 federal Violence Against Women Act started pouring about one billion dollars per year into domestic violence endeavors.  A part of that money was spent on trainings given to the court systems, judges, police, lawyers and domestic violence workers.  The message the workshops broadcast was founded on the Duluth Model ideology that women were the vast majority of domestic violence victims and men were only a tiny minority.  More and more, the ideas of the Duluth Model became the standard.  It was presented as fact that domestic violence is pretty much only about women being abused by men.  That ideology is now set firmly in place.  The early work of the activists has focused exclusively on abused women and now the theoretical framework that guided their work is firmly planted in an ideology that focuses on female victims but ignores the needs of male victims and the actions of female perpetrators.  Now these ideas have been spread successfully into our community agencies and public institutions.

 

Opposing Voices to the Duluth Model — Researchers

Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Susan Steinmetz are early researchers on issues of domestic violence.  This group published a book in 1982 that ran counter to the feminist ideology.  The book, Behind Closed Doors,16 said clearly that domestic violence was a two-way street with both men and women responsible as perpetrators and victims.  The response was swift and powerful.  Upon publication, Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz were immediately seen as enemies. Prior to their findings that there is gender symmetry in domestic violence, they had been praised and held in high esteem as instrumental in the early research on domestic violence.  But once they found data that contradicted the feminist belief that men were the only perpetrators and women the only victims, things changed drastically.  At that point, they lost their glow and became villains to those who supported the ideas of women as the only victims of domestic violence.  Death threats and other avenues of intimidation were used to try to silence them.  Murray Straus, Ph.D., describes his struggle with intimidation and explains his own reluctance to publish his results that went counter to the feminist domestic violence ideology:

Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gender symmetry to avoid becoming victims of the vitriolic denunciations and ostracism. Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberately omitting the data on female perpetrators and male victims.17

In essence, these researchers were being bullied. In fact, Straus published a paper in 2006 that describes not only the intimidation they suffered but also chronicles the specific ways that the feminist researchers made certain that their own data only produced the desired results that reflected the ideology that women were the primary victims of domestic violence.18

The research by Straus, Gelles, Steinmetz, and many others which clearly shows that men are victims has been available through journal articles for years.19   Some activists have drawn from the statistics and findings and tried to use this information to change the system to encourage existing services to include focus on male victims of domestic violence.  When activists make such attempts, they are usually met with the same results most every time:  the domestic violence industry claims that the peer-reviewed research is inaccurate and cites numbers from their own clinical settings, hospital settings, and emergency rooms.  The numbers they cite are very different from the research numbers and clearly show that domestic violence is indeed primarily a “men beat women” problem.  So who is correct?  The quick answer is BOTH.  The research numbers from scientists such as Strauss, Gelles, and Steinmetz are correct from their perspective and from the populations they studied.  These numbers were usually drawn from the general population and reflect the “average” person or family.

But how about the domestic violence agencies numbers?  Well, they are correct also, but one must note that the sample they draw from is very biased.  They draw from a population that has been utilizing services specifically built for women who were abused.  It is little wonder that they would therefore be more likely to show greater numbers of female victims.  Imagine a hospital that was built specifically for the treatment of caucasian diabetics.  When they look at their own numbers and stats they would assuredly say that the majority of victims of diabetes are white!  Since their services are built to serve whites, that is exactly what their stats will show.  One would also assume that they would be teaching in the community about whites and diabetes and also do Public Service Announcements for whites who might have diabetes.  The same thing happens within the domestic violence industry.  The entire system was originally built for women.  The name of the law the Violence Against Women Act makes that very clear.  It is little wonder that the statistics they compile and the research done within the domestic violence industry on their own populations would reflect that women were the primary victims.  You see this idea filter down to the clinical level where almost every group for domestic violence victims in Maryland is for women only.  The treatment groups are almost always built for male perpetrators and female victims. The overwhelming majority of public service announcements on domestic violence are focused on female victims.  When you solicit for a certain type of victim, it is no surprise that your statistics, trainings and treatment will center around that particular type of client.

 

Opposing Voices to the Duluth Model — Clinicians

While the peer-reviewed research has been noting male victims for years, the clinical side of the equation has now started getting noticed.   In 2007, the American Psychiatric Association published an article in the August issue of Psychiatric News titled: “Men Shouldn’t be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence.”20  The article cited some of the research findings about women being more likely then men in relationship to initiate domestic violence and focused on issues of reciprocal interpersonal violence versus nonreciprocal violence. Here is a quote from the article:

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women.

And another:

As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). “This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious,” Whitaker and his group stressed.

The word is getting out that both men and women are perpetrators and victims of domestic violence.

 

Opposing Voices to the Duluth Model — The Courts

The courts are also starting to take notice of the discrimination that men face in the domestic violence industry.  In the Woods et. al. vs California case in 2008, a Superior Court in Sacramento, ruled that male domestic violence victims had been unconstitutionally denied services.  The court held that state laws violated men’s equal protection rights by excluding male victims from state-funded domestic violence services.  The court found: “domestic violence is a serious problem for both women and men” and that “men experience significant levels of domestic violence as victims.”21  The court also found a percentage of state-funded programs deny men services they are entitled to receive.

Then, in October 2009, a West Virginia judge struck down state rules for regulating domestic violence shelters because they operate “on the premise that only men can be batterers and only women can be victims” and “exclude adult and adolescent males from their statutory right to safety and security free from domestic violence based only on their gender.”22

 

Are there men who fall through the cracks?

We have seen how the domestic violence industry has had a history of blaming men and masculinity for domestic violence. This sort of theoretical assumption has a negative impact on the willingness of men to seek help. The men, not unlike the early female victims of domestic violence in the 1970’s who were very reluctant to seek treatment, are certain that no one cares about their situation and are highly unlikely to seek out services when not invited. What compounds this problem for men is that their gender is blamed for the original problem.

We have learned from Maryland State Police statistics that men comprise about 25% of the victims of domestic violence in Maryland.23 What we don’t know is the percentage of males seeking treatment as victims of domestic violence.  In checking with a number of Maryland Domestic Violence agencies, they often say that the number of male victims is very small.  Some of the treatment centers claim that men are only 4% of their clients.  If the State Police count men as 25% of the 20,000 victims of domestic violence recorded annually in Maryland and the agencies that offer treatment for domestic violence say that men are only 4% of the victims that request treatment, that seems to leave a huge number of men who are untreated victims.  It seems likely that a large percentage of the 5000+ men who are reported by State Police as victims of domestic violence in Maryland are falling through the cracks and not getting the help they need and are entitled to as citizens and residents.

What once started as a righteous cause to help battered women has evolved over the years to be something that seems to help battered women but also seems to neglect the needs of violent women and battered men and ignores the imperatives that the fundamental demands our tradition of justice holds dear.  Both the media and academia seem to focus solely on female victims of domestic violence, with a much smaller focus or none at all on male victims.  Researchers doing peer-reviewed research have consistently found evidence that men and women are both victims of domestic violence, but this finding has not been translated to changing the treatment that men receive in domestic violence agencies. Clinical groups such as the American Psychiatric Association are beginning to alert the public and clinicians that men are indeed a sizable percentage of domestic violence victims.  The courts have also started pointing out the discrimination that is present in many domestic violence agencies that treat men and women differently.
This report is not claiming that men are never served through domestic violence agencies in the state of Maryland.  It is however claiming that Maryland’s domestic violence services have traditionally been created for women only and this has a chilling effect on men’s usage of these facilities.

 

A Proposal For Practical Change

There is a domestic violence group named “Safe For All” that offers trainings nationwide and is particularly aware of the many issues around domestic violence, including those of male victims and of people in homosexual relationships, also an under-recognized and under-served group.   Their web address is http://safe4all.org/24 The National Family Law Legislative Resource Center, www.nfvlrc.org25 represents the nation’s leading authorties, clinicians, and researchers on domestic violence and could also offer trainings and consultations.26

Although calls to Maryland shelters and crisis lines to test for discriminatory handling of reports have at the present time not been conducted, there is no question such testing can be conducted and most likely will be conducted in order to support lawsuits similar to the successful ones used in the legal cases in California and West Virginia cited above. The results of such testing in Maryland would likely mirror these results: In a national poll by Clark University, female researchers studied 302 abused men who sought help. Their key findings were that 63.9% of men who called hotlines were told they only helped women, and 68.7% said the hotlines were not at all helpful. Of those that contacted a local domestic violence (shelter) program, 95.3% said the program gave the impression that they were biased against men, 78.3% said they don’t help male victims, and 63.9% suggested the male caller was the batterer. (See; http://clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/results.htm.27 )

Therefore, in order to avoid costly and time-consuming lawsuits, it behooves the State of Maryland to require all domestic violence service organizations that receive pass-through federal funding or state funding of any type to receive training in non-discriminatory but practical approaches and techniques for handling domestic violence cases and suspected or reported cases. Such training is available via the two organizations referenced above, and also from others.

Whether or not gay and heterosexual men represent a small minority, a large minority, or an equal number of such victims as compared to women in the population is immaterial. The State of Maryland  by its policies and procedures is obligated to encourage and support only those organizations that practice inclusion, diversity and non-discrimination. However, not even very large urban areas can financially support “separate but equal” domestic violence facilities and services for men and women. Not only is it not practical, but such a policy does little to combat discrimination and only encourages conflict over funding resources.  1. The purpose of this training is to provide guidance and directives in how to implement a non-discrimination policy in all service areas.  2. As part of this training program, a compliance coordination methodology shall be developed to assure that the non-discrimination policy is being carried out by agencies who participated in the training. 3. The training will provide cost-effective, implementable, and practical steps that each agency or organization can take to eliminate discrimination and incorporate gender and sexual orientation inclusive policies.

We respectfully request the Office of The Governor to immediately begin the implementation of such a training program.

 

 

REFERENCES

1 One example is the Allstate page <http://www.clicktoempower.org/> linked from the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV) web page that rightly claims that 3 women each day (actually it is closer to 4) die of domestic violence in the United States. They fail to mention that nearly 2 men die each day due to being murdered by their female partner. This is a glaring omission. In 2007 1640 women were murdered by their male intimates and 700 men were murdered by their female partners. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=971 Why are the male victims omitted?

2 “Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey | National Institute of Justice.” Office of Justice Programs. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/172837.htm>.

3 “Family Violence.” National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges . N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/20/94/>.

4 “National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.” National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.ncadv.org/learn/TheProblem.php>.

5 “Domestic Violence Facts: Maryland.” National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <www.ncadv.org/files/Maryland.pdf>.

6 “Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV).” Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV). N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://mnadv.org/DV_Stats/ucr_stats.html>.

7  Whitaker, Daniel. “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence.” Journal of Public Health 97.May (2007): 941-947. Print.

8  Ibid.

9  Ibid.

10 Pence E. Some thoughts on philosophy. In Shepard M and Pence E (eds.): Coordinating Community Responses to Domestic Violence: Lessons from Duluth and Beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, 1999, p. 30.

11  McNeely, R. L., Cook,  P. W. & Torres, J. B.  (2001).  Is domestic violence a gender issue or a human issue?  Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 4 (4), 227-251.

12  “Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – Intimate partner violence.” Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2010. <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=971>.

13 Paymar, Michael, and Ellen Pence. Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. 1 ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1993. Print.

14 Graves, Tom. Power and Response-ability: the human side of systems. London: Tetradian, 2008. Print.

15 Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Home of the Duluth Model.” Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Home of the Duluth Model. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.theduluthmodel.org/wheelgallery.php>.

16 Gelles, Richard J., and Murray Straus. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New Ed ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2006. Print.

17 “Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symetry in Partner Violence.” University of New Hampshire. N.p., n.d. Web.18 Dec. 2009. <pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf>.

18 Ibid.

19 “REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.” California State University, Long Beach. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm>.

20 Arehart-Treichel, Joan. “Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence.” APA Psychiatric News 42.15 (2007): 31-33. Print.

21  “Appeals court decision supports battered men.” San Francisco Bay Area — News, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Classifieds: SFGate. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/15/BA3S13HOLS.DTL>.

22 Press, The Associated. “W.Va. domestic-violence program regulations voided  – News – The Charleston Gazette – West Virginia News and Sports.” – – The Charleston Gazette – West Virginia News and Sports. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2009. <http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200910080509>.

23 “Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV).” Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV). N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <http://www.mnadv.org/DV_Stats/ucr_stats.html>.

24 “Welcome!.” Stop Abuse for Everyone. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2009. <safe4all.org>.

25 Robinson, Michael. “National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center.” National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2010. <http://www.nfvlrc.org/>.

26 Please consult with the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Maryland Commission for Men’s Health for more information on these organizations.

27 “Results from Study on Men’s Experiences of Partner Aggression.” Clark University | One of 40 “Colleges that Change Lives”. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2010. <http://clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/results.htm>.

 
community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
tgolden@tgolden
June 20, 2025
10 Factors that Help Explain Male Suicides

A quick dive into 10 reasons behind the high rates of male suicide. For a deeper look, check out my two-part series linked here.

part 1 https://menaregood.locals.com/post/3606115/the-truth-about-male-suicide-part-1
part 2 https://menaregood.locals.com/post/4871019/the-truth-about-male-suicide-part-two

00:04:13
Reply
tgolden@tgolden
June 05, 2025
Debunking the UN's Attack on the Manosphere

There is a growing wave of attacks against what’s being called the “manosphere.” These attacks are coming primarily from feminist organizations and media allies who claim that the manosphere (the electronic patriarchy) is filled with misogynists who hate women and promote violence.

The truth, however, is quite different. What they’re labeling the "manosphere" is, in many cases, a loose network of voices pushing back against decades of feminist misinformation. That pushback — often grounded in research data, lived experience, and reasoned critique — is what truly alarms feminist ideologues.

To them, this movement represents a threat. It challenges their long-standing narrative by exposing its flaws, hypocrisies, and one-sided portrayals of gender dynamics.

What’s really happening is that young men are waking up. They’re realizing they’ve been fed a steady stream of blame and shame, and they’re beginning to walk away from the ideology that cast them as the problem.

In this segment, Jim ...

00:50:58
Reply
tgolden@tgolden
June 02, 2025
The Decline of Feminism and the Manspreading Chair - Regarding Men 27

Recorded 2020 - This conversation was recorded several years ago, but it’s just as relevant today. Janice, Tom, and Paul take a sharp look at the absurdities of modern feminism—including the infamous, award-winning “Manspreading Chair.” They also discuss the growing signs that feminism may be in decline. Take a listen and see what you think.

00:29:04
Reply
tgolden@tgolden
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
Reply
tgolden@tgolden
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play
Reply
tgolden@tgolden
June 08, 2025
How to Cut the Gordian Knot of Feminism - Stephen Baskerville

In his post “How to Cut the Gordian Knot of Feminism,” Baskerville tackles the crucial question of how to dismantle feminism. It’s an essential read for anyone seeking to understand and challenge modern feminism. - Tom Golden

https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/p/how-to-cut-the-gordian-knot-of-feminism

Reply
JuanGoodman@JuanGoodman
June 08, 2025

Great video pointing out men’s humanity and the expectation of service that can become exploitation.

Reply
JuanGoodman@JuanGoodman
May 26, 2025

Dr Orion Teraban from PsycHacks addressing male disposability.

This is an amazing video and he really lays out the case for men to value there lives. It’s amazing to a tualy see such a Video.

Reply
tgolden@tgolden
15 hours ago
post photo preview
The War on Male Identity


Is This Brainwashing? How Feminist Narratives Mirror Thought Reform Tactics — and Target Men

By now, most of us have heard the term “brainwashing.” It usually brings to mind Cold War images of broken POWs or disturbing cult documentaries. But what if the most pervasive forms of psychological manipulation aren’t hidden in bunkers or religious compounds — but embedded in mainstream institutions that claim to promote justice?

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who studied Communist reeducation camps in Maoist China, laid out the classic framework for understanding brainwashing. In his landmark work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, Lifton identified eight core mechanisms that coercive systems use to break down and reshape the self.

At the heart of it? A psychological attack on your identity — followed by shame, blame, and the expectation that you publicly confess and “rebuild” yourself according to the group’s ideology.

Sound familiar?

Over the past few decades, feminist ideology and their media and governmental allies— have used these exact tools to reshape how society sees men. Not just some men. All men. And nowhere is this more evident than in our schools, media, family courts, and even the criminal justice system.

First, Attack the Identity

Lifton observed that the first move in coercive thought reform is to undermine a person’s core identity — to instill doubt, guilt, and eventually shame. Today, men are told from boyhood that their nature is suspect. That masculinity is toxic. That their instincts, strengths, and even their emotions — especially anger — are part of the problem.

Being male is treated not as a biological or psychological trait, but as a moral flaw. Attack the identity.

Second, Shame, Blame, and Confession

Once identity is destabilized, the system demands confession. And modern institutions have become very good at this.

In HR meetings, classrooms, and even therapy, men are asked to “acknowledge their privilege,” to “own their part in the patriarchy,” and to pledge allegiance to ideologies that blame them collectively — not for what they’ve done, but for what they are.

Even worse, some of the most destructive institutions have absorbed this logic completely.

Family Courts and the Deadbeat Dad Myth

The family court system has long operated on a set of unspoken assumptions: that women are naturally more nurturing, that children belong with mothers, and that fathers — if they protest — are bitter, controlling, or dangerous.

When a man loses custody (which happens the vast majority of the time), he is then forced to pay for children he may barely be allowed to see. If he struggles financially — or dares to resist — he’s branded a “deadbeat dad” and possibly jailed. There is no presumption of innocence, no room for his story, and no empathy.

This is not justice. It’s reeducation by punishment.

Men are told that to be “good fathers,” they must obey, pay, and stay silent. They must prove they’re not what the system already assumes they are. That’s not family law. That’s psychological control dressed up in legal robes.

What we’re witnessing in the family court system is not just legal bias — it’s a full-spectrum psychological assault that mirrors Lifton’s model of thought reform. Fathers are stripped of identity (as protectors and caregivers), subjected to guilt and shame (for systemic outcomes they didn’t cause), and pressured into submission through confession and compliance. The state doesn't just want their money — it wants their silence, their obedience, and their internalized blame. In this way, the family courts don’t just separate fathers from their children — they separate men from their dignity and their purpose. It’s not just unjust. It’s indoctrination.

Domestic Violence and the Scripted Confession

Nowhere is the narrative more rigid than in the world of domestic violence policy.

For decades, feminist advocacy groups have dominated the public discourse and funding around domestic violence. The result? A cultural myth: that men are almost always the perpetrators, and women the victims.

This flies in the face of decades of peer-reviewed research — including dozens of studies showing that domestic violence is often mutual, that women initiate it just as often as men, and that male victims are frequently ignored, ridiculed, or arrested themselves when they call for help.

But the ideology doesn’t allow for nuance. The narrative is fixed: if you’re a man, you must be the problem.

Men entering anger management or court-mandated programs are often required to:

  • Confess their wrongdoing — regardless of the facts.

  • Accept their role as aggressor.

  • Admit they’ve internalized toxic masculinity.

  • Pledge to “do better” by adopting feminist-defined attitudes.

That’s not help. That’s indoctrination. The entire framework is built not on healing, but on ideological conformity.

Lifton’s Eight Mechanisms of Thought Reform Applied to Men

Lifton breaks down brainwashing into eight distinct categories, based on his observations and interviews with survivors of Communist Chinese reeducation programs in the 1950s. Disturbingly, many of these same tactics are now being used — intentionally or not — against men in today’s culture. Here’s a breakdown of how each of Lifton’s eight categories applies to the modern male experience.

 


1. Milieu Control

Control over communication — both internal (thoughts) and external (speech). Limits what the subject hears, says, or believes.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men today are surrounded by institutions — schools, workplaces, media, and even therapy — that present only one permitted narrative about gender: that men are privileged, women are oppressed, and masculinity is a problem to be corrected. Alternative voices are excluded, mocked, or deplatformed.

  • In schools, boys are taught about “male privilege” but not about male suicide, fatherlessness, or educational disadvantages.

  • In universities, “gender studies” often function as ideological echo chambers where dissenting views are considered harmful or even violent.

  • In HR departments, “equity training” frequently frames masculinity as a liability rather than a contribution.

The result? Men learn to silence their inner objections, to distrust their instincts, and to keep their mouths shut for fear of social punishment.

2. Mystical Manipulation

The ideology is presented as the ultimate moral truth. Group goals are divine, transcendent, or historically inevitable.

➤ Applied to Men:

The feminist worldview — especially its radical and institutionalized form — is not just presented as a viewpoint; it’s presented as a moral imperative. Dissent isn’t treated as reasoned disagreement; it’s treated as a moral failure.

  • “The future is female.”

  • “Patriarchy hurts everyone.”

  • “Believe all women.”

These slogans are not open to challenge. They carry the force of moral absolutes — as if opposing them is akin to opposing civil rights or basic human decency.

Men are told that redemption can only come through alignment with the ideology: renouncing their instincts, confessing their privilege, and proving their worth through ideological obedience.

3. Demand for Purity

Subjects must strive for an unattainable moral purity. Any sign of “impurity” is cause for guilt and self-condemnation.

➤ Applied to Men:

Being a “good man” today often means apologizing for being a man. Men are told that their masculinity is inherently toxic, their socialization inherently violent, and their very presence potentially threatening.

Even if a man is kind, respectful, and responsible, the system still implies that he benefits from a power structure that hurts women. He is never clean enough.

  • “Unlearn toxic masculinity.”

  • “Check your privilege.”

  • “Listen and do better.”

The purity demanded is impossible. The goalposts always move, ensuring men remain in a permanent state of moral inadequacy.

4. Confession

Subjects are encouraged or forced to confess past sins (real or invented) to reinforce guilt and dependence on the group.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men are pressured to publicly confess their complicity in systemic oppression. These confessions are often ritualized and performative, serving not to repair relationships, but to demonstrate submission to the ideology.

  • In court-ordered domestic violence programs, men are required to admit guilt even if the evidence is weak or contradictory.

  • In schools and corporations, “privilege walk” exercises and diversity sessions often push men to publicly acknowledge guilt for their race, gender, or upbringing.

This isn’t introspection — it’s coerced self-abasement. The more a man confesses, the more he is seen as redeemable — but only through compliance.

5. Sacred Science

The group’s beliefs are beyond question. The ideology is presented as absolute truth, not open to debate.

➤ Applied to Men:

Feminist theory — particularly as institutionalized in law, education, and media — is often treated as sacred and unchallengeable. Counter-evidence is not refuted — it’s ignored, ridiculed, or suppressed.

  • Men who cite peer-reviewed studies showing mutual or female-initiated domestic violence are dismissed.

  • Mentioning male educational decline, family court bias, or suicide rates is framed as “whataboutism” or a distraction.

  • Criticizing feminist narratives — even politely — is labeled as misogyny or “fragile masculinity.”

This ideological rigidity shuts down critical thinking, ensures conformity, and delegitimizes male perspectives.

6. Loading the Language

The group uses jargon and slogans to control thinking and shut down analysis.

➤ Applied to Men:

Language around gender has become ideologically weaponized. A handful of emotionally charged buzzwords are used to frame all male behavior as suspect — and all pushback as aggression.

  • “Toxic masculinity”

  • “Mansplaining”

  • “Deadbeat Dads“

  • “Male fragility”

  • “Microaggressions”

These terms are not neutral. They are thought-stoppers — designed to make discussion impossible and guilt automatic. Once a man is labeled, he is silenced.

This language also redefines common behavior (like confidence, assertiveness, or disagreement) as morally or emotionally defective — if it comes from a man.

 


7. Doctrine Over Person

The ideology takes precedence over individual experience. If personal reality contradicts doctrine, the doctrine wins.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men who speak up about false accusations, loss of child custody, abuse by female partners, or institutional discrimination are often ignored — not because their stories are implausible, but because they don’t fit the ideological script.

  • A man who’s been assaulted by a woman? He must be mistaken.

  • A father who wants shared custody? He must be controlling.

  • A male student struggling in a female-dominated classroom? He must just need to “try harder.”

His lived reality is invalid because the narrative says otherwise. The ideology is never wrong — only the man is.

8. Dispensing of Existence

Those who reject the group’s ideology are treated as morally inferior or even non-human.

➤ Applied to Men:

Men who resist ideological conformity are dehumanized — in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

  • They’re called “incels,” “misogynists,” or “angry white males.”

  • Their pain is mocked. Their dissent is pathologized.

  • They are erased from public sympathy — excluded from empathy in media, policy, and law.

If a man questions the narrative, he is not just wrong — he is bad. And once labeled, he can be canceled, fired, or dismissed without remorse.

​ The Bigger Picture

Each of these mechanisms is powerful on its own. But together, they create a comprehensive system of psychological control — one that targets men not for what they’ve done, but for who they are.

This is not liberation. This is not equity. This is coercive persuasion, systematized and scaled through courts, classrooms, corporate policy, and cultural narratives.

It doesn’t need a prison. It doesn’t need a cult leader. All it needs is a story about men that no one is allowed to question — and institutions willing to enforce it.

What’s the Result?

We now have millions of men — fathers, husbands, sons — who’ve been subjected to a psychological system that demands shame, confession, and reprogramming. Their emotional pain is minimized. Their voices are silenced. Their identity is on trial — every day.

This isn’t just about political correctness. It’s not even about feminism anymore. It’s about control. The same kind Lifton described in totalist regimes. The same kind used in cults.

And it’s happening — quietly, efficiently — in courtrooms, classrooms, corporate boardrooms, and therapy sessions across the country.

Time to Name It

We need to start calling this what it is: coercive psychological control. Thought reform with better branding. Men aren’t broken. Masculinity isn’t toxic. But the system that wants to remake them — through shame, guilt, and forced confession — might be.

It’s time we stood up and said no. Not because we’re defensive. But because we know the truth:

No healthy culture builds itself by humiliating its men.

Men Are Good.

Please do share this post far and wide. We need to get the word out. Thanks for your help with this. Tom

Read full Article
Reply
tgolden@tgolden
June 26, 2025
post photo preview
Mothers Raise Children, Fathers Raise Adults: How Fathers Build Resilient Humans


Mothers Raise Children - Fathers Raise Adults

It’s a saying that provokes strong reactions: “Mothers raise children; fathers raise adults.”
At first glance, it seems to box parents into rigid roles. But when you dig into decades of family psychology and cross-cultural research, you find something profound: fathers, in particular, have a special knack for cultivating traits that help children not just survive, but thrive in the unpredictable, sometimes harsh realities of adult life.

One of the most powerful of these traits is resilience — the ability to recover from setbacks, navigate stress, and adapt to challenges without falling apart. When we look at how fathers tend to interact with their children, a consistent theme emerges: they build resilience in ways that complement the secure base mothers provide.

Fatherhood and the Toughening Effect

Developmental psychologist Daniel Paquette coined a concept called the “activation relationship”. In this dynamic, fathers encourage children to explore new things, tolerate moderate risks, and push their limits — all while knowing there’s still a safety net.

For example:

  • Fathers more often engage in rough-and-tumble play, which is both thrilling and boundary-testing. A father wrestling with his toddler is doing more than bonding — he’s teaching the child to handle excitement, physical contact, surprise, and frustration in a controlled environment.

  • Dads frequently introduce novel or slightly challenging situations: climbing higher on the playground, trying a new skill, or confronting a fear like jumping into deep water. Each small push into discomfort helps the child build confidence and learn how to stay calm under stress.

Resilience Through Controlled Risk

One way to understand fathers’ role is through the idea of “safe risk.”
Research by Michael Lamb, Ross Parke, and many others shows that fathers tend to tolerate more risk than mothers do. Where mothers are more likely to caution or prevent, fathers are more likely to supervise from a distance and let the child test their boundaries.

This doesn’t mean reckless parenting — far from it. Instead, it’s a finely tuned balance:

Enough freedom to fail safely, enough trust to learn that setbacks don’t mean catastrophe.

Studies have found that children with engaged fathers are more comfortable with problem-solving, more willing to try new things, and more likely to persist through frustration. This “resilience training” is one reason father involvement predicts better coping skills in adolescence and adulthood.

Handling Rough Emotions

Resilience is not just about facing physical challenges — it’s also about managing emotional storms. Fathers tend to socialize emotions differently than mothers:

  • Fathers are more likely to joke, tease, or playfully provoke, which helps children learn to handle mild embarrassment, mild frustration, or friendly competition.

  • Fathers often demand more emotional self-control in play: a child who whines or melts down during a game may be gently nudged to “try again” rather than immediately comforted.

  • This doesn’t mean fathers are cold — rather, they model that big feelings can be tolerated, expressed appropriately, and moved through, rather than avoided.

This aspect of fathering has been linked to better anger management, more adaptable stress responses, and lower rates of anxiety in children.

Cross-Cultural Evidence

This pattern is not just a Western phenomenon. In Fathers Across Cultures, Roopnarine and Hossain found that even in traditional societies, fathers frequently play the role of the “risk introducer” and limit-tester. Whether it’s Inuit fathers supervising ice fishing or Kenyan fathers encouraging bold climbing, fathers reliably push children to grow more competent in navigating real-world dangers.

A Secure Base and a Launch Pad

When psychologists talk about secure attachment, they often focus on mothers as the primary source of comfort. But many studies — including Grossmann’s work — show fathers often build a different but complementary attachment: one centered on exploration and adventure.

Together, mother and father offer two essential gifts:

  • The secure base: warmth, safety, unconditional acceptance.

  • The launch pad: challenge, freedom, resilience.

Children who have both are often better equipped to handle life’s inevitable setbacks and uncertainties.

 

Why This Matters Now

In modern times, fathers’ unique contribution is often overlooked. Social narratives reduce fathers to “helpers” or mere breadwinners, rather than recognizing them as essential resilience-builders. Yet the evidence is clear:

Fathers teach children how to fall down, stand up, and try again — the essence of becoming a capable, adaptable adult.

This matters now more than ever. Many of our most pressing cultural problems — from emotional fragility and school violence to chronic anxiety and identity confusion — can be traced back to fatherlessness. When children grow up without a present, engaged father, their chances of developing resilience, maturity, and self-regulation drop dramatically.

As families and communities look to raise children who can thrive in a fast-changing, often harsh world, understanding and supporting the role of fathers is not optional — it’s crucial.

In the End

The saying rings true for a reason:
Mothers raise children; fathers raise adults.
Together, they give kids the love to feel safe and the push to become strong.

This video is fatherhood in action. (Stories With Gui - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uBPmV15qmo?si=NhvBnNgqwzh49rZ-)

Watch how he doesn’t clear the path for his son — he clears the fear of trying again.

He steps over the obstacle himself, then lets his child struggle. When the boy tangles up, Dad lifts him back — but not to carry him across. He resets him so he can solve it alone.

Then he steps back, close enough to protect, far enough to empower.

The boy discovers a new way through — not by stepping over, but by going under. And when he breaks through, he runs straight into his father’s arms, stronger and prouder than before.

This is how fathers raise resilient adults:

  • They let us fail safely.

  • They teach us to try again.

  • They show us that struggle is not punishment, but practice for life.

Mothers raise children. Fathers raise adults. Together, they raise humans who can stand on their own.

Men are Good and Fathers are essential

Key Studies & Recommended Reading

Read full Article
Reply
tgolden@tgolden
June 23, 2025
post photo preview
They All Lie about Gender Equality: Here's How They Do It

They All Lie

Every year, we see it in the headlines:

  • “Iceland tops global gender equality ranking.”

  • “OECD urges countries to close gender gaps.”

  • “UN calls for more funding to achieve gender equity worldwide.”

Sounds fair, doesn’t it? A world where men and women both have equal chances, burdens, and protections. But scratch the surface, and you’ll see the truth: these powerful organizations measure “gender equality” in only one direction — where women are behind. Where men are behind, they look away.

Same Story, Different Logo

H​ere’s a very quick look at the major players:

The World Economic Forum (WEF)
Their Global Gender Gap Index famously ranks countries like Iceland as the most “gender equal” in the world. But what does it actually measure? How close women’s outcomes are to men’s — and that’s it. If women surpass men, no problem. If men fall behind — in literacy, suicide, dangerous jobs — not counted.

The OECD
This club of rich countries runs an annual Gender Data Portal. It tracks pay gaps, women in leadership, and girls in STEM. Does it track boys’ reading scores falling behind? Men’s soaring suicide rates? Men dying on the job? Not really. “Gender equity” means more women in boardrooms — not fewer men in morgues.

The United Nations (UN Women & Gender Equality Index)
The UN’s flagship Gender Inequality Index checks how far women lag in health, political power, and income. Nowhere does it penalize countries for boys dropping out of school or fathers losing access to children. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 5) are explicit: the goal is to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.”

The European Union (EU Gender Equality Strategy)
Same blueprint: get more women in tech, more women in politics, more women at the top. Men’s mental health? Boys falling behind in classrooms across Europe? Not a funding priority.

The World Health Organization (WHO)
When the WHO talks about gender, it means women’s reproductive rights, maternal care, and violence against women. Men’s shorter life expectancy or higher suicide rates are footnotes at best — or framed as burdens on family well-being, not as gendered injustices themselves.

What Governments Do​?

National governments follow suit. Canada calls its agency Women and Gender Equality Canada — but only funds programs for women and girls. The USA​ formerly had the White House Gender Policy Council for “women and girls.” The UK has a Minister for Women and Equalities — but no Minister for Men. ​There is actually an organization NACW whose mission statement says that they will "sustain, strengthen and advocate for women’s commissions​." It appears there are now over 200 women's commissions in the US while Men's commissions could likely be counted on one hand. When it comes to “gender,” men have become invisible.​

 

​These organizations have developed strategies to keep the focus on women and to avoid any focus on men. This is so universal that it is hard to believe it is not intentional and conscious. With the precise and consistent omission of any vulnerability for men, it makes it very hard to believe this is not a conscious choice on their part. The best way to understand their arrogant and narcissistic choices is to look closely at the ways they choose to present their data. That is what we will do now.

​

 

​Let’s take them one by one. First up: the WEF.

The World Economic Forum is the easiest to expose for its blatant bias against men. In their 2024 Global Gender Gap Report, they let the truth slip on page 67. (Hat tip to David Geary for uncovering this gem.)

“ Hence, the index rewards countries that reach the point where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are outperforming men in particular indicators in some countries. Thus, a country that has higher enrolment for girls rather than boys in secondary school will score equal to a country where boys’ and girls’ enrolment is the same.

Ok, can you say “Own goal?” They’ve just admitted exactly what we’ve been pointing out all along: their Global Gender Gap report is only about women — it completely ignores any disadvantages faced by men and boys. When they talk about gender equality, what they really mean is more benefits for women. This is gynocentrism in its purest form.

But it gets even worse. On page 72 of the 2025 report, they make this stunning admission:

"healthy life expectancy the equality benchmark is set at 1.06 to capture that fact that women tend to naturally live longer than men. As such, parity is considered as achieved if, on average, women live five years longer than men."

What? Parity is achieved if women live five years longer than men? Seriously? They’re claiming it’s normal — even expected — for women to outlive men? Someone should remind them of a bit of history: women didn’t consistently live longer than men until medical advances, especially in maternal and natal care, dramatically reduced deaths related to childbirth. Before that, men and women generally had equally short lifespans.

Since then, women’s longevity has increased significantly thanks to targeted medical improvements, while men’s lifespans have also improved — but not by as much. The obvious solution is not to treat women’s advantage as “natural” but to invest more resources in men’s health and close the gap. Yet instead, they take the coward’s way out, pretending women’s extra years are somehow a biological given. It’s just another glaring example of their disregard for men’s lives.

Let’s now turn our attention to another major gynocentric advocate: the OECD. We’ll be examining their 2020 OECD Gender Equality report, which is featured on YouTube. I’ve created a video analyzing this report. If you’d like to watch the full video, you can find it here.

 

​Take a look at this chart. Notice how the pink balloons mark areas where men supposedly have "advantages" and are "doing better", while the blue balloons mark areas where women are "doing better". At first glance, this seems like a fair way to compare things — but let’s look closer.

 

By labeling men’s disadvantages as women’s advantages, the chart hides the reality that men face significant hardships. For example, look at the last blue balloon: it marks women’s so-called “advantage” of being less likely to be murdered. See the trick? They frame the fact that men are murdered far more often as if it’s some sort of benefit for women — neatly burying the fact that male victims even exist. It’s sneaky, and frankly, it’s deceitful.

At a glance, the chart suggests men and women have roughly equal advantages and disadvantages. But they’ve massaged the data to create this illusion. Take the first pink balloon — the one farthest from parity. It claims men have an advantage because they do less unpaid work. But when I checked U.S. data on unpaid work, I found that the difference is far smaller than the OECD figure they used.

I also noticed the balloons aren’t even accurately placed relative to the parity line. So I made my own version of the chart, which I believe is a bit more truthful. You can see it below. Now it’s clear: men’s so-called “advantages” are minimal, while women’s advantages — especially in the last three categories of less unpaid work, lower suicide rates, and lower homicide rates — are far more significant.

 

But even my version doesn’t fully expose the extent of their deceit. It turns out their original table used ratio data, which can distort how big or small a difference really is. ChatGPT pointed out that using linear data instead would show the actual distance from parity more accurately.

The chart below (from chatgpt) is based on that linear approach — and it reveals the truth much more clearly.

 

Now we’re starting to get a clearer picture of the true advantages and disadvantages. But we’re still not done. I asked ChatGPT to include a few key disadvantages for men that the OECD conveniently left out — specifically, deaths on the job and deaths in war — and to add these to the list of female “advantages.”

Take a look at the updated chart now:

 

And then I asked it to include genital mutilation and the so called "male advantages" all but disappeared:

 

I hope you can see now how the first OECD chart was hiding things in a most unscrupulous way. Before we go to the next organization I would like to share another way the OECD diminished men and held a steady focus on women. At one point in their report they examined deaths of despair. Unlike the other sections of the report this section did not break things down by sex. If they had it would have been unmistakable that men were facing a huge disadvantage. Can't show that. Instead they showed the data by country and compared the deaths of despair by country and not mentioning the sex breakdown. You can see this in the chart below.

 

After that, the moderator downplayed the significance of the 'deaths of despair,' suggesting they were not particularly important since they only accounted for 2% of all deaths and were typically linked to mental illness. At that point, the graphic below appears in the pink square in the bottom right corner:

 

For the short time that this graphic displays the moderator says the following "although almost four times more men than women die of deaths of despair, the number of women that fall victim to such fatalities has actually risen since 2010 in more than one third of OECD countries so there is some concerning pattern going on here that deserves much more research going forward."

Really? At least they admitted that 4x as many men die of deaths of despair but now they minimize that. She says that yes, men are more often dying from deaths of despair but there is a trend in the minority of countries that shows women's deaths of despair rising, so that should be researched! So the important thing is not that men are 4x more likely to die, it is that, "Oh no!" women's deaths are increasing in the minority of countries! Blatant disregard for men's lives.

Let's move on to the EU.

 

EU “Gender Equality” Is Anything But Equal

The European Union calls its Gender Equality Strategy “a Union of Equality.” Look at the logo, it seems to be both men and women. But scratch the surface, and you find something else: an official plan that sees “equality” as lifting women up — and pretending men’s disadvantages don’t exist.

Right from the first pages, the EU declares:

“The EU promotes gender equality and women’s empowerment in its policies.”

Fine. But where does it mention boys falling behind girls in school? Or men’s suicide crisis — which dwarfs women’s? Or fathers’ struggles in family court? Nowhere.

It defines gender-based violence as something that “is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.” Male victims are invisible by definition.

When masculinity is mentioned, it’s only as a problem to be “fixed”:

“Violence prevention focusing on men, boys and masculinities will be of central importance.”

In other words: men are a risk to manage, not a group to protect.

It promises to close the imaginary gender pay gap — but says nothing about men doing the deadliest jobs, with zero life expectancy benefit for all that risk. And when it comes to leadership and boardrooms, men are painted as the default oppressors.

Is this equality? Or a one-sided upgrade plan for women, paid for with men’s silence?

A real Union of Equality would help girls and boys, protect women and men, and close gaps in both directions. Until that happens, this strategy isn’t gender equality — it’s selective compassion in a fancy wrapper.

 

The UN’s Gender Inequality Index (GII) is widely cited as a global measure of progress toward gender equality — but if you look closely, it’s not really an equality measure at all. It’s a tool designed solely to track female disadvantage in three areas: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation. Countries get a better score when women’s outcomes in these categories improve relative to men’s. But nowhere in the index is there any penalty when men face worse outcomes. So when boys underperform girls in education (which they now do in many countries), it doesn’t hurt a nation’s score at all. When men die by suicide at far higher rates than women, that gender gap doesn’t count. When men face higher workplace deaths, harsher sentencing, or greater homelessness, these realities are invisible to the GII’s math.

In effect, the GII is not an “inequality” index — it’s a female advancement index dressed up as an impartial measure of fairness. It rewards governments for improving conditions for women while ignoring areas where men suffer clear, documented disadvantages. This one-sided design skews public policy: it signals to leaders and donors that the gender problem is always about lifting women up, never about helping men when they fall behind. So billions flow toward closing “gaps” that only run one way. Until the UN acknowledges the full spectrum of gendered hardship — for men as well as women — its flagship index will continue to be a selective measure, promoting partial solutions under the banner of “equality.”

 

The World Health Organization (WHO) often frames itself as a champion of gender equality in health. But dig into their gender policies, and you’ll see that for the WHO, “gender” overwhelmingly means women’s health and well-being. Their gender strategies focus heavily on improving maternal care, preventing violence against women, and protecting women’s reproductive rights — all of which are important. But when it comes to men’s stark health disadvantages, the WHO tends to stay silent or treat men’s suffering as a side note rather than a gender issue worth tackling head-on. For example, men have consistently shorter life expectancies worldwide, higher rates of occupational injury, greater substance abuse, and far higher suicide rates — yet these trends rarely drive funding or targeted intervention the way maternal mortality does.

When the WHO does mention men, it’s often to point out how their reluctance to seek care negatively impacts families and communities — in other words, men’s poor health is framed as a burden on others, not as a human cost in its own right. This one-sided approach means men’s unique health risks remain under-researched and underfunded. True gender equality in health would mean acknowledging that both sexes have distinct vulnerabilities — and designing programs that don’t just lift up women, but also address the silent crises shortening men’s lives every day. Until then, the WHO’s “gender equality” remains an incomplete promise, built on selective compassion that too often leaves men out of the picture.


The Scorecard

 

The bottom line: These powerful institutions — from global think tanks to national governments — carefully craft and repeat a one-sided story. They use selective statistics, vague slogans, and cleverly framed charts to keep public attention fixed on the challenges women face, while systematically ignoring or minimizing the very real struggles of men and boys. As a result, the public is fed a comforting illusion: that “gender equality” is an unbiased, balanced goal steadily being achieved.

In truth, this narrative is built on selective compassion. When women fall behind, it’s treated as an urgent crisis requiring funding, laws, and campaigns. When men fall behind — in education, mental health, life expectancy, or family courts — it’s brushed aside, hidden behind technical language, or reframed as women’s “advantage.” This imbalance isn’t just an academic quirk; it shapes how billions of dollars are spent, how policies are written, and how generations learn to see gender fairness as a cause that only flows in one direction.

A truly honest commitment to gender equality would mean looking courageously at where both sexes struggle — and taking real action to close all gaps, regardless of who is disadvantaged. It would mean caring that boys now trail girls in school achievement across the developed world; caring that men die by suicide far more often; caring that dangerous jobs, war deaths, and social isolation disproportionately burden men.

Until these realities are openly acknowledged and addressed, “gender equality” will remain, at best, a half-truth — and at worst, a comforting slogan used to mask deep double standards and selective concern. Real fairness demands more than slogans. It demands the courage to see everyone’s burdens, not just the ones that fit a preferred narrative.

Read full Article
Reply
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals