Media bais against males – Be a MAN! Take political action to support men.

The Tyranny of Protecting “Victims”: The sexual harassment bureaucracy

The current gynocentric hysteria of combatting perceived sexual harassment of women is creating a multitude of bureaucratic government agencies and quasi-governmental functionaries, bound by hierarchal politically correct dictates, which function for social control of individuals and groups under threat of government violence for “non compliance”. The mandated NYS Sexual Harassment policy placed upon businesses, even small family operations including farm operations, serves as an example.

New York State law recently mandated that ALL employers provide sexual harassment training for employees and have a policy in place to deal with it. The law applies to not only employees but also to job applicants, contractors, interns (even if unpaid), and persons conducting business with them. While the law allows businesses to make their own policy it must comply with the state mandates. The state provides a Model Policy and given possible legal ramifications for non compliance it is hard to imagine a policy will be adopted other than by the state policy verbatim. This is in addition to federal employment (E.E.O.C.) laws and regulations, and Penal Law protections of individuals.

There are a multitude of problems with these laws:

They imply sexual harassment of women in the workplace is a widespread problem.
They are bureaucratic social controls over individuals actions not based upon normal human business interactions.
They are sexually biased against men in dealing with false allegations.
They are sexual biased against male victims of sexual harassment by women.
They have vague descriptions of what constitutes sexual harassment.
They criminalizes non criminal activity.
They create multiple overlapping enforcement agencies.
They deny due process and double jeopardy protections for individuals and businesses.

The deadline for implementation of the NYS Law was October 9, 2018 which prompted the NYS Farm Bureau to respond with resources for compliance for its members (November 2018 “Grassroots”) with a full page (pg. 3) of articles on gaining compliance. The requirements; interactive training, training in the language of the employee, public posting and individual distribution of the policy, will add a large bureaucratic burden on small operations. Worse, the overlapping regulatory agencies with differing and obtuse definitions make it almost impossible for an individual to remain in compliance and businesses will be forced to legally defend themselves against complaints.

We need only to look at page 5 of this same publication (Do the Right Thing on Sexual Harassment Prevention by Richard Stup, Ph.D., workforce development, Cornell University) to find exaggerations of the “problems” and sexual bias towards men in the application of this new law. Simply by choosing this title Stup is insinuating we have NOT been doing the right thing regarding sexual harassment. Following the politically correct liberal view of sexual harassment, male perpetrators and female victims, he goes on to give extreme anecdotal examples in support of his “men are bad” position.

Let’s look at these “real-life examples”, and offer some differing real world – real life examples NY MAN has encountered in 25 years of advocacy for men. First his examples given and then the real world examples in italics.

A young woman starting out in agribusiness is introduced to a client by the salesman she is replacing and the client states “she is much better looking than the last guy” and she felt demeaned as she was being judged by her looks and not her value. Upon being introduced to a client by the person she is replacing the client states she is “much better looking than the last guy”. She responds with “that’s not much of a compliment given the looks of that guy”. They all laugh and then get down to business. OR, A new saleswoman is uncomfortable when a client comments on her looks and she politely asks him not to in the future and he politely complies.

An American Male farm employee has a crush on a Mexican female farm employee and blocks her passage to get her attention. She stated she wasn’t interested but he persisted and she felt threatened. A female farm employee from Mexico develops a crush on an American male farm employee. She took to blocking his passage by bending over in front of him and would press against him when passing even though there was room to pass. His protestations drew criticism from the employer and fellow employees, telling him he was “lucky” to have the attention and they questioned his manliness and sexual orientation for declining her offers. OR, An American male farm employee rebuffed the advances of a Mexican female farm employee. To get even she field a complaint of sexual harassment against him alleging he brushed his body against hers while they were working. He was fired based upon her allegation alone.

A Farmers Daughter was subjected to extended looks and even a few whistles from farm employees as she did her chores. While trying to do their work farm employees were continually subjected to the farmers daughter who dressed inappropriately for farm work and suggestively sexually animated her actions in sight of the male employees making them all uncomfortable to the point they started to avoid her and vacate buildings when she entered. They feared reprisals or even being fired for pointing it out and so said nothing. OR, A farmer noted untoward advances towards his daughter, warned the offending employee to stop, then fired the one who didn’t comply.

Stup goes on to say women readers will recognize these scenarios and men need to take them more seriously. Thus he points to his sexist “women are victims – men are perpetrators” gynocentrically biased view of sexual harassment. In all the cases he presented Stup fails to see the real world perspective of men which includes both male and female victims and also false allegations by “victims” as well as perpetrators who deny their actions occurred. This one sided view of the issue can have negative consequences for small business owners.

By using vague descriptions to define sexual harassment and by defining sexual harassment ONLY by actions committed by men the system is training businesses to ignore both false allegations and also male victims of sexual harassment. Many men have successfully resorted to civil litigation for employer (or organization) non compliance with sexual harassment of male victims and the creation of hostile work environments. Those suffering false allegations have also successfully litigated the denial of due process and unlawful dismissal from employment. While these laws are mandated by government, it is the employer who suffers the litigation and financial penalties.

The vague definition of sexual harassment, acts which “are objectionable or offensive to the recipient” allows a person to find offense where none is intended. Simple innocent comments such as “you look good today” can be turned into an offense. The workplace is being turned into a hostile environment for men who fear that any comment will be taken with offense and negatively impact their job and career. Allegation, even if not resulting in dismissal, will stay on the employment history of individuals and worker camaraderie and team work suffer in a sterile work environment with employees avoiding human interaction.

An unintended consequence of ignoring false allegations and male victims is that men are excluding themselves from interactions with women when they can avoid them. By separating themselves from females men do not have to worry about an unintended action or comment being taken wrong. False allegations can be avoided by avoiding females in the work environment. Men are simply not working on joint ventures with female coworkers nor are they mentoring younger female workers due to the possible negative ramifications of the false allegation or misconstrued comment or action.

It’s not hard to see that a male small business owner would determine that not hiring women to work under him, or along side with male employees, will help to prevent them from having to defend against a hostile work environment complaint against them or the few male employees working under them. Given the possible negative outcomes a small business may just forego getting larger and hiring any employees due to the bureaucratic oversight that comes with it.

While well meaning these vaguely defined “violations” open to interpretation by both the “victim” and unelected government bureaucrats with mandated postings, reporting , and complaint investigations under threat of penalty by government is adding greatly to the expense of operating a business. Sexual biases toward males in both false reporting and in male victims has negative outcomes for both men and women. Indeed, it appears that the only party which benefits from these policies are the government bureaucrats and compliance advisors who increase the size of their agency under the guise of doing good.

Do we believe all male victims of female assault?

The great hypocrisy of “believe all women” who have been victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) or sexual assault is that we do NOT believe nary ANY MAN who is the victim of IPV or sexual assault perpetrated by a female. Certainly, if we are to skew due process to believe the victim then are not men entitled to the same equal protection? The focus on women alone shows the blatant sexual bias in this “believe” movement, a gynocentric focus on female victims only. It is a fact, if we “believe all women” we then inversely NEVER believe a man.

To believe all women is the slippery slope to the denial of due process in our justice system. Under the U.S. Constitution we stand innocent until proven guilty in stark contrast to blind acceptance of an allegation. Lady justice is the allegory passed down to us from Roman times representing the morality which should be in justice systems. She is shown with a scale designed to show that evidence of an offense is present, measured, and balanced. The blindfold is there to show impartiality in the application of the law. The sword is for swift justice for justice delayed is justice denied. If Lady Justice “believes all women” then she removes the blindfold, tips the scales, and strikes any man with the sword at the behest of any woman. She is then hardly an allegory for justice and equal protection under the law.

At what point do we believe all MALE victims also? Right now the system dismisses male victims. How many men’s domestic violence shelters are there? What government programs are available for male victims of IPV or sexual assault? Hotlines? The “Violence Against Women Act” by name and in practice excludes male victims. Indeed, to admit that one is a male victim of IPV or sexual assault is to subject oneself to ridicule starting with the police and continuing ridicule through the legal system. If lacking a voice and ignored what is a man to do to get justice?

In a world which believes all women the victimized male is undermined by the counter claim of the female. Instances of mutual aggression result in the male being prosecuted. Male victims of female violence are twice persecuted, once by the violence they endure and a second time by the institutional violence of a system which discounts their victimization. As they are doing now, men will push to be believed and receive equal treatment. Are we to then morph into a system which believes all “victims” with no measure of the evidence?

Our current system has gotten so gynocentrically focused that we argue about intrusions into protection for the falsely accused as if all false allegations are made by females and all falsely accused are males. While statistically it may lean in that direction, it is a simple fact of life that both men and women are capable of violence and sexual assault against the other sex, and both men and women lie and are capable of using the relational violence of the false allegation to trigger institutional violence, the prosecution based upon false allegation. While the institutions are now gynocentrically focused causing more false female allegations then male, we can expect men to push back and gain equality. Do we want the “equality” of a system which persecutes all falsely accused, both men and women?

The fact that an individual does NOT have to prove their innocence and the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt protects the innocent from the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, to protect the innocent there are many guilty parties who are not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence. This is the price we pay to ensure that no innocent person is prosecuted, for to be innocent and prosecuted is to be persecuted. Indeed, enough men are already falsely convicted for crimes they did not commit. Are we ready to persecute and incarcerate more men AND women as we undermine due process to “believe all victims”?

For those men and women not prosecuted for whatever reason are we then to resort to a system of public majority rule and social destruction of character? Two parties both claiming status as victim and perpetrator with high allegations and rhetoric replacing evidence? The loser being the one who can’t muster as many counter allegations nor sway the majority opinion to their side? What happens when both sides meet with their mobs with no process to contain them? Are we not then returning to tribal trial by combat?

Both males and females can be the victim of IPV or sexual assault. And both males and females can be the victim of false allegations and slanderous character assassination. Individual victims of violence and victims of false allegations who are not served by the criminal justice system need to be served by our civil and social systems without regard to their sex. The modern day social and media mob rule lynchings need to cease and we need to return to due process for all. Impartial balanced swift justice serves us all and anything else is anarchy and mob rule.

Are NY Republicans a friend to men, boys, fathers, or families?

Published 1-24-18 9on the old NY MAN site.

While Republicans in NYS certainly talk a good game of supporting men, fathers, and families the talk is just that, cheap talk. Now that we have 20 years of grass roots lobbying hindsight NY MAN can safely say that NY Republicans have achieved nothing for Men, Fathers, Boys, and Families. That’s not to say the Democrats have been any better, indeed it seems both are an unholy alliance of big intrusive government career politicians who, at best, work to continue the system which is breaking families apart as it provides monetary rewards for them and at worst villify all men as guilty to champion a cause. And “deadbeat” and “abusive” men are an easy mark, even if placed with a broad brush upon men who don’t resemble the stereotyping.

We can see this bias in the posting of New York’s Junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, once an upstate moderate Democrat who now holds the radical feminist “women are victims” party line as she maneuvers for a Presidential run in 2020. Also spouting the “Women’s Equality” agenda is current Governor, and also Democratic Presidential hopeful Andrew Cuomo. One would think the NY Republicans would follow the National Republican platform and oppose the policies of the Democrats, yet Republican State Senator Kathy Marchionne and other Republican Senators voted for “pay equity” legislation, this opposite their national party platform. And now we see Brian Kolb, Republican Assembly Minority Leader putting forth a “I support these women victims” DV report, this just in time for his run at the Governorship which he has announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for.

The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence has been properly debunked yet time, and time again, yet we see politicians doubling down on the myths as they pander to the “women’s vote”; Domestic Violence is perpetrated by men against women for “power and control”, women need protection from abusive men and an Order of Protection (OOP) will prevent violence, and that false allegations of Domestic Violence are few and far between (Debunked here). And once again we see doubling down on the debunked Duluth Model and blatant political pandering for votes by Brian Kolb in the NYS Assembly Republican Minority Report on Domestic Violence. This report ignores male victims, false allegations victims , and undermines Constitutional protections for the innocent (a link to “PASK, Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, non biased research is here).

Apparently NYS Republican’s have forgotten politics 101, and that is don’t alienate your base. Although NY MAN is non partisan, the left wing of the Democratic Party has moved left, and in the process many moderate Democrats switched to the Republican Party as it was more in line with pro family policies, this more so in upstate NY which until recently remained a Republic bastion. In fact it was the upstate and Long Island (Republican) control of the NYS Senate which balanced the overwhelming Democratic control of the NYS Assembly. The support for anti-male biased reports like this says to us male Republicans “I don’t support you” and one would certainly expect the same non support in return. (see “what party do I register in” at https://nymensactionnetwork.org/advocacy-get-active.shtml)

The balance between the two legislative houses meant that you needed a Democratic sponsor in the Assembly and a Republican Sponsor in the Senate with “same as” bills, and in fact the majority party in each house would not let the minority party to sign on as a supporter of one of their sponsored bills. This created a unique situation in that the minority members of either house were willing to put in “feel good” legislation, that is bills which they didn’t really support but did so to make a constituent happy, knowing it would never make it out of committee.

Brian Kolb is a sponsor of the Family Court Reform Act, a NY MAN supported bill of needed reform in NYS Matrimonial and Family Courts (which was carried by Republican Assemblyman Bob Prentis and before him Jay Dinga) and NY MAN was positioned to support his run for Governor, until the anti male DV minority report came out. Given his pandering for the women’s vote it appears his support of Fathers and Families and family court reform was nothing more than a feel good bill going no where to curry votes among men in his drive up the “NYS political ladder”? As such, unless and until retracted, NY MAN urges men, fathers, and families to NOT support Brian Kolb in his run for nomination to Governor on the Republican line or general election. (note on 8-01-18 Kolb has dropped form the race and Molinaro is the Republican Candidate, with no platform for fathers and families).

There is often discussion about which party will best represent the interests of men, boys, fathers, and families and unfortunately the answer is neither. The Democrats have moved to garner the women’s vote and to this end often follow the radical feminist agenda that men are bad and women victimized. But the Republican’s often treat men and boys at worst as “deadbeats” who shirk their responsibilities to society. Fortunately, both parties do have supporters of men, boys, fathers, and families in their ranks and it behooves us to work within both parties, and within ALL parties, to foster equality of opportunity and free choices in the pursuit of happiness for all individuals. What we don’t need is a politician of either party who panders to get our votes, only to switch positions for political expediency to further their own career later on.

What of men’s EQUAL right to reproductive choice

Published 2-26-17 on the old NY MAN site.

Before we jump into the morality and start to discuss the “right” of a woman to get an abortion let’s accept the fact that it is now the law of the land. Let’s add the other “reproductive rights” of women to the discussion also. She has the right of abstinence, to use birth control of her choosing prior to sex, the “morning after” pill the next day, the right to carry a pregnancy to term, the right to abandon the baby in a “safe” location without question, the right to place it for adoption, and no obligation to inform the father of any of her decisions.

And of men’s reproductive rights? Abstinence, condoms, and trust in your partner to be telling the truth about her reproductive status. As the NYS Court of Appeals has ruled, “a man has no right to reproduction post ejaculation”. This unequal application of rights and responsibilities of many is codified in judicial opinion. This is evidenced in multiple court decisions which held men FINANCIALLYresponsible for children even where the female sabotaged the condom by putting pin holes in it, “stole” his sperm from a discarded condom or other means, and even when it is taken by means of rape such as a recent case shows us, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/. Men who claim they do not want the child of an unintended pregnancy are held responsible anyway, indeed, are even labelled ‘deadbeats” for not “standing up” and accepting paternity.

Recently a bill in the OK legislature has brought the issue of equal rights in reproductive choices to the forefront as the bill would require the approval of the father before a woman is allowed an abortion. There was an immediate backlash from the left leaning women’s groups, the shout of “my body, my choice” resonating with posts spread all over social media to awake “women” to fight this “injustice”(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/0214/Oklahoma-lawmakers-debate-bill-requiring-men-s-permission-for-abortion-video?cmpid=FB.).

I felt compelled to post on the CSM Article an opposing view in the form of a question: Domen have no reproductive rights? We seem to be able to find a father when she wants child support. So if a man says he doesn’t want to pay for a child of an unwanted pregnancy he is a “deadbeat” but if a women wants to abort that child she is exercising her rights? A woman who has a child against a mans wishes is again exercising her rights, but a man who would ask that the pregnancy give him the child he wants he is then “forcing” her? So we’ll just give all reproductive rights to women and disregard that their choices affect the father, the child, and society at large? And can we say anything about responsibility for these “unwanted” pregnancies when women have so many means of birth control at their disposal?

In addition to the “my body, my choice” and the “women carry the baby” what also followed was a host of “men be responsible” comments, the “HE got HER pregnant” perspective which, ironically, failed to see the irresponsibility of women who find themselves in need of an abortion. The argument was framed around “her rights” and “his responsibilities” and when pressed both sides of the argument dismissed a man’s reproductive rights as ending at ejaculation, where his responsibility begins for her choice.

Not a single person seems to want to address the issue of how can we say men and women have equal rights when we deny men rights which woman have. Lost also in the discussion is RESPONSIBILITYfor the decisions. For we see a woman can give away her financial responsibility by giving the child up for adoption or even dropping it off anonymously. A man suffering an unintended pregnancy is forced to pay for her decision. Her choice is his being forced to 21 years of income execution, the sacrificing of his body at work without compensation. A poor woman witt a child gets welfare, a poor man with a child gets a garnished.

Perhaps the worst part of the denial of men’s reproductive rights is the fact that most men don’t walk away from the responsibility of her choice. Most are like Nick Olivas, our rape victim. At 14 he was statutorily raped by a 20 year old. Fast forward 6 years and Olivas learns he has a 6 year old child as he is served with child support papers demanding payments from the time of the child’s birth, even though he was not old enough to consent and was never informed of the existence of the child and allowed to decide to be a part of the child’s life.

Now, at 24 Olivas is trying to be a part of his child’s life stating, “I can’t leave her out there. She deserves a Dad”. Here he’s finding out that the state isn’t concerned with a fathers emotional support and raising his children for they consider the financial support as separate from access. And as he is sure to find out, there are a multitude of means to collect, even incarceration into a debtor prison if he can’t pay. But there are no avenues to help him with, much less guarantee, his time and emotional support for his child.

And what of a child’s rights? Is there no right to both parents? In going after Olivas for financial support the state says they are “doing it for the child”. Really? So why didn’t the state demand to know the father up front? Isn’t a child the product of both parents and doesn’t a child have a right to know both sides of their family tree and both heritages? Can someone from the state explain how it was in the child’s interest to be denied her father, his love and support, for 6 years, and then to collect retro dollars on her behalf? I’m waiting for that response? Why is a fathers dollars more important than his love and nurture?

In arguing for his legislation, Rep. Justin Humphrey stated he believes excluding the man out of these decisions is adding to the break down of society. Once again a man’s rights and a child’s rights are lost in the discussion and the requirement for the mother to notify the doctor of the child’s father was more to make him responsible than to protect his rights. His bill did do one thing, it exempted rape from the notification requirement, something we do not do for boys who are raped.

The bill was described as being opposed by “reproductive rights advocates” on unconstitutional grounds. The regional director of planned parenthood stated that “Oklahoma should trust women to make the choices that are best for them”. I suspect the choices are made easier when others bear the responsibility for your choices but have no choice themselves. The article should clarify that the advocates are for a woman’s reproductive choices without regard for the father, child, or society.

But as I read the U.S. Constitution I see it guarantees God given rights to every individual equally. And so I close with the question, What of men’s EQUAL right to reproductive choice?

Men in the Middle

First published 2-19-17 (on the old NY MAN web site)

The bulk of us in the middle of the bell curve of male perspectives and issues regarding family are being shouted down by the din from the echo chambers on the right and left. A polarized media spin which ignores the voices and opinions of men. Regardless of liberal or conservative it is a cacophony of moral busybodies advocating for the “rights” of women while holding men responsible to pay for the choices made by others. And unfortunately our perceptions and policies on men, father, boys, and families, are derived from the loud extreme ends and not from the needs, wants, and desires of men and boys in middle America as expressed by them.

Years back (2004) we at the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY.org) complained to the Albany (NY) Times Union about sexual bias in reporting with them having more woman’s perspectives than men’s. Of course they denied it. So we did a content analysis over a 30 day period where we cut over 60 articles about women’s issues with none of them negative and 5 articles about men, 3 negative. We met with the editorial board, they again denied being biased and we then plunked the paper articles on the table in front of them in 2 piles. The long pregnant pause set over the room. This, we said, shows great sexual bias in reporting against men, a regurgitation of the NY Times bias against men.

“We don’t see it that way” said the mostly male editorial board, flat-out denial of the evidence before them. Perhaps our response to their continued head in the sand denial of bias was a little extreme when we gave them the “Pretty Pig Award” for 2004 as “You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want but at the end of the day it’s still a … pig”. We even offered to provide little votive boxes with pink ribbons to the male editors so they could carry their testicles around with them and put them safely away while at work. It doesn’t hurt to burn a bridge that they won’t let you cross anyway.

One would have hoped over the next 10 plus years that social media and competing news outlets would have made things better, but it hasn’t. At best it is the same, perhaps even worse with truth second to belief. This past year I found the same NY Times regurgitation of anti male bias in the Schenectady (NY) Gazette online edition. I complained to the editorial board that they had more NY Times content than local news, mostly anti-male. I posted this opinion on their web-based comments section for each anti male article but when I didn’t even receive a form response to any of my inquiries I cancelled my subscription.

Over the past few days Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/07/better-sex-better-health-more-money-what-men-really-get-out-marriage.html#) Science Daily (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170207135943.htm#.WJ9qHLLgizs.facebook), and National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444746/marriage-benefits-men-financial-health-sex-divorce-caveat?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=wolfinger) have had pieces advising men to get married for their own good. This on the heels of a podcast by Prager University which resulted in an outpouring of negative “what planet are you on” responses by men. All the articles are based on one recent study by a pro marriage sociologist that marriage is good for men resulting in “more sex, better health, and more money”. Don’t be a selfish oaf going your own way they advise as there is obviously something wrong with men. We see the echo regurgitation in multiple outlets of the “marriage” party line, even in the face of push back from men who point out the 50% divorce rate, the vast majority filed by women, which results in the destruction of many men.

This on top of a January NY Post hit piece on men, “How to make deadbeat dads do more to help out” (http://nypost.com/2016/12/21/how-to-make-deadbeat-dads-do-more-to-help-out/). Even though the myth of the deadbeat dad was busted back in 1995 finding that the majority of men were beat dead, dead broke, and disenfranchised, they hold to the “deadbeat” label. Recent studies have shown that the bulk of unpaid child support is due to poverty on the part of men. Ironically the focus of the article is NOT how to get poor men out of poverty for their health and well-being, it is to try to get them to pay into federal coffers to reimburse for welfare and entitlement payments given to women. In this day and age of “gender” equality one does wonder why we don’t hold mothers accountable for financially providing for their children and have developed a social safety net for women and children only.

In 1975 we had a divorce rate in single digits as was the rate of homes with children absent a father. The echo chambers of right and left have pushed policies which caused a divorce rate of 50% and 40% of children living in homes absent a father. Contrary to the din which would lay the blame on men and fathers as “abusive deadbeats who forego marriage” the result is from the negative consequences for men. Over two-thirds of divorces are unilaterally filed by women against men, men lose custody of their children over 85% of the time, and they are then forced to pay for the children they aren’t allowed to raise. There are no family violence programs for male victims of family violence nor are there any financial social safety nets for men.

I have been a men, boy, father, and family activist now for over 20 years with organizations like FaFNY (http://www.fafny.org/), the National Coalition For Men (http://ncfm.org/), NY Men’s Action Network (http://www.nymensactionnetwork.org/), and Friends for the Protection of Men (https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectionformen/). Maybe it’s time you stopped telling us how to be men, fathers and families. Maybe it’s time you stopped turning a blind eye to our problems. And maybe it’s time you stopped turning a deaf ear to our issues. You could learn more with your mouth closed and your ears open. That is my “Dad” advice, direct to you from my father.