Millions of boys are deprived of their freedom

This article is a copy on one on the Human Rights And Wrongs blog, where it was published in November 2019. The original has further references and slightly more information.

  • Seven million boys are deprived of their freedom worldwide according to a United Nations report.
  • Boys are also disadvantaged in areas of armed conflict.
  • United Nations Secretary-General (the top boss) calls upon all nations to address the root causes of deprivation of liberty of children, reduce inequalities and support families to empower them for good child-rearing.
  • Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is commended to nations, to empower children to actively participate in all matters directly affecting their lives, and to influence decisions relating to their treatment.
  • Family is identified as a key necessity for the well-being of children.

Deprivation of liberty

Causes and effects

The latest report from the United Nations (UN) on children and liberty reveals that children lose their liberty in prisons; in police custody; in migrant camps; under duress in homes for the disabled; in welfare institutions; and in war camps. Children may be in prison as a result of their own crime or to stay with their mother. Almost no father-child facilities exist in the world’s prisons.

The authors warn against the consequences of deprivation of liberty: the number of mental illnesses in children can increase tenfold in custody. In addition, those affected die on average much earlier than peers who have lived in freedom.

The lead researcher says that “children under all circumstances have to be protected from the traumatic experiences detention settings inevitably create.”

According to professor and human rights lawyer Manfred Nowak, more needs to happen so that children no longer have to live in bondage. The authors of the report refer to the various forms of deprivation of liberty as “structural violence.”

Where there is political will and determination, a report by United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) concludes, children’s lives and well-being will improve.

Numbers and sex

The UN Secretary-General’s report to the General Assembly stated that data collected for the study and well-grounded scientific approximations indicate that, altogether, a minimum of between 1.3 and 1.5 million children are deprived of liberty per year.

The figures of 1.5 million children deprived of liberty is thought most likely a substantial under-count. Already, media reports of just how many children are not at liberty varies hugely, all claiming to be based on the report. Numbers from 400,000 to 18,000,000 worldwide are reported in the media.

Because of uneven data collection and reporting, the 1.5 million figure is likely to be an underestimation of the true number of children deprived of liberty each year.

The Globe Post

The ‘Message from the independent expert’ in the report to the General Assembly states “More than seven million children worldwide are in fact deprived of liberty per year” and calls this a conservative estimate.

The authors of the report, in a German-language interview in Geneva, reiterated that seven million children without liberty is a minimum and that the number of unreported cases could be even higher. Almost all of them are boys.

The study findings are clear on this point: boys are especially affected. Fifteen times more boys than girls are in bondage worldwide.

Two reports

Global study on children deprived of liberty

The Nowark report (aka the GSCDL study) was initiated by UN General Assembly resolution 69/157 adopted in December 2014. The Secretary-General was to commission an in-depth study on children deprived of liberty.

In October 2016, law professor and human rights lawyer Professor Manfred Nowak, from Austria, was appointed as Independent Expert leading the study, which is the first scientific attempt, on the basis of global data, to comprehend the magnitude of the situation of children deprived of liberty, its possible justifications and root causes, as well as conditions of detention and their harmful impact on the health and development of children.

An examination was made of the situation of children — anyone under age 18 — detained in the administration of justice, in immigration detention, in orphanages and other institutions, living in prison with their caregivers, and detained in the context of armed conflict and national security.

reliefweb reported in October 2019, based on interim releases of information:

Nowak found some areas of progress, including a reduction in some countries in the number of children in institutional care or detained in the criminal justice system. At least 21 governments said that they do not detain children for migration-related purposes. Some countries have adopted formal protocols to avoid detaining children in the context of armed conflict. The nongovernmental groups urged all countries to examine and adapt the good practices documented in the study.

reliefweb October 2019

The report of the study was presented in November 2019, as part of General Assembly resolution 72/245 and is available online here.

Nowak’s findings are based on 12 regional and thematic consultations, questionnaires requesting data from every UN member state, comprehensive reviews of literature on the subject, and additional research by expert groups.

The Nowak study builds on two earlier United Nations global studies, the impact of armed conflict on children, prepared by Graça Machel (A/51/306), and on violence against children, prepared by Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro (A/61/299). The Pinheiro study showed that the risk of physical, sexual and psychological violence is greatest when children are deprived of liberty.

The data collected for the study indicate significant gender disparities in the situation of children deprived of liberty. Altogether, there are far more boys deprived of liberty worldwide than girls. In the administration of justice and in the contexts of armed conflicts and national security, 94 per cent of all detained children are boys.

UN Secretary-General

The Nowak study did not include cases of liberty restriction within the family, nor by criminals activities, such as trafficking. The sale of children was only covered when it occurred in the context of matters such as forced marriages and compulsory child soldiers.

The 789-page study has a number of cross-cutting chapters, focusing on child participation, disability, gender and health. However, although there was representation from the UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice (WGDAW) there is no such body to represent either discrimination against men in law and in practice, or even specifically discrimination against children in law and in practice.

A recent human rights conference held by the UN in Geneva to mark 30 years of the Convention on the Rights of the Child asked the question “Children’s rights and women’s rights: tensions or synergies?” It is reasonable to ask why women are getting so much special treatment when millions of children are suffering.

Jo Becker, Children’s Rights Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch and Alex Kamarotos, Executive Director of Defence for Children International co-chaired the large panel of non-government organisations (NGOs) that undertook the research.

The Global Study Research Endeavour on a Map (from page 31)

The Convention on the Rights of the Child at a crossroads

Also from then UN and released in November, by UNICEF, is a report with the tagline “for every child, every right”, published on 18 November 2019, along with a press release.

The UNICEF report reveals historic gains overall for the world’s children since the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted 30 years ago. But it also highlights areas to concentrate on for further improvement.

This report does not consider any of the Nowak study’s findings — there just hasn’t been time enough. Nevertheless, it has some points of conjunction with the Nowak report and is referenced in this article.

UNICEF General Manager Henrietta Fore said that in addition to ongoing health , nutrition and education challenges , children today face new threats such as climate change , online abuse and cyber-bullying.

The UNICEF report is more like the usual feed from the feminist organisation. “Gender norms” appears five times, “girls’ empowerment” three times, and “boys’ empowerment” not at all. “Girls” appears over three times more often than “boys” even though the document covers infant mortality, medical care, and poverty: all areas which disproportionately affect boys.


Over 330,000 children in 77 countries are held in immigration detention each year. An estimated 5.4 million minors have to live in shelters around the world, giving them no freedom.

UN experts have concluded that detention of children for migration-related reasons can never be in the best interests of a child, and holding them for a long period is against several treaties. Nevertheless, a third of a million kids are kicking their heels in such places, some for extended periods of time, without education or any other stimulation.

However, the problem can’t be solved just by putting them out on the streets. The French advocacy group Ligue des droits de l’Homme (League for the rights of man) (LDH) issued a communiqué from the General States of Migration on 19 November 2019:

[We] are witnessing daily, throughout the country, institutional violence against foreign minors who are left on the street, abandoned to themselves, deprived of their fundamental rights (housing, health, schooling).

Ligue des droits de l’Homme

LDH called on the French authorities to act without delay so that no isolated foreign minor remains on the street. They call for more from the public, as well, wanting “broad mobilization of citizens in all regions of France” to make sure that “the care of isolated minors who find themselves on the street” and families waiting to regularise their administrative situation with schoolchildren were given their fundamental rights by the public authorities.

Although UNWomen has announced the proportion of males in migration detention camps to be lower than that of women, the global study on children deprived of liberty concludes that two-thirds of the children in migrant detention are boys.

Judicial bias against males

It is well known that men get much worse treatment throughout the judicial system than women. What has not been publicised so well until now is that this anti-male bias extends to boys, too.

The study found 410,000 children are held in jails or prisons, 330,000 in immigration detention, and between 430,000 and 680,000 in institutions that meet the legal definition of deprivation of liberty. The study also found children with disabilities to be overrepresented in detention.

The Globe Post

Criminality of children

94 percent of minors in bondage worldwide are male

United Nations

Over 120 States maintain the minimum age of criminal responsibility at below age 14.

Children are often detained illegally, unnecessarily, and at great cost to their health and future.

The Global Study should prompt every country to adopt new policies and practices to dramatically decrease the number of children who are locked up.

Alex Kamarotos, director of Defence for Children International and co-chair of the NGO Panel for the Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty

The 410,000 children held every year in jails and prisons are in an environment where violence is “endemic.” Many are charged with “status offenses” that are not criminal offences for adults, including truancy, disobedience, and underage drinking.

According to the summary report, “tough-on-crime” policies, including the criminalisation of status offences, drug offences, petty crimes and low minimum ages of criminal responsibility, as well as widespread discrimination and corruption, contribute to a large number of children being deprived of liberty.

Many nations are likely to find this acceptable. Yet these are children: by definition people not entirely responsible for their behaviour. Prison is not likely to improve bad socialisation. Families, and good fathers, will.

Compared with the overall crime rate for children, the data gathered for the study show a tendency of the child justice system to be more inclined to apply diversion measures to girls than boys. While approximately one third of all criminal offences worldwide committed by children are attributed to girls, only 6 per cent receive a prison sentence. There may be various reasons for this phenomenon. Most importantly, girls usually commit less violent offences and are more often accused of status offences. Girls are generally first-time offenders and more receptive to the deterrent effect of incarceration. Another explanation is the chivalrous and paternalistic” attitude of many male judges and prosecutors in the child justice systems, who assume, according to traditional gender stereotypes, that girls are more in need of protection than boys.

UN Secretary-General

It may be that prison is very rarely the right place for a child, though there can be little doubt that there are children who need to be restrained for society’s sake. Putting male children in prison is likely to cause even more psychological harm to them than the few girls in prison, given boys’ typical need for physical exertion, free expression and thorough socialisation. If ‘toxic masculinity’ exists at all, it could well be created in child prisons, just as it is in the sexual depredation upon boys by older women.

Detention is fundamentally harmful to children, yet many countries use it as their first response to difficult circumstances, rather than the last… Governments should invest in alternatives that not only protect children’s rights but produce much better outcomes for children, families, and society overall.

Jo Becker, child rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch

Deprivation of liberty means deprivation of rights, agency, visibility, opportunities and love. Depriving children of liberty is depriving them of their childhood.

End Child Detention Now

“Children globally are locked up in prisons, immigration detention centres, care institutions, drug treatment centres and mental health facilities. The #GSCDL report calls out the deprivation of children’s liberty as a rights violation.”

Child Rights International Network (@CRINwire) October 8, 2019

The General-Secretary says the estimated 160,000–250,000 children in remand centres and prisons worldwide was partly put down to “lack of support for family environments” and “discrimination”. He pointed out that of all the factors that contribute to a child being in detention “boys, are largely overrepresented in detention and throughout judicial proceedings”.

Deprivation of liberty constitutes a form of structural violence against children
In view of the latter observation, and the overwhelming preponderance of boys in custody, can one not reasonably conclude that here we have an instance of gendered structural violence – against boys? And yet you will find no mention of this in the Istanbul Convention.

Almost all you need to know is the title of one of the report’s sub-sections,
Penal System is the Most Gendered Institution in Society

William Collins, The Illustrated Empathy Gap
Boys are treated progressively worse throughout child justice systems.

While many Western nations have power-blocs, often publicly-funded, who lobby and press for there to be no women in prisons, the United Nations is now calling for states to concentrate on children. “States are urged to develop national action plans aimed at an overall reduction in the numbers of children in detention and/or the elimination of detention for children.”

Criminality of parent

Since the 1970s there has been a notable lack of concern for the connection between children and their father. This has been identified for decades as a source not only of despair and unhappiness but also of social disruption and unrest. It is good to see some words from the world’s top governing man on this topic, even — or especially — as head of a feminist organisation.

Although most States allow convicted mothers to co-reside with their young children in prison, only eight States explicitly permit fathers to do so. Even in places where fathers as primary caregivers are allowed to co-reside with their children, there are (almost) no appropriate “father and child units” in the prisons, which means that there are practically no children co-residing in prison with their fathers.

UN Secretary-General

Despite pointing out the poor situation for fathers and boys, the summary report deflected away from this dire situation for males, asserting without any figures to back it up that “girls often suffer gender-based discrimination”. Cited among these were being criminalised in countries where prostitution is illegal, even though all countries which do so also criminalise male prostitutes and treats them even more harshly. “Gender based” discrimination doesn’t often work against girls: it works for them.

The overall numbers of children locked up with a criminal parent (almost always the mother, due to lack of facilities for fathers) is relatively low: around 19,000 globally. The numbers of boys spending time in jail with their mother is similar to the number of girls doing so.

It is recognised that both the exposure of the child to detention and the separation of a child from a primary caregiver have adverse consequences. There is no easy answer, although supporting both parents, including the father not in jail, would resolve some issues.

While between 430,000 and 680,000 children have been placed by judicial authorities in institutions that meet the legal definition of deprivation of liberty, the total number of children in institutions is estimated at 3.5 to 5.5 million;
Children with disabilities are significantly over-represented in detention in the context of administration of justice and institutions…


In detention, girls are particularly vulnerable to sexual and other forms of violence. It is known that all-female environments tend to be more violent than all-male environments, so prison is not likely to help girls grow up secure and confident.

Imprisoning children violates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This only allows minors to be interned for a short time and only as a last option.

Child marriages

Child marriage, which has decreased globally, is commonly defined as a formal marriage or informal union before age 18. UNICEF say that girls are six times more likely to be married before age 18 than boys.

There is a section of the UNICEF report on the percentage of women aged 20 to 24 years who were first married or in union before age 18 but no examination of the number of men who were in similar situations, even though it is widely accepted that males mature later, so marrying when young is even worse for them.


According to some viewpoints, anything compulsory is, by definition, a limitation on freedom. If so, making children attend school is a restriction on their liberty.

In fact, children today are far more deprived of liberty than they were when I was a child more than 60 years ago, or when my parents were children 90 years ago.  And children are suffering because of that deprivation….

Many changes in society over the decades have had the effect of reducing children’s freedom, but the main ones fall in two categories.
The first category has to do with schooling.
It’s obvious that compulsory schooling (which literally means forced schooling) is an assault on children’s liberty.  Children are required to go to school, and in school, they are not free.  In fact, children are more deprived of their liberty in school than adult criminals are in prison.  They are told exactly where they must be and what they must do almost every moment; freedom of speech and assembly are banished; they have no say in the rules they must follow; and when they are accused of violating a rule there is no due process in determining guilt or innocence or what their punishment will be. School has always been like this, but it is worse today than in times past because there is more of it and it is even more rigidly administered and restrictive than in the past.

Peter Gray Ph.D.
Psychology Today

Gray gives some examples of the ways things have changed. He also refutes that having a job is the same as going to school. “Adults are not forced by law to work at a particular job,” he says, “and adults are always free to quit.”

Quite reasonably, Gray discusses the conflict between children’s need for care and their need for liberty. Morally, the balance is a fine one in a world in which the rights of people can be so driven as to look more like a wrong.

When it comes down to it, even the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child exposes this conflict. For example, when Article 37 requires that “No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily” it can seem that we should not be forcing children even into school. But then Article 28 states that signatories “recognise the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right, they shall make primary education compulsory and available free to all.” So it seems that, arguably, limiting a child’s liberty for the sake of their education is not only allowable but required.

Gordon Brown, a former British Prime Minister and UN Special Envoy for Global Education, rightly pointed out a harsh reality: there are also millions of children who, ironically, have no schools to walk out from. The figures are staggering: there are 260 million who don’t go to schools, mostly because there are none, while the education of an estimated 75 million children and youth have been disrupted by humanitarian crises.

Education Cannot Wait (ECW), is a global, multi-lateral fund dedicated to education in emergencies. Launched in 2016, and hosted by the UN children’s agency UNICEF, ECW has invested in 32 countries. Top donators are Canada, UK, Germany and Denmark.

The more exposed [children] are, the more insecurity that envelopes them, the more deprivation and injustice they suffer, the stronger is our incentive and responsibility to ensure they can claim their right to quality education. Yes, access is very difficult during an active armed conflict. Yet, we must together with partners find solutions to overcome the challenges and obstacles. The ultimate solution is of course a political one: peace.

Yasmine Sherif, Executive Director, ECW

In general, the world has been becoming better educated and while the gap between rich and poor remains, there are fewer poor. Statistically, matters have been improving ever since communism stopped being a dominant part of much of the world. The gap between the sexes has narrowed, though the narrowing effect is slowing, partly because of sex-selection in some of the poorer regions of the world.

Since 1989, the global population has increased from 5.2 billion to 7.7 billion (148%) yet the number of children with no education has fallen significantly.

The number of primary school age children out of school 1989 to 2018.

Armed conflict

The number of children detained in armed conflict has risen over recent years to at least 35,000.

Overall, an estimated 75 million children and youth have been disrupted by humanitarian crises including war. These crises disrupt services, displace people, separate families, and discourage social investment. It can make counting how many children have their liberty deprived very difficult.

According to UNICEF, the number of verified serious violations against children in conflict has nearly tripled since 2010. Children younger than age 5 in countries experiencing protracted conflict are 20 times more likely to die from causes linked to unsafe water and sanitation than from direct violence.

Children detained in the context of armed conflict often find themselves in a cycle of violence. First, armed groups illegally recruit them, usually through force, coercion or deception. Second, government authorities then detain them for suspected association with those very groups, often subjecting them to ill-treatment, which can make them susceptible to re-recruitment.

The Independent Expert on the Central African Republic previously asked for specific attention on the situation of young people, who are particularly vulnerable to extremist discourses used by armed groups as new recruits. In some provinces of the country, programmes for reintegrating children and reducing their violence are working well.

Authorities often subject detained children to ill-treatment. This includes torture, most often for military intelligence.

The majority of children deprived of liberty in the context of armed conflict see their procedural rights violated, sometimes in contravention of explicit protocols mandating the handover of children associated with armed forces or groups to civilian authorities for rehabilitation.

Summary Report to the Nowak Study

International law prohibits the use of children in direct hostilities, and any recruitment of children by non-State armed groups. States parties are meant to help such children with appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration. Yet in at least 16 countries where conflict pertains, governments or armed groups detain children.

It’s easy for legislators and bureaucrats to draw up protocols making such demands. But few people will stop to consider even global protocols when their country, their life, and their culture is on the line. Only the powerful can afford to be magnanimous. The underdog must fight with all the tricks he can, including breaking some human rights to ensure others.

In July 2019, Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed concern about the detention of the families of foreign suspected ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq. An estimated 29,000 children – mostly under 12 years of age – are being detained. It is not clear how many of this estimate are child soldiers.

In 2000, more than a decade after the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations General Assembly adopted an Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Most Member States are parties to this Optional Protocol, which entered into force in 2002. It requires signatories to “take all feasible measures” to ensure that members of their armed forces under the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities. It further bans compulsory recruitment of children. States parties must also take legal measures to prohibit independent armed groups from recruiting and using children in conflicts.

The number of children detained in the context of armed conflict and national security has increased sharply, driven by aggressive counter-terrorism measures that include detention and prosecution of children for online activity, including posts to Facebook and Twitter.


In 2018, at least 1,500 children were detained in the context of national security in countries without conflicts on their territories.

Lack of freedom for boys around the world

Professor Nowak states in the report that “It remains an undeniable fact that children deprived of liberty are invisible to the large majority of society and their fate constitutes the most overlooked violation of the Convention [on the Rights of the Child].”

Map showing where children have no childhood

Worldwide survey of “Save the Children”

Where children have no childhood
From the German paper de Spiegel.

Call for action

During 2020, UNICEF plans to undertake a global dialogue on what it will take to make the promise of the Convention on the Rights of the Child a reality for every child. They intend a wide discourse to include children and young people, communities, civil society, the private sector and the media. This dialogue will affect how UNICEF behaves in the future.

The Secretary-General, or Professor Nowak, calls for action by states. Among the action points are:

  • States should enhance the capacity, by means of investing in human resources, awareness-raising and systematic education and training, of all professionals who work with and for children in decisions leading to their deprivation of liberty, and those who are responsible for their well-being while in detention.
  • States are strongly encouraged to establish an appropriate system of data collection at the national level, involving all relevant ministries and other State agencies, coordinated by a focal point.
  • States should prioritise restorative justice, diversion from judicial proceedings and non-custodial solutions.
  • States should target the causes of the separation of children from their families and provide the necessary preventive measures through support for families and strengthened child protection and social support systems. States should invest in a well-planned, trained and supported social service workforce, as well as integrated case management systems.
  • States should adopt and implement standard operating procedures for the immediate and direct handover of children from military custody to appropriate child protection agencies.
  • States are encouraged to establish focal points who regularly collect reliable data on all situations of children deprived of liberty per year and on a “snapshot” date.

And in stronger terms:

  • States shall ensure that children being placed in hospitals, psychiatric facilities and rehabilitation centres, including for substance abuse, be properly counted and included in systemic transformation and deinstitutionalisation efforts.
  • States shall make every effort to place children in the wider family, and failing that, in the community in a family-type environment.

If 94% of imprisoned children were female, that would be a huge gender issue and proof of the oppression of women. So, we have to ask:
which sex is it that is being oppressed?

The United Nations promised “to leave no-one behind” by 2020. Of course, they were thinking of women at the time but that’s no excuse to leave millions of unprotected boys behind. Or a hundred thousand girls.

Human rights organisations around the world can help to improve the situation for the millions of boys: at least some of who will be in every nation.

The NGO Panel for the Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty coordinates civil society efforts in the implementation of the Study.

Document download

Men Webs has prepared sections of the documentation to download, so that you can get to just the bit you want. They won’t keep them hosted forever, however, and if you want the official source of the 789-page Nowak report “The United Nations global study on children deprived of liberty” get it online here. There are no chapter bookmarks in this version.

UN Global study on children deprived of liberty (Nowak report)

The UN Secretary-General’s 23-page summary report for the General Assembly is archived here.

The first document contains the full version of the report, with bookmarks added so that most PDF readers make it easier to find the content you want. The rest of the files are broken up sections of the report. Sizes are approximate.

Full Nowak report

Full report with bookmarks added 14.8 MB (14800 KB)

Preface parts

Prefaces 2400 KB

Abbreviations and Acronyms (part of Prefaces) 78 KB

Table of Contents (part of Prefaces) 61 KB

Background to the global study on children deprived of liberty

Chapters 1, 2 and 3 together 590 KB

Contextualising children’s deprivation of liberty

Chapter 4 Rights 833 KB

Chapter 5 Views 785 KB

Chapter 6 Health (see also Appendix II) 690 KB

Chapter 7 Disabilities 944 KB

Chapter 8 Gender (meaning ‘sex’) 452 KB

Children in various situations of deprivation of liberty

Chapter 9 Justice systems 1700 KB

Chapter 10 Prisons 1100 KB

Chapter 11 Migrants 1100 KB

Chapter 12 Institutions 1600 KB

Chapter 13 Armed Conflicts 1000 KB

Chapter 14 National Security 1200 KB

Appendices and Bibliography

Annex I, II, III and Bibliography, together 696 KB

(There is no index.)

Other documentation

The UNICEF report “The Convention on the Rights of the Child at a Crossroads” (PDF, 74 pages, 9.9 MB) may be downloaded from the UN or read online here.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is available in PDF from the UN.

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

COVID-19 – sensible precautions, or hysterical panic to limit human rights?

The mainstream news is completely hysterical, writes Godders.

Yes, there is an overwhelming case for immuno-suppressed persons to self-isolate, especially if such persons have certain co-morbidities. Unsurprisingly, this self-isolating group will also include frail pensioners. All persons in this vulnerable cohort, who ought to self-isolate for the preservation of health, already know that self-isolation is required. 
However, for everyone else in the population, i.e. for 85% of the population, the worst symptoms that the virus is likely to cause will correspond to a mild case of pneumonia. Thus: a lot of coughing; a mild fever; and the necessity of sleeping propped up for a week (in order to aid breathing at night). Arguably, this is only a few degrees worse than the seasonal ailments that afflict many of us each winter.

Requiring what seems to be nearly everyone to self-isolate means that a virus that ought to have swept through the nation in a 6-week maelstrom is instead going to drag on for 6 months – or possibly longer. This acute health crisis is being recklessly spun out in order to yield a real crisis in economic activity.

The economic effect of shutting down all public-facing activity will be extreme, particularly in countries which rely heavily on a service-sector economy such as Britain. Most people in the gig economy are facing economic ruin. Most smaller retail & customer-facing businesses will be wiped out. There has never been an economic slow down of the magnitude of the coming shut down. Not even in the great depression of the 1930’s.

In terms of our liberty and our freedom as independent actors, all of us will be diminished.


The only person who will be relatively unaffected in the UK is the public sector worker, who is paid regardless of his actual output.

When all is done and dusted, many individuals and businesses will be in crippling debt. So much debt that there will be gnashing of teeth and crying out to the heavens for amelioration. I wonder, who might be ready to step in with public assistance? Who might be standing by to provide emergency remedy & bailout? Why, big government of course! Yes, big government will come to the rescue and, in the immediate aftermath, big government will be praised. However, since nothing is given for free, this bailout will extract a heavy toll. In terms of our liberty and our freedom as independent actors, all of us will be diminished. The state will control yet more of our lives and ancient and documented liberties will have been eroded yet further.

If I am wrong, then someone please explain the current hype, the current hysteria and the current hullabaloo, which is now out of all proportion to the current threat. In reality, self-isolation ought to be indicated for the vulnerable cohort only. Fit persons are in a position to catch the virus and fight it off, thereby raising herd immunity. After a 6-week maelstrom of infection, there would be sufficient herd immunity such that the rate of new infection would decline precipitously. There is no indication for a complete shut down of economic activity.

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Godders’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

big brother, health

The future breakdown of the Indian family

This is the substantive part of a speech at the National Men’s Rights Conclave, New Delhi, on 23 February 2020, by British politician Mike Buchanan.
Headings and links have been added. Some introductory content is omitted.

Today I’ll be talking about a number of topics, but all will relate to the possible destruction of the Indian family. I’ll be comparing divorce in India and the UK, asking if feminists have any legitimacy to represent women, explaining the feminist assault on the family, asking who benefits from feminism, explaining why governments, corporations and international bodies such as the United Nations and the World Bank work to destroy families, family breakdown as a cause of male suicide, women’s false allegations of domestic violence, the impact of fatherlessness on society, culture and politics.

The global war on the family

It would be difficult to find two countries more different with respect to marriage and divorce than India and the UK. The divorce rate in India is around 1.3%, the lowest divorce rate in the world, while in the UK it’s around 42%, and it’s been at that level or higher for decades. A couple marrying in the UK today is 32 times more likely to divorce than a couple marrying in India. I’m aware of some of the cultural differences, and I know that three times more Indian couples will separate and not divorce, than will divorce. When my own parents divorced in the UK over 50 years ago, in the late 1960s, the taboo against divorce was declining fast, although divorces were not yet common. But divorces have been commonplace for decades, and there is no taboo against divorce in the UK. Three-quarters of divorces are filed for by women in the UK.

Looking to the West for guidance on gender issues is a mistake

Mike Buchanan

I cannot claim to have a deep understanding of Indian culture. But I sense that India looks to the West for guidance in some areas, including gender equality. Looking to the West for guidance on gender issues is a mistake – a VERY big mistake. We know from the past 50 or more years in the West, that the search for gender equality inevitably lead to the breakdown of the family, and it will lead to the destruction of the Indian family. It didn’t take me long on the internet to find evidence that the Indian family is a target for destruction by feminists and others.


In government circles, feminist narratives are never about the destruction of the family, that would be deeply counter-cultural in India, as in many other countries. The narratives are always about the empowerment of women, which might sound appealing to many, but in the West the empowerment of women has always had a number of consequences. I’ll give you six of them:

  1. The DISempowerment of men. If women as a class get more power, it can only come from men as a class;
  2. Women competing with men, rather than co-operating with them, as they have been doing throughout history, for mutual benefit, and for the benefit of children.
  3. Women spending less time on their traditional roles as mothers, wives, daughters and carers, and more time in paid employment;
  4. Women ending their marriages for personal financial gain, by stealing the assets of men, both in terms of assets and future alimony;
  5. Women denying their ex-husbands access to their children;
  6. More men committing suicide because of the depression they suffer when they’re denied access to their children.

Finally, feminists always seek the introduction of no-fault divorce. If India introduces that, it will lead to a HUGE increase in the number of divorces. I’ve been studying feminism closely for over 10 years, and it became clear to me many years ago that feminism is a cancer in society, and always has been. There is no good amount of cancer. There is no good amount of feminism. Feminism cannot be destroyed as an ideology, but it MUST be destroyed as a political force, for the sake of a civilized society.

Feminism is not an ideology seeking gender equality, it is an ideology seeking more privileges for women. Its goal is to turn men into slaves to women, even more than they are already. When feminists say they seek gender equality, they have no choice but to present narratives which are one of more of five things – a baseless conspiracy theory (such as their patriarchy theory), a fantasy, a lie, a delusion or a myth.

I have a question for you all. There is a way you can be 100% certain that a feminist is lying. 100%.

Her lips will be moving.

In the UK and across much of the Western world feminists wield HUGE power, and over the past 50 years in the UK, North America and elsewhere, they have corrupted almost every important institution and profession, including politics, the law, academia, and the media. The corruption is now so complete, that there is today only one elected politician in the English-speaking world who speaks regularly about men’s issues and criticizes feminists. Philip Davies is a Conservative MP, he spoke at two of the International Conferences on Men’s Issues – one in London, and the last one in Chicago

Feminist legitimacy

The corruption of institutions by feminists leads to the question, do they have any legitimacy to represent the interests of anyone, even women alone?

In the UK, in 2016, the Fawcett Society, a feminist charity, commissioned a poll, and one of the questions they asked men and women, was whether they identified as feminists. Only 9% of women – and 4% of men – identified as feminists. Feminists have no legitimacy to represent women or men. Most of the 9% of women who identify as feminists know little about the ideology, as I know from talking with them at Speakers’ Corner in London, and elsewhere. MRAs understand feminism so much better than the vast majority of feminists, ironically. The things feminists believe, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, are incredible.

Why feminists wish to destroy the family in India

Feminists wish to destroy the family in India, as they have destroyed the family in the West over the past 50 years. There’s a huge body of evidence showing feminists’ hatred of the family, but time is limited, and I’ll just refer to one example. Kate Millett, a highly influential American lesbian radical feminist, died three years ago at the age of 82. Three years before that, her sister, Mallory Millett, wrote an article titled, “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives”. Here’s an extract from her article:

Kate said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make the Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Everyone must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

[Full article preserved in archives.]

Across much of the West, in the 51 years that have elapsed since that meeting took place, feminists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in destroying the family. I will give you just one recent example of the corruption of justice in relation to the family in the UK. Last May the Ministry of Justice appointed members to a new panel of “experts”, the Family Justice Panel. The panel called for evidence on how the family courts protect children and parents in cases of domestic abuse and other serious offences.

The press release on the panel included this:

The panel members represent key organisations from across family justice including the Judiciary, academia, social care, policy officials and third sector organisations which represent and advocate for victims of domestic abuse.

UK Government, 21 June 2019

The panel consists of 11 “experts”. 10 of them are women, the man is a feminist judge. The women included feminists including “academics” and a woman from a charity concerned only with female victims of domestic violence. Not one of the 11 panel members represented organizations which support fathers, or male victims of domestic violence.

Who feminism is for

Many of you will be aware of the work of Paul Elam, the American who set up the website “A Voice for Men” over 10 years ago. He’s probably the best known MRA in the world today, with good reason. I strongly recommend his book ‘Men. Women. Relationships.'[ref]Men. Women. Relationships: Surviving the Plague of Modern Masculinity; Paul D Elam; ISBN 10: 1070406325 / ISBN 13: 9781070406329[/ref] and I’d like to read out an extract from the book, in the section titled, “The Eight Laws Governing Men and Women”:

We often joke, and with good reason, about the stupidity of feminists. But the question remains, if feminists are so stupid, then why is feminism now a dominant ideology on the planet, affecting almost every institution, political apparatus, provider of every level of education, as well as every law enforcement agency and corporate entity known?

If feminists are so intellectually vacant, then why are we here, without resources and struggling mightily to skate by on guile and creativity in order to do anything about the supposed idiots? The answer to that is as simple as it is forbidding.

Feminism is not for feminists. Feminists ARE idiots, but they are the useful idiots in the description previously reserved for Soviet sycophants in Cold War America.

Feminism is for governments and corporations. And it is the most effective tool for control of the masses since the riot baton and water cannons.

What we are seeing is a chain of governments, and just as importantly their powerhouse corporate interests, that have figured out the “secret” to inflicting whatever serves them on the populace without causing significant resistance.

They have found that the best method for making people toe the government line is not with iron-fisted restrictions on freedom of speech, the press or the right to assembly. Those are old world strategies still at play in some Third World regions, but not in the industrialized world. Sure, social media platforms are Orwellian in their propensity to silence dissent, but the government hasn’t embraced that trend.

First World governments, and even some who barely qualify, have discovered that they can control the masses with aggressive gynocentrism.

The method for doing so is not that difficult. All it takes is a little time, a little money, and more than a little basic understanding of human sociobiology. In fact, if you play your cards anything less than sloppy, you can control the masses with enthusiastic help – from the masses.

Paul’s first law governing men is this:

Men will not oppose anything perceived to benefit women. Protecting women and providing for them and their children takes primacy over critical thinking. Note that the law says “perceived.” It matters not if something benefits women, or if, in fact, it harms them. If the perception is popular that something benefits women, men will support it, even at their own expense and to their detriment.

Men. Women. Relationships: Surviving the Plague of Modern Masculinity; Paul D Elam

It would be easy to conclude from his eight laws governing men and women, that as MRAs we’re wasting our time campaigning for the human rights of men and boys, given the forces stacked against us, but I think that would be the wrong conclusion to draw. We face difficult challenges, but men are good at overcoming difficult challenges. Sometimes it takes time to overcome them, as the men’s rights movement knows. But we WILL overcome the challenges in time.


In his book Paul Elam mentions the feminist corruption of the United Nations. On Friday a speaker mentioned UN Women, or to give it its full name, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Of course “empowerment of women” means the “disempowerment of men”. The World Bank was also mentioned. The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans and grants to the governments of some countries for the purpose of pursuing capital projects. As of November 2018, the largest recipient of World Bank loans was India, which owed the Bank 859 million US dollars. You can be sure loans come with plenty of conditions attached, so I googled the terms “World Bank” and “empowerment of women”, and within seconds tracked down plenty of links to material showing clear evidence of feminist corruption of the Bank… in the bank’s own documents. The reports contain many feminist narratives, which are all lies. I’ll be talking about one of those narratives, the one about domestic violence, and the gap between feminist propaganda and reality.

Inequality in India

The Indian government has a Ministry of Women & Child Development, the head of which is a cabinet minister. The name of the ministry indicates it’s a feminist project, and it takes only seconds on their website to find its objective is the social and economic empowerment of women, which means the social and economic DISempowerment of men.

Why would governments be keen on destroying families? We need to follow the money. The destruction of families results in higher tax revenues for governments. After a family is destroyed, there needs to be two new homes, one for the mother and children, and one for the father. This will cost more money, that money needs to be earned, and taxes paid. Usually it’s the man spending the money, but sometimes it’s the woman, if she takes up paid employment. And if the children are cared for by professional childminders while the woman is at work, that’s another source of tax revenue for the government.

follow the money

I understand that even today, the majority of Indian women are not engaged in paid employment. You can expect that to change over time. In the UK we have a Conservative government which boasts of record numbers of women in employment, while having no interest in the fact that unemployment has long been higher among men than women.


Corporations benefit directly or indirectly from the destruction of families, sometimes both. Two households require more to be spent on things such as utilities, transportation, furnishings, and so much more. We don’t normally refer to law firms as corporations, but of course they are, and they profit richly from the destruction of families. I see lawyers who profit from the destruction of families as criminals, nothing less.

The ratio of men to women who commit suicide in the UK is 3.5:1, higher than in India, where the ratio is about 1.3:1. For many years suicide has been the number 1 cause of death of men under 45 in the UK, in all age groups. The male suicide rate increases considerably after divorce, in large part because of fathers being denied access to their children. As the number of divorces increases in India, so will the number of men committing suicide.

Domestic Violence

One of the main weapons used by wives to remove their husbands from the home, and to give wives power over their husbands in divorces, is the making of false allegation of domestic violence. Feminist campaigners and feminists in positions of influence use the term “gender-based violence” to describe men exerting power over women through the use of violence, or the threat of violence. It’s another feminist lie, but it’s one you will find in documents produced by government across the world, the United Nations, and so many women’s charities and NGOs.

It has been known by researchers for decades that domestic violence is NOT a gender-based phenomenon. I’d like to spend some time on this because false allegations of domestic violence are commonly used in the West as a weapon to destroy men, and I know it’s happening in India too.

men and women perpetrate physical and nonphysical forms of abuse at comparable rates

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project

Last year an important book by William Collins, a British blogger, was published. It was titled The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect. Collins details how men and boys as a class are disadvantaged in many areas, and how this disadvantage happens. One area he explores at length is domestic violence. Across the West, domestic violence is presented as a problem with male perpetrators and female victims – what feminists term “gender-based violence”. Collins refers to two major international studies. I’ll focus on one, the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, published in 2013[ref]Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project; Journal of Domestic Violence Research; 2013[/ref]. Collins writes this:

The review was published in 2013 in the journal ‘Partner Abuse’ and is the most comprehensive review of domestic violence research literature review ever carried out. The three-year research project was conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centres. John Hamel, the project director, said this:

“The purpose of this project is to bring together, in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent and methodical manner, existing knowledge about partner abuse, with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed by anyone. The project is grounded in the premises that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts; that these facts should be available to everyone, and that domestic violence intervention and policy ought to be based upon these facts rather than ideology and special interests.”

The headline finding of the review was that men and women perpetrate physical and nonphysical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons.

A key numerical result from the review was that the following, I’ve rounded some numbers to the nearest percentage point:

“Among large population samples, 58% of inter-partner violence reported was bidirectional (in other words each partner engaged in violence), 42% unidirectional (so only one partner engaged in violence); 14% of the unidirectional violence was male to female, 28% was female to male (FMPV).”

So the review found that men experience a rather greater amount of victimisation than women. The conclusion was that, in relation to unidirectional partner violence, men are victims twice as frequently as women.

The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect; William Collins; LPS Publishing; ISBN-13: 978-0957168886

If you don’t buy his book, I recommend you visit his website, The Illustrated Empathy Gap. To my mind it’s the most insightful and well-informed website in the world regarding men’s issues.


One of the consequences of family breakdowns, and denying fathers access to their children, is children having no fathers in their lives. The negative consequences of fatherlessness have been researched in great detail and I can recommend Warren Farrell’s book “The Boy Crisis” as well as William Collins’s book. In the UK we have a major problem in some of our inner cities with black youths and young men committing knife crime against other black youths and young men, often including murder. These youths and men are in gangs because they have no father in their lives. In the US, one common factor in nearly all mass shootings is the absence of a father in the killers’ lives. Patrick Moynihan, an American politician who died in 2003, wrote this:

A community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder – most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure – that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.

Patrick Moynihan

Culture and politics

It’s often said that politics is downstream from culture – that culture needs to change before politics will – and that’s clearly true. But the culture IS changing, in our favour, and MRAs can take much of the credit for that. When I spoke at the first International Conference on Men’s Issues in Detroit in 2014, I couldn’t have forecast the extent to which men’s issues activism, and online activism in particular, would have the cultural impact it has had in only a few years. Mainstream media are starting to report the truth about gender issues, such as men being victims of domestic violence. The reports are infrequent and usually inaccurate, but it’s a start, and we’ll see more of it. I repeat, the culture IS changing, in our favour.

But while the culture is changing, feminists continue to be highly influential in institutions and organizations, and life is going to get worse for men. MUCH WORSE. It will also get worse for most women, too, but feminists care no more about the happiness of women, than they care about the happiness of men. They care only about increasing women’s POWER over men.

Feminists’ appetite for power over men is insatiable, and it’s their Achilles’ heel, their biggest vulnerability. As women exert ever more power over men, the more men will respond in any ways they can. In contrast to the absurd feminist patriarchy myth, which states that men as a class have oppressed women throughout history, and continue to do so, the reality is that the majority of men have always been voluntary slaves to women, because they got certain things in return. Now they’re lucky to get anything in return, and they’ve become INvoluntary slaves to women. I applaud Men Going Their Own Ways, MGTOWs, for using the slavery metaphor of walking off the plantation.

It will be some time before we see the impact of the changing culture on politics, maybe decades, but I predict the day is coming when centrist and right-of-centre political parties will have no choice but to start considering men’s issues in their policies, to gain their votes.


There are powerful forces that are planning to destroy the Indian family – the government, corporations, and feminists. The Indian family needs to be saved, and what better-placed organization could there be, than the Save the Indian Family Foundations? Because I’m giving this talk in India, I’ll leave the last words to Ghandhi ji. There’s a quotation attributed to him, which has for many years been an inspiration for me, as well as many MRAs I know:

First they ignore you… then they ridicule you… then they fight you… then you win.

Text of the original speech can be downloaded in PDF format.

We thank Mike Buchanan for permission to publish his speech.

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

families, Feminism, misandry

Hate Speech – what is it, really?

My friend, Ewan Jones, reports on events and discusses human rights issues. He’s been banned from YouTube for ‘hate speech’.

I see the removal of material that is examining important social issues for a section of society as a hateful act. I believe that a hate act is far more heinous than any hate speech.

For those not familiar with what ‘hate speech’ is, YouTube graciously host Dominic Frisby making it clear for us. Worth 5 minutes of anyone’s time.

An explanation of hate speech

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

big brother

Alabama politician wants to force male sterilisation

State Representative Rolanda Hollis filed House Bill 238 on 13 February 2020. The Bill, if passed into law, would bring reproduction limitation on men. Just men: it is not intended to limit women from having children, nor even from serially getting pregnant and then killing the baby.

Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men. This bill would require a man to undergo a vasectomy within one month of his 50th birthday or the birth of his third biological child, whichever comes first.

Synopsis to Bill titled
“Family planning, vasectomy, require a man to undergo at certain age or specific number of children”

There are, obviously, no restrictions on the reproductive rights of women, either, but this point doesn’t seem to bother this Democrat.

The bill specifies that the vasectomy must be obtained at the man’s own expense.

Some media are reporting that ‘of course’ the Bill isn’t serious, won’t get passed, etc. In our experience, any Bill can be passed into law. Some of the most oppressive human rights restrictions happen because people were watching the other way and not paying attention.

We recommend every Alabama resident keeps an eye on Hollis and writes to their state politicians to ensure that this Bill does not progress into law.

We thank for highlighting this news.

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

crime, misandry

Mandalorian: killer, rescuer, or just a good dad?

The Mandalorian is an American space western web television series created by Jon Favreau, directed by Dave Filoni, and released by Disney+ at the end of 2019. It is a spin-off from Star Wars, as you might have guessed from this trailer:

The Mandalorian IMDB rating is 8.8/10 and 95% on rotten tomatoes. There are 8 the Mandalorian episodes released till now in the first season.

All very interesting, maybe even entertaining, but why is this being talked about on Human Rights And Wrongs?

This series shows a single dad’s love and care (positive masculinity) which is soothing and worth watching during these times when men are deemed criminals before birth (a take-over from the Christian concept of Original Sin) or are viewed as potential rapists and 2nd class citizens. Fathers are being alienated and erased from their kids and the family court has become fully corrupt. Masculinity is even deemed toxic by people who really should know better.

The main protagonist in the web series is the Mandalorian, a bounty hunter. He is a foundling who was rescued at a young age by the Mandalorians. The point to be noted is that Mandalorian is not a race but a creed (recall the guys in white helmets in the Star Wars movies).

Now, as we see, bounty hunting is not a very very great job with high payments as he gets very little money for hunting as shown in the series. He was offered a high bounty for an unknown target with no information at all, just the location with a tracker and the age that was 50 years.

The story takes place in the galaxy. Many times alienated or erased fathers live nearby on the next street, but it seems he is living galaxies away.

Dave Filoni’s directorship is subtle and moving. The Mandalorian never takes off his helmet, in resemblance of how fathers hide their feelings and expressions as they need to be tough, but his expressions are still clearly seen, just as those of fathers are to those who care to notice the signs.

The Mandalorian, after knowing the target is a kid, saves it from an IG 11 robot shooting on his head.
The kid too saves the Mandalorian from the mud horn when he tries to get the Easter egg by waving his hands after that he becomes unconscious and that establishes a connection.

When the kid was eating a frog the Mandalorian said spit that out as he cared frog is not a good thing to eat.

When the villains were taking the kid away he said take it easy in reply they you said take it easy.

We also see the mud horn trying and giving his life to save his egg. The father question: The Mandalorian asks “What are you going to do to the kid?” A father and no one else will ask this as it was against the guild code and bounty rule.

Fathers are the unsung heroes. They work hard. They don’t get any credit. They cover the kids and the whole family.

Saving the kid: going back and saving the kid and holding him in his one hand is a great show of positive masculinity.

The kid at the beginning was playing with the spaceship gear ball. He said, “this is not a toy” but now he himself gives it to the kid to play.
The kid also tries to heal the Mandalorian showing a son’s love for his father.

Mandalorians, being masculine, have to be hard and tough as they are the bounty hunters but at the same time, he has a soft heart. He goes against his job and guild rules to save the baby kid Yoda.

Until it’s of the age as reuniting with its own kind you are as his father.

  • This series highlights:
  • The importance of fathers in the life of a child.
  • Fathers not abandoning the children, protecting and nurturing them.
  • Good decent men who want to become fathers have this in them naturally.
  • The Yoda kid was not his offspring but still, he showed his masculine care to protect him from the people who wanted to kill him.

Now as you watch these clips, or the television series, we hope it is clearer to you that there is more than just whacky shoot-ups going on. This is caring paternity; masculinity at its best.

This post is based on Mandalorian and the father’s love by Vivek Singh, published on NEWSOFX dated 29 January 2020.

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ


Syracuse University defends against federal Title IX lawsuit

Syracuse University, New York, USA, filed a response Monday to a federal lawsuit from a former student who claims the university led an “inadequate and biased” Title IX investigation into a sexual assault complaint, reports The Daily Orange.

The plaintiff, referred to as John Doe, alleges in the November lawsuit that the University violated seven Title IX guidelines and showed extreme gender bias during the investigation because Doe was male, according to court documents. John Doe was not even identified until months afterwards, a black man supposedly in an alleyway.

Four university officials are listed as defendants in the lawsuit. These include the Chancellor, Kent Syverud, and the Assistant Dean of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, Pamela Peter, who served as director of the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities at the time of the investigation.

Syracuse University submitted a request to dismiss all claims from Doe and present an oral argument in court. The university’s response claims that Doe did not have evidence that the University intentionally discriminated against him during the investigation based on his gender.

Doe was expelled due to a sexual assault complaint from Jane Roe, whose name was redacted during the investigation.

The police were apparently never involved, even though one student is alleged to have committed a serious crime against another, off campus.

In 2019 New York Govenor Andrew M. Cuomo called in outside assistance against racial hatred being spread on the campus. It seems that racial epithets are taken more seriously than a woman assaulted.

Syracuse University takes every alleged incident of sexual violence extremely seriously.

The University’s process to adjudicate sexual assault allegations is fully guided by federal and state law.

statement by Syracuse University

In November 2019, Chancellor Syverud suspended all social activities for fraternities on the basis of an allegation that a racist comment was made towards a woman. The complainant was unable to identify any of the men she said insulted her. That alleged incident was at least on campus.

According to a secret list that has come to light because of the John Doe case, over 40 students were expelled or suspended from Syracuse University for alleged sexual misconduct over a recent four-year span. These included cases of alleged assault against men by women.

We thank for highlighting this news.

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

discrimination, sex and sexuality

Religious leader banned from religious expression

Franklin Graham, evangelist son of the late Billy Graham, has had confirmed venues for his UK tour pull out because he has called gay marriage “a sin”.

Liverpool ACC, Glasgow Hydro, Arena Birmingham, Sheffield Arena, Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes, Utilita Arena in Newcastle and ICC Wales in Cardiff have all cancelled events in the American preacher’s eight-city summer 2020 UK tour.

Leader of Glasgow City Council Susan Aitken said the event could “fundamentally breach the council’s statutory equalities duties” and thus break the law.

Similarly, the leader of Sheffield City Council, Julie Dore, said Mr Graham’s “discriminatory and repulsive views, could affect the long-established values that we all hold so dear in Sheffield”. The chairman of Sheffield City Trust, David Grey, which operates the Arena, said the event had to be pulled because Mr Graham does not promote “equality and freedom from hatred and abuse”.

The decision followed an open letter from ‘Sheffield’s LGBT+ Communities’ stating that Franklin Graham’s “homophobic beliefs” “far exceed freedom of speech and are direct hate speech and incitement to violence against LGBT+ communities and individuals which should not be welcomed in our city, or anywhere else”.

Mr Graham said he had not been given a clear reason for the cancellation and sounded a warning for freedom of speech:

It’s not true that I’ve come to divide the community. There’s no evidence of me preaching hatred or inciting violence.

I’m just coming to tell them what the Bible has to say. We welcome the LGBT+ community to our event.

If they oppose me, who’s next? Who are they going to silence?

Franklin Graham’s Sheffield visit axed after calls by LGBT+ groups; BBC

The latest eruption of cancel culture – in which defenders of traditional marriage and other unfashionable views are ‘no platformed’ – came in the same week that the Church of England issued a statement reaffirming its belief in traditional marriage. Does this mean that the Church of England’s stance conflicts with ‘statutory equalities duties’?

The important issue here is not that Graham is being opposed: people should oppose views they dislike. What is important is the right to have our views heard, regardless of who we are or what our views. The merits (or otherwise) of views can then be openly and honestly discussed, without driving ever greater numbers of honest people into underground movements where alternate views never have a chance to be heard.

Clearly there are those who believe that no disagreement with same-sex marriage is acceptable. In crushing dissent they are deluded into thinking the law is on their side. But the Ashers Baking Company and Felix Ngole cases show that they couldn’t be more wrong. Just because same-sex marriage is legal doesn’t mean everybody has to agree with it.

Not everyone agrees with those who disagree, of course. But if one person’s voice can be cancelled out, how can our society hope to improve? If the supporters of gay marriage had been no-platformed at a time when most people were against it, it could never have come about. Whatever our views, we need to support the right have other people’s views heard. It is Franklin Graham today, will it be your turn tomorrow to be silenced?

As a retired Scots Calvinist blogs:

Reporting from Vietnam, the war correspondent Peter Arnett quoted an American major saying, ‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it’. Today’s liberals are as ludicrous as those they poured scorn on yesterday.

The Bible makes clear that we should watch our words even as we guard our hearts. Under no circumstances should Christians use any expression that would be theologically defined as hateful speech. Today, however, a traditional defence of biblical Christianity can be defined by secularists as hate speech and, as is the case now in Switzerland, as a criminal act.

Christians must understand that this directly impacts what the church teaches and preaches on the basis of the Word of God. Our experience in Britain shows that it will lead very quickly to efforts to silence individual Christians in the public square, especially in corporate life, all branches of education and areas of public service, from speaking on the basis of that citizen’s own Christian convictions.

Religious liberty eroded in Switzerland
Vandalized statues of Calvin, Farel, Bèze and Knox in Geneva, 15 July 2019

Parts of this post are based on a press release by the Coalition For Marriage

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

free speech

Conference on Men’s Issues, New Delhi, 2020

  • SIFF is running a conference on men’s issues
  • Friday 21 to Sunday 23 February 2020
  • New Delhi venue will host talks and discussions

The event will start on Friday afternoon. There will be morning till evening full day conference sessions on Saturday and Sunday.

There will be a press conference and media interaction sessions.

One of the main intentions of this conference is to burst the alimony extortion bubble created by Govt, media and Courts. Maintenance laws under CrPC 125, DV Act and Sec 24 etc, create financial liability running into crores of rupees for young men. Govt is increasing maintenance amounts along with inflation and men have to pay monthly alimony to separated wife for whole life (40-50 years) unless she gets a job or gets remarried. One will end up paying in crores of rupees. If a man is unable to pay due to ill health or disability, he will be thrown in prison. Today for a professional man, getting married is as much liability as taking a loan of 1.5 to 2 crore rupees.(1 crore = 10 million)

Your conference tickets

Included in your ticket:
Attendance to Conference at a corporate conference venue
Buffet lunch on 22-23rd Feb
Tea, Coffee and snacks in morning and afternoon on 22-23rd Feb

Topics in National Conference

  • How to expose huge alimony extortion by Govt (and courts) after telling us, “woman is a burden”
  • Public Interest Litigation approach by SIFF at Supreme Court of India to change anti-male laws
  • How to spread SIFF support network in many more cities across India and conducting workshops in all these places.
  • Getting man’s human right to have access to his children and his parenting rights.
  • How to lead a movement in your city/state? How to create mentoring process to get new activists coached?
  • How Govt violates rights of Non-Resident Indian (NRI) men and what needs to be done.
  • Panel Discussion: How to generate funds and sponsor-ships for Men’s Rights Movement?
  • Panel Discussion: How to build activism in a new city or state?
  • Panel Discussion: How to support male victims to reemployed? How to help male victims rebuild their careers?
  • Panel Discussion: Roadmap for our campaign to burst alimony extortion bubble, once for all.

Speakers Planned

Roopenshu Singh
Talk: Hope & Justice is never the same for all

Suprakash Khuntia
Talk: “Activism” , The Lethal Weapon To Win The Custody Battle

Anil Kumar
Talk: Blitzkrieg: Activism Made Simple

Mike Buchanan
Talk: How feminists are destroying Western Civilization

RP Shah
Talk: Stabilisation of SIFF Center HYDERABAD
and Value of weekly meeting

Jeet Banik
My journey through MRM of India and Center building.

Pandurang Katti
Talk: Mens Issues, A roster

Satish Babu
Talk: My Experience in Contesting Election and how it impacted in winning my case

Rajesh Vakharia
Talk: How to engage Media for Men’s Rights

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

human rights courses

University teachers see freedom of expression at universities at risk

  • University teachers find the opinion climate at German universities constricting and intolerant
  • Student protests block open debate and discussion
  • Academic oligarchs restrict right-wing views, support left-wing views

A survey involved 1106 interviews with professors and academic staff at the end of 2019. It was conducted by the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach (Institute for the study of democracy, Allensbach municipality)

Almost a third of university lecturers stated that they felt constrained by formal or informal guidelines on political correctness. These restrictions are felt strongest in medical research, where 40 percent of doctors complain about it. But 36 percent of the humanities scholars also experience restrictions, especially in teaching.

De Welt (translated)

A planned visit by AfD (German nationalist party) politician Beatrix von Storch to the Free University of Berlin was cancelled following protests. Students – by no means the majority – had mobbed to prevent their participation.

A climate of intolerant opinion at universities plays a major role, especially in political, religious and gender issues.

Around 79 percent of university lecturers believe they should be allowed to invite a right-wing populist to a panel discussion . However, 74 percent believe that they will encounter considerable resistance in the university – either from the students or the university management. Not so with the invitation of a left-wing populist, which 84 percent of university lecturers would approve and only 21 percent expect resistance.

De Welt (translated)

Noticeably, the proportion of lecturers who feel constrained by ‘political correctness’ is greater than the proportion who feel constrained by finance.

Interestingly, another (smaller) study claimed that 93 percent of surveyed academics thought there is a lot of freedom of science in Germany. This compared with 87 percent in the USA and 11 percent in China.

In a struggling economy in which half of immigrants still do not have a job after five years, Germany can ill-afford harmfully-indoctrinated students, never mind how diverse their education.

Companies in Germany are welcoming the spread of subjects available in German universities (in some areas a one-third increase in five years) but are concerned about the limiting moralisation that students can come out with. “For international commerce, ” says one CEO (paraphrased translation), “we need diversity of thought and ideas, not the constriction applied by modern academia”.

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

education, free speech

Myths about domestic violence

A set of wrong beliefs

Some of this article is an adaptation from a conference presentation made at Biel, Switzerland, on 14 August 1991. Sadly, despite being presented almost 30 years ago at a world forum, these myths and nonsense are still circulated. If anything, now they have been around for so long, they have become “common sense”. While these myths may be common, there is no sense to them, as unbiased practitioners in the field are aware.

Do you still believe in any of these? If so, you are probably a victim of Woozling.

There is some jargon used in this field, like in most areas where a lot of money is to be earned, or spent. We’ll rush you through some of it, starting with the most comprehensive coverage to the more detailed, without getting bogged down in technical language.

Domestic Abuse (DA) — An over-all term for all kinds of abuse that occur in a domestic setting, or because of an existing or past domestic relationship.

Family Violence (FV or DD) — Abuse or violence that happens within, or to, a family. Not all Family Violence is Domestic Abuse but the vast majority is. Some Family Violence happens from strangers, such as in home invasions. Family Violence can be between grand-parent and child, between siblings, aunt and nephew, etc.

Domestic Violence (DV) — Domestic Abuse that has turned violent. ‘Violence’ used to mean physical action, as the dictionary says, but is being used to mean a wider range of matters, blurring any distinction between it and Domestic Abuse.

Intimate Partner Abuse/Violence (IPA/IPV) — Abuse, or violence, between two people who are in an intimate (usually sexual) relationship. Note that while most of this is Domestic Abuse, it also covers situations for abuse or violence before a couple are domestically involved.

Child Abuse — any abuse experienced by a child. Most of this is discussed in terms of Domestic Abuse but it may occur outside of the home, too.

Sexual Abuse — abuse of a person in a sexual manner. When done by a man, this is usually for sexual gratification. When done by a woman it can be for sexual gratification or as a means of power and control.

You will see that many of these terms overlap. There are some distinctions which may indicate the focus of research or care. Sometimes, the wrong terminology is used, particularly by the popular media.

Domestic abuse is a crime of the poor and uneducated

“A woman that has great education and training and a great job is not susceptible to this kind of abuse by men,” said Oregon’s 2016 Republican nominee for governor. In March 2017, a British judge gave a suspended sentence to a man who admitted beating his wife with a cricket bat and forcing her to drink bleach, because, the judge did not believe his victim was vulnerable as she was “an intelligent woman with a network of friends” and a college degree.

In truth, domestic abuse has no regard for age, sex, ethnicity, financial status or educational background. Lesbian relationships have a higher incidence of domestic violence than others but all kinds of relationships experience it. The problem is learned behaviour, often going from one generation to the next.

The Washington Post made it clear in their article sub-titled ‘No, abusers are not poor and uneducated‘:

…examples of smart and successful abusers abound. Just think of Ike Turner or Chris Brown. Last year, former South Carolina state legislator Chris Corley pleaded guilty to felony domestic violence charges…

Tony, 56, was the director of a transport business when he found himself in an abusive marriage. His wife, Tracy Hannington, was a carer in an old people’s home but had no difficulty punching Tony so hard he had loose teeth. His five-year marriage included weekly violence which included him being doused with hot tea and having a kitchen knife held to his throat.

There’s a type of person who abuses, and is abused

While there is much written about just what sort of person it is that abuses another, and what kind of person puts up with it, there is actually very little evidence for what can be said about the people as a group.

What we do know is that most people who abuse experienced abuse in the home (not necessarily towards themselves). People who tolerate abuse, particularly those who go back to an abuser once free of them, or who seek another abusive partner, have often been abused as a child.

Erin Pizzey, who set up the world’s first refuge for the care and treatment of battered women in Chiswick, London, UK, discovered that the women she cared for were often as violent, if not more violent, than the men they were leaving. Her first study, and many studies since, indicates a link between violence in childhood and the re-creation of violent relationships in adult life.

That’s the closest any evidence goes as to the ‘type’ of person. End domestic violence in one generation, both done by men and by women, and the next generation will be much calmer. Keep pretending there are ‘types’, or that women’s violence doesn’t count, and the next generation will be just as violent.

Domestic abuse is a complex issue

It is easy for politicians and policy makers to want to make it simple. Simple things can be solved with ease. Difficult things, like the economy, foreign relations, and domestic abuse, take a lot of time, effort and accurate study. And even then, political opinion and ideological stances get in the way.

How much more complex, then, is domestic violence when the majority of practitioners have both financial and ideological requirements to make it simple, and influence policy on their own behalf.

When people are stressed and tired, tempers flare more easily. Domestic unhappiness, and even abuse, may never be able to be stamped out entirely. There are some things that can be done to cut it way down, though, and the first of these is to accept that there is no one simple answer.

Domestic abuse is only physical

Because coverage of domestic violence overwhelmingly focuses on physical abuse — think of the photos, the police reports, the restraining orders — many people have difficulty self-identifying as victims of its verbal and emotional forms.

A common line of thought was voiced by a woman who told Britain’s Independent newspaper about a relationship with her teenage boyfriend, “He never physically hit me, so I didn’t think of it as abuse.”

Asher told of the abuse of his mother towards her own mother. “My mother started abusing my grandmother again, turning her into her slave, making her do things you wouldn’t make the most menial laborer do.” Yet she wasn’t violent towards her. She was only violent towards her boyfriend.

Andrew spent seven years being abused. “I always knew I had a difficult marriage,” he says, but it took a neighbour’s description of what she saw as domestic abuse before he started to see it. “At first, I tried to discredit it: maybe my neighbour was just over-reacting? But the more I reflected on it, the more I started to ask myself important questions.”

Domestic abuse does not always include physical violence. Women’s Aid UK defines domestic abuse as an incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening, degrading and violent behaviour, including sexual violence, by a partner or ex-partner. These incidents can include coercive control; psychological and/or emotional abuse; physical abuse; sexual abuse; financial abuse; harassment; stalking; and/or online or digital abuse.

Anastasia was shocked when her therapist told her that the lack of violence from her mother was not important: the disregard for her feelings, needs, health, and existence as a separate person was what makes her so toxic.

The United Nations does not have an overall definition of domestic abuse, because they only care about violence done against women. They also confuse the terms ‘abuse’ and ‘violence’ in all languages. Nevertheless, we can adapt their definition of “intimate partner violence” if we ignore the blatant and inexcusable sexism against men and accept that this defines intimate partner abuse:

Intimate partner violence refers to behaviour by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours.

United Nations

Domestic violence is a women’s issue

Some men use a cheeky ‘bad boy’ image to hide a genuine psychopathy

According to the US Department of Human Services, one in four women will go through intimate partner violence. But it’s not only a women’s issue. Men experience abuse by women more than you might think (and more than the media shows). Studies suggest that one in nine men will be abused by a female partner. While this number may say high, the real number is likely much higher. Researchers believe that the fear of being seen as “weak” can make men less likely to report.

“Failing to acknowledge that abuse occurs across genders and sexualities only leaves more people in danger.”

Men are the only abusers.

The language and thinking around this issue (“battered woman syndrome,” for instance) are extraordinarily gendered. A male engineer married to a female physician recounted to the Salt Lake Tribune in 2001 the time he called a domestic violence shelter after one especially brutal beating from his wife. “We’re here to help women,” officials told him. “We don’t know what to say to a man.” One posting on the website of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism is titled “Not a Two-Way street: Men are NOT the victims of what is meant by Domestic Violence and Abuse.”

But according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 7 men in the United States have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner, and 29 percent of heterosexual men have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner.

In 2008, it took four battered men and a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men for the California courts to recognize that men are entitled to equal protection and advocacy support from domestic violence shelters. A different breakthrough happened for the USA in 2015, when the nation’s first domestic violence shelter for men opened in Arkansas.

Often people are willing to make outright lies on this issue, including senior politicians. They have financial or ideological reasons for only wanting male perpetrators to be recognised despite the wealth of information that women are about as violent as men.

Whilst men can hit harder, women, adult women can hit very hard when the victim is a child.

Domestic Violence in New Zealand – A Masculinist Perspective

Even the idea that “men can hit harder” is a stereotypical myth. In roughly a quarter of couples, the woman will have greater upper-body strength than the man.

Angela Alsobrooks, State’s Attorney at Prince George’s County, Md., said that in a two year period, the number of male victims was “amazing” and included men being run over by their wives.

Domestic violence is a men’s issue

Men are often exhorted to step in and help on domestic violence, but only for helping women. This is men’s natural inclination. Men, generally, do not care anything like as much about men as they do about women. This is one of the reasons why men are ignored in society and why there is the infamous gender empathy gap.

But men need to care about all forms of domestic violence. As we have already covered, there is no “type” to domestic violence. Any man could end up a victim, perhaps initiated by illness or overwork. Society is bearing down on men so hard that more boys and men are finding themselves the victim of female abuse in all manner of ways.

The UK public has an opportunity to learn of the severity of the problem

What we try to do is to ensure that all male victims of domestic abuse – and their children, if they have them – can escape from the situation they’ve found themselves in. We also want to ensure that recognition and support for male victims is fully integrated and mainstreamed in society’s view of domestic abuse and in the statutory delivery of domestic abuse services. This would include making sure domestic abuse is not seen as a gendered crime.

Society tends to hold the view that only women can be victims. This feeds into the whole issue that being a man and admitting or claiming that you are a victim is one of Britain’s last taboos.

Mark Brooks OBE, Mankind UK.

In recognising the need for action to eradicate violence against men, the violence against women, including by some of the same men, should not be forgotten.

Women are the only victims

Skylar Baker-Jordan, a gay essayist based in Chicago, wrote last year: “When my ex-boyfriend assaulted me, I found my friends — particularly my male friends — minimizing the abuse or excusing it as a ‘scuffle’ between boys. When I sought support, they got uncomfortable and told me to ‘man up.’ ” For gay men in the USA, “the lifetime prevalence of severe physical violence by an intimate partner (e.g., hit with fist or something hard, slammed against something, or beaten)” was 16.4 percent, the CDC says. This is well below the average but should not be dismissed for its relative rarity.

Women are the victims in around as many instances of domestic abuse as men are. If one counts things like parental alienation, being divorced without any breach of marital vows, having ones children forcibly removed from your life, etc. then men are overwhelmingly the majority of victims of domestic abuse.

Most domestic violence is two-way. Women tend to suffer more from domestic violence, which is thought to be a reflection of men’s typical extra strength and learned fighting ability.

Domestic violence against men is very similar to domestic violence against women. It can come in the form of physical abuse, emotional, verbal, or financial.

Domestic violence is not about size, gender, or strength.

Jan Brown
Executive director and founder of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men, USA.

The Canadian government admit that there is too little research on violence against males to really know enough about it. Most studies on domestic violence start with the presumption that violence is done to women and done by men, so are unable to give any true indication of what is really going on.

Women are not violent

The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health & Development Study (Dunedin Study for short) has been ongoing since 1972-73 in New Zealand. Its findings expose the truth about domestic violence. Women hit men just as often as men hit women.

The danger of feminist insistence that domestic violence is a problem with males, as the Dunedin Study exposed:

The study found that domestic violence was fairly evenly split between male and female perpetrators, and many ‘domestics’ involved both male and female partners being violent.

However if police attend domestic violence incidents they will usually treat the male partner as the violent person.

The Dunedin Study that found this was controversial and internationally shunned because it didn’t fit the modern ‘male violence’ focus. But it was later supported by studies done elsewhere in the world.

Domestic violence and gender

The feminist-run domestic violence industry spends a considerable amount of the money donated to it to perpetuate the myth that women are not violent. [geoip_detect2_show_if country=”GB”]In the UK, this is partly illustrated by Women’s Aid, who on their website repeat the lie that “Two women a week are murdered by a current or ex-partner in England and Wales alone” to try to deflect the reader from thinking about violent women. Even if it were ever true, it says nothing about female violence, other than when we bear in mind that lesbian relationships cause a higher proportion of violence than any other.[/geoip_detect2_show_if]

Boys and men can’t be victims

This myth is perpetuated by much of the domestic violence industry. It is also instilled through gender socialisation, of both boys and girls, where mothers often declare that males, even young boys, are not supposed to be victims or even vulnerable. We learn very early that males should be able to protect themselves. In truth, boys are children – weaker and more vulnerable than their perpetrators.

Power is also exercised from a position of authority, using resources such as money or other bribes, or outright threats – whatever advantage can be taken – to use a child for sexual purposes.

Domestic abuse of men is nothing new, nor is making a joke of it.
  • One in every six men will be a victim of domestic abuse in their lifetime.
  • One in every five men suffering abuse at the hands of their partner, do so for more than one year.

Jennifer Michelle Greenberg, author of Those Who Weep, says of those she found to interview for her book:

To my surprise, of the nearly 60 survivors who have interacted with me, over half have been men. Based on statistics from the CDC and RAINN, I had expected most of my sources to be female. Instead, I had men of all ethnicities, ranging from teenagers to seniors, confiding in me under the stipulation that I would never reveal their names.

None of them have ever reported their abuse.

At least a dozen of them had never told a soul, before me, about what had happened to them. Because of this, I have come to believe that gender abuse statistics are severely flawed.

The Bleak Reality of Male Abuse Survivors

It is easy to believe that men have all the power when it comes to domestic violence. But not only is that belief not true for many couples, the thinking excludes the reality that domestic violence often has mental and emotional aspects to it. The victim loves their partner; the last thing they want to do it lash out and hurt the other person, even though they are being hurt themselves. It’s not about capability to defend: it’s about the willingness to do so.

Few if any victims of domestic violence are men so male victimisation can be safely dismissed

Really? Are you serious?

There are a number of ways in which the evidence for gender symmetry in domestic violence is ignored by people who insist on seeing domestic violence as part of a program by society to oppress women. These include just not mentioning the facts on male victimisation, not asking questions about male victimisation, not citing studies that show male victimisation, and citing studies as supporting ideas that women are not violent when the studies in fact contradict that claim.

It is important to check that a report is not using one of the preceding techniques before taking it at face value.

One of the cognitive problems people have on imagining a man as a victim is that men are generally (note: only ‘generally’) more powerful than women. Yet even feminists will admit that physical power is a small part of the picture: mostly it is about emotional and psychological control. Most men have been brought up from a young age with the mantra that a boy/man never hits a girl/woman. Never.

‘I’m a big, strapping bloke. Who would believe I was a victim of domestic abuse?’
Domestic violence against men is far from a niche concern. The most recent Crime Survey for England and Wales estimated that around 800,000 men – five per cent of the male population – had experienced domestic abuse in 2011-12, compared to 1.2 million women – or seven per cent of the female population. Since about 2005, around 40 per cent of domestic violence victims have been male.

Theo Merz,
Daily Telegraph, 12 September 2016

Think about it, if you’re a woman: did you teach your sons not to hit a woman? Did you make that conditional on whether he is being attacked by a woman? What boys learn early, tends to stick.

Anyway, since when was it right to ignore a minority? Often, a minority needs especial attention.

Boys and men are less traumatised from experiencing abuse than girls and women

While some studies have found males to be less negatively affected, more studies show that long term effects are quite damaging for either sex. Males may be more damaged by society’s refusal or reluctance to accept their victimisation, and by their resultant belief that they must “tough it out” in silence.

When it comes to the reception of violence, boys and girls experience pain at roughly the same levels. If it seems less for boys, this is because from a young age, they care conditioned not to show it, whereas girls in ‘advanced’ nations are conditioned to work it to their advantage.

Some women also do not feel much pain, if any. Both sexes can experience loss of sensation as a result of anything from hypoesthesia and congenital analgesia to depression. An inability to feel pain does not lessen the abusive behaviour.

Men have generally been brought up never to strike a woman. This inhibition to defend themselves adds to the feeling of helplessness when they are victimised, making the mental aspect of abuse even worse.

There are indications that men may on average experience physical pain at a generally less rate than women, just as they experience physical pleasure at a lower rate. But they do experience pain and older men will experience it at a generally higher rate than younger women. So the idea that abuse of boys or men doesn’t matter because they experience pain less is rather immaterial. They experience pain: it matters.

If it was that bad, they would leave

It’s not that easy

Domestic violence has many layers. Abusers may exert their control by creating isolation, financial dependence, and through emotional manipulation, as well as physical fear.

Men and women stay in abusive relationships for many different reasons, and it can be very difficult for them to leave an abusive partner – even if they want to. Like any other relationship, one that ends in abuse began with falling in love and being in love.

Abusers use warped logic to brainwash their victims. Subversive manipulation of the mind and destruction of the victim are the perfect tools to enable abusers to succeed.

Abusers often isolate their partners from family and friends in order to control them, making it even more difficult for an abused person to exit the relationship, or even recognise it as an abusive relationship. The victim may be prevented from having a job, or keeping the money they earn, and have day-to-day necessities restricted. An abuser can even limit the victim’s transportation, further cutting off contact with the outside world.  If there are kids involved, a simple threat to take them away or to hurt them can stop an attempt to leave ice cold.

Abuse rarely starts at the beginning of a relationship, but when it is established, it is often harder to leave, not easier.

A man faces extra difficulties. Not only does he face the difficulty of being believed, and therefore getting any help, but he is unlikely to have any support systems available. He also knows that if he leaves, he will have a major struggle to keep his children with him: they are quite likely to end up with the abusive mother unless he can fight his case well.

An abused man is likely to still be in love with his partner and believe her when she says she is sorry and it won’t happen again; he may be frightened for his life or for the safety of his children if he leaves; he may have nowhere to go; he may be financially dependent on her. Most men are so brainwashed by upbringing and social lies that they don’t even believe that men can be victims, even as they suffer.

If you think battered women are stuck in their mess, you haven’t seen “stuck” until you have met a battered man. To me, it is so very sad. I attribute their being as stuck as they are to the fact that they have little to no social support and resources to assist them in ushering themselves to safety as do battered women.

Even worse, the social system surrounding them encourages then to shut up and stay put, because “no one will believe you anyway!” They are convinced that their victimization will be laughed at, ignored, ridiculed and dismissed. The conclusion these abused men draw from what they are told is: “why bother.” And so, they remain stuck.

Dr. Jeanne King, Ph.D.
Tell-Tale Signs of Battered Men

Extraordinary as it might seem to people who have never been abused in a relationship (or at least, have never thought themselves so), one of the struggles in leaving is to realise that is what they should be doing.

Men and women in abusive relationships need support and understanding – not judgement.

Most sexual abuse of boys is perpetrated by homosexual males

Adults who molest boys are not expressing a homosexual orientation any more than those who molest girls are. While many child molesters have gender and/or age preferences, of those who seek out boys, the majority are not male and not homosexual. They are paedophiles or ephebophiles.

[geoip_detect2_show_if country=”GB”]

1 in 6 men have been targets of rape or sexual abuse, that’s 5 million men in the UK — Safeline


If a male experiences sexual arousal or orgasm from abuse, this means he was a willing participant or enjoyed it

In reality, males can respond physically to stimulation (get an erection) even in traumatic or painful sexual situations. Therapists who work with sexual offenders know that one way a perpetrator can maintain secrecy is to label the child’s sexual response as an indication of his willingness to participate. “You liked it, you wanted it,” they’ll say. Many survivors feel guilt and shame because they experienced physical arousal while being abused. Physical (and visual or auditory) stimulation is likely to happen in a sexual situation. It does not mean that the child wanted the experience or understood what it meant at the time.

If a female experiences sexual arousal or orgasm from abuse, this means she was a willing participant or enjoyed it

In reality, females can respond physically to stimulation (getting wet) even in traumatic or painful sexual situations. Therapists who work with sexual offenders know that one way a perpetrator can maintain secrecy is to label the child’s sexual response as an indication of her willingness to participate. “You liked it, you wanted it,” they’ll say. Many survivors feel guilt and shame because they experienced physical arousal while being abused. Physical (and visual or auditory) stimulation is likely to happen in a sexual situation. It does not mean that the child wanted the experience or understood what it meant at the time.

Boys sexually abused by males are or will become homosexual

Many boys who have been abused by males erroneously believe that something about them sexually attracts males, and that this may mean they are homosexual or effeminate. Not so. Many girls who have been abused by women wrongly believe that they have something inherent that attracts females. Again, not true. Paedophiles often admit that the lack of body hair and adult sexual features turns them on. The paedophile’s inability to develop and maintain a healthy adult sexual relationship is the problem – not the physical features of a sexually immature child.

While there are different theories about how the sexual orientation develops, experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation. It is unlikely that someone can make another person a homosexual or heterosexual. Sexual orientation is a complex issue and there is no single answer or theory that explains why someone identifies himself as homosexual, heterosexual or bi-sexual. Whether perpetrated by older males or females, boys’ or girls’ premature sexual experiences are damaging in many ways, including confusion about one’s sexual identity and orientation.

If the perpetrator is female, and the victim a boy or adolescent, he should consider himself fortunate to have been initiated into heterosexual activity

In reality, premature or coerced sex, whether by a mother, aunt, older sister, baby-sitter or other female in a position of power over a boy, causes confusion at best, and rage, depression or other problems in more negative circumstances. To be used as a sexual object by a more powerful person, male or female, is always abusive and often damaging.

There is a sense in society that the boy is “lucky” to have been abused. Indeed, if ‘rape culture’ exists at all, it is in a sexist perspective of child abuse. This is perpetuated in the mainstream media, who will report a girl assaulted by a man in terms of ‘rape’ yet will report a boy assaulted by a women in terms of ‘seduction’ and ‘tryst’ .. that’s when the child himself isn’t held to be the guilty party!

Domestic violence is all about “Power and Control”

While abusers are often mentally controlling, their violence is often not about power or about control. Like any bully, a regular domestic violence perpetrator is most likely insecure in themselves and unsure how to fit in. Most violence is two-way: it is an argument that turns ugly and gets physical. Most intimate partner violence is perpetrated by both partners at the same time; it is often through feeling powerless and failing to control oneself that these things happen.

The Power And Control model is wrong, it doesn’t help, and it won’t help stop domestic violence. It’s almost a trademark of the lucrative domestic violence industry, who would suffer if domestic violence were ever cured in society.

A very small amount of domestic abuse is planned, intended and thought through. This is in many ways the ugliest side of humanity, perpetrated by men and women with severe problems. Thankfully, this model is the rarity but can end disastrously for the victim.

[geoip_detect2_show_if country=”IN”] [/geoip_detect2_show_if]

Domestic abusers/abused saw their mother or father abuse their partner

A great many of (but not all) those involved in abusive relationships as adults grew up with violence in the home. However, they are as likely to end up as the abused as the abuser. It depends on who the home violence was directed at and it how they processed the experience.

It is important to distinguish between the statements that “most people involved in abuse as adults, grew up with abuse” and “most people who grew up with abuse, end up with abuse as adults”. Many people experience abuse at home and quite a few of them process the experience such that they ensure that they will never abuse and will never allow themselves to be abused.

Growing up with domestic abuse is never an excuse to abuse another. Growing up with abuse should not be taken as an indication of normality in being abused. The normalisation of violence by many feminists sends entirely the wrong message, in that it might seem to women who believe them that if they want relations with a man, they have to accept violence. In reality, few men are violent towards women and any lapse is likely to weigh heavily upon him.

She must have provoked him. He must have provoked her.

This myth is widespread and deep-rooted. When the abuser is male, it may be based on the belief that the man is the head of the family, and that his role is to punish his partner or children if they act in a way he doesn’t approve of, or it is his right to be obeyed. When the abuser is female, it is often based on the belief that the woman should be queen in the domestic sphere and deserves whatever she demands, or it is her right to be obeyed.

The myth is dangerous because any reference to ‘provocation’ means that we are blaming the victim and relieving the abuser of responsibility for her actions.

Abuse or violence of any kind is never the victim’s fault. Responsibility always lies with the perpetrator alone. We should recall that in most circumstances, both partners in intimate partner violence are simultaneously perpetrator and victim.

People care just as much about violence against men as they do about violence against women

That anyone could have the sheer gall to suggest this is astounding. Yet it is suggested, even in parliaments. Try to find an equivalent to the United Naitons campaign to end violence against women for men, even though men suffer more violence than women. Try finding battered men’s shelters comparable to even a tenth of the available women’s shelters, even though men are around half the number of overall victims.

Society – particularly its men – does not accept violence against women. Society – particularly its women – accepts violence against men. There have been several academic studies on this point and below is an illustrative video, where actors pretend violence against one another on different days.

One problem with this, as Erin Pizzey points out, is that the next generation learns from the current generation. Acceptance of violence against men in the current generation will result in a continuance of violence in the next generation.

The feminist movement has long resisted the idea that domestic violence against men is a significant social problem. In 1975, when sociologists at the University of New Hampshire published a study suggesting that women were just as likely as men to assault their partners, the researchers faced widespread criticism — including death threats and bomb scares.

Los Angeles Times August 5, 2017, reporting on a new shelter for men, one of the first in the USA.

When Joshua Miller’s girlfriend attacked him, smashing their son’s toy guitar against his forehead, he was the one that police officers put in handcuffs.
Fortunately in Joshua’s case, a a neighbor backed up his story and the police removed the cuffs. Most men in his position aren’t so lucky as to have witnesses to the real events: everyone just assumes that it is the man being bad. Even in Joshua’s case, it was still he who had to leave the house – with his son – rather than his girlfriend being removed.

Women are just as abusive as men

Yes, and no

Most domestic violence is bi-directional, it’s an out-of-control mess where a couple – possibly a dysfunctional couple, and not for the first time – are having a go at each other. They probably started by yelling at each other and the point at which it turns physical would only be clear to an observer, if they could stand just observing.

What is very surprising to most, yet consistently supported by research across decades and countries, is that where domestic violence is uni-directional, it is most often started by the woman. In accordance with this finding is that homosexual male couples experience the least proportion of domestic violence, while homosexual female couples experience the highest proportion of domestic violence.

Males are far more likely to be charged and convicted of domestic violence than women. Part of this is because men who lash out typically do more damage (though women are more likely to kill in anger), and partly because men are proportionally far more likely to be charged and convicted of any crime.

Women are more likely than men to experience sexual abuse. Men are more likely than women to experience financial abuse. Men are more likely to be threatened with false accusations, and with never seeing their children (because the state will often support an abusive woman in these areas). Women are more likely to be threatened with violence.
These are, however, just generalisations and are not statements connected with any specific case. Your situation (or the situation of someone you are helping) may be completely different.

Domestic abuse does not just exist as part of the ideological and financial programme of “violence against women”. Men who are abused have little in the way of social, financial or legal support, which just adds to the abuse they endure. Children, the most vulnerable, suffer far more than women, whether they are male or female.

This is just some peculiarity of the English-speaking

India has a long struggle even accepting that men can be victims at all. in 2017, what should have been an important decision was reached by an Indian Court. In practice, while it has made some women more wary of making false accusations, others are emboldened by the relative lack of punishment for doing so. Men still do not have protection.

The German magazine Manndat reports (translated):

It is known from numerous international studies that women are no less likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence than men. As part of a German study on fathers in separation and divorce situations (Prof. Amendt, 2005), it was found as a “by-product” that in such stressful situations women are even more prone to [domestic violence] than men. As is also the case with domestic violence against children.

Manndat, 2011

Hungary has been experiencing growing domestic violence. Seeing that Western countries, after 50 years of feminists running the domestic violence industry, is still complaining of high levels of domestic violence, they are trying a different track, which includes the domestic violence against men (about 40% of the total). The current government is seeing if making it as socially unacceptable as it is to smoke cigarettes will put enough social pressure, along with counselling services offered for free. It is too soon to know whether they have a formula that works but it certainly will be cheaper and can hardly be less effective.

Domestic abuse happens wherever there are domestic homes and people who are stressed, tired, lacking social support or mentally ill. It is worldwide.

She can be a good mother (or he can be a good father) even if she abuses her partner – the parents’ relationship doesn’t have to affect the children

An estimated 90% of children whose parents abuse one another witness the abuse. The effects are traumatic and long-lasting, leading to a proportion of them learning the wrong message and taking the violence – or taking an acceptance of it – into their own adult life.. When a child witnesses domestic abuse, this is child abuse. Too often, if one of the partners is abusive to the other, the children are also abused.

We believe that where a case of uni-directional abuse is proved (not merely claimed to gain advantage in court), the non-abusive parent should be the default sole custodian of the children. The non-abusive parent should, however, also be given counselling as they may well be attracted to the wrong kind of woman/man and need to recognise their own part in allowing the abuse and have the ability to avoid it in future.

If there was a lot of domestic violence against men, there would be a lot more research on it.

There has actually been an academic study to determine why there are not so many academic studies on male victimisation as there are on female victimisation!

In 2007, Graham-Kevan’s paper raised the question of how an explanatory theory and treatment modality for domestic violence could have persisted for 30 years (and still persists today), despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence that domestic abuse has many causes, not just male-dominance. Given that this outdated and disproved theory has obviously failed to correct the problem or even — according to the practitioners of it — helped at all, one has to wonder why government agencies continue to fund it. For fund it they do, to the tune of several billions of dollars worldwide. One researcher states:

Although there are many causes of the persistence of the patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the efforts of feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence.

Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence

There is a great deal of money being made out of domestic violence programs that do not work. If the programs started to work, the source of all that money would start to dry up.

The seven methods described have created a climate of fear that has inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in PV [partner violence] and largely explain why an ideology and treatment modality has persisted for 30 years, despite hundreds of studies which provide evidence on the multiplicity of risk factors for PV, of which patriarchy is only one.

Because of space limitations and because I am a researcher not a service provider, I have not covered the even greater denial, distortion and coercion in prevention and treatment efforts. An example is the director of a battered women’s shelter who was terminated because she wanted to ask the residents whether they had hit their partner and the context in which that occurred. An example of governmental coercion of treatment is the legislation in a number of US states, and policies and funding restrictions in almost all US states that prohibit couple therapy for PV.

Murray A. Straus

But even in the USA, there has been research and reliable figures available from non-feminist sources such as the Centers for Disease Control, who more than eight years ago said “More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime”

Male victims of domestic violence have been seriously neglected in public policy, outreach and services. But they are not rare at all. They’re just less likely to report it, which makes crime statistics unreliable especially for men.

The National Coalition for Men, USA

Believing these myths can be deadly

So long as society believes these myths, and teaches them to children from their earliest years, sexually abused males will be unlikely to get the recognition and help they need.

So long as society believes these myths, sexually abused males will be more likely join the minority of survivors who perpetuate this suffering by abusing others.

So long as boys or men who have been sexually abused believe these myths, they will feel ashamed and angry.

And so long as sexually abused males believe these myths they reinforce the power of another devastating myth that all abused children struggle with: that it was their fault. It is never the fault of the child in a sexual situation – though perpetrators can be quite skilled at getting their victims to believe these myths and take on responsibility that is always and only their own.

For any male who has been sexually abused, becoming free of these myths is an essential part of the recovery process.

I do not understand the motivation of those who want to dismiss male domestic abuse as a non-issue or pretend it does not happen. Every victim of domestic abuse, be they male or female, should receive support based on their need as an individual. Their gender, race, sexuality etc are obviously important factors and may influence the type or style of support that they receive, but there shouldn’t be limitations placed on what support is available depending on how you fit into each of those categories.

Mark Brooks., Mankind, UK

Dealing with such serious matters by adherence to ideology and financial interest is literally killing people. Most of the myths here are dangerous to someone: a female victim of her female lover, a boy being groomed by his female teacher, a woman who thinks she isn’t abused because her partner doesn’t try controlling her, a man shivering in fear trying to protect his children. All are harmed by falsity and greed. Sometimes, that harm is severe. Sometimes it kills. These myths are deadly.

Realise, plan, and act

There are many ways that men and women can be abused.

It can often start off small, with lots of different events that gradually chip away or erode your confidence. It can sometimes make you feel that you are losing your “sense of self” and that you can’t trust your own judgement or feel you don’t have the right to make decisions. People often describe being made to see, think or do things the perpetrators way or changing their behaviour to avoid making their abuser angry.

Recognise domestic violence

Whatever the sexes of the partners, abuse can mean a partner or spouse will use a number of means to maintain dominance:

  • Your partner uses verbal, emotional, psychological and/or physical abuse to get her way. It’s her means of establishing and maintaining control in your relationship.
  • Continual criticism, name calling, or shouting at you.
  • Your partner may punish and/or manipulate through the use of battering that can also involve threats of separating you from your children.
  • Threaten to hurt you or a family member or pet.
  • Punish or deprive your children when angry at you.
  • Your partner is extremely jealous of your contact with other men/women, even when there is no basis for belief in an extramarital affair.
  • Your partner seeks to control your time, attention, and your social life.
  • Your partner demands that things go her way or no way, leaving you with no other options other than to acquiesce. This can be done in an apparently very passive way; but you will be in no doubt of her displeasure should things not go her way.
  • Withholding approval, appreciation, or affection as punishment.
  • Regularly threatens to leave or to make you leave.
  • Destroys furniture, punch holes in walls, break appliances (this can be sign of severe stress; is it directed at you?).
  • Hits, kicks, shoves, punches, bites, spits, or throws things when upset (even if you have not yet been the target, this behaviour needs to stop).
  • You are blamed for any communication mistakes between the two of you, whether it was you speaking or you listening.
  • Your partner insists that you assume blame for all discord in the relationship including her abusive behavior toward you.
  • Your partner may seek to isolate you from all sources of support outside of your intimate relationship with her.
  • Manipulates you with lies and contradictions. You may think it is you getting confused, but if your partner is the only person who confuses you, then it is not you that is the problem. If you think you do have a problem, talk to a doctor about it.
  • Your partner demands your compassionate understanding of her, yet fails to offer empathy toward you.
  • He/she takes away your car keys or money, or denies you food or sleep.

Get the help you need to escape an abusive relationship

Men Abused by Women in Intimate Relationships, a digital booklet published by the government of Alberta, Canada.

The One In Three Campaign have a resources page where you can hopefully find someone to give you the support you need. If you are being abused, don’t hide from it any more: reach out for help.

Canada is a feminist state, so you have to be careful who you approach for help. Not all helplines for men will even accept at a man can be a victim.
The Centre for Men and Families operate a help service.

The New Zealand government is keen to see all services offered to men as much as to women. While that isn’t as easy as it sounds, it does mean that if you need help, you should have access to help whether you are a man or a woman. If you are in immediate danger, call 111 now.

UK Helpline: 01823 334 244
(open 10am to 4pm and 7pm to 9pm weekdays)
Website: Digital leaflet

This article was first published at Human Rights And Wrongs, written by ‘Douglas’ , and is reproduced here with permission. ⓒ

domestic abuse