Attack of the 50-Foot Feminist Agenda

Angry, radical men’s groups believe males are being victimized by out-of-control judges and politicians. They’re wrong and they’re dangerous and they need to be stopped.

If your last memory of men’s groups is Robert Bly and the boys banging on drums in the woods, you likely have no idea how the movement has mutated. Today, men’s rights groups tend to be organized around the belief that this country has launched a “war on fatherhood.” To them, the rise of feminism resulted in the fall of man, with males now being relegated to the periphery of society. In their eyes, the media portray men as feckless buffoons, legislative bodies unfairly target them, and biased courts blindly punish guiltless husbands. (Full disclosure: I was a producer of the 2011 documentary No Way Out But One, which examined the family court system.)

Nationally, groups like Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) and A Voice for Men have helped slow the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act—which would provide $660 million in funding for shelters, legal aid, and other programs to protect battered women—by convincing conservative House Republicans that the law shouldn’t include immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBT victims. SAVE claims the law is biased, noting in a fact sheet titled “Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence” that “female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence.” In other words: She was asking for it, officer.

Locally, the Fatherhood Coalition (which has seven active chapters and a few hundred members across the state) is joined by Fathers and Families, a “family court reform” advocacy group founded in 1998 that now has 50,000 e-mail newsletter subscribers. Fathers and Families claims to have the “largest membership base, the highest media profile, the most funding, and the most successful legislative representation of any family court reform organization.” It’s a bold claim—and quite accurate. In 2001, for example, the group won changes in Massachusetts law that lowered child support by 15 percent.

Then, last year, Fathers and Families and the Fatherhood Coalition achieved a major victory with the passage of the Alimony Reform Act of 2011, which removed the requirement that men pay alimony after retirement. The success of that bill allowed them to fine-tune their technique of advancing legislation: Get the governor to appoint a task force to examine the issue, secure a seat on the task force, influence the ultimate consensus, and then send it to the legislature.

Also last year, the men’s groups tried another approach to changing laws: submitting a ballot initiative. They had hoped to use that strategy to overturn 209A, a law that seeks to prevent domestic violence by allowing judges to grant emergency protective orders to men or women who have a reasonable fear of harm from another person, often a partner. That law is stacked against men, according to Ureneck, who also helms the Massachusetts Citizens for Immigration Reform, a conservative group advocating for tougher enforcement of immigration laws. “The fundamental idea behind 209A,” Ureneck tells me, “is that men are inherently batterers and women are fundamentally victims.” Ultimately, Attorney General Martha Coakley shut down the group’s attempts to overturn the law via ballot initiative because the state constitution doesn’t allow such initiatives to deal with the “powers of courts.”

Now, men’s rights groups are pushing another bill that would change court guidelines in custody proceedings, moving from the standard of doing what is in the best interest of the child to making shared custody the default. That sounds reasonable enough—good parents should certainly be able to play a meaningful role in their children’s lives after a divorce—but the proposed law has no provision for judges to determine whether one of the parents was violent in the relationship, which is a pretty glaring hole. And studies show that shared custody is one way that emotionally abusive spouses often seek to extend their control after a marital breakup.

In spite of that, men’s groups have convinced more than a quarter of Massachusetts House members to cosponsor the bill. In the face of that pressure, Governor Patrick in July appointed 18 people to the Working Group on Child-Centered Family Laws, which is examining current regulations and trying to come up with a consensus on future guidelines. Men’s rights groups, including the Fatherhood Coalition and Fathers and Families, managed to get three of their members in the group, but there are no representatives from mothers’ groups. (One member comes from a domestic violence organization, however, and another from the Women’s Bar Association.)

“They’re organized,” says a Beacon Hill insider. “They’re vocal, they can be vociferous…and they’ve capitalized on the success they had with the reform alimony laws.”

And men’s groups are having successes like this all over the country. Rita Smith of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence told the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report that such groups have “taken over the courts,” and that they have “been able to get custody evaluators, mediators, guardians ad litem, and child protective service workers to believe that women and children lie about abuse.”

ADVERTISMENT

  • Dez

    These boys, not men, want to go back in time where women were forced to stay in abusive relationships because the courts would not protect them and their kids. It’s disgusting that these groups actually find it a problem to pay child support payments. You would never see womens groups trying this stuff. Then MRAs blame the victim for domestic abuse. These people should not have any power in the court systems. They’re dangerous and advocating violence.

    • KM

      Wait…what? You know, I am a woman who has been involved in the movement for a number of years. In the thousands of conversations I’ve had with its members, and the thousands of conversations between members that I have read, no one has advocated going to a time when women and children were not protected or blaming anyone for being abused.

      Being forced to pay child support does bother most of them for several reasons. Many would pay without having the state involved – they have no problem supporting their children, it’s the ex-wife they don’t want to support. And really, alimony? In this day and age?

      They are angry because women instigate the vast majority of divorces, and are awarded custody the vast majority of the time. The best interest of the children has very little to do with it. If it did, divorce wouldn’t be so easy to do, and courts would award custody on a more equitable basis. Or do you really believe that most men are brutes and most women are angels. Time for a reality check.

      They’re angry because all a mother has to do is say she’s afraid of him, and she is awarded a restraining order. So he isn’t even allowed to see his children, which again, in most cases isn’t in the best interest of the children, and she gets the use of his money and autonomy over the child. It happens more often than you think. Or are we back to the men brutes/women angels mentality?

      Women’s groups? Remember how hilarious it is when a woman cuts off her husband’s penis and puts it down the garbage disposal? Bastard probably deserved it, right? What action could be so heinous someone would deserve to be mutilated? You can’t perform an action like that without premeditation – you have to catch him off guard.

      Like I said, I’m a woman. I’ve lived in America for 46 years. I have never been oppressed. The only thing that ever held me back was my lack of confidence or ability. If I have to get ahead by artificial means, it doesn’t mean anything and I don’t want it. Nor do I deserve it.

      Would you care to provide some evidence to support this widespread advocacy of the victimization of women?

      • LLC

        Well, you obviously havent been in a Family law courtroom before. I sat in on many hearings over 4 years. I found most judges ruled on the side of fathers and rarely on the side of women.

        • http://www.themadjewess.com The MAD Jewess

          LLC: You are
          LYING.

        • mike gibbs

          You are a bald face liar and you know it! Statistics however, are not liars (like you) and ALL OF THOSE STATISTICS show mothers file for divorce the majority of the time and end up with primary custody almost always. I am a para-legal (and I have seen WAY more case then you have I’m sure) and by and large, men get the shaft and that’s no lie…

        • Morrisfactor

          I suspect you sat in on very few family court cases.

          We know the 2010 US Census found that mothers were granted custody of the children 83% of the time in divorce, fathers 8% of the time, and the balance went to relatives/foster homes.

          Thus, whatever you claim to have witnessed could not possibly be the norm.

          Again, fathers have only been awarded custody 8% of the time. No wonder father’s rights groups want to have more equitable outcomes and fairer visitation times.

        • Clarity Held

          Obvious lie.
          (and a stupid one at that. )

        • Pat

          Right LLC, that’s why 85% of unmarried and divorced mothers are sole custodians in Mass, while dads are lucky to get the standard one night a week and every other weekend. Idiot!

      • LLC

        Actually KM i read thru the posts and seen your last post where women usually do violence passively, like poison………you are an armchair expert….don’t know what you are talking about…..check out the manly military surplus catalogs..men purchase…an entire page of things to do …powder to make a person sick, devices to drive someone crazy…on and on….On a personal level, I was drugged and poisoned for over twelve years,…antifreeze, gun blluing, speed and few others probably ordered online with specific intent…I am female…he was a ‘husband’ of twenty years……men are date rape dropping pill fanatics….you don’t have a clue as to the real world…do you?.

        • KM

          Umm…no. I was married to an abusive man for 20 years. I’ve also done a ton of research on the subject. My evidence isn’t anecdotal.

          As for family courts, are you really saying you’ve seen more men than women awarded custody and child support? If so, I’m afraid you’re going to have to provide evidence because I don’t believe you.

          Men are date rape pill dropping fanatics? Generalize much?

    • Sasha

      Hmm…no. No mens group advocates violence. If they did, you’d be able to provide evidence of it, and you can’t.

    • http://manhood101.com Mary
    • Jesse

      SHUT UP you angry wench!!!! You are a PRIME Example of what is wrong with American Women these days.

  • http://antimisandry.com marxantimisandry

    When Barry Nolan wrote ‘defunding’ I think he may have perhaps meant ‘debunking’? When he says ‘lowering rates of domestic violence’, I’m sure he means ‘lowering rates of half the domestic violence’. And when he claims that everyone ought to be very, very scared due to the MRM’s pulling of political levers, I wonder if he says that in light of the Violence Against Men Act that doesn’t exist?

    Oh looky, there is no Violence Against Men Act, and feminists would rightly be outraged if there was such an act that specifically denied funding to women’s support groups while affording men’s support groups seemingly endless supplies of cash funding. But the reality is no such Act exists – but the sexist Act that elevates women above men does exist and the feminists are only too happy for such a misandrist Act to exist.

    antimisandry.com http://antimisandry.com/general-news/angry-men-attack-50-foot-feminist-agenda-total-biased-piece-attacking-mens-rights-movement-boston-magazine-48601.html#ixzz255pHll5n

    • Carlin W

      The Violence Against Men Act can simply be referred to as :”Pretty Much Every Law That Concerns Violence In General”. Who perpetrates the overwhelming majority of violence against men? Other men. Murder? Gang violence? Robbery? Rape? Men. Men. Men. Aaand men. And I’m a man. I’m just one of those who chooses to face facts. Will i point at others and do my best to obfuscate reality when the issue of violence comes up? No, I will MAN UP and do my part to end it.

      • Will

        You are completely wrong Carlin. I have been sexually harassed and groped by women in the workplace. I have had women punch me because they think they can get away with it.

        Women can commit crimes and to say that it is “all men” is just sexist and wrong. You want equality? Then you must have accountability as well.

        The response of the police or management in workplaces? “I must have liked/deserved it”, “you cant be harassed, you’re a man”. Societies thoughts pretty much sum up your primate rambling but is far from the truth.

        It is sexist to assume women are feeble and mild mannered. Times have changed, women feel more open to vent their hostility and sexuality and have no fear of recriminations either.

        • Carlin W

          Not a single sane soul would ever deny that women perpetrate violent crimes, or abuse, or rape, etc. I am sorry for your own victimization – you don’t deserve any of it! Upon examination, an observant human MUST conclude that regardless of the gender of the victim, most violence is perpetrated by MALES. You know it and I know it. School shootings, work shootings, street shootings, home shootings… who’s usually pulling the trigger? Your very own Terri Stoddard of S.A.V.E. cites a study showing that in law enforcement responses to serious assaults and fatalities, the perps are almost always male. In cases of sexual violence it’s 95% or so. Don’t trivialize the monsoon that is men’s violence by reminding us that there exists scattered showers of women’s. Duh.

          • KM

            I don’t know which study Terri cited, but the one conducted by the CDC concluded that, while the majority of the serious injuries and murders are commited by men, domestic violence is instigated by the woman around 50% of the time. It’s more the “mutual combat” variety than abuse from one to the other. Plus, women are more likely in those situations to use weapons.

            When men kill, they generally do it in a personal, violent way. We find the body, and it’s clear it’s murder.

            When women kill, they are more likely to do it in a passive way, usually with poison. We find the body, and unless we test for poison, it’s not clear whether or not it’s murder. And we have only her side of the story – the victim can no more defend themselves than if the murder were committed by a man.

            So the real question is, how man people have been murdered by women that we will never know about?? We really don’t know that men are more violent. We only know they’re more obvious.

            Nice cherrypicking, though.

          • bobsutan

            I need to correct something KM stated about that CDC study. What it actually found was that reciprocal violence, basically a fight, women instigated the violence about 50% of the time. When DV was unilateral, meaning only one person perpetrated violence, in 70% of cases women were the violent ones. They also found women to use weapons in DV about 4 times as often as men.

            They also showed that the #1 method of reducing injuries women suffered through domestic violence was for women to not instigate the altercations in the first place. In other words if women don’t want to be hurt, they need to keep their hands to themselves. It’s when they start a fight and get hit back that they sustain the most injuries.

          • Paul Johnson

            Female violence is WAY more prevalent than you give it credit for. And I’m not even talking about violence-by-proxy.

            But what if all violence is overwhelmingly male? Does that mean that men and women shouldn’t be protected equally under the law?

            The VICTIMS of ALL violence are overwhelmingly male. Followed by children. Women make up the smallest portion of victims of violence. A tiny fraction. And you can fact-check yourself ALL DAY on that one.

            So tell me, what part is your part to man up and do? Lobby for special consideration laws for women? Publicly shame men, as a group, for crimes only a tiny minority of them commit? Do you even have anything actionable?

      • http://antimisandry.com marxantimisandry

        The Violence Against Men Act can simply be referred to as :”Pretty Much Every Law That Concerns Violence In General”.

        Oh you mean, the laws that aren’t sexist? Yes, indeed… when ‘teh patriarchy’ made laws, we did them to cover everyone equally – when feminists demand laws, they push for sexism & misandry rather than fairness.

        Talking of sexism and misandry, I love how you rely on BOTH of them in your answer.. now “MAN UP” and quit yer whining ;)

      • HiredMind

        @Carlin: Well, since the vast majority of murder victims were men, perhaps we could use a few more.

        In 2010, there were 12,996 murders. 71% of them (10,058) were men versus 2,918 women.

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl01.xls

        • Carlin W

          How many times must i repeat it. There are more lenses than your tiny little myopic one, HiredMind. Men’s violence. Around the globe – the overwhelming majority of murder, mayhem, rape… Men’s violence. If you don’t want to agree with me on this one very clear, very true fact, then I have a hard time giving your rants any credibility.

  • Sasha

    I’m afraid I disagree very strongly with Mr Nolan. I believe the overwhelming majority of fathers love their children and that most men are not paedophiles or violent abusers. It’s a shame that we live in a society that can publish articles like this.

    • Barry Nolan

      Dear Sasha,
      If you but read the article – you will find that nowhere does it suggest that the majority of fathers abuse their children or their wives. That is simply not what it says – anywhere in the article. Not even close. It’s not good to just make things up.
      Barry Nolan

      • Will

        “It’s not good to just make things up.
        Barry Nolan”

        – That’s what you’ve done throughout the whole article, so why blast others? If you write liberal trash, don’t be surprised by the responses you get.

        Such as making up how men ” have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws” which is a ludicrous leap. If you actually bother observing these groups, you will find:
        – That they merely defend rights and laws, rather than attack them
        – Ask for more funding instead of less (a little trivia, prostate cancer has as high rates as breast cancer, but only gets 1/3 of the funding)
        – And request ill considered laws that are biased should be considered for the implications in society and everyone shouldn’t be discriminated against. Unreasonable? I think not!

        It is a shame there are men like you in society, that are driven in a modern witch hunt to chastise their own gender, in the hopes that feminists will save them the same humiliation others get. They won’t. You can be a male feminist all you like, the same false accusations, spurious claims and denied access to your family awaits you as well my dear fool.

        • Barry Nolan

          Dear Will,

          It was back in 1985, in the conservative Reagan administration, when U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop identified domestic violence as a public health issue that could not be effectively addressed by the police alone.

          After a 3-year investigation by Congress that in 1993, the VAWA was passed.

          According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 85% of victimizations by intimate partners in 2001 were against women.

          According to the National Crime Victimization Survey of 2003, 9 of every 10 rape victims were female.

          And though it is called the Violence Against Women Act, the law strengthens federal penalties for all repeat sex offenders and included a federal “rape shield law,” to prevent offenders from using a victims’ past sexual conduct against them
          during a rape trial.

          Men have in fact been attacking, defunding and repealing laws:

          The US House of Representatives has voted to defund Planned Parenthood. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49830.html

          Republicans tried to roll back protections for immigrant women in the VAWA re-authorization bill.

          In Wisconsin Republicans pushed through the repeal of a law that allowed women and others who believed that they may be victims of pay discrimination to bring lawsuits in state courts.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/the-attack-on-women-is-real.html

          And here in MA the Fatherhood Coalition is pushing an effort to repeal the MA Domestic Violence Abuse Prevention law 209A
          http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/newsite/content/why-repeal-mgl-209a-massachusetts-law-proponents-say-needed-stop-domestic-violence

          This kind of activity has nothing to do with defending people’s rights. It is an effort to diminish existing rights and protections.

          As to the issue you raise about funding for medical research on breast cancer and prostate cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer and does in fact receive the least funding per new case at just $1,318. But on a per-death basis it ranks second, with $11,298 in N.C.I. funds. Prostate cancer kills 27,350 men year. Breast cancer kills 41,430 women. Lung cancer, which kills both men and women, kills 162,460 per year, and receives just $1,630 in research spending per death.

          Barry Nolan

          “It’s not good to just make things up.
Barry Nolan”
          – That’s what you’ve done throughout the whole article, so why blast others? If you write liberal trash, don’t be surprised by the responses you get.
          Such as making up how men ” have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws” which is a ludicrous leap. If you actually bother observing these groups, you will find:
- That they merely defend rights and laws, rather than attack them
- Ask for more funding instead of less (a little trivia, prostate cancer has as high rates as breast cancer, but only gets 1/3 of the funding)
- And request ill considered laws that are biased should be considered for the implications in society and everyone shouldn’t be discriminated against. Unreasonable? I think not!
          It is a shame there are men like you in society, that are driven in a modern witch hunt to chastise their own gender, in the hopes that feminists will save them the same humiliation others get. They won’t. You can be a male feminist all you like, the same false accusations, spurious claims and denied access to your family awaits you as well my dear fool.
          Reply

          • Cydonia

            Laws are complicated and my things go into them. If there was a law called the Give Everyone a Free Puppy Act that had two parts 1. Give everyone a free puppy and 2. Kill all black people. I am going to vote against that act. Then someone like you will accuse me of not wanting everyone to get free puppies when that has nothing to do with my motivation. To say that “republicans” are against women for wanting to repeal some of these laws is disingenuous.

          • HiredMind

            Hi all,

            I’d just like to point out a couple of common tricks that the feminists use when quoting statistics. I don’t have the interest in spending the time to reply to them all so let’s just take one of them: “According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 85% of victimizations (sic) by intimate partners in 2001 were against women.” (I note that the actual number of females murdered, rather than a percentage, was 1,247, for comparison purposes.)

            This is technically true, of course. But it doesn’t even come close to telling the full story. All it really proves is that DV is a very specialized form of violence, that is disproportionally visited on females. The trick here is take the entire pantheon of violent activity and divide it into different categories. Keep dividing the categories into smaller and smaller sub-categories until you have a vast array of statistics, some that are skewed in one direction, some in the other. From there, all you have to do is pick statistics that sound good, and support your story.

            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec2.pdf

            If you look at the whole picture, here is what you see: In that same year, 4,910 males were victims of homicides, and 1,996 females – a difference of 2,914. So when you consider all homicides, males are vastly more likely to be murdered than females. It’s only when you use the purposely myopic view of only looking at murders due to domestic violence that you can make the charge that women are more victimized than men.

            If you look at *only* deaths by domestic violence, you paint a picture where the victims are mainly disproportionally women; violence at work, disproportionally men; rapes outside prison, women; rapes inside prisons, men. By cherry-picking from these tiny categories, you can make the statistics say anything you want them to say.

          • John D

            Barry:
            Stats from the Justice Dept are of necessity going to be very skewed.

            Domestic violence against men is one of the most under-reported crimes. There is an intense stigma for men who say they were beaten or assaulted by a female.

            To get to the truth you have to use anonymous surveys which is how feminists in the 60’s convinced government that DV was a real problem. Up until then government did not get involved because (like you) they relied on crime statistics. Back in the 60’s w/out all the anti-violence psa’s, women were deeply shamed to admit they were abused.

            The simple fact is these anonymous surveys have shown women initiate unprovoked DV attacks as often as men. These surveys have shown this for the last 25 years. The latest CDC survey shows that women initiate DV more than men. It also shows that 50% more men than women report controlling and coercive behavior from their loved one.

            Even the 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey (under part of VAWA) reports that men are one third of DV victims.

            It seems a bit backward of you to rely on crime data, considering it has been over 30 years since this has been ruled out by feminists as a method which is known to leave non-reporting victims in a lurch.

            I guess as long as those victims are men, then that is okay.

      • Paul M. Clements

        Mr. Nolan,
        YOU should have read the article before you published it. It’s obvious that it was handed to you by a rabid feminazi, and you rushed it into print without doing any fact checking.
        Shame on your editor, for the same reason.

  • That Nordic Guy

    You people are clearly out of your mind. For starters, If the Patriarchy is keeping the Women down, we are doing a terrible job of it. Here;s a fun little game name ONE law, one law that specifically helps men at the expense of women. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

    • Barry Nolan

      Dear Nordic Guy,
      From Yahoo;
      If women can’t be trusted to make decisions about abortion and birth control without government interference, it stands to reason that men must need a little more guidance when it comes to vasectomies and erectile dysfunction, right?

      In Ohio, Democratic state senator Nina Turner has introduced Senate Bill 307, which would restrict access to PDE-5 inhibitors like Viagra in order to “guide men to make the right decision for their bodies.”
      http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/ohio-bill-hopes-help-protect-vulnerable-men-dangers-210400588.html
      Barry Nolan

      • http://antimisandry.com marxantimisandry

        Excuse my ignorance, Mr Nolan, but how exactly is a bill regarding an illness (erectile dysfunction) related to birth control for women? The two are completely unrelated. And TNG asked you to show a law that benefited men at the expense of women, so how does this ‘bill’ (i.e. not law) discriminate against women? Are you seriously suggesting that a man suffering ED is somehow discriminating against women now? Oh dear…

      • MrChipps

        Barry, are you alright? That has to be the most nonsensical comment I’ve ever read.

      • Paul Johnson

        You rolled a 1 on your evade.
        Want to roll on a save?

        Please address his question.

  • http://patrickmccabegovernorscouncil.com Patrick McCaber

    I guess all publicity is good, but I have to wonder about this one.

    While the lead claims there are angry men and they have to be stopped, the article doesn’t explain what they have to be stopped from doing.

    Although I spent some time talking with Mr. Nolan I am surprised that he chose to write things that he knew were not true.

    The Fatherhood Coalition had nothing to do with Attorney Aptakert’s donations, they never mentioned it, they never brought it up, this was made clear to Mr. Nolan, it is either an error or a complete fabrication.

    As to legislation, I have never heard it claimed that anyone is trying to replace the “best interest doctrine”, I have to wonder where that one came from.

    Men’s rights groups believe that men are the biggest victims in history? pure fabrication.

    The Fatherhood Coalition had nothing to do with the Alimony reform, another point that was made clear to Mr. Nolan, I have to wonder if he is just a bad reporter or something else.

    What precisely are the successes that these groups have made? Mr. Nolan tries to tie in the Alimony Reform, pretty marginal and as far as I know that had broad appeal to both men and women.

    While Mr. Nolan was friendly when I spoke with him, it could be that he just had to write something to pay the mortgage

    Good Luck Mr. Nolan

    • Barry Nolan

      Dear Mr. McCabe,

      You seemed like a nice man when we spoke and I believe that you believe you are well intentioned. But I see from your comments here that you must not read the web site or publications of your organization.

      In regard to your claim that the Fatherhood Coalition had nothing to do with derailing Mr. Aptaker’s nomination for a judgeship, perhaps you should read your own web site – where your organization claims:

      “The Fatherhood Coalition, fighting for shared parenting and restraining order reform for years, rallied when David Aptaker demonstrated his carelessness in failing to disclose information about his political donations to two disgraced politicans – one of whom was John Buonomo, register of Middlesex Probate and Family Court (the same court in which the nominee often worked), who was imprisoned for theft. “If he is this careless with his application to be a judge how careless will he be when he is handling family matters” one father wrote.”

      http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org

      As to your claim that “the best interest of the child” is not something that the Fatherhood Coalition has a problem with – again – according to the Fatherhood Coalition’s own web site – you are pushing instead for a defacto arrangement of shared parenting – precisely because:

      “According to Fatherhood Coalition co-Chairman Michael P. O’Neil, “[I]n Massachusetts today, over 90% of the time, a judge will rule that it is in ‘the best interest of the child’ to have his access to one of his parents—usually the child’s father—severely restricted…studies and statistics show the exponential increase in teen pregnancy, suicide, drug usage and school failures that follow these unconscionable court edicts.”
      http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newswire/2005/PR_050517_Statehouse.htm

      As to the involvement of the Fatherhood Coalition in Alimony reform, I give you the May 6th, 2010 posting on your web site, where you go after Senator Creem for opposing the alimony reform legislation:

      “It looks like Massachusetts Senator Cindy Creem is facing ethics allegations over her efforts to block alimony reform. Is it right that a practicing divorce attorney is blocking men and father friendly legislation that affects her family law practice?”
      http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org

      As to your question about “what successes?” – I refer you once again to the website of Fathers and Families which has a hyperlink: To learn more about our legislative and other achievements, click – which has sadly been inactivated, but you can still see the link there:

      http://www.fathersandfamilies.org

      And as to your statement that am guilty of a “pure fabrication” when I stated that men’s right groups believe “this country has launched a ‘war on fatherhood’” or as you put it: “Men’s rights groups believe that men are the biggest victims in history, ”I would point you to statements from your group that appear in your Fatherhood Coalition Official Newsletter, Volume 9, Issue 1 where your group claims that there is indeed a war on fatherhood and much more:

      “Signs bearing messages such as “Court Unfair to Dads” and “Stop the War on Fatherhood” have been appearing on the Mass Pike, 495, 95, 128, 24, 2, and elsewhere”
      “I joined CPF to win. Like all our members, I am offering my time and talents to help end the war on fathers being waged.” From – The Chairman’s Corner.
      “There is a growing pandemic in this country where the very fabric of our society, the family, is being attacked and destroyed.”
      “Child Support enforcement is a Welfare program
      The state creates Deadbeat Dads
      Excerpt from the new book by John Flaherty:
      Reason For Revolution: The tyranny against fathers, families and freedom”
      http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/Newsletter/Record0610.pdf

      You really should read some of the material your group puts out. You will probably find it quite interesting.

      Sincerely,

      Barry Nolan

  • Tony Clifton

    How dare these fathers distrust the governor and lawyer’s groups! They even have the audacity (all
    2 of them) to attend public Governor’s Council meetings and challenge the status quo. Don’t they realize the Council should be run by lawyers for lawyers?
    Just because divorced dads are the most impoverished and powerless groups in society, doesn’t make them any less dangerous.
    Kudos to you Mr. Nolan for your courage and bravery in standing up to these misfits!

  • That Nordic Guy

    Dear Barry Nolan,

    Nice try but no cigar.

    >The bill would require doctors to get a notarized affidavit from “at least one of the patient’s sexual partners” certifying that the patient has experienced impotence within the last 90 days,

    That is a quote from the news story you linked.
    So what, are you saying that women have to have a signed affidavit saying they are fertile before they get birth control? If so I haven’t heard of it. What is this “Government interference” you speak of? Are you talking about prescriptions? How about the fact you have to see a doctor before you get them? AND EVEN IF this was 100% for men, by men it starts with the disclaimer “If Women” this isn’t progressing men at the expense of women. It’s once again, trying to keep up a false status quo

  • Dan

    The LAW about family court is DEFINITELY no doubt about it BIAS against men. The LAWS development is by funding body input. I know for a fact men’s groups are all but completely ignored when consults & submissions are sought. The funding dollars complete ignorance of adult male suicide incline are but the canaries in the feminist funding mine. YES there is DEFINITELY a war on men by the feminista. DON’T let a feminist WRITER fool you. GET UP STAND UP FOR YOUR FUNDING DOLLAR! DEMAND EQUAL FUNDING FOR MEN! TEACH your sons to save themselves from tyrannous family courts by 1 self respect & 2 don’t marry / don’t have kids UNTIL all LAW & FUNDING is equal. ALL we men’s groups want is FAIRNESS… too much to ask for a-parently.

    • http://www.themadjewess.com The MAD Jewess

      You are absolutely right on, Dan.

    • http://www.themadjewess.com The MAD Jewess

      Dan, you MEN allowed these women the right to vote, now look, they RULE over you.

      PLEASE stop the madness. Women in power are EVIL.

    • Carlin W

      Please enlighten me how a Constitutional structure of legislative, enforcement, and judiciary checks and balances that is completely and utterly dominated by men (not to mention business, academia, and scientific research) has become totally subservient to women?? That would be a strange and illogical turn of events, indeed! I see a lot of the rhetoric being posted here as clear proof that the perceived injustices of some have ignited a movement that, borrowing energy from latent cultural misogyny, is much more focused on tearing down than building up. Seems like a lot of these men have come to define their activism through hissing and sputtering at their monitors and keyboards, too.

    • Paul Johnson

      Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes!

  • http://www.themadjewess.com The MAD Jewess

    This article is a total joke. Anyone that is well read knows that women have become monsters.

    • Paul Johnson

      Or even well-lived. Yeah, this guy’s getting paid.

  • http://www.themadjewess.com The MAD Jewess

    I really cant wait until AmeriKa hits the skids..Then we will see all of these fascistic females running for the men and the men will say GET LOST.
    JUSTICE!

  • Bob the Leo

    I had a vastly different experience in my divorce than did Joe Ureneck and Mike Franco and many other members of the Fatherhood Coalition: I got custody. For three and a half years we had a shared custody – not joint – where I drew up a definitive visitation schedule that was more fair and balanced than Fox News ever conceived that statement to be. Their mother never even asked for custody let alone fight for it. In retrospect, and in my view, she was divorcing the three of us.

    For three and a half years I ran two businesses, cooked dinner for my sons an average of four nights a week, prepared their lunches five days a week, went food shopping at Sudbury Farms late at night to keep the fridge and pantry filled, made sure they did their homework five nights a week, made sure they had a decent home in a very nice South Shore town with a great school system – where they were expected to maintain good grades, had cable TV, etc., etc., etc.

    One night their mother came over to pick them up for her evening. In passing, she mentioned that she had lost her job at a supermarket deli for nibbling a piece of cheese from the slicer. The store had been having quite a bit of shrink (theft) and had invested in an expensive security system to catch the culprit or culprits and so she became the store’s goat – at least according to her.

    I should mention here that the reason for the divorce was because, by sheer happenstance, I literally caught her in the act with the (married) meat department manager where she worked. I told her to drop him like a rock or get out. She said she “loved” him so I packed her bags for her and got her a place nearby to live. When that didn’t work out I found her a second place where she eventually became unwelcome as well. There was obviously a pattern that I missed along the way – or overlooked because of the love I once had for my sons.

    I said that she could stay with us until she got back on her feet and when she did a few weeks later, I told her that it was time to move back on her own and that I felt the boys, then 16 and 14, were old enough to decide which parent they wanted to live with provided that they would live in the same town. A few days later she told me that she had found a place in town and that the boys wanted to live with her, ripping the heart right out of my chest.

    Long story short, I am a man of my word and gave them all my blessings, provided, however, that if their grades dropped below a B+ that they would be coming back to live with me – that I was not giving up custody, per se, but rather allowing them an extended visitation. But from that point forward, I rarely got to see them because Mommy Dearest refused to recognize or enforce any type of structured visitation. Well, so much for foolish me trying to be King Solomon-like, eh?

    I then saw them, miraculously, when it was time for college and some Daddy Bucks, which at the time were scarce because of the early 1990’s economic downturn. Son number one got all that I had for his first year and son number two, who did not like me from the day he slithered out of his mother’s nasty birth canal, was told that I was broke and that he would have to work his way through college, which to his credit he did, and is very successful as I predicted he would be for doing so.

    So here we are 20-something years later and it’s much worse than I could ever had imagined – being denied my five grandchildren. Had I known that things would turn out as they have I would have abandoned the lot of them 40 years ago and left them to be street urchins in the city we moved from for a better life.

    What’s my point? I have said to friends of mine with the Coalition that they should be careful what they wish for and fight for.

    As to the author of this piece: You, sir, have no right to tell these guys that, “Angry, radical men’s groups believe males are being victimized by out-of-control judges and politicians. They’re wrong and they’re dangerous and they need to be stopped.”

    Of course men are angry because they get screwed over constantly – by judges and the likes of sell-out males like you. You may know how to assemble pretty words and get paid to do so but you seriously don’t know what the hell you are writing about. Maybe when you get your turn you’ll see things a little differently.

  • R Tarpaeian

    Some clarifications are in order.

    “In their eyes, the media portray men as feckless buffoons, legislative bodies unfairly target them, and biased courts blindly punish guiltless husbands.”

    Huh? Have you been living in a cave for the past twenty years, Mr. Nolan? Even a 4th-grader will tell you that this is the case.

    “SAVE claims the law is biased, noting in a fact sheet titled “Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence” that “female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence.” In other words: She was asking for it, officer.”

    No, it means that she was the aggressor, the one who committed the assault, who initiated the violence. Women *initiate* domestic violence more often than men. Do your due diligence, Mr. Nolan – and that doesn’t mean asking Toni Troop and the various so-called “battered women’sadvocates.”

    “And studies show that shared custody is one way that emotionally abusive spouses often seek to extend their control after a marital breakup.”

    Really? “Studies show,” huh? The most dishonest two-word phrase in the English language.

    “… and that they have “been able to get custody evaluators, mediators, guardians ad litem, and child protective service workers to believe that women and children lie about abuse.”

    Right. Because women DO lie about domestic violence. ALL THE TIME.

    “Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence.”

    Would that they have been minutely successful as you claim, Mr. Nolan. Men are the biggest victim group, by far.

    “Let’s be clear: There is no ‘war on men.’”

    Wrong again. Assuming the “war on …” metaphor, there is indeed a war on men, more specifically, a war on fatherhood.

    Quite frankly, Mr. Nolan, you simply don’t know what you don’t know. You are completely ignorant.

    • Bob the Leo

      Apparently, Barry Nolan, the man-hit-man, is at a sudden loss for words when two or more articulate people countered the tripe he wrote; with facts. Men ARE discriminated against by laws, judges, court systems and even alleged writers – one of whom is now suddenly silent.

      Please fill us in with more of your wonderful insight, Mr. Nolan. We’ll be waiting………

    • Paul Johnson

      THANK YOU for calling him out on what women hitting men first SOUNDS LIKE.

      “Studies show,” is what we critical thinkers call a “proof surrogate.”

      The “War,” I think, is ultimately on the individual and individual autonomy and privacy. Men are the vectors, women are the exploit. Fatherhood is the single biggest area where men are attacked, but there are many others. And there are other fronts on the war on individual autonomy, “… on Terror, … on Drugs,” you name it.

  • Carlos

    This comment has been removed for violating our comments policy.

  • Jerry B.

    The truth will finally rise to the surface. Men have been getting screwed for decades. Feminism was never about equal rights. It was about the disposability of men… As more men, are made aware this injustice it’s only natural that these laws would be challenged…

  • JB

    Barry,
    I read the article and I read the comments to date.

    Here’s something that everyone seems to be missing. Just a simple observation that is true and proven in our wonderful new society that is America.

    The more that boys have grown up with their mothers and without their fathers, the more you have seen violent crimes committed by the men they become.

    And girls raised without fathers is a whole different discussion. But this conversation isn’t about teen pregnancy, drug addiction, et al.

    So, Barry, it really doesn’t matter which side you’re on or who bickers about this stuff because in the end, you have to live in this new society created by people like you who want to suppress the voices of anyone you don’t agree with. I find it ironic that, as a so-called journalist, you promote the suppression of a group’s free speech and free press rights and (pardon the very appropriate hyperbole) you promote censorship.

    In my experience, people who take a stance against truth and morality as you have done here have something they are getting out of it. I wonder if you’re writing something you don’t believe in order to get a promotion, get attention as a writer, win over a personal relationship, or what. This is just insane to anyone caught in the system, man or woman. You’ve either got an agenda for personal gain or you’re just plain crazy.

  • Nameless

    This article is a joke. I was a stay-at-home dad when one day I came home and found the locks changed and a restraining order on me. After our divorce she started a series of relationships with other women (so we know why the marriage broke up). Now my son is 18 and not living at home. I still pay child support. This spring we went back to court for child support modification. I was criticized for putting money into a 401(k) but not a college fund. Her attorney thought that the offer she made me was “fair and generous” even though I would lose my house. I recently found out that my job is moving to India and I will be unemployed in two months. That means I have to go back to court to face someone who wants me to lose my house again. My son is going to a college that he called a dump and would never go to. After we settled, all of a sudden he had money. He took me out for Father’s Day and paid with a $100 bill. He laughs at me because I will not be able to afford a new car for 4 years. I make 42k and she makes 120k, and 25% of my gross goes to her or college. Under Massachusetts General Laws, this is called fair. Can someone explain wha “fair” means?

    • JB

      Don’t ask for fair. Don’t expect fair.

      To some you encounter at court (like the all-female probation department that mediates before you see a judge for a hearing), it is about protecting women and there is gender bias against men.

      But to those in charge, it is not about men vs women, but rather money. It’s just simply about the money. If you have it, they want it. They don’t care about the kids or the women or the men. They just care about the money.

      So, stop looking for fair or for justice. It’ll drive you crazy. Keep your sanity and lose your anger and move on in your life. Just pay or they’ll put you in jail. Smile and be happy. That’s your best revenge against your ex and against the system.

  • http://falseallegations.com Barbara C. Johnson

    Barry Nolan has not mentioned Title IV-D, through which the States receive millions of dollars yearly as bonuses from the federal government for finding against men in custody cases. In 2002, Mass. received $147,000,000 from the feds.

    Neither has Barry done adequate research. Because the judges have absolute immunity from suit, they do their work carelessly, maliciously and corruptly. I have seen them AID and ABET sexual abuse of children by placing the kids with abusers, even pedophiles. I have personally seen the horrendous damage done by judges. Of course, they are aided and abetted by lawyers. All this because of pro-women laws.

    Ignorance is hiding the truth of what happens in the family courts. Get rid of judicial immunity –and the immunity for others working within the system — and the truth will come out. Men, women, and children will be happier in the long run. Society, in fact, will have a chance to heal. By encouraging ignorance, society will continue going into hell by the basketfulls.

    • Paul M. Clements

      Since Barb opened the can of worms, I have to ask Mr. Nolan: “Are you aware that the DOR pays the courts over and above their legislatively allocated budget? A couple years ago, it was $3.37 MILLION. That number came from the “interagency agreement between the court and the DOR, and was verified by the official DOR budget. Must be much higher by now. Is Mr. Nolan OK with an executive branch agency making payments to the judicial branch, IN CASES WHERE THE DOR HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST? Isn’t that BRIBERY, Mr. Nolan? And what about the “SEPARATION OF POWERS” mandate in the state constitution. Don’t the payments to the judiciary by an executive branch violate the state Constitution? Wouldn’t that be an indication of the corruption the fathers groups claim exists? Don’t you think the payments to the court, which they HIDE judiciously, (pun intended), are the reason why fathers lose custody in 97% of cases.
      Wouldn’t it make YOU angry, to know that your children are being taken away because the judge profit from it?

    • MrChipps

      Let me just say a word about immunity.A judge does not have immunity if he is sued for a violation of civil rights in Fed Court. She will never get the complaint dismissed on those grounds. So if you have some thickhead just write the complaint and file it in Fed Court. At the very least the judge will have to recuse herself and the county will have to spend money defending the allegations in the complaint. Let them spend their budgets defending lawsuits until they are impotent.

    • Paul Johnson

      If you want to know who rules over you, simply ask who you cannot criticize. — Someone else

  • Unknown

    I’m a woman in my 20’s and yeah while I consider myself a feminist, I watched my dad get screwed by the judicial system in the early 90’s. My dad had a full time, well-paying job, my mom was a home maker. She left to another state, took my sibling and me, got full custody and my dad had to pay child support, and only got 2 see us 2 weeks a year with a lawyer present. I don’t hold any resentment for her and despite all the crazy had a great relationship with both.

    But I still consider myself a feminist because I truly believe that there needs to be an end to the bias, on all accounts. I think the judicial system is biased against men yet for every 5 women that get cheated on and beaten by their husbands, there is a woman who takes everything because she can. There needs to be a better system in place that sifts through all the fuckery. Pardon my language but it’s true.

    • KM

      Is that a real statistic or a feminist statistic? Because it’s not correct. Honestly, you really think that’s the proportion of “bad” men to “bad” women?

      Sweetie, someone has been lying to you.

    • MrChipps

      Honey, feminism is lesbianisn and lesbianism is a psychiatric illness. Many of these NOW feminists were not only lesbians but were also suffering from the severe psychiatric disorder, Dementia Praecox, aka Schizophrenia. The term from the German means the splitting of the mind in the sense of the complete disintergration of the brain.(not to be confused with split personality)Those feminist writings that you read were in fact just the rantings of disturbed psychotics and man hating lesbians.

  • clay

    ‘Reversal of the Norm’
    Easy solutions are usually the best. If the courts are truly concerned ONLY of what’s in the best interest of the children we ALREADY have that answer; it does not need to be endlessly litigated. Fully every single study ever done proves that children do better with equal access to both parents after divorce, esp. their fathers. There has never been a variation to this finding save for extreme situations. We all know this and there is no disputing the fact. Still, mothers feel they are the better parent after divorce and demand full custody simply by virtue of their gender. Of course we all know it is really money driven (via ‘mommy support’ payments) and most always from the father to the mother; even if she earned more money then he during their marriage!
    Most mothers feel so angry after a divorce (even if they caused it) that they feel justified in ‘taking’ the children as punishment out on their soon to be ex whilst at the same time expecting him to pay her for kidnapping (which is illegal) for 18 more years! The complicit Judges, staying ‘within the proposed guidelines’ easily make this happen by simply reducing the father’s visitation time with his children thereby setting up that the cash flows to the mother from the father even if during the marriage, he spent more time with the children and his wife made the most money outside the home! Yes- Judges are allowed to do that; irrespective of what the father (or mother) is specifically asking for and he does not even have to explain why! Indeed, you will not even be given a chance to ask him about it as everyone is ushered out of the court room only to find out how the judge ruled in a document sent to you several weeks later in the mail called FINAL DISSOLUTION. Too late to call him on his criminal malpheasance! See how easy that is? Very few fathers understand that they have an option instead of erroneously believing the judge knows what he is doing. He does not. For how could he? He has never met any of the people before today yet he makes life altering decisions for them under the guise that he knows what’s in their best interest? Huh? That sounds more like children’s posturing on a swing set, not Superior Court! Where was the wise judge with help and advice to save the marriage before it came to its terminus? Yet somehow, he has enough information to change everybody’s lives just because they now stand in front of him for the first time?
    It is sad that the mother gets pissed off because she was caught cheating (which naturally ends the marriage) and so makes the father pay for her adultery forevermore by purposely withholding equal access to his children even demanding payment from him for the privilege! And we have a blatantly ‘mother bias’ court system helping her all along the way to accomplish that endeavor…
    Folks, this is not a ‘made for TV movie’ script but actually business as usual in today’s family court!
    If I were a king (like most judges already feel they are) in my court room, it would automatically be known that both parents will share custody of the minor children EQUALLY until the children are 18 unless there is REAL compelling evidence why this can’t work. For example; the mother travels for a living and is not able to be home very much. In situations like this it will be highly encouraged (if not mandated) by the court for the mother to find “more suitable employment“ (within a reasonable time period) that would foster equal and regular contact of the children with both parents. This is exactly how the situation would be handled if the parents were still married so why does it always change to favor the mother after a divorce? In community property states, the division of property (which is always less contentious than division of the children) would be the only matter to be addressed i.e., everything acquired after the marriage is divided equally, no question about it. This one is up front and easy. No problem there and it certainly seems fair to all so why not divide the children equally as well?!

    Whose bright idea proposed that after divorce, the mother gets the children and fathers are reduced to the obligatory ‘every other weekend’ only?

    Not me-

    Further, if I were a judge; “I don’t care how badly you parents treated each other before or even during the divorce, I will NOT let that influence me in giving more time to the mother! I know that the law of averages state that mothers are at least 50% at fault for all problems in a marriage and just because you two cannot get along does not automatically mean that the father is the lesser parent! I understand you two are in disagreement with each other, but that has nothing to do with one’s ability to be a good parent. You both brought the children into this world; you both will take care of them equally until they are 18” would be my ‘standard and usual’ proclamation from the bench. What could be simpler, more fair, less costly, and free up the courts and most accurately what is in the best interest of the children? It’s what the children want. It’s what the fathers want. It’s supposedly what the courts want; (remember, what’s in the best interest of the child?) and only mothers are the ones endlessly fighting this concept. Whatever happened to ‘majority rules’?
    As king…, I mean Judge, Instead of the mother coming into my court room incessantly fighting for full custody; endlessly dragging out the litigation costing thousands of dollars from both sides (which the lawyers use to line their pockets but is better spent toward the children anyway) BOTH SIDES would have to prove instead why a 50/50 equal split is not in the best interest of the children. Prove instead to me why it can’t work by real evidence!
    Hearsay, attitude, finger pointing, mommy-bias and opinion will never suffice for real evidence!
    “If you say it can’t work I want to know EXACTLY who your employer is and EXACTLY what your hours are and it will be verified before a ruling is made. In my desire to be fair to ALL PERSONS here today I will attempt to remove the possibility of either of you becoming a ‘dead beat parent’ by MANDATING that you both stay in your children’s lives until they are 18. That’s right, MANDATING! Neither parent will be allowed to shirk their responsibilities toward their children as it was when they were still married. All expenses incurred for the maintenance of the minor children will be split evenly and binding mediation paid for by both (not endless, costly litigation) will henceforth be the vehicle to handle any disputes as they come up until age 18”.
    With this simple, easily workable solution, mothers will no longer be the ‘favored gender’ as has been the case for far too long and a potential bonus of this ‘reversal of the norm’ is quite possibly that many divorces would not happen at all if the mothers understand fully that they will not get the house, the car, the furniture, mommy support for 18 years and of course, the biggest prize of all; the children.
    This new and very workable system would completely eliminate-

    1) Child support enforcement departments (none is paid to either parent)
    2) Visitation enforcement agencies (equal time is already mandated)
    3) Either parent taking on FULL responsibility of solely raising the children alone
    4) ‘Mother bias’ would cease to be the way we do business in family court
    5) Children erroneously believing that “daddy doesn’t love me as much as mommy cuz he only sees me on weekends”
    6) Mother’s ability to withhold visitation from the father as ransom in lieu of always more and more money (which of course proves she is more interested in money than the children. Even the courts see the money and visitation as SEPARATE issues but sadly, many mothers do not…)
    7) Men would no longer be able to father children and then abandon them in exchange for large monthly installments made to the mother
    8) Mothers can no longer run to the welfare system for yet additional monetary support claiming the father has abandoned his children freeing up many tax payer dollars as this would be an easily proven lie
    9) Mothers ability to double and triple dip I.e. monetary support from first, second and third husbands AS WELL AS welfare assistance AND her full time employment while fathers have only a job for his sole income
    10) Neither parent would be allowed to move out of state effectually withholding access to the children under the guise of “finding a better job”. You must wait until the child is 18 as it is mandated that both parents stay involved equally
    11) Neither parents rights and wishes toward the children will trump the other parents desires out of spite or revenge

    12) Fathers frustration that his ‘mommy support’ goes only to her drug habit and not to his kids as there is currently ZERO accounting for how his money is spent. When the kids are with him he pays for everything and the reverse is true during mother’s time. Neither parent can claim no money is being spent on the children

    Maybe, just maybe this will cause more relationships to ‘try and work things out’ which would ultimately be better for society as a whole. Certainly not all marriage should stay together but just as certainly; the time is well past for a ‘reversal of the norm’.

    “It must needs be- ‘Excellent Parent’ status cannot be achieved simply by virtue of one’s gender. Actions speak louder than lies”.

  • RMX

    Mr. Nolan,

    Fascinating article, and well-written with a balanced intent because there are way too many complex issues with obtuse interrelationships in these laws and Judicial proceedings.

    I’m a Father with custody of his children, and have gone through the same Court system in Massachusetts. Ultimately, that fact belies the true underlying nightmare that I have had to face to accomplish this task for the ultimate good of my kids.

    I take two exceptions here: the first is that you say there is no “war on men.” In fact, this is farthest from the truth. There may not be a concerted effort or drive by a group or populus, but it is a strong, subvertive undercurrent that exists throughout the US. This undercurrent, is the ultimate bias that strikes at domestic violence proceedings and child custody proceedings. To make this more complex, the divorce laws are largely structured to trigger adversity amongst parents.

    The pendulum has swung far too to the right. Organizations like these, are generally attempting to remedy that imbalance. These Fathers are not from the same social class or structure that perpetrates violence: we must acknowledge that there are indeed a class of men (and women) who are un- or under-educated, economically unstable, and socially from a background that builds up the statistical odds for committing violence.

    Those are NOT these Men, these Fathers, and this is where I find solidarity with them. I am well-educated, socially sound and emotionally secure: We Fathers know the wrath of violence, and we have never used nor will we use, violence as an alternative or solution.

    Yet, Courtroom proceedings are biased against men as a general tenet, which is what they are fighting against.

    The other exception is your call for public outrage again. In fact, this has happened already and is the primary reason Fathers are fighting back. While laws like VAWA and organizations like NOW have helped propelled their agendas (I must grant that their intent is noble, and in fact helped many women), this has had the unintended consequence of driving the pendulum too far, taking a large swath of civilized men and Fathers, along with it for the negative ride.

    I do not live in Mass nor am I a member of any of these organizations, but I stand firm with their goals, principles and agenda. There is no silencing a Father who has the ultimate welfare of his children in mind.

    What needs to be done, however, is legislative review, judicial prudence in proceedings, and in strengthening the laws. It should not take a parent like me, to spend a quarter-million dollars (which most Fathers do not have) to establish the truth in long, drawn-out, litigious proceedings. Organizations like these for Fathers, aid those civilized Fathers in fighting for what they hold nearest and dearest to heart.

    This is an ongoing battle; both genders must unite in this cause, and not be divided. It is not for men vs. women, and the laws are designed to generate animosity and adversity.

    Might I recommend a future follow-up article, where you look into pitfalls (across both sides) and look to discussing the future of OUR children?

  • http://www.illinoisfathers.org Ian Mitchell

    Very interesting article. But I have to admit, being a founder of one of those men’s rights groups, (in our case, we support non-custodial parents). I see the work in the kitchen up front and personal. We pushed a bill that protected parental involvement by punishing abusers of visitation orders the same as people who don’t pay their child support. The ILCADV was one of the major opposition groups. What was odd was that violators of the Domestic Violence Laws already had provisions in law to prevent them from even having visitation. So why would they oppose a law that had nothing to do with DV? Why would they oppose a law that ensures both custodial and non-custodial parents had the ability to be involved in their children’s lives? And why is ILCADV pushing other legislative efforts that have nothing to do with DV (but suspiciously have a very feminist slant on them)? Heck, ILCADV doesn’t hide it at all! Their requirements for the CFO billet in a recently publish request posted online insisted that candidates be able to work in “a smoke free, feminist centered environment.” I think these, “angry men” simply want more involvement in their children’s lives and they don’t want to have the extortionately high child support figures that are commonly handed out. Real time with children is a much better substitute than financial support.

  • Concerned

    Mr. Nolan,

    Your article was brought to my attention by another website which is father friendly. After reading this article and other information about you I would like to make a comment. You are obviously intelligent but you have either failed to do adequate research on this subject or you are/were highly influenced by a liberal feminist at some point in your life. If you are serious about getting to the truth of this subject I suggest you look for your facts all over the USA to get a more accurate sample. The truth is sometimes hard to find and unless you yourself have experienced the family court system you are woefully inadequate to report on it.

    On an unrelated topic I enjoyed some of your comments about Bill Oreilly. Even though i agree with many of his points I rarely can watch him long due to his personality.

    Thank you

  • Carla Frommer

    Barry Nolan, don’t you think some of the grievances of the men’s rights movement may be legitimate? And, if that is the case, such a reactionary “they must be stopped” is not very productive. There are shrill people on both sides of a debate, but the majority of reasonable folks will not listen to you if you sound more like you have some kind of axe to grind.

  • Sun

    He is absolutely right. I will not disagree by peddling the slave notions that our current times demands.

    Men who do stand up for themselves ARE dangerous.

    Man who created and destroyed civilization. Man who became armies and generals that lead into conquest and subjugation. Man whose innovations changed our very lives– inventions making the impossible, possible. Man who created empires that withstood thousands of years. Man who who visions stretch into the horizons and yearns for the adventure.

    I’m such a man.

    A dangerous man.

  • Victor

    This has got to be one of the most insanely biased and uninformed opinion pieces on the “Men’s Rights Movement” I’ve ever read. Sounds like someone just didn’t agree with what they had to say and went on a writing tantrum.

  • RZA

    Saying that violence against men should be taken as seriously as those against women, that false rape accusations should be made wary of, and that fathers deserve equal rights is dangerous?

  • http://manhood101.com Mary

    It’s about time somebody told the truth about men: http://youtu.be/H4zSRkBMPng

    • crella

      I await your posting on the truth about women with bated breath…

  • WorstArticleOfTheWeek

    these men that are fighting for their rights that are taken are evil! Lets all support feminism which believes in radical and often untrue ideologies *cough* patriarchy *cough*

  • Gamerp4

    >“Angry, radical men’s groups believe males are being victimized by out-of-control judges and politicians. They’re wrong and they’re dangerous and they need to be stopped.”

    Hmm maybe Nolan forgot about Radical Feminist who seek eugenics, eradication of males, and in some cases of children and women too but overall he says “They’re wrong and They’ re dangerous, Got proof for that Barry Nolan ol’buddy NO! that is sad because it seems your just trying to link something that is just not happening.

    In one sentence he says MRM activists are WRONG and DANGEROUS in just couple of paragraphs down he says this

    >”“It’s true that the family courts should be better staffed, and better trained to sort out the truth, assess the risks, and ensure that kids are kept safe, happy, and healthy. And men’s groups certainly have every right to try to change the law. That’s how democracy works””

    So whats up with contradicting in your own rhetoric rant, if you state us as dangerous and untruthful then how come you say that WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CHANGE THE LAW, if we have the right then who are you to mark us as WRONG and DANGEROUS hilarious i tell you and I think i have a good IQ level than most journalist now a days.

    >”“One thing the Fatherhood Council is particularly concerned about is restraining orders, which it insists are used in a way that’s biased against men.“

    So restraining a father from meeting his child is not bias, tell me did Nolan took his medication when he wrote this piece, If a mother tries to force the father out of his children’s life by using false evidence and the law against him it isnt biased, Yep i totally believe that is what Nolan wants his reader and us “The Unwashed Masses” to accept.

    >”They [men’s rights activists] have been able to get custody evaluators, mediators, guardians ad litem, and child protective service workers to believe that women and children lie about abuse.”

    Yah we know how much influence we have in the society, now fear is something that you should feel in every day of your life NOLAN because not only we are marching towards the Egalitarianism but we are blowing the air with screams of “To Reveille” and this is the fear which eats NOLAN and feminist. You see they dont want equality they want Female Supremacy that is why Nolan says WE SHOULD BE STOPPED, OUR FREE SPEECH SHOULD BE CENSORED, WE SHOULD BE JAILED because we are “wrong” and “dangerous” (Without any prove he states that like I or Paul or JTO are standing outside his house with an AK-47 and a grenade to blow his ass up, yep we are more dangerous than Real Terrorist).

    And one last thing Nolan uses Children for his and feminist advantages you know the old narrative Think of the children, well i didnt see any children testifying against his/her father about abuse but i sure see many women claiming abuse and sexual assualt (Without any proof mind you, that is how Family court works in western countries).

    Thank you Barry Nolan for showing us that We are having an hard impact and an influence on society and masses because if we weren’t doing any of that YOU WOULDN’T ORDER OUR VOICES TO BE CRUSHED.

  • ghebert001

    You’re absolutely right…we need to stop those horrible angry men’s rights activists from fighting against biased courts, lack of funding for men’s health issues, the fact that men are rapists, paedophies and wife-beaters and women are always victims by default. And what is it with all the whining about false rape accusations, the fact that they are considered guilty until proven innocent and when the woman has been found to have made a false accusation she gets let off the hook while the guy’s life is ruined? You’d think these guys would have better things to do than complain about their exes violating visitation rights without consequence so that the father sees their child who they love more than life itself once a year if he’s lucky while if they miss one support payment all hell breaks loose.

    With all that said, I still can’t figure out why these guys are so angry and forming these men’s rights groups. (end sarcastic rant)

  • Crank

    “But that’s all the more reason that civil rights and women’s groups need to wake up and get involved”

    Wait, what? We’ve have 50 years of nothing but women’s group involvement in every issue effective gender relationships. Every university in the country has an entire department of strident feminists paid to do this full time. And we’re to believe that a few men finally pushing back against these excesses is some sort of national emergency? Somebody must be greasing this guy’s palms.

    “They also need to remember how bad the past was. Back in 1993, . . .”

    Right, back before 1993 it was totally legal and accepted for a guy to beat a woman senseless whenever he felt like it.

    • Paul Johnson

      I know! I thought the exact same thing. I was like, “What planet has this guy been living on for the past 60 years?”

  • John

    I would like the author of this nonsensical article to find out what percentage of the unclaimed bodies here are female:

    http://mumbaipolice.org/helpline/actual_deadbodies.htm

    This is but a small example of the world that men inhabit.

  • MrChipps

    I’ve noticed that many of you have been using the word gender when you really mean SEX. Gender only applies to language as in French we would have the masculine, feminine or neuter genders.
    This “gender” nonsense was popularised by Ruth Bader Ginzberg(yes that one) before she was on the SC. Humans are either the male or female sex.

  • cv

    So its okay for women to have groups pushing for equal right but not for men. Sounds like a perfect reversal of every up to the women rights moment. I get that men had the majority of power for most of human history but that dose not mean we don’t get to stand up for our selves.

    I agree that their is not direct “war on men” but the war on women ended a long time ago too. The goal now should be to create laws that are fair for everyone. And the best way to do that is have group from both sides going to meetings like this and pushing for what they think is right.

  • The moral godless

    Women’s rights are human rights. Men’s rights are human rights. You’re not against human rights, are you Barry?

    • Paul Johnson

      You don’t hate and fear men do you, Barry?

  • nubersixxx

    Is this the same Barry Nolan that produced the fraudulent documentary “No Way out but One”? http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2009/01/27/the-controversial-holly-collins-custody-case-what-really-happened/

  • John MacNeill

    Barry Nolan, at it again with a fact-free radical feminist screed.

  • M

    Barry Nolan, your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.

  • Voodoo Idol

    We do not believe that we are the “biggest victims of modern society.” We do, however, believe that there are some instances where we are disadvantaged, and family law is one of them, as is genital mutilation. Restraining orders ARE used as a tactic for a woman to get what she wants in a divorce – it is even suggested by many lawyers to ask for one even if there is no need. They tell their clients to lie to bolster their case. This is the problem we are trying to combat.

  • Galilee

    Hi Barry, What scares me most, is that prior to August 2008, I would have most likely agreed with your article and assumed that the men’s organizations that you listed, were just full of right-wing nut jobs. Well after the 2+ years of living hell that I was put through in Family Court, I’m now a right wing nut job. Sorta. And I’m a proud member of the Fatherhood Coalition. I greatly appreciate the work that Joe Ureneck and many others from that organization tirelessly do on behalf of men like me. They are good fathers too, and definitely don’t hate women, nor want to see any more harm done to them than you, me or Toni Troop do. Gosh, they may just want to see their kids more often though. As for me? I despise discrimination against anyone at anytime for any reason. Only now, that also includes me. And I most certainly love women, especially my mom and daughter. I wonder if you would be so kind to meet with me just to hear my story? Honest, I won’t yell at you, as reasonable men can disagree, especially as we live in a country where 1st Amendment rights protect different perspectives. I’ll shake your hand and even buy the coffee. President Obama likes to read letters from ordinary citizens before he goes to bed, just to keep him grounded. Wouldn’t you like to do something similar? My schedule is very flexible. I was so intrigued by Toni Troop’s comment. Do you think that she has a father, brother, husband or son? Kathleen Parker, columnist for the liberal leaning Washington Post does. And she wrote a fascinating book called ‘Saved The Males.’ Imagine that. So, if you’d like to meet for coffee, just reply to my email address. I think you you’d enjoy the conversation. I did see you on Emily Rooney’s show talking about Bill O’Reilly. You seemed relaxed and very self assured.Gosh, I’m not Bill, although I think he’d want to hear me out. But there’s truly nothing I can ‘spin’ from any ‘zone’ of Family Court. But if you decline my invitation, please don’t dissect my words and reply online. It will serve no purpose what so ever, except sadly, that you’re afraid to look a man in the eye and hear a different story about the ‘anti-men agenda’ right here in the good old Commonwealth. Best. Galilee

  • jay r

    Its sad that instead of listening and trying to understand you simply assume sexist because they are men advocating for men. Feminism has done and continues to do a lot of good, but the progress is onesided and violently inconsiderate of 50% of our society. Mens rights rectifies this by speaking for that other 50%. Feminists would have you believe that men cant be victims of domestic violence or rape, at the hands of female aggressors. Though rare, it does happen, and the victims with penises deserve equal protection under the law, not to be mocked and teased by police and judges. We all have mothers, sisters, nieces, daughters, we want women to have protection from abusers and we want them to be able to achieve great things in society, but we can’t have Divorce Lawyers telling them to fabricate abuse claims for the up coming custody battle and judges blindly believing it. We can’t have inbalanced women running around ruining mens lives with unfounded accusations of sexual impropriety. We’re at a point where a claim of sexual harassment with no proof, can cost a man his job. A claim of violence with no welts or bruises, can get a man a night in county. A claim of rape, even if found in a court of law to be utter bullshit, will follow a man like a spectre for the rest of his life. This is not equality. This is unfair, and mens rights is here to make sure the shit gets balanced out before men lose the vote. Men have made a lot of concessions to feminism, many of them in the name of fairness and equality, but feminism is running out of legitimate battles and is starting to push into territory men are not willing to give up. Like basic civil rights.

  • Kevin

    Every time I’ve seen someone post an article about how the men’s movement is violent and hateful they get a bigger audience and seen as increasingly credible in the public eye. The big youtube names get more and more subscribers, more and more debates take place, feminists gets more and more hyperbolic.

    I personally really learned a lot from the men’s movement and maybe there are some crazy people tangentially involved, but it’s the same with feminists or even the NAACP and other rights advocacy groups.

    The vast majority of accusations I’ve heard about the men’s movement have turned out to be half truths or total falsehoods that it just tells me that people like the author really need to do some actual homework. I feel embarrassed for the author.

  • Blaise

    Mr Nolan

    If you consider men’s rights advocates to be ranting and raving for merely having an opinion, then how exactly would you describe your own approach?

    And this line: “These men have been pulling political levers to change both state and federal laws. That they’ve done so with remarkable success ought to make everyone very, very scared”.

    Very, very scared of what may I ask? It seems you are trying to promote hysteria by employing the use of scare mongering tactics which simply lack validity.

    If you fear a concentration of disillusioned males and even females that wish to debate disparity within the system for males as being a problem, then it would appear you’re happy with a totalitarian approach to debating in the first place.

  • tommy

    This comment has been removed for violating our comments policy.

  • Diesirae

    Nothing but dramatized fear mongering yellow journalistic garbage. Cheap witless attempts to provoke controversy and stir up more of the very thing the author is trying to scare us into thinking is some dangerous new threat to our way of life.

    This tabloid junk would strain in agony to meet the standards of a toilet cubicle.

  • http://marriedmanssurvival.blogspot.com;itinerantseminarian.blogspot.com Kris Girrell

    It is rare that I feel compelled to respond to another person’s op-ed words, generally because I respect the art of writing and as a writer myself, I understand that editors can take whole hunks out of a writer’s presentation leaving it tattered and sometimes less than coherent. But sometimes, a person strings together such misinformation and assumptions that not only is the premise fouled in the process, he (in this case) creates massive disservice to entire groups of the population. Such is the case with Barry Nolan’s recent “Take” in Boston magazine (September 2012, 50:9, pages 39 ff) entitled Attack of the 50-Foot Feminist Agenda.

    As Mr. Nolan portrays the situation, men have somehow de-evolved from the drum-beating, new-age, poetry reading cool guys of the 80’s into a backlash of self-righteous cavemen who are victims of the feminist movement. Nolan reports that said men, enraged at the disservice the femininely sympathetic court system has given us men, are now waging a war of inane politics that blames the victims of domestic violence and seeks to pull down every step of progress made over the last thirty years. Now hold on there, Bucko, you sort have swept a pile of crap into those assumptions.

    First of all, the men’s “movement” was neither started by Robert Bly nor was it organized in order to bang on drums and dance naked around the fire. For thousands of generations, men have supported other men in becoming the best they could be, whether that was in battle (which it was for most of that history) or as husbands, fathers and members of society. While there are some lessons we need to learn from our sisters, these men’s circles existed because there are just some things that women cannot teach us and that are best given by our peers. Borrowing from Bly a bit, some of that work, like grief work, most women would prefer not to see anyway – it is not pretty. But men’s work is about supporting men to be great.

    Part of what can be great about men is taking a stand against domestic violence. Men can be valiant or violent, says Alison Armstrong, and we certainly have the genetics stacked against being valiant. Some 10-20,000 years of selective evolution has ensured that the genes passed on were not the nice guys, but the Huns, Vikings, Visigoths, and other conquerors who took women as the spoils of their murderous raids. And we all walk around with that genetic time bomb ticking away inside. To be sure, most men are prone to violence, but it is men who must stop that cycle and come down hard on perpetrators of any violence against women and children. Thank all that is holy that we, as a society, have made progress in ensuring safety and justice.

    However, justice is not a one-size-fits-all issue. And many times fathers have lost their rights as parents and their place in the home through the well-meaning divorce courts. Granted, a violent man needs rehabilitation before any element of his social system (courts, extended families, churches or neighborhoods) thinks of allowing him near those whom he has victimized. But those rulings should not be dolled out in equal measure when we confuse a “normal” divorce with court-ordered separations. The fact that not one father has ever been awarded custody in any divorce proceedings in the entire recorded history of the State of New Hampshire or that our liberally-minded state is not too far in front of that, suggests that courts may have a bit of an anti-father bias. It is for that advocacy that groups like Fathers & Families and Fatherhood.org were first organized – to assist fathers in their quest to maintain meaningful relationships with their children, and to work with the courts in reducing the financial burden of alimony when it is either disproportionately large or egregiously long.

    Alimony and child support are both righteous principles but like unions that were built to ensure fair treatment of employees, sometimes even the best ideas get out of hand. An overzealous union can cripple a company or an industry, and an overzealous court, attorney or judge can throw a man into such a financial bind that he is never able to live a productive life again. These men’s organizations have been working to even out such adjudications where they have become crippling.

    In Mr. Nolan’s defense, could there be zealots who seem to push too far? I have no doubt. But were there not some feminists in the early years who pushed a radical agenda to wake up the nation and the world to the plight of women? Absolutely! Sometimes leaders must sacrifice themselves by going way over the line for the good of a cause that needs to move only steps forward at a time. But I fear that the nature of Mr. Nolan’s article may do more damage to any progress either side has made.

    The battle is far from over. There are movements afoot within the political parties to legislate women’s reproductive rights. There are parts of our country where violence to women and children is not thought of as morally wrong – it is condoned or ignored. Incest, spousal rape, psychological abuse and physical violence are at epidemic levels, yet much of it is never reported. Those of us who care about such things must band together instead of slinging mud at each other and inciting to riot! Hopefully in the battle for domestic justice, we can do better than our political system that seems to ignore the real, serious issues and instead resorts to name calling and slander. Get your facts straight Mr. Nolan. Get your ass into a real men’s group and let them assist you in getting your head out of it. There is work to be done, and right now you are just in the way and causing harm.

  • http://www.familyofmen.com CalgAdvocate

    When it comes to domestic violence data there are two methods; science and myth.
    The science demonstrates the rates between men and women rate from equal to similar; http://www.familyofmen.com/gendersymmetry/
    The myth is supported by funded women’s groups and men professing to be patriarchal white knights.
    The majority of child abuse, neglect, abandonment and killing is committed by women and mothers.
    MRA first mandate is the protection of children.
    MRA has no interest in attacking women’s funding or political and financial gains they have made; our voice pertains to be provided with the fair, equal and benefits afforded women. There is more value to keep women in the work force than remove them; besides I am a better cook than she will ever be.
    Consider that men are also victims of domestic violence but there are no funded shelter beds for men to escape from female perpetrated domestic violence; we ask for equality and fairness.
    It is now the accepted community norm to excluded the “male voice” from community discussion.

    • Paul Johnson

      Actually, MRAs want the ERA, as originally written, ratified. This would set feminists back 40 years, and finally make it illegal for men and women to be unequal under the law.

  • SKB

    The obvious fact that, prima facie, refutes and vitiates everything in this article is that the fathers themselves cannot get published in Boston magazine (or anywhere else) to present their own views. If they are so influential, why can the author not point to a single publication where their views are permitted to be aired? No one would even hear about them if it were not for hatchet jobs like this one.

  • Family Law Advocates Initiating Reform

    This is a biased article with misinformation. Domestic violence is gender neutral. Women have become more violent as shown by studies of female juveniles in the 1990’s. The Senate version of the VAWA (SB1925) which is dead because of a procedural flaw did not provide for services for heterosexual men, did not address false allegations (see http://tiffanymariesmithperjuryfalsepolicereports.yolasite.com/ for information on the poster girl of false allegations in family court and false reports to police) which are a problem and did not address immigration fraud. Services should be provided for all victims of domestic violence, men and women, heterosexual and LGBT, etc without discrimination. As with any taxpayer funded programs there must be accountability to protect against waste and fraud. Civil rights and due process must be protected and false allegations, which denigrate the true victims must be punished.

  • http://www.communicationhelper.com Peter Hill

    Every Man for Himself
    I read with interest Barry Nolan’s misleading article “Attack of the 50-Foot Feminist Agenda” [September]. First he uses the usual attack: When someone challenges the norm, he labels them as “angry.” The same could have been said about the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and even the fight that allowed Condoleezza Rice to finally be allowed to join a golf club. Those who were wronged advocated for their cause, as did the Fatherhood Coalition, Fathers and Families, and the Massachusetts Alimony Reform movement.
    If one does not believe there is a war on men, just read the statistical facts of the day. Dads have been forced out of their kids’ lives in record numbers over the past 50 years, according to the CDC. In inner-city Boston, 85 percent of teen moms have no dad in the home for their kids. Over 36 percent of the nation’s kids no longer live with their biological dad. Middle-age divorced fathers have the highest rates of suicide of any group. More nonviolent dads are in jail for the crime of being unable to afford their child support, despite the fact that debtors’ prisons were supposedly eliminated years ago. The restraining-order system that the Fatherhood Coalition is trying to reform has allowed a vindictive mom to just check off a box on a one-page form, and a dad cannot even send his child a birthday card without the risk of being thrown in jail. Murderers have more fundamental rights than a dad accused of abuse by his ex-spouse.
    Men’s groups are starting to have success across our great land, because they should. It does take a village to raise a child, and that village should include both your fit mom and dad. Kids need their dads, aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents, all of whom are affected when the Probate and Family Court system is not as fair as it should be.

    This was my letter published in the October issue of Boston Magazine

  • Lucy

    Oh look. Another feminist fear mongering article.

    How original.

    Hyperbole much?

  • Richard Dey

    VAWA, despite it’s moniker, is not the Violence Against Women Act. That’s just feminist propaganda. There are as many men in abusive relationships as women; ask Erin Pizzey who founded the first battered-women’s shelter. When she discovered the truth, she had to go found the first battered-husband’s shelter. Find any homeless women in the winter streets lately? It’s all men, and it’s almost all women who are running the bureaucracies which keep “unwanted men” in the streets. If you don’t recognize it, it’s called “abuse” and, because it’s just men, it ought to be called “sexist abuse” of men by women. Name a town with a ‘circus'; they’re all lmen, have to be out on the streets by 7AM, whether they’re young, old, sighted, or blind! Yup. In Plymouth a blind elderly man with a fatal heart condition was lying on the drafty floors of churches and wandering the icy streets by day, whilst a 18 year old girl was receiving free housing, free food, free transportation, free education, free retooling, free medical, la-la-la. Boston Magazine reades, you read here.

    Men have been suspicious of feminism for a while now. Chivalry, founded by a woman, of course, and Pankhurst (you’ll remember her white feathers in WWI, handed out even to men with one leg), don’t trust women when it comes to be big decisions. I’m old enough to remember when women got up on the trains to give men in uniform their seats (1945). But, if a man didn’t have a uniform on, even servicemen, they didn’t bother to get up. Men have been a little bit suspicious ever since.

    You remember the NOW headline “Girls Comitting Suicide More” — more than boys? Boys commit suicide 6X as often as girls do. The failure of feminism has been a failure of facts. 47% of the rapes in federal prisons, the figure reported to Justice in 2011, were committed by female guards on male inmates. Feminism can’t ignore the facts; yet there they are those they do because they’re inconvenient. Inconvenient, like husbands thrown out of their own houses (well, now hers) and into the streets.

    Men invented Ccivilization; they even invented the Kitchen — the one with the stove and the sink and the icebox and the garbage slot, and Benjamin Thompson of Woburn invented it not to make women’s lives easier but for military convenience. Take a pad and pencil into that kitchen and come out with all the things that women invented to get out of it. The ABC 123 sampler on the wall? Men, gay men actually, invented science and reinvited it in the Renaissance. Men invented the airplane and the computer and founded our chemical industry — well, gay men, actually; but the point is that, if men invented civilization, maybe they didn’t do it for women. Maybe they did it for themselves. Why would women claim it? Like the Habiru claiming Canaan because God promised it? Did God promise women Civilization? I know sure as hell Mother Nature didn’t offer it. It isn’t a matter of gratitude; it’s simply a matter, from a civilized point of view, of ownership, of giving credit where credit is due, of recognizing somethign that belongs to somebody else. Contracts, agreements, recognitions, boundaries. That’s what Civilization is about. Feminism just thinks that it can take it because Feminist decorated it, put curtains up, and has hanging plants and pantyhose in the shower. Correct me if I’m misleading.

    The modern analogy is that, if women insist on being the objects of sex (which, spending $171 BILLION a year on cosmetics alone) they do, what choice would men have to complete the sentence but become the subjects of sex. It is an analogy, actually. Who owns the language which bespeaks Civilization? Women are so good with words, let them speak!

    One thing gay men could teach feminists in this gay-feminist coalition (against men) is that one can’t be both subject and object of a sentence without becoming a pronoun and a postnoun at the same time. Feminists think that they canb be both (and the sole parents of children). Well, the overworked mom has been a terrible parent, statistically, creating violent boys who grow up to be men women don’t want, and girls who are viragos fully in love with themselves not attractive even to lesbians. Feminists were so hell-bent on righting the wrongs of history (another gay male invention), that they forgot the ongoing process of nurturing humanity within its historical framework. Uhah! Perhaps why ‘history’ was subordinated to a footnote of ‘sociology’ (or people management).

    The men’s movement erupted not because women were seen to be mismanaging society. It wasn’t management of natural resources but the manipulation of unnatural resources. Feminism, as one plaintiff noted, “is busy manipulating things that aren’t theirs.” (R. Reynolds 1979).

    Take children, for example. Feminists are busy raising boys to be men that they don’t even like. “My wife’s sons are not likeable,” a man said of his own sons. “Well,” said his wife, “you don’t know them. You’re an dead-beat dad.” Well, he had paid the bills (all of them), but of course he’d gone off and founded a new family where he was the boss. He did like those sons. “They’re not demanding. They’re giving,” he said of them. “They can also stand on their own two feet.”

    We cannot deny that all-female households are raising boys that women don’t like. It’s a kind of prejudice come true, effecting a misandry in their own offspring. It’s really ugly and, from a civilized point of view, unproductive. In a Plymouth housing project, a large percentage of the largely female inhabitants are there to be close to their children — who are in the Plymouth County House of Correction.

    If we don’t give boys the right to privacy in their bathrooms, bedrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, perhaps even their classrooms and clubhouses, we cannot command their modesty when they become men. It’s that simple because childrearing is that simplistic. If two lesbians can do it, any heterosexuals should be able to figure it out!

    Heterosexual feminists honestly believe that boys are girls because girls can be boys. Mother Nature, no more than Father God, designed things that way. Any man who invented the sciences would tell us that we have to work with Nature; any man who invented heavenly religion would say the same about God. We have to work with the parents we were given short of spurning them and raising ourselves — which gay people largely did and apparently still do, given the lack of homophilics in our schools and sex education suitable for cats and dogs.

    Feminists do not comprehend that boys more or less are raised by peers and peer pressures under male supervision. They have to get overinvolved with the result that, those who fail at it, become dependent upon the state for protection. And then they complain about the results.

    The men’s movements (and gay men moving out of the gay-feminist coalition is just one) came to this realization some time ago; this was especially the case in Natick when a paper listing The Costs of Sex was handed out much to the distress of the school committee which topped its list with MARRIAGE — the most-expensive way for a boy to exercise his sexual right. Marriage is now thankfully on decline (and why gay people would want to indulge in this peculiar perversion is beyond me; but feminism is ambivalent about this trend. Feminism is for free sex on the one hand, but can’t correlate this to the expectation that boys have to pay for sex — which is not just ‘traditional’ but ‘natural’. Why? Because girls don’t pay for sex; it’s not that important to them. Well, you could have fooled me and put my penis in a puppet. That was definitely not the impression I got in my lifetime — and, ambivalently, I’ve had a lot of it.

    There is no way, I suspect, that women can raise boys into the men that men like because women can’t raise boys into the men that women like. If a boy grows up to be a man who won’t go out and die for women’s way of life because he doesn’t feel like it today, he’s a failure, a coward, a misfit, probably a misogynist, not a man an overworked mom is going to love — though she’ll fight for his death and burial benefits like a hungry cat.

    I think feminism should give the men’s-rights movements a listen. They’re so busy talking and complaining that they’re not hearing the objections to feminism, some of which are perfectly valid and many more which aren’t yet voiced. Feminists should make a strategic analysis of the contiguous gay movement and its successes by giving all factors in its fluid politic independence, complete freedom. Gay men and lesbians and all the rest of the alphabetic melange of coalition can go their separate or joint ways as they chose. Then feminists have to stop insisting that others raise and be responsible for their children. They have to stop pretending that the state is their appointed husband in lieu of their disappointing choices. Chosing to get pregnant by the wrong boy at 15 does not acrue to the state. The girl does not OWN the baby, but, by having it, she’s responsible for it. If the parents decide to have the baby, both have equal rights. If the boy opts out and is willing to pay half the abortion costs, he can is off the hook. If she goes on to have the baby, she’s solely responsible, but he still has visitation rights and a say in the child’s upbringing. Her decisions, whatever they may be, do no abrogate his. Period. The state’s interest is in the child’s welfare — from inception. Awkward, but true. If, by the boy’s decision, the state is going to become the surrogate father, it has input. We all have an input. Why? We’re giong to be picking up the tabs.

    Feminism will have accomplished nothing if it is obliged to turn over its role as mothers to the state. To be honest, gay men could have done that with their dogs. For every act of government expended on children, feminism loses face. Right now, 95% of those on welfare are females. Children are on separate welfare. Does feminism really want the state for a husband? No wonder men wanted out.

    If we’re taking care of ALL women, unemployed, broke, needy, mentally ill, hungry, cold, homeless, helpless — what we’re doing for men is giving them the opportunity to die for their country or come home and get free medical sevice from the VA (he might as well have gone to Angell Memorial). If this is the idea of feminist equalilty, I’ll sell them the Public Gardens for a new house with waterfront and planted pansies. This is not the kind of thinking any man would want his sons to be brought up under. Men are sick of being held hostage — by females expecting the state to squeeze money out of men to maintain them. Until then, I think the Feminists should expect a backlash, a growing backlash to which I lend my reluctant support and best wishes.

    • Wayne

      An excellent rebuttal my friend. PS barry Nolan is a moron…lol.

  • Wayne

    Barry Nolan is a moron !

  • Critical Eye

    Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence.

    As an MRA, I do not believe men are “the biggest victims of society”. I do believe that there are biases against men in some state and Federal laws.

    Domestic violence laws are an example of this. The assumption that only women are victims of DV, and only men commit acts of DV is the basis of the Duluth Model used by many police forces and DV victims’ advocate groups. Unfortunately, it’s based on poliitics, not science. In fact a 2009 study by Dr Deborah Capaldi concluded, “current batterer treatment programs are ineffective… likely because they are not based on well-conducted research. Since much IPV is mutual and women as well as men initiate IPV, prevention and treatment approaches should attempt to reduce women’s violence as well as men’s violence. Such an approach has a much higher chance of increasing women’s safety.”

  • Man – 443342

    LOL, you guys have no idea what the mens rights movement is about. And your article reads like a publication against women’s suffrage back in its early days. If you really wanted true equality you would support equal rights for all and would like to hear from both sides of any argument. But rather, you decide that the MRM does not serve you, so it must be crushed!!! HAHAHAhahahaha

    • Paul Johnson

      Essentially it is a 50-foot feminist agenda :)

    • Susan Nercher

      How would you know what the men’s rights movement is about when you clearly don’t believe that men should have rights? More men are standing up for themselves and are clearly scaring the femi – Nazis with their results. That’s why this author wrote this article. It is thefemi – Nazis that will be crushed. Hahahahaha.

  • Alicia

    When I have sons I want them to have rights. I don’t want them to get arrested unfairly because of the Duluth model and the VAWA. I don’t want feminist educators teaching them to please women instead of being themselves. I don’t want them to go to jail because of a false rape accusation. I don’t want them to be the political and social punching bags of America.

    In the Western world, men are oppressed equally, if not greater, compared to women. You may find that hard to believe, but the facts below speak for themselves.

    1. Women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system. For instance, [women receive lighter sentences and a higher chance of acquittal, simply for being women](http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf).

    2. [Men are significantly more likely to be the victims of violent crime (of which rape is included) than women](http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm).

    3. [Despite domestic violence being equally committed by women](http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm), for the most part only male perpetrators are arrested:

    4. [The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting in having mostly male batterers criminally pursued, and female batterers left alone.](http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf)

    5. It is legal to circumcise male babies against their will. In some places, laws have been passed which forbid any attempts to make male circumcision illegal. Meanwhile, female circumcision is completely illegal, even though some types of female circumcision are equivalent in harm to male circumcision, and other types (a symbolic prick to draw blood) are non-harmful.

    6. Men comprise 95% of workplace deaths.

    7. Men commit suicide at over triple the rate that women do.

    8. The vast majority of prisoners are men.

    9. [Men are doing worse in all aspects of the educational system, from kindergarten to university](http://www.boysproject.net/statistics.html).

    10. [Men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names published and their lives ruined even if they are not convicted or charged – their accuser is protected and is likely to face no punishment, or a light one.](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/duke-lacrosse-players-suit-over-false-rape-claim-may-proceed-judge-says.html)

    11. Reproductive rights. Men have none. Simply [read this story](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/7x78v/what_do_modern_men_want_in_women/c07omtc).

    12. Parental rights. Men have virtually none. See below.

    * [A woman can name any man she likes as the father, he gets a letter in the mail, if he does not prove he isn’t the father within 30 days—(suppose the letter gets lost by the USPS?)—he is now the father and must pay. He cannot contest it.](http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default)

    * [A boy who is the victim of statutory rape must pay child support to his rapist.](http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/)

    * A man who is raped while unconscious must likewise pay child support.

    * [A man who fathers a child and wishes to take custody may have his child adopted out against his will and essentially kidnapped](http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=19159)

    13. The majority of homeless are men.

    14. Despite men’s need being arguably greater than women, government spending to help women is 10 to 100 times greater than that to help men. That figure is unrelated to medical spending.

    15. [In 2009/2010 it was $1,516,460 toward men and $57,562,373 toward women. In 2010/2011 it was $3,740,800 toward men and $48,331,443 toward women. In 2008/2009 the province dedicated $561,360 toward men’s resources and $98,983,236 toward women’s resources](http://www.reddit.com/r/OneY/comments/i2i06/crosspost_from_requality_i_just_did_a_little/c20d8q8). (figures are for British Columbia, Canada, but representative of Western society).

    16. [Female-owned businesses get free government money for literally no reason other than being a woman (i.e. all other factors are equal, same size of business, same income, etc. etc. but the owner’s gender is different = money or no money](http://reason.com/archives/2004/07/01/confessions-of-a-woman-owned-b).

    17. [On some airlines, men were banned from sitting next to kids on airplanes, simply because they were men](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7957982/British-Airways-changes-discriminatory-seating-policy-for-men.html). Why? Because men are pedophiles, obviously. This ban remains on some airlines, such as Air New Zealand.

    18. [Under a recent federal directive, men are convicted of rape in university campuses if the investigating board finds that the chances they committed the rape are at 50.00001% or greater.](http://falserapearchives.blogspot.ca/2011/09/writings-demonstrating-error-and.html)

    19. [The DOE policy in practice: Caleb Warner was accused of rape and expelled from the University of North Dakota, then his accuser was charged with filing a false report. He remains expelled as of June 2011](http://www.wdaz.com/event/article/id/6963/).

    20. Selective service. Enough said.

    Pretty sure there’s more, but I’m getting tired.

    You will notice that I have not even touched “social discrimination” such as [a group of women, on a popular talk show, cheering and laughing about a woman who cut off and destroyed a man’s penis simply because he was divorcing her](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/is0af/send_complaint_to_cbs_against_the_talk_hosts_for/). Or gender stereotypes forcing men to work to their deaths, treating men as predators and pedophiles, that sort of thing.

    That is because I recognize that though social discrimination is bad, ultimately you still have choice and agency. People can mock you for being a male who likes sewing, but ultimately you can still choose to do it or not. But that pales in comparison to actual oppression, where you genuinely have no choice about the matter.

    Note the numerous examples of governmental and legal discrimination against men.

    **These are examples of real discrimination, where there is literally nothing you can do about it. Not “discrimination” where women do more housework.**

    Most of the discrimination against men described here government-enforced discrimination, which is involuntary, non-consensual, and inescapable.

    For instance, if you are a male victim of domestic violence, you cannot simply choose to walk into a government funded men’s shelter – they don’t exist. You cannot choose to call the pro-male police who fairly punish female batterers; there is only one police, and they are likely to arrest you if you do make the call.

    In contrast, a lot of discrimination that feminists discuss is what I call societal discrimination, which is voluntary, consensual, and less significant.

    Feminists state, as evidence of discrimination, that women do more unpaid housework due to societal norms. Even if that is true, given that surveys are biased and do not include male work like car repair, exterior house repair, etc. that is not discrimination since women are choosing to do more housework. They are choosing to be involved with men who do less housework, and choosing to tolerate such a state. They make that choice freely, without coercion. That is why it is not discrimination.

    Now, do you still think that male privilege is so great, female privilege is non-existent, and that women are oppressed and men are privileged? If so, you’re in denial.

    • Bronco Fan Doug

      Wow pretty awesome collection. I only want things balanced and have no idea how to explain to my son when he asks why things seem unfair. What do I say? Yeah and be careful ’cause lots of ppl get upset when you bring up truth.

      ty

    • Everyday Guy

      Your post is an excellent example of what separates arguements between Feminists and MRA’s….quantative data. Not opinnated, percieved, and emotionally charged garbage. It should also be held up as the de facto argument to ANYONE that claims Feminists and MRA’s are the same. MRA’s get angry about actual laws, actual changes to the conditions in which we are required lawfully live in. Feminist’s cannot argue the same way. No feminist today can argue or bring up a single actual law that directly discriminates or oppresses them to the benefit of men simply because of they are female. NONE.
      Thank you Alicia! I will be copying every bit of the information you provided!

  • Average Joe

    I love the fact that the author actually believed he could outwit the intelligent folk in the comments section. He’ll probably post a comment eventually stating how he hasn’t had time to update his responses in the comments section because he has been to be busy (or something asinine along the same vein)…

    It’s sad when people in the comments sections produce comments that are better, in every sense of the word, than the article they are commenting.

  • dg54321

    Anybody who doesn’t see that courts and the government are biased against men, especially fathers, isn’t a man, hasn’t been through the court system (especially the family/divorce courts) or both. There is a societal bias towards female preference in almost every aspect of society. Men are shown to be objects of ridicule in almost every commercial, TV show and movie. MRAs are all for equal treatment (at least I am) but there is no equality in society between men and women. Women get a free pass, get elevated on a pedestal, and men are consistently blamed for the world’s wrongs while simultaneously forced to pay for out of control women. Any man looking to marry or, God forbid, have children in today’s Western world is a fool and will soon understand why I say so.

  • Chicago-JSO

    I think these groups are completely mis-represented, their not angry women hating groups, their men who are concerned about issues that truly impact men’s lives. The examples in the articles seem a little weak, but I have no doubt that restraining orders are abused. I think this is great! Men need a voice, for too long only one side of the argument has been heard, one that says only men commit domestic violence. In reality domestic violence is gender symetric.

    • http://www.karendee57.wordpress.com karendee

      You can compare violence individual by individual, or you can compare violence by ‘group’ rules and behaviors.

      I think when some people say men’s violence it is GROUP violence. Men are the ONLY human group that have organized for the purposes of violence against other human groups. Men have a CIA, FBI, Police, Govt…and for most of American history, women were to be protected by men. What do women do when the men that are suppose to be protecting them, are instead using their social power to harm them? Well, women start a domestic violence movement. If you talk about this, one should really understand the laws and how we got here. I do believe anything and everything is happening today, but when people are taught en masse, well, then you have patterns of behaving and thinking. Little is “original thinking’. If you count that we have embedded institutions that treat violence according to gender, you have to count the historically and inherited violence overall and in particular against women ‘as a gender group’ certain violence was permitted and other violence was not partly because Men were ‘authorities’ over women. This is all in the midst of change and society is not settled on any of it. It’s all individual preferences and actions.

      Men As authorities, it was their privilege to ‘punish’ , with, of course, some exceptions with ‘extreme’ cases. Women, historically, were viewed as mentally ill IF they were violent at all OR they were laughed at. Women were seen as incapable of driving a car, holding a job….let alone harming a man. It’s unbelievable to hear the short sightedness about men as victims of women, IMO. And yes, some men do the dishes and cook meals, now too. So Yes, on the surface of our society, things have changed, and women have been given permission to ‘act as men’. However, this is all tentative until the issue is resolved and unfortunately, things can sway more easily to ‘same old’ then to something new. History is filled with changes that then become conflicts for centuries…with endless feuding as children pick up the arguments and continue to pass them on. Few people have really given thought to this…and sorry, to say, most of what I have read shows me precisely that. The discussions themselves MUST change to be effective and productive, but I guess, that depends on the goals of each speaker and what they want and that is part of what divides us into different opinions.

      • Susan Nercher

        In the past, if a man claimed that his wife abused him, do you think that the police and/or legal system would have taken him seriously? The assumption is that men have always had it easy and they can never be victims. This is similar to the way the Nazis characterized Jews – they claimed that Jews were scheming, powerful tyrants who manipulated the world for their own selfish purposes and who should be punished collectively for killing Christ. It is not clear if Jews killed Christ, but even if some Jews did kill Christ back then, does that mean that Jews today should be punished for it? What about the fact that Jesus was a Jew? What about the fact that most Jews had no power but were simply poor victims? What about all of the contributions that Jews have made? Likewise, what about the fact that most men were poor and powerless victims throughout history? What about all of the contributions that men have made? “Revenge justice” is not real justice – it is just oppression.

  • Michael Steane

    This is a gross misrepresentation of the Men’s Rights Movement.

    I suggest that readers of this article go to r/mensrights to get a fair picture of what men’s rights suporters actually do say. Judge for yourself, but not without looking at what those being judged are actually saying.

  • Jim

    I come here to see an interesting discussion and it is just dominated by the same four people under different names who are dominating the discussion by repeating the same rhetoric and interpreting evidence to benefit their argument. Its so painful to read these arguments, can you guys read the article (which is not putting MRAs in a positive light) and discuss the subject it is bringing up instead of blindly defending MRAs?

    • Paul Johnson

      The subject it is bringing up is the legitimacy of the MRM’s existence, and it does it on bogus feminist dogma. It’s a hit piece against MRAs. There is no way to discuss it without either defending or attacking MRAs. Did YOU read the article?

      Calling out feminist dogma as disingenuous, and refusing to allow the conversation to be framed by it’s faulty premises, then by iterating the MRM’s bullet points or dismantling the feminists’ is the only correct course of action at this point.

  • http://nevernotthinking.com/ Erica Foss

    an open letter to MRAs who wish to have a broader discussion. maybe, if you’re being misrepresented, you can find common ground with feminists after all?

    wp.me/p3cxYh-3h

    • blablabla

      Not really. Feminists do nothing but berate and belittle men. We’re the cause of all the problems in the world according to feminism, dont you know?

  • Robin Shaye

    The men’s groups appear to be driven by interest in what is fair to them and not what is fair to their children. There shouldn’t be a “winner” in a divorce situation; nor should there be a loser. As an abuse survivor and author of “…Until You Die”: The Narcissist’s Promise, I became aware of how undereducated our legal system is and the need for many changes. However, these changes need to be made in consideration of the children’s best interests…not the fathers and not the mothers. We all know that divorce is going to put a financial hardship on all….and even though two people may not be able to be married, it doesn’t mean that they can’t still work at keeping stability in the lives of their children

    • edtastic

      “The men’s groups appear to be driven by interest in what is fair to them and not what is fair to their children.”

      The can say the same thing about women’s groups fighting joint custody. Being against men and for women needs to stop being the default position on everything because its bigoted and wrong. Favoritism towards women is sexism and hurting men to accomplish it is injustice.

    • Paul Johnson

      “The men’s groups appear to be driven by interest in what is fair to them and not what is fair to their children.”

      How would you know? Have you ever read one single piece of literature from the MRM? From your indictment, it appears you have not.

      And I think you don’t really have a firm grasp on what “fairness” is. Fairness doesn’t apply to a single party, it applies to all parties. If some resolution is “fair,” it’s fair to all parties, not “fair,” to some but not others.

      And why should the child’s best interest take precedence over the best interest of either parent? We’re ALL human and we ALL have unique human value that transcends our age, sex, or any other divisive line. Why wouldn’t we come to a FAIR resolution that accommodates EVERYBODY’S best interest?

      “Best interest of the child,” (and people’s tendency to pedocentrism) is the same rhetoric Hitler used in his propaganda. Or at least he talked about it.

    • Bronco Fan Doug

      You must be kidding. So you feel that laws should be pro women in the best interest of the children? I am guessing you also feel that women should have the right to take the children if they want and that if you don’t the man should step up.

      Bringing up a particular abuse situation is frankly idiotic. Are you suggesting that our laws should discriminate against men because one man was abusive? So let’s just agree that is dumb thing to bring up in this discussion.

      If we can accept that people in jail is a reasonable measure of society failure, then here are the facts. Statistically a male in jail (and statistically it is only men in jail) was more likely to come from a family without a father than any socioeconomic effects. It is fact although you will not want to hear it. So perhaps fathers are actually important than you think.

      I am not trying to say that men should get the children or not. I am suggesting that for the law to presume the woman is the best option is obviously discriminatory. If you don’t agree with this statement you are a sexist.

    • Robin Shaye

      There are men who want an equitable split…which seems fair…however, if that split upsets the children regarding their home life, it is unfair to them. Of course, the man and primary earner could stay in the marital home with the children and the wife could be subjected to having to find a job after perhaps being a stay-at-home mom for many years, find an apartment, and try to see the children 50% of the time. Sorry – that’s more unfair than keeping the traditional ways that men are so much against. I know men who have moved in with their own parents in order to keep stability for their children. Although the laws may be antiquated, they were written for that very reason. Of course, now with so many families needing 2 incomes to survive, perhaps these laws may no longer be sensible. The courts need better education and documentation, from judges down to administrators in order to closely monitor each acrimonious situation.

  • edtastic

    I find it disgusting that men’s groups are being framed as this malevolent evil force simply because they would rather not see men treated as villains at every turn which is exactly what this author intends to do. By this measure why should we trust him, HE’S A MAN! This simplistic bigotry is the same way feminist characterize men all the time . Women also abuse men and we can’t trust that even restraining orders won’t be misused to gain advantage in domestic disputes. We must recognize that both sexes are capable of doing bad things to one another and any system to protect women should not arm them with unlimited power to abuse the men in their lives whom they have disagreements with or enslave that man to serve her needs through some system of government sanctioned extortion like alimony.

  • IndigoLamprey

    “SAVE claims the law is biased, noting in a fact sheet titled “Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence” that “female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence.” In other words: She was asking for it, officer.”

    More like, “Women do it as well, it’s not all men”, and, “Arrest her ass too, officer!”

  • IndigoLamprey

    “SAVE claims the law is biased, noting in a fact sheet titled “Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence” that “female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence.” In other words: She was asking for it, officer.”

    More like, “In other words, she’s equally responsible, arrest her too officer!”

    I posted a similar message and it was deleted. Are you only capable of believing that women are only victims?

  • politicalcynic

    Classic feminist attack strategy-ignore the facts while defening privileges of women. I note that MANY things are ignored by this poorly constructed feminist rant-because statistics don’t lie (although radical feminists do): The worldwide absence of help for male victims of sexuaul abuse, the fact that 2/3 of ALL healthcare spending int he US is on women, the fact that under Obamacare women get FREE medical care that is denied to men, the fact that we spend MORE on research and development of breast cancer treatments despite the fact that prostate cancer kills nearly as many men-and long cancer kills more people than breast cancer, the fact that although women represent 8 to 10 percent of those convicted of 1st degree murder, they represent less than 2 percent of those executed under our capital punishment system, the fact that men and women used to live the same lenght of time-until of course women became “discriminated against” in healthcare-when their life expectency shot up to over 7 years more than men…

    Men’s rights groups want EQUALITY-I failt to see how demanding men be treated equally with women is a hate group-unless of course feminism is ALSO a hate group.

  • Miguel Lozano

    politics must change, when did feminism take the politics?

    • Paul Johnson

      in the ’20s.

    • Thomas Allen

      They have been driving them since the 60’s Feminism didn’t exist in the 20’s

  • frankelee

    This is a man’s world.

    • anand

      Correction: This is a capatilist’s world.

  • blablabla

    “violence against women reflects as much a failure of our nation’s
    collective moral imagination as it does the failure of our nation’s laws
    and regulations…it deserves our profound public outrage.”

    And yet even though men outrank women in terms of their victimhood of violence in practically every way possible except rape and sexual assault (where there is gender parity in victimhood), Joe Biden, and all the feminists dont say a word about it. Curious that isnt it? Also, what does this have to do with people who advocate for men’s issues? Are you saying these people condone violence against women or that they are violent themselves? I mean, how does this tie into an article about MRAs winning legal battles and helping to draft legislation? VAWA is a HORRIBLY one sided bill that only helps out women and makes men out to be the bad guys. Predominant aggressor (who is bigger, who is stronger, who shows more fear, who has a criminal history, who seems to be more afraid of whom) laws and all that jazz. Besides, if it wasnt sexist, why is it called VAWA (violence against women act) and not VAPA (Violence against PEOPLE Act)?

  • Bulder

    Sure men are Angry . I’m angry too . How could you not be ? According to the American media most Men are scum and rapists . Its pretty Disgusting !

  • Brian Sullivan

    Interesting article and biased to boot with several female quotes and interviews backing all of his opinions. There is one distiction not mentioned that i would like to shed some light on…unmarried fathers have no rights. Thats the law that must change.

  • Dusty Hale

    Hell, married dads have no rights. I speak from experience. The judge in my case wouldn’t even let my attorney present facts in the case. She wouldn’t let him rebut against my ex wife’s attorney’s arguments. The judge said flat out, “oh please, I don’t wanna hear it,” when he tried to argue against a total lie. The bias against men is very real and very dangerous.

  • Guest

    Unmarried fathers have zero rights. As a father who wants to be connected to his child but can’t because the mother has engaged in parental alienation for a decade. I take great offence to Barry Nolan’s piece. Apparently he’s never been silenced with 209A just for disagreeing with a mother’s self-serving “parenting style.” While women across the Commonwealth are being battered left and right, judges are rubber stamping 209A orders for things that are contrary to the provisions of the abuse law defined as: “the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members:(a) attempting to cause or causing physical harm;(b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm;(c) causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.”

    Shameful what the injustice system does to children by way of abusing fathers in court. Abuse all around.

  • Vincent Bator

    Unmarried fathers have zero rights. As a father who wants to be connected to his child but can’t because the mother has engaged in parental alienation for a decade, I take great offence to Barry Nolan’s piece.

    Apparently he’s never been silenced with 209A just for disagreeing with a mother’s self-serving “parenting style.” While women across the Commonwealth are being battered left and right, judges are rubber stamping 209A orders for things that are contrary to the provisions of the abuse law defined as: “the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members:(a) attempting to cause or causing physical harm;(b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm;(c) causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.”

    Shameful what the injustice system does to children by way of abusing fathers in court. Abuse all around.

  • Ryan Reyes

    This is largely delusional the VAWA harms just as many women as it does men. Hell the fact is there isn;t a single source for your work that isn’t debunked.

  • Nickolas Stewart

    Men and boys are undervalued. Feminism is not about equality, it’s about making the female superior to the male in every way. It’s eradicating masculinity. No one with sense or intelligence could believe that women and men should not receive equal compensation for equal work. Men and women should have equal right to justice and to having their voices heard. Feminism says that only women deserve these things….after all, “who runs the world? Girls.” This is pure B.S. Men and women need one another in every way. Every human deserves respect. The courts, media, and law enforcement need to stop breaking their necks to bend to the feminist agenda and simply do the right, fair thing. When crimes are committed, investigate and seek justice and redress for the victim (male or female); both fathers and mothers are essential to the welfare of children, stop pretending that only mothers matter and fathers are simply a monetary support function. Hold (all) people accountable for their actions. If a woman (or man) gets intoxicated and experiences regret over consensual sex, this does not equal rape. If the false accuser makes false official statements, commits perjury, or tampers with evidence, then that person has committed a crime and should be held accountable. If men have no hormonal or emotional ailments that allow them to kill children, spouses, etc….then neither do women. Fair and equal means exactly that…across the board.

    • Bronco Fan Doug

      Could not agree more, but doubt we will hear a lot of feminist agreeing that equality is the goal. From a legal standpoint males are now the most discriminated class. If the laws were written with the wording switched the uproar would be amazing.

      Feminist hide behind this ill defined not measured bs called patriarchy. It somehow a “truth” that no 16 year old boy experiences – they experience that schools do not have nearly the programs for them as their female counter parts do. It is used to justify prejudice of men. Read that again. Bringing up patriarchy is a way to avoid rationally making your argument. If you bring it up as part of your argument it means you don’t have an argument. Explain why fewer boys go into college now? And please don’t make a sexist comment that boys are not just as smart, because you did not did not like that discussion before… Please be consistent because to be honest you have not been….

  • Bronco Fan Doug

    Wow! Please read your first page again. Your discussion is not an argument, it is not an opinion, it is just a rant against something you do not like. You refuse to address the very real issues about how government and law is now distinctly leaned towards feminist. You refuse to accept that perhaps a balance should be found. You do not want things to be equal under the law, you want it to be pro feminine. Read it again, you know it is true.

  • Ben Dunn

    . “Let’s be clear: There is no “war on
    men.””

    If there isn’t why would this need to be clarified in the slightest? The
    wording of this as a qualifying statement before a conclusion is worrisome. I
    mean, if the article were free of bias then this would have not even been a
    mentionable.

    I agree of course, there isn’t a war on men. However, there is a select group
    of individuals who are sexist in society towards men on a fundamental level,
    and now that the discussion has opened up on the concepts of “matriarchy”, the
    new spineless cowardly women who have enjoyed their positions of power are
    running scared before the arrive of the 50 foot masculine agenda. I believe
    this writer is one of these people.

    Jokes aside of course, there is a fundamental problem the situation and the
    writing style of this article on such a level that it should of never been put
    into the public eye. The writer who as many has pointed out has made a huge
    logical gap in their argument as a whole, is infact sexist.

  • Kaitlin Powell

    Im a millenial gal. The men are treated poorly in divorce. False claims are rampant. Period. I was put in the middle. Many of my friends were too.

    • Insidious_Sid

      Funny how little typing one needs to do when they are speaking the truth…

    • anand

      Thank you for speaking the truth. If more women like you start speaking out, then we can bring change and make the world a better place for men and women and MAINLY children. :)
      Alternatively, you could also identify yourself as a men’s human rights Activist(humanist counter theory). You can watch GirlWritesWhat(karen straughan) on youtube for further details.
      Please spread the message.
      -Your friend.

  • Deb Cis

    Comments are dominated by some very angry people who have obviously never been on the receiving end of domestic violence. The feminist movement started in response to violence against women, and its so-called “agenda against men” is still overwhelmingly related to issues like rape and spousal violence. The majority of feminists are married and have sons or grandsons who are strong men and caring fathers. We are no more represented by the extremists than are those in other mainstream groups.

    Having grown up in a profoundly abusive home and watching other family members abuse their wives in front of witnesses, I have seen many men lie to cover their guilt, but have yet to meet a victim of violence lie about being abused, except in denial to protect her batterer. Yes, women can and do abuse their spouses, but the victims are overwhelmingly female. Why? It’s simple biology. We lack the brute strength and testosterone fueled aggression of men.

    So while I agree – absolutely – that children need fathers, denying or minimizing the problem of domestic violence harms the very children men’s groups claim they are trying to protect. Instead of blaming feminism or the court system, men have the power to change the way they and their peers view violence against women and children. For those men who are good fathers and good husbands, you benefit all families by taking to task those men who abuse. Stop denying it happens, stop blaming the victims, and do something to change the way batterers think and interact. These could be the men your daughters marry, the men who will raise your grandchildren. You love your children, you love your daughters. So make the world safer for them.

    • anand

      You started off with the assumption that women are the primary victims of DV, which has been debunked. Men are the victims of 40% of DV with varying injuries as many studies have shown. You can visit MRA sites if you want citations to tge studies conducted by national bodies.

      Your whole argument can be taken as bullsht as you have no idea of biology and how hoemones work. Testosterone does not induce violent behavior but rather it is shown to relax men and make them more calm. It does jave an effect to muscle develoupment but thats about it. The testosterone induced violence you speak of is bad science.

      YOU FAIL.

  • Simon

    There
    is no war on men…there is no agenda that seeks equality. The fact
    is…it is no longer about domestic violence…it is about pushing
    women around…and trying to make men feel guilty for succeeding. If
    women don’t make up an adequate percentage of the work force then who
    is at fault? When a person fails to succeed, who is at fault?

    In
    the days of old those who could not compete or succeed were cast out
    from their groups because at the most simple levels of social
    interaction it is the individual who is at fault. If women have not
    succeeded then it is on them. If you as a women appeal to men to
    change laws then you have given us the power and you look weak. For
    your own failings you the female are at fault.

    We
    the men don’t wish to put you down or lift you up. The law of the
    universe will tell you that if you try to compare yourself to someone
    you always end up short of your goal. No…what we the men want is
    for you to stop trying to be us. I have read many a female author
    criticizing men for not being men, and many a female author
    criticizes are, “logical thinking”. What these authors fail to
    realize is that logic is the basis for understanding their problems.
    You aim to be equals in your own eyes while failing to see what
    equality really is. What you are aiming for is replacement. Now we
    know that anything in existence (A) cannot be (A) and not (A) or both
    (A) and (B) at and/or in the same time or place. Yet, you expect us
    to override universal laws and become the same as you in the space
    you are currently trying to occupy. Or worse, expect us to let you
    replace or occupy the same space as us. We don’t want you to or need
    you to. We all secretly think you look silly doing so.

    You
    women wonder why we use you for sex and discard you afterwords? It’s
    because aside from sex there is nothing else for us to do with you.
    No place to go or to learn together. You may criticize our logic, but
    logic is how we understand physics and the laws that make this world
    operate. We the men and some of you women know why we aren’t working
    well together anymore…the rest of you are just to daft to listen to
    reason. Why would any rational being propose a problem and then deny
    the basis for solving it? Your unhappiness (statistics are available)
    is your own fault. If we as men would collectively grow a backbone we
    would walk away from your collective/constant BS for forever. Someday
    we will do just that and wait for the actual women to emerge. Women
    whom we want to love.

    I
    see no war on men or inequality. Just a lack of self respect on every
    mans part that allows him to be ruled and damaged so deeply by women
    and their ever changing social agendas. Also, a war implies that
    there is a threat…and if history has shown us anything it is that
    men define the way the world is and although women are quite relevant
    they are largely ineffective…so there is no war. Just a large body
    of bitter, loud people. We the men are the gatekeepers and always
    have been. The first laws passed to protect women were made by us.
    The first rights given to women were given by us. In the long run it
    is our ability to physically operate that imparts authority to us. I
    don’t agree with men hurting women or abusing them. I don’t agree
    with men controlling them or manipulating them. I don’t agree with
    misogyny, although I face it on a daily basis…I don’t agree with
    any of this, but I don’t agree with male submission either. No one is
    inferior and no one should be told that their nature is
    evil…misguided (and who fault is that?) but not evil.

    We
    men wonder why we get no respect from women. It is because we deserve
    none. In order to be deserving of respect…you need to act like a
    man. That means seeing things for how they are. If a woman does not
    act like a woman in your mind then do not treat her as such. Do not
    reward indecent behavior. Raise your head up and say no. Raise your
    head up and say my life is as I choose. Not as my women chooses. Not
    as my father or mother chooses, but as I choose. Act like a
    gentlemen. Act like the pillar of strength that you were born to be.
    Go out and assert your will on the fabric of space. Do good not
    because you owe any one or anything, but because it is who you are.
    Get out and do something. Stop wining and start living. Do not
    concern yourself, good men, with the mindless self obsession of women
    and awful men. Focus on being yourself. Focus on doing. If a
    relationship is what you desire you can be sure a good one will form
    from your actions when you function as you were made to. And of
    anything should displease you…then cast it out…it is your right
    as a human being and as a man.

    There
    is no war.

    • Jacob Logan

      I believe there is a war on men. The issue, as you have stated, is that we are letting women push us around. We as men shouldn’t take this abuse. I don’t say go out and fight it with loud voices or violence. If men denied women any foothold on their lives, interfering with their confidence, ambition, and happiness, men would appear stronger. We need to neglect certain irrational or overly emotional driven agendas of women.

  • Debz

    I say the default should be sperm donors until men start to realize that being a husband and father is a privilege. A man who appreciates being a husband/father is one that a woman would want to keep around.

    • Insidious_Sid

      “A man who appreciates being a husband/father is one that a woman would want to keep around.”

      Sure.

      But a woman who does not want to “keep” a man “around” does not always come to this decision because he has failed to appreciate being a husband/father.

      Often she does so because she a) can and b) the system makes it profitable for her to do so. Like when women collect alimony from guy (a) even after she moves in with guy (b) who makes even more money and has a better “lifestyle” than she was “accustomed to” before. As long as she does not officially marry guy (b) this is considered fair ball.

      Of course it’s considered fair by feminists. It’s shamelessly unfair.

      No wonder men are fighting back so vehemently.

    • Jacob Logan

      Same goes for being a wife and mother.

  • Insidious_Sid

    So… men can change laws and get involved in the politics of family law and divorce proceedings? Excellent. We have much work to do. The poisoning of society from feminism is not going to be repaired over night. And we’re only getting started…

  • Insidious_Sid

    Oh, and let’s be clear. Feminism has nothing to do with equality.

  • Jacob Logan

    People need to realize that the feminist movement is both good and bad. Yes, women deserve to feel safe and equal opportunity. When it comes to doing this at the expense of the image of men, I have the right to be angry. Media depicts men as sexual monsters and violent creatures. Is this fair, no! It’s pure sexism. It devalues men. No wonder most child custody cases end in the favor of women. If you ask me to support the feminist movement as a whole, I say hell no! Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like everything that I’m reading about the men’s activist movement. One thing I see in common between the feminist and men’s movement is the hunger for power. I hate it. What men need to do is to address their issues but gain understanding of women’s issues. There needs to be collaboration to solve both men’s and women’s issues together. Why hasn’t this happened?!? The feminist movement says it’s doing a good thing for men but they only have a women’s agenda.
    Brainwashed men are joining this movement thinking they are helping themselves.
    So we need men to rise up and fix the issue. We need men of courage and integrity. We need men that will lead, not striving for power but to bring greater balance to society. As men, we dictate the path of society. For so long, we devalued and disrespected women. They deserve our honor and respect. By doing so, we are role models. Men, we are leaders. Women have become victims, as a result, we as men have fallen victims due to our actions. That doesn’t give women the right to bash men or for society to discriminate against us. A new generation of men is needed to rise up and gain rights for men that extreme feminists have cleverly worked the system to take away. At the same time, we need to find feminists to join us to tackle their issues.

    I’m done with the sexism and power hunger of both civil rights movements. Both agendas are to help only one gender but not help the other. Likely this will hurt the other gender, whether it be on purpose or not. Understanding and collaboration to tackle both genders rights out of love and respect for the other is the only way to achieve true equality.

  • Leonardo

    Yeah right, feminist agenda, we are full with it and we know how it works, fake domestic violence claimed by women, they can get all men assets after divorce, cars,house,bank accounts even if they did not contribute at all financially toward in common marriage wealth, They do abuse young boys sexually and they get away with probation at the same time that men for the same crime end up doing 20 or more years in prison.They can slap a man and it is not call physical abuse but when men do that they end up doing years in jail. They have kids outside marriage with their lovers and still lie to get child support and the husband which is not legal father is entitled of paying child support until the child reaches 18 so feminists complain about discrimination at work but they are not that productive, they are weak physically and can not work like men under the pressure, they miss work more then men and get sick more often then men so how they want to get same salary as men? Even in the army they wanna get same salary and benefits as men but they do not want to participate on combats so here we go again a Liar feminist dirty article and yes long live to FATHERHOOD ORGANISATIONS

  • Frank

    I am very aware of this situation, I always try to remain calm, but what happens if I do get mad and we have a dispute of words, and I am not the bread winner, I used to be the bread winner even had a better job then her, but she is always threatening to leave saying she will take the kids, problems finding a job in these hard times, I am a very hard worker, but I feel depressed and regressed where I feel worthless to my kids to this world I am not asking for much, just a honest job in my career field aircraft maintenance technician. The mischievous(because that’s what it is when your own spouse claims rape or says physical abuse yet she is able to function 100% normal after the fight like nothing ever happen. with woman rights protection) man has 0% leverage in a relationship, woman can record our fight and call the police and say that she had been physically threaten, and then the mans life is completely ruined by her simple actions, he goes to jail for 6 years, who is to say she wont regret it, too late. If we flip the roles this woman would never go to jail…and even if she did… she is still ruining each others life’s styles and kids by impulsive actions of self defence of a jealous spouse, maybe believe he has been betrayed by her, of course he will be angry, if woman could be a bit less impulsive and a little more carrying, try to be understanding try to help him, hold on to the tuff times that what real love is, NO HUMAN woman or man is PERFECt… none.. We don’t belong in jail because we are miss understood Neanderthals, and a mischievous woman are very smart and capable of manipulating a law system MADE for them. I could go on saying more. Woman because your so intelligent and beautiful and unforgiving manipulative, us man fall for you and love you adore you cherish you, and then because jealous of your success or lack of love, might believe your are being with someone else, when all they want is your attention and love and appreciation, WE aren’t woman…. we are man we show our emotions in anger since the ages. Remember the times when we were more protected were they really such bad times we made it to this day without oblivion. Why? fix what isn’t broking. Western society is leaving man or WORK FORCE(who goes to war to protect those successful woman rights, MAN90% woman 10%), in the dust, broken, made into criminals hated, and shun by their own kids, where is OUR justice? We don’t have it. they do. to Western society we brought this on ourselves, now look at our selves in the mirror you could end up in jail for raping your own spouse? false or true

  • Gimel Jml

    The real reason that the feminists and their corporate supporters are so much attacking the MRM is because the MRA debunks the central tenants of feminism such as patriarchy theory, male privilege, oppression of women for the benefit of men and gender being a purely social construct. When Feminist theories are exposed to sound logic and valid research, Feminism no longer has a leg to stand on. So the Feminists are trying really hard to smear the reputation of the MRM, and their corporate supporters are definitely lending them a hand because their whole racketeering scamming of gender relations will come to an end if people really start learning the truth from the MRAs.

  • Penny

    I empathize with the plight of men undergoing divorce. What had been (and still is in many cases) a necessary set of measures to protect women from grievous harm and biased, outdated divorce law decades back has since turned into a political cottage industry which must, as any industry, grow its power & influence regardless of the consequences. If anyone should understand the phenomenon of counter-strategy, it should be reactionary radical feminists.

  • Vanessa Ray

    If the comments in this section don’t scare you…nothing will.

  • harliquinz

    A pack of lies

  • Mark Neil

    Granting a father 1 weekday and every second weekened when the mother wants to cut him out completely isn’t ruling in the fathers favor, it’s refusing to allow a child to be striped of their father, but it’s not enough.

  • Asif

    I work in Family Law courtrooms. You are absolutely wrong. I work mostly for women and the system absolutely works in their favor.

  • NAC

    As a father who is trudging through the sexist family court system, back-to-back with his wife, fighting to impress the idea of an amiable divorce without mandated child support or alimony…I really just want to hug you right now.

  • Panetlesoiseaux

    Being a woman does not make you immune to misogyny, first of all, and you are as guilty as they come for your involvement with MRAs. Second, if their problem is with not being granted custody, then they’re in the wrong movement entirely because the sexism is the other way around. The reason women are granted custody most of the time is because of the antiquated notion that women are best suited to childcare, a mindset that FEMINISM is trying to erase. Yes, the court system needs to change, but not in the way you think it does.

    As for men being “brutes,” take into consideration that anywhere between 25 and 50% of all women (maybe more, seeing as it goes unreported most of the time) will be assaulted by a man, one way or another, in their lifetime. It’s not that men should be offended that women fear the possibility of assault by men, but that they should be offended by the fact that this fear is totally founded and start holding each other accountable.

  • Joe

    Looks like someone has a case of not knowing what the fuck they’re talking about.

    That’s not what MRA is about, and you should read up on it on a place that isn’t urbandictionary or a biased news source.

  • http://www.familyofmen.com CalgAdvocate

    When it comes to domestic violence data there are two methods; science and myth.
    The science demonstrates the rates between men and women rate from equal to similar; http://www.familyofmen.com/gendersymmetry/
    The myth is supported by funded women’s groups and men professing to be patriarchal white knights.

  • http://www.communicationhelper.com Peter Hill

    Dez.

    You state that the Fatherhood Coalition and men advocate VIOLENCE. This statement is 100% False. Your false statement just adds to the other false statements by many a woman who suddenly no longer believe in equal rights. It seems many a woman, including yourself believe equal rights go out the door when it applies to men, fathers and boys.

  • Wayne

    Wow, talk about being completely wrong. You must be blind to not see the truth.

  • Egalitarian

    Actually, women are a significant percentage of rapists if you properly define rape. According to the latest CDC (US government) survey, 4.8% of all men have been “made to penetrate” and 79.2% of the perpetrators were women. Examples of “made to penetrate” are: a woman who has sex with a man who is passed-out drunk, or a woman who forces a man to have sex with her through violence or threats of violence. There is some confusion due to the fact that their definition of rape excluded “made to penetrate” and only included men who had been penetrated. That was far less common (1.4% of men) and was mostly perpetrated by men. However, if you include “made to penetrate” as rape, which you should, since it is forced sex, women are a significant percentage of rapists, and the majority of male rape victims were raped by women.

    The above, lifetime stats do show a lower percentage of male victims (up to 1.4% rape by penetration + 4.8% made to penetrate = 6.2%) than female victims (18.3%) although it is far more than commonly believed. However, if you look at the report’s stats for the past 12 months, just as many number of men were “forced to penetrate” as women were raped, meaning that if you properly define “made to penetrate” as rape, men were raped as often as women.

  • http://patrickmccabegovernorscouncil.com Patrick McCaber

    Mr. Nolan,

    I am somewhat amazed at your response.

    When we spoke I presumed you to be a reasonable person.

    You appear to be attempting to convince me otherwise.

    As to the Aptaker nomination, as I told you I would have no problem taking credit for derailing that nomination, and others would have liked to take credit for it.

    What you pointed out in your article is the fact of the matter, the campaign donations were what stopped that nominations, not his bizarre views on child custody.

    The Fatherhood Coalition had nothing to do with that issue. Their web site does not claim that they do, I told you that they had nothing to do with that issue. I find it inconceivable that any member of the Council would have told you that the Fatherhood Coalition had anything to do with the donations issue.

    That you don’t even address this manufactured factoid in your response says volumes about you.

    Simply put you made a statement that you knew had no basis in reality and I called you on it, you simply are not honest enough to acknowledge it.

    As to your claim regarding “best interest” and “shared parenting”.

    You sound like someone spouting “separate but equal”.

    You’re wrong, but you can’t see what most people realize, shared parenting is the best interest.

    When it comes to Alimony reform you in your response you point out that the Fatherhood Coalition knew of its existence, that doesn’t mean that they had anything to do with it. Where are your facts? or doesn’t that bother you at all?

    What precisely is the basis for your claim that Father’s groups are the biggest victims in history.

    My view has always been that people have a right to be treated fairly. As I stated to you, and I believe you agreed at the time, families are treated horribly by our courts, and when it comes to parents, it is the father that usually gets the short end of the stick.

    I find it interesting that you claim that the Fatherhood Coalition is “my” group, it is not.

    I am not even a ranking official of that group.

    I do respect the work they are doing, as I respect the work of any of a number other groups.

    I have no idea what your issue is, but it has little to do with me.

    I do support the court following the law by allowing shared parenting to continue rather than attack it, what is your problem with that?

    Patrick McCabe

  • fidelbogen

    Barry Nolan, who is this amorphous “men’s rights groups” which you refer to. There is a huge spectrum of entities, all over the planet, which might fit that description, but you only muddy the water with your sweeping appellatives.

    On a related note, what part of the phrase “men’s rights are human rights” do you find objectionable?

    Seriously, what is your problem with men having human rights just the same as other people?

  • http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org Joe Ureneck

    Dear Barry,

    Needless to say your article was a great disappointment given the time and amount of information we at The Fatherhood Coalition provided to you. So much of your essay appears to have been created out of whole cloth.

    Let me address however this one comment of yours above:

    “And here in MA the Fatherhood Coalition is pushing an effort to repeal the MA Domestic Violence Abuse Prevention law 209A http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/newsite/content/why-repeal-mgl-209a-massachusetts-law-proponents-say-needed-stop-domestic-violence

    This kind of activity has nothing to do with defending people’s rights. It is an effort to diminish existing rights and protections.”

    Pure balderdash.

    That up to 95% of Massachusetts’ RO applications (25-50,000 annually) are without merit (ie. no violence is involved in the complaint) and all that is needed to suddenly and without warning force a father from his home, separate him from his children, thrust him into the judicial system with all of the attached financial and emotional costs and brand him forever as an ‘abuser’ is the uncorroborated statement of one person should be of concern to any fair minded person who believes in due process rights.

    MGL 209A is a sexist, anti-male and anti-family law and should be repealed.

    Joe Ureneck
    Chair, The FAtherhood Coalition
    http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org
    http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/newsite

  • I loathe liars

    Hmmm, you sound just like an angry man.

    Have you ever had your brain scanned to check for damage in the cingulus gyrus?

    (Would be a good idea as a start to help anyone in a relationship with you.)

  • I loathe liars

    Solution: Go back to modified fault divorce and alienation of affection laws. Openly teach children that adultery is wrong, and becoming addicted to internet porn is wrong too, not only because it causes a man to release oxytocin (the bonding chemical) when he’s not with his wife, but often, internet porn actresses are slightly older victims of childhood sexual abuse and domestic violence.

  • I loathe liars

    Solution: At proof of first lie, the perjurer must pay 100% of the falsely accused legal fees and more, for pain and suffering. A public statement recanting the false accusation would be made and posted on the internet for all to see.

    In family law court, the same: At proof of first lie, the perjurer must pay 100% of the other side’s legal fees. If that side then lies, then not only does he or she lose their legal fees being paid for, but it switches to the original liar getting his or her legal fees paid.

    Do this, and perjury will be cleaned up, pretty quickly.

  • J. Tyler

    Wow, you really are disturbed. Get help. Jesus.

  • fidelbogen

    Then, do you endorse the idea of male collective guilt? And do you feel that ‘male collective guilt’ should be codified as a principle of jurisprudence, and reflected in practice in the criminal justice system?

  • fidelbogen

    MJ, you sound like a false-flag troll who wants to give a bad name to “men’s rights” in general.

    The central council does not support you. ;)

  • Proof Positive

    The above two comments are almost laughably pathetic in their lack of self-awareness.

    Are you *trying* to prove the relevance of feminism with your patronizing?

    As soon as you recognize the commenter is a woman…you bust in with “Sweetie…” and “Honey…”

    Talk to a woman like a human for Christ’s sake, not a doll.

  • Natalie R

    Are you a unicorn? Can I hug you?

  • Natalie R

    Actually, the patriarchy is keeping down men, too. Think about it. It’s the patriarchal mindset that says women are the caretakers and men are uninterested in parenting. It’s THAT mentality that leads to the complaints MRA groups have, like courts being biased towards mothers.

    It’s also this same mindset that backs up the idea that men just can’t control themselves and have to rape any woman who dressed “provocatively” or is occupying a public space. How does this idea NOT offend you? How does it not offend all men? It’s awful. Feminists, believe it or not, do not think men are feral brutes who take what they want from whom they want with little concern for consent. That would be the patriarchy you’re thinking of. Feminists believe that men and women can live side by side and be civilized; that men are good fathers and fathers should be in their children’s lives; that violence perpetrated by any gender against any other is wrong. Why aren’t we on the same page?

  • Cada

    “The reason women are granted custody most of the time is because of the antiquated notion that women are best suited to childcare, a mindset that FEMINISM is trying to erase. Yes, the court system needs to change, but not in the way you think it does.”

    Yet this antiquated notion is the one premise of “Patriarchy” that FEMISM is not fighting DIRECTLY because they actually support it. They attempt to obsfucate this by claiming they’re fighting against it indirectly by fighting “Patriarchy” and “antiquated notions”. Also by claiming they support paternal leave. But if you notice, they don’t use this indirect stance when fighting something like say Domestic Violence which they fight DIRECTLY.

    Panetlesoiseaux, WE MEN & FATHERS ARE WELL AWARE of feminisms stance on mother-centric custody. N.O.W and the rest of you fully support it. You in fact LOVE IT.

    Oh when pray tell will you hold your “sisters in kipnapping” responsible?!

  • Cada

    “Actually, the patriarchy is keeping down men, too. Think about it. It’s the patriarchal mindset that says women are the caretakers and men are uninterested in parenting. It’s THAT mentality that leads to the complaints MRA groups have, like courts being biased towards mothers.”

    >Yet this antiquated notion is the one premise of “Patriarchy” that FEMINISM is not fighting DIRECTLY because they actually support it. They attempt to obsfucate this by claiming they’re fighting against it indirectly by fighting “Patriarchy” and “antiquated notions” just like you just did NATALIE R. Also by claiming they support paternal leave. But if you notice, they don’t use this “indirect” stance when fighting something like say Domestic Violence which they fight DIRECTLY.Unless you can point us Natalie R. to the feminist group AGAINST Sole Mother Custody, lol.

    “Feminists believe that men and women can live side by side and be civilized; that men are good fathers and fathers should be in their children’s lives; that violence perpetrated by any gender against any other is wrong. Why aren’t we on the same page?”

    >Because you’re a bunch of misandrist liars Natalie R. an I’ve just proved it.

    We’re coming for you monsters. You are NOT our allies. YOU ARE THE ENEMY!!!!

    Panetlesoiseaux, WE MEN & FATHERS ARE WELL AWARE of feminisms stance on mother-centric custody. N.O.W and the rest of you fully support it. You in fact LOVE IT.
    Oh when pray tell will you hold your “sisters in kipnapping” responsible?!