No, seriously, what about the truth?

I do not know why so many of us get caught up discussing real world problems on feminist blogs whose focus is talking about men's issues. Usually, the discussions on these sites are benign, like dating advice or some other such crap, but when these blogs do talk about real problems facing men, there is a formula that they follow which enables them to dismiss or "explain" away men's problems. No calls for action, no ideas for fixing the issue put forth, no blame laid at biased programs or projects which caused or added to the problem.

Their formula goes something like this:

1. Obfuscate the reality of the situation by presenting only selected data to conclude things aren't that bad for men
2. "Gender Role" the problem to explain why men's behavior is the reason they suffer more  than women
3. Talk about how women suffer just as much, even though they are given preferred treatment
4. Never ever blame feminism or a feminist group(s) for pushing biased legislation that hurt men
5. Ignore any information or data that shows governmental programs and projects that help women but exclude men, which created or adds to the real problem
6. Don't offer any concrete advice other than "gotta fix those gender roles" which is a nice way of saying "Patriarchy hurts men too"
7. Ignore societal and institutionalized sexism

For example, let's take the recent discussion about homelessness that occurred on No, Seriously, what about teh menz? and The Good Men Project. Since the GMP literally just regurgitated what NSWATM said, let's focus on what ozymandias42 wrote.

Item 1 -
Obfuscate the reality of the situation by presenting only selected data to conclude things aren't that bad

"Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).

In the United States, therefore, as of 2007, roughly 60% of homeless people are male: this suggests that the problem is somewhat gendered but not strongly gendered. However, some big shit has happened since 2007, most notably a recession, so we might want to look for more recent stats."

This is a perfect example of giving only half of the data, but pretending it is the full story. The numbers she posts are a combined look at those who are in long term residences, short term shelters and those who are unsheltered. In these numbers and statement, Ozymandias is actually pointing out why things goes sideways for homeless men. Almost all of those women and women with children are sheltered homeless though dozens of different programs which the government offers, mostly for families.

The truth is that there is about a quarter of a million unsheltered homeless, who are literally sleeping on heating grates, park benches or underpasses, whose numbers get lost in those who have actual shelter. And the overwhelming majority of these unsheltered homeless are men. Depending on which study you believe, AHAR, HHS, Housing Coalition, US Mayors Study, etc etc, conservative estimates put the number at about 83% men, while other studies have calculated the percentage to be as high as 95%. [1][2][3][5][7]*

What also wasn't mentioned by NSWATM and the GMP, is that the biggest problem with finding the sex of unsheltered homeless people, is that even though HUD and HHS both required that box to be checked during the street count, neither publications come out directly and give the actual figures. They do however give counts for the sex of the sheltered homeless over 18, hence by subtracting out the sheltered figure, then adding in boys under 18, you can come to a good approximation of the number of unsheltered homeless males.

One way to look at the sex of unsheltered homeless people, is to sort through the local counts that cities and counties do. Dupage County, Illinois is a typical example of this:

• 99 individuals total unsheltered homeless
• 90 males
• 09 females
• 3 families consisting of 9 individuals
• Grand total of 108 individuals

 Even HHS admits the failure of federal and state programs to help homeless men find shelter.

"Single men who are poor may be more vulnerable to homelessness because of large gaps in the Unemployment Insurance program and because the largest safety net programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Security, are for families or elderly people. The share of unemployed workers receiving unemployment insurance has declined in recent decades and the gap may be particularly perilous for men because poor women are likely to be accompanied by children and thus eligible for TANF. Adult poor men also have higher rates of substance abuse than women, but substance abuse has not been a categorical eligibility criterion for SSI since 1996. Thus, some women may fall through one social safety net but be caught by another; men may miss them all. 

In addition, men are more likely than women to have institutional histories that are related to homelessness, including incarceration. And finally, relatives may feel a stronger need to give a temporary home to families with children than they do to single men."

 Item 2 -

"Gender Role" the problem to explain why men's behavior is the reason they suffer more

"First, it is necessary to consider aspects of the male gender role that might make men more likely to be homeless: for instance, men’s greater likelihood of being veterans, or the tendency of men to not seek treatment for their mental illnesses and substance abuse. Looking at it without the gender lens risks missing important aspects of gender."

While I agree that looking at gender roles is important when talking about things like homelessness, it isn't the answer to the problem, but only a partial description. For instance, being a veteran in and of itself is only a characteristic, and not a cause. Indeed, the Department of Veteran Affairs has implemented a female only housing project for veterans, but none for men only.

Mental illness and substance abuse, however, are actual causes, but unlike women, who have many federal programs to help them deal with these problems, men have none. We can say all we want that men won't go seek help, and to some extent that may be true, but unless there are places for them to go, which are readily available, then it doesn't matter much, does it?

From HHS, here are the characteristics of a homeless man.

• 1 in 10 are Veterans
• 4 in 10 has some sort of disability, including mental illness
• 75% are over the age of 30, most are older than 40
• Race- 42% African-American, 38% white, 20% Hispanic
• 1 in 17 men living in poverty will access an emergency homeless shelter each year, compared to 1 in 35 women living in poverty

Looking at homelessness through a "gendered lens" is important, but it is no substitute for the fact that men are still sleeping out in the cold. "Gendering" away the problem doesn't actually fix it, nor does it take into account how the government has programs geared towards or are heavily biased to women. An in-depth study of these programs, as well as information about family court systems and its bias favoring women, can be found here.

Item 3 -
Talk about how women suffer just as much as men, even though they are given preferred treatment

"Third, it is important to note that there may be reasons why women are more likely to be housed than men that still don’t mean the women are in a particularly good situation. For instance, women are more likely to participate in survival sex in exchange for housing. “Survival sex or homelessness,” however, is one of those dilemmas that really leaves no one in a particularly good situation."

I'm want to quote a comment left on TGMP by Typhoon_Blue, who is the author of the excellent blog GendErratic.

Those studies that break survival sex down by sex find the following:

“21 percent of the boys and 5 percent of the girls said that they had engaged in sex in exchange for ‘food, shelter, money, or drugs.”[a]

“13 percent of males exchanged sex for money or drugs and 7 percent of females exchanged sex for money or drugs.” [b]

“43 percent reported experience with survival sex (46 percent of young men and 32 percent of young women).”[c]

“41 percent of the youth had been sexually exploited in survival sex or prostitution. 47 percent of females and 37 percent of males were propositioned to sell sex.” (Note: Propositioned to sell sex, does not equal selling sex for survival. I’m just including this for completeness.)[d]

I was basing my understanding on:

“Depending on the survey, between 18% and 39% of the youth identified as sexually exploited. There is a common perception that sexual exploitation happens mostly or only to females, but street-involved males were just as likely to be exploited as females.

“Around 1 in 3 street-involved youth indicated they were sexually exploited. Among the younger street-involved youth in both surveys, a higher percentage of males than females were sexually exploited (33% males vs. 24% females in 2000, 34% males vs. 27% females in 2006). In contrast, among the older street-involved youth in 2001 in Vancouver, a higher percentage of females identified as exploited (53% vs. 32% males).”

http://www.nursing.ubc.ca/PDFs/ItsNotWhatYouThink.pdf

Indeed, men can and are sexually exploited or abused on the street frequently. Many men turn to a life of prostitution in order to survive, and is not a unique phenomenon to women.

Just a couple other quotes from NSWATM that I felt should be addressed.

"The primary causes of homelessness– poverty, lack of affordable housing, unemployment– affect everyone, regardless of gender."

Well, no, unemployment affects men more than it affects women. When the last round of job creation programs were passed, jobs typically held by women benefited much greater thanks to pressure from the National Organization of Women. In fact, men have about 2.1% greater unemployment rate, which equals out to be:

Unemployed Year End 2010

Women – 8.6% – 6,199,000

Men – 10.5% - 8,626,000

As of 2010, men have fallen to about 41% of college enrollment, and hence the job market for guys under 30 is very poor. However, the federal government, along with many state programs, have a plethora of female only affirmative action monies and programs still cranking away for higher education. There are still no affirmative action programs for men in post secondary education, even though their percentages have fallen below those of what women were at in 1965. In fact, women under 30 flat out make more money than men, even when taking into account things like dangerous jobs.

"Second, it is necessary not to erase the existence of women who are homeless. Even though men are more likely to be homeless, homelessness is a lot more gender equal than a lot of people present it."

No one is attempting erase the existence of women who are homeless or live in poverty. But homelessness is NOT more "gender equal" than people present it. Living in a low income apartment, with money stipend through TANF, is a hell of a lot better than sleeping on the street. People in poverty have it bad, no matter how you slice it. However, when it comes to society, men are often forgotten. But when news comes out of a slight increase of women becoming more homeless, the media and government light up with crys for help, along with the money and effort to make that help happen.

Horribly sexist Denver Post Op-Ed
Huffington Post Article
NPR Article
First Lady helps build house for veterans who are female only
Awfully sexist interview run by CNN about homeless
Fayetteville Observer Article
Change.Org Article stating women are under served by government programs
Specialized programs for homeless female veterans

GAO report to Congress about homeless female veterans
 

And the media stories and government programs geared towards men?

.....well, no, nothing there.

I would invite any of these folks to come to Washington DC with me at some point, and walk the streets between midnight and 6am, to see what a life lived on the streets does to a person. I work with an organization which has been lobbing for more money and more resources for men sleeping on the streets for quite awhile now. So far we have had little luck, as many in Congress have been very open about not wanting to be seen supporting programs benefiting men, because they worry about being seen as anti-woman. This is the world we live in folks.

I wonder when men will been seen as worthy enough to receive the help they need?

References:
[1] http://www.societaldistress.org/files/HO-HAR2009.pdf

[2] http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy498/gendertype.html

[3] http://www.hudhre.info/documents/4thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf
[4] http://www.popcenter.org/problems/homeless_encampments/endnotes/#endnote4
[5] http://www.hudhre.info/documents/3rdHomelessAssessmentReport.pdf
[6] http://www.dupagehomeless.org/2011%20PIT%20Comparison%20Report%20REV%202..pdf
[7] http://www.hmis.info/classicAsp/documents/AHAR%20Revised%20Brief%20(FINAL)%20for%20Website.pdf
[8] http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat2.pdf
[9] http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/Ann_hmlss_rpt_508.pdf

[a] Feitel, B., N. Margetson, J. Chamas, and C. Lipman. 1992. Psychosocial Background and Behavioral and Emotional Disorders of Homeless and Runaway Youth. Hospitality and Community Psychiatry 43(2): 155‐159.
[b] Rotheram‐Borus, M., H. Meyer‐Bahlburg, C. Koopman, M. Rosario, T. Exner, R. Henderson, M. Mattieu and R. Gruen. 1992. Lifetime Sexual Behaviors among Runaway Males and Females, The Journal of Sex Research, 29, no.1: 15‐29.
[c] Kipke, M., S. O’Conner, R. Palmer, and R. MacKenzie. 1995. Street Youth in Los Angeles: Profile of a Group At High Risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 149: 513‐519.
[d] Wagner, L., L. Carlin, A. Cauce and A. Tenner. 2001. A Snapshot of Homeless Youth in Seattle: Their Characteristics, Behaviors and Beliefs About HIV Protective Strategies. Journal of Community Health 26, no. 3: 219‐232.

Additional resources:
National Coalition for the Homeless
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Center on Family Homelessness

Appearance on Dad's on the Air Radio Show

I am honored that the folks at Dad's on the Air asked me to join them for their January 31st radio show.(Jan 30 for us Americans) Dad's on the Air is an Australian based radio program dedicated to discussing issues concerning fathers, men and boys. They have been doing the show for 10 years now, and have a very large international audience. The topic we are going to discuss is the 'Australian National Plan to Reduce Violence', so I am very excited to be able to get more information out there about this very serious topic.

Washington DC EST Time: Monday, 30 January 2012 - 06:30PM - 8:00PM 

Sydney, Australia Time: Tuesday, 31 January 2012 - 10:30AM - Noon

Host - Bill Kable

You can also listen over the internet, and all of the links to tune in to the show can be found here.

I hope you can all tune in, and spread the word!

I miss being a jack-ass

When I used to write about Buddhism, I took great pleasure in writing twisting words of trolling humor. It was OK to do that, not a lot of controversy in being a Buddhist. Men's Rights.....ugh, well, it's kind of like being that guy who comes to a funeral in daisy duke shorts and sandals. For instance, one blogger found an old post of mine, and linked to it, thinking it was hilarious. But then she came back and found out I was an MRA! HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, NOT AN MRA!!

Black Hypatia writes:

"http://www.thereformedbuddhist.com/2010/07/15-types-of-western-buddhists_16.html

If only I could write this well!

Actually, never mind. He’s still a good writer, I’ll give him that. But he’s big on Men’s Rights. Should have read the full homepage."

Well, I'm used to getting shunned I guess, but damn, I'm not a bad dude. I just want to see equal rights and equal protection for men. I don't have cooties! Meh, it could be worse.

On the bright side, my hate mail has increased, now with extra crazies. On downside, I wouldn't post their emails and make fun of them because I'm pretty sure they'd come find me, and proceed to saw my head off. And I like my head, it fits on my shoulders nicely. People take gender politics seriously! FOR REALZ, YO!(STOP! Don't kill me, I'm a Buddhist!)

In other news, I pissed off a lot of feminists in Australia apparently. I also found out what a 'Seppo' is.

So, the good news is I never run out of material for Men's Rights articles; the bad news is it's hard to troll people about homelessness and rape. Anyway, just an update, back to the grind....Burn Notice marathon on USA...FUCK YEA!

Here, you guys get Crowded House tonight:

Socially Acceptable Bigotry: Men are Humans Too

As an egalitarian, a Buddhist and a Men's Rights Activist, I have often written on subjects concerning equal protection under the law. Sometimes my work has been critical of political conservatives and sometimes its been critical of political liberals. But not until I started writing about men’s rights, have I experienced such outright hostility and bigotry concerning equal protection for men and boys from all sides of the political spectrum. It’s as if it has become socially acceptable to ignore the suffering of men, to marginalize their basic civil rights and to show a downright spiteful attitude towards anything male.

Down in Australia, the government has come out with a new proposal to 'reduce violence against women and children', which not only ignores the significant portion of male victims of domestic violence, but also has called for the creation of laws that are enforceable towards only the male portion of the Australian population. It doesn’t matter to the National Council that over 1/3rd of domestic violence victims are men in Australia, (even more if you count abused boys under the age of 15) nor does it mention that women are the largest portion of child abuse perpetrators. What they are calling for (and I am not sensationalizing this) would literally remove due process and almost all assumption of innocence from men only, in matters of domestic violence and sexual assault. Furthermore, it calls for only women to receive preferred access to domestic violence services, as well as make it very easy to request protection orders against men. No such benefits would exist for men, indeed, their plan completely ignores battered men and battered children.

Tory Shepherd of the Australia opinion publication ‘The Punch’ wrote a piece calling me a Men's Rights Extremist after I wrote several articles questioning not only the basic statistics that the Australian National Council used, but the startling fact that people are so willing to remove the basic human rights of men. She went on to marginalize and ignore the voices of black men, Asian men and Hispanic men (and even women) in the movement, when she made the racist assumption that men’s rights was generally just “angry white men.” Shepherd then made some horribly ignorant and awfully offensive statements, generalizing what she really believes are the views of the men’s rights movement as a whole. I can’t tell you how much Tory’s bigotry bothers me, since I am part of a religious minority and I know damn well that voices from other "minorities" are a huge part of the Men’s Rights Movement. In fact, it was a black man, a person who goes by the handle Krazie316, whose video brought me to the MRM.

I also sent my article to Graham Young, the editor of the news and commentary site Opinion Online, to see if they were interested in letting their readers discuss this situation in Australia. Here is the article I submitted. Young was not very keen on my conclusion which was:

“No victim of domestic violence, whether they are a man or a woman, should be forgotten by society, simply because they are a man or a woman. Not one!”

He stated that he disagreed with my conclusions, and that I needed to be more specific. But in February 2011 Young wrote an article touting the equality and greatness of his Online Opinion site:

"On Line Opinion is an open platform for ideas. We have a larger audience than any other Australian opinion site outside the mainstream media because we offer diversity and quality, and because we treat our readers with respect, promoting equality as a core value."

Later on in his article, he laments that an unpopular opinion can be harmful to his revenue:

"That advertising income, which helped to sustain both us and a number of the blogs, has just fallen to close to zero, and all because I published this piece by Bill Muehlenberg opposing gay marriage."

Well, I am personally in favor of gay marriage, and many other things which are seen as left leaning, so why is he worried about an article on Civil Rights? Is it because any mention of men being discriminated against is seen in society as acceptable, therefore discussion is viewed as controversial? I understand his concern that publishing an article that challenges the corrupt status quo could cost him money, I really do. But at least he doesn't have to get called an extremist, day in and day out, for demanding equal protection under the law.

Young goes on to call my article, which is nothing more than statistics and the opinion that men should receive equal protection under the law and not be systematically discriminated against, a “rant against women.” To this, I was highly offended. (Hell, my wife was highly offended by Graham Young’s statement) This seems like the M.O. of most people who are against equal protection for men; ignore the facts, and accuse MRA’s of some very bad things. Not saying we don’t have a few nut jobs, we do, as every group has their share. However, what was more telling was his statement to me:

”The problem with your article is that this is an area where one has to tread carefully and you’re not treading carefully.”

Why is the truth about domestic violence data an area that anyone needs to tread carefully? Here in the United States, domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women, yet somehow, people don’t want to hear this information. Why is it that a National Council report on domestic violence, which was sponsored by the Australian government, able to use disingenuous statistics, ignore child abuse data and call for the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of battered men without so much as peep from almost any media outlets? Why is it that the civil rights of men are less important that the civil rights of women in our society?

Feel free to tell Graham Young and Tory Shepherd what you think about all this. Australian men and boys deserve to know what is about to happen to their civil rights.

Tory Shepherd and Graham Young, this doesn’t have one thing to do with bashing women, this is about viewing men as equals, and as worthy of equal protection under the law. This has to do with the basic premise of civilized society that laws should not be enforceable towards only one segment in society based on a characteristic such as their sex, race or religion. And trust me when I tell you I have firsthand experience of bigotry towards me because of my religion.

This, the MRM, has to do with those men who die each year by the thousands in dangerous jobs, by homicide, by suicide, and those homeless men who sleep on the street because our society has decreed that there is only room at the inn for women. It has to do with agreeing that fathers should have equal rights to their children and deserve fair treatment from the family court system. It has to do with the ugly fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of offices and programs geared toward women only in government, but NOT ONE for men. And this is despite the fact that men are doing very poorly in so many areas. This is not a call to remove the privileges women have; it is a demand for equal and fair treatment in the eyes of the law!

And these biased programs continue to grow, men keep falling further and further behind.
Here are the facts:

Unsheltered Homeless (2009) [1]
Women – 12,000 – 4%
Men – 240,000 –  96%

Life Expectancy (2006) [2]
Women – 80.8 Years
Men – 75.7 Years

Suicides (2008) [3]
Women – 7,585  - 19%
Men – 28,450  - 81%

Deaths by Homicide (2004) [4]
Women – 3,856 – 20%
Men – 14,717 – 80%

Deaths from Cancer (2004) [4]
Women – 269,819
Men – 290,069

Deaths from HIV/AIDS (2004) [4]
Women – 3,357
Men – 8,756

Federal Funds for Sex Specific Cancer Research [5]
Women – Breast Cancer – $631,000,000  - 40,000 Deaths
Men – Prostate Cancer – $300,000,000  - 33,000 Deaths

Deaths on the Job (2010) [6]
Women – 355  - 7%
Men – 4,192  - 93%

Injuries on the Job (2007) [10]
Women – 36%
Men – 64%

College Enrollment (2009) [7]
Women – 58%  - 11,658,000
Men – 42%  - 8,770,000

Affirmative Action Education Programs (Gender Specific) [8]
Women – Yes
Men – No

Unemployment Rates (2010) [9]
Women – 8.6% –  6,199,000
Men – 10.5%  - 8,626,000

Average Hours Worked Per Week (2010) [11]
Women – 36.1
Men – 40.2

High School Graduation Rates (2005) [12]
Women – 72%
Men – 65%

Incarceration Rates (2009) [13]
Women – 114,979  - 7%
Men – 1,502,490  - 93%

Child Custody Rates [14]
Women – 11,268,000 custodial mothers
Men – 2,907,000 custodial fathers

US Military Deaths From 1950 – 2010 [15][16][17]
Women – 139  - 0.01%
Men – 100,063  - 99.9%

Federally Funded Battered Shelters [18]
Women – 2,000+ $300,000,000 per year
Men – None – $0

Federally Funded Health Offices and Research 1970 – Present (not including cancer research) [19]
Women Only – Office, Projects and Programs 70+ – Funds – $100,000,000,000
Men Only – None – $0

Forced Selective Service
Women – No
Men – Yes

Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Abuse Rates (2010) [20]
Women – 5.8%
Men – 12.2%

Yet we are called the extremists, we are called “misogynists” or “neckbeards” for demanding equal protection under the law; we are the bad guys for requesting fair and honest treatment in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of society. It’s acceptable and OK to denigrate men, to chuckle at their genital mutilation and to laugh off the hardships of those men who sleep on the streets or who die every day on the job or through suicide. This has become the norm, standard operating procedure.

Segregation of legal protection in the Southern part of the United States during the early 20th century, through Jim Crow laws, was a horrible display of bigotry and dehumanization, and really showed just how awful some human beings could be towards other human beings. You would have thought we would have learned some lessons from that. All men are not powerful business men, CEO’s, millionaires or politicians. 99% of us struggle to survive every day just like everyone else, and the suffering of men is not somehow less painful than the suffering of women. Suffering doesn’t care about sex or race or religion; and unlike many people, it does not discriminate on such superficial things. When will it become acceptable for society to view men as human beings who suffer too?

That’s why this Men’s Rights Movement is a Civil Rights movement, and nothing less – and I do not plan to tread lightly.

The Exclusion of Child Abuse Statistics in Australia's National Plan

Simply put, the most puzzling thing about the Australian 'Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021' is that the plan doesn't address the physical, emotional or sexual abuse of children. In fact, the actual incidence of various types of child abuse, and the profiles of the individuals abusing them have been conspicuously omitted from the volumes of information that justify the National Council's plan.

Understandably, many Australian men have expressed outrage that such a high profile government study would use the possessive pronoun "their," regarding women, as though fathers did not exist in their children's lives. But perhaps the government's failure to include men as caretakers of their own children can be better explained with further investigation into The Plan. Let's take a look at some statistics and studies about child abuse and neglect in Australia as well as the conspicuous absence of some key information. This may help to gauge the severity of the problem, and to determine who is responsible.

The Exclusion of Child Abuse Statistics

While the architects of The Plan often mention how a life in an abusive home is detrimental to a child's well-being, they lack any actual analysis of child abuse and the perpetrators.

In 1996, two quite detailed reports discussing the problem of child abuse in Australia were published, including in-depth analysis of the data that examined the sex and relationship of the perpetrators. Both Angus G and Hall G (1996) [2] and Tomison A (1996) [3] research papers showed an alarming amount of varying types of child abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect. Indeed, one of the more shocking pieces of information they supplied identified single parent mothers as the largest demographic of perpetrators of child abuse in Australia. Indeed, the Angus and Hall publication posted some very stunning data. The first chart shows family type of the victims for five Australian states:

(Source: Angus and Hall 1996)

Angus and Hall also studied the finalized cases of child abuse for five Australian states:

(Source: Angus and Hall 1996)

The Angus and Hall study also showed a graph of the types of abuse by perpetrator: 

(Source: Angus and Hall 1996)

In 1997,  the academic researchers Broadbent and Bentley published 'Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996' for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which confirmed what Angus and Hall as well as Tomison showed the year before. The report examined the national figures of child abuse for 1995-96, which showed 29,833 cases of substantiated child abuse or neglect in Australia. The split between the victims sexes, girls(51%) and boys(49%) under the age of 15 who were abused, was split almost evenly. [4-pg19]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Broadbent and Bentley went on to discuss the prevalence of the natural parent as it related to the perpetrators of the cases of child abuse.

"The data that are available indicate that the person believed responsible in 71% of substantiated notifications of abuse and neglect was the natural parent. This is not surprising given that child abuse and neglect is a child protection issue and that the natural parent is the person most likely to have care of a child. Step-parents were reported as the person responsible in 10% of substantiated notifications and a parent’s de facto partner in 7%. Parents were believed to be responsible for 66% of physical abuse substantiations, 77% of emotional abuse substantiations, 87% of neglect substantiations, but only 24% of sexual abuse substantiations." [4-pg34]

The researchers further examined the sex and relationship of the responsible parties in which this data was readily available.

"In 1995–96, of finalised investigations in those States and Territories for which data were available (Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory), 40% involved children living in single female parent families and 31% living in ‘two parent—natural’ families. A further 15% of finalised investigations involved children from ‘two parent—other’ families (such as families where there is one natural parent and a de facto or a step-parent)"[4-pg35]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

The breakdown of this data for the sex and relationship of child abusers was:

• 40% single parent female
• 46% two-parent families (both male and female parental perpetrators) 
• 6% single parent male
• 8% Other

This means that in 86% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a female offender, while 52% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a male offender. If past years of recorded child abuse in Australia are any indication, between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of substantiated incidents occur each year. According to several sources, this information did not sit well with several of the people inside the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) nor the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In fact, in 1997 the AIHW pulled the plug on recording any further data pertained to the sex or relationship of a child abuser.[5]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

However, in a recent email exchange with a spokesperson for AIWH's Child Welfare Division, the AIWH defends their reasoning why the Australian government no longer keeps information on the sex and relationship of the perpetrator.

"Data on ‘sex of person believed responsible’ were included in the annual child protection data collection up to 2001-02, but were not published due to ongoing issues with data availability/quality/comparability.


These issues were mentioned in Child abuse and neglect 1995-96, but not in subsequent reports. Child abuse and neglect 1995-96 (p33) notes: Data were collected from each State and Territory on the relationship to the child and the sex of the person believed responsible for substantiated abuse and neglect. However, some States and Territories had a large number of unknown values in their data on these items and most either could not report on the sex of the person believed responsible, or could not do so reliably.


The decision to discontinue the collection of these data would have been approved by the state and territory government representatives on the former National Child Protection and Support Services data group, and was most likely the result of ongoing data quality issues.


Some of the underlying issues with identifying and recording information about ‘the person believed responsible’ are shown by the related data item: ‘person believed responsible, by relationship to the child’. These data were published up to 2001-02, but always with caveats around data comparability and availability."

It must be stated that the information that was released to the public after 1998 did not contain this information, but were only cited in internal papers which are available only upon request. Furthermore, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada have not had any such problems recording the sex and relationship of child abusers, and is part of each countries yearly statistical reporting. The reporting of this data in Australia up until 1996 shows fairly complete information on most of the Australian states and territories, which has left many confused or upset over this development.

In 2003, another researcher for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Fitzroy 2003 ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’, shed some further light on the statistics which continued to show mothers as the primary perpetrator of child abuse.

"Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children. Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children. It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent. Within family violence research often a gender-neutral term such as ‘parent’ or ‘care giver’ is used, however there is no further discussion as to whether it was a father or mother who perpetrated the assaults. This absence may reflect a general understanding that men are the majority of perpetrators of child assaults, however it may also reflect a denial of the assault of children by their mothers."[6-pg2]

While Fitzroy criticizes the AIHW and ABS decision to not keep the data concerning the sex and relationship of child abusers, she gives a brief reasoning why she understands that many feel that women's violence can be explained away.

"This paper positions women’s use of violence within a social context that includes historical, structural and institutional violence characterised by patterns of domination and oppression. This social context includes patriarchal, racist and classist ideologies whereby some people are defined as superior to ‘others’.....I would argue therefore that an analysis of women’s violence should be positioned within an analysis of the human capacity for violence. We can all desire retribution for perceived harms, experience rage and the wish to inflict pain on another."[6-pg3]

The National Director of the Joint Parenting Association, Yuri Joakimidis, not only admonishes the Australian government for its refusal to keep these records, he claims that bias within the AIHW, to further a particular ideology, were compromising the integrity of all of its data collection.

"In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the AIHW (Broadbent and Bentley 1997) to no longer publish data indicating the sex of perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reversed. The action was taken just one year after the data was first published in 1996 (968 men and 1138 women). The omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space. Interested parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom Of Information request at a cost of $200.


Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of these data in 1996. In fact, Angus and Hall (1996) observed that "the information base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented." Quite obviously, the non publication of these important statistics can negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources. If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endevours." [5]

Indeed, looking at Western Australia's numbers for 2005-06 and 2007-08 alone, they continue to show the same pattern of perpetrators of child abuse being overwhelmingly single females.

I believe it is important to note the hypocrisy of calling this major report on domestic violence 'Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children' when critical information concerning child abuse and neglect in Australia is missing, obfuscated or perhaps even concealed. Furthermore, there are compelling reasons to believe that the National Council left out key facts regarding women's violence to satisfy an ideological and financial agenda that hinges on a false paradigm in which only men are violent in the home.

By omitting this key data, it is clear that the National Council is attempting to paint men as the monsters of domestic violence, who are responsible for almost all of Australia's problems inside the home. The fact that women, not men, are responsible for the majority of actual child abuse was intentionally removed from the parameters of their studies.  It is not only a disgrace to professional and academic integrity, it's a slap in the face to those forgotten children of Australia who live the brutal reality of violence and abuse, day in and day out.

Violence, a human problem, is one which both men and women perpetrate; we are all responsible for putting an end to it, not just in the home, but in society at large. For this council to deny the violence, neglect and other abuses that women commit could be seen as helping to condemn Australian children to lives of invisible pain. It is time the men and women of Australia let their voices be heard, and instruct their government that this is not an acceptable situation. Moreover, it is time that the members of the National Council Advisory Board be held accountable to the public they purport to serve. The women, the men and the children of Australia deserve better than this. They deserve the truth.


References:

[1] 'Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021'

[2] Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)

[3] Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra

[4] Broadbent A and Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)

[5] Discussion of AIHW Data

[6]  Fitzroy 2003 - ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies

[7] Australian Bureau of Statistics 

The Forgotten Men of Domestic Violence

In 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) headed by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, approved a 'framework for action' called 'Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021'. The effort was spearheaded by Tanya Plibersek, former Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women and Jenny Macklin, former Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The main body of work was completed by the National Council's Advisory Group which is chaired by Libby Lloyd, who founded the White Ribbon Foundation in 2003.

'The Plan' is split into several parts, which puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament.

The entire premise of the National Plan was underpinned by the belief in this statement:

"While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know."[2-pg1]

But a quick examination of the statistics and data shows a much different picture to the rather sweeping indictment of Australian men the National Council paints.

The National Council's plan is put forth as a direct response to several academic papers and various activists around Australia, which purport data and statistics that claim to show an epidemic of men's violence against women. However, the National Council readily admits its data on actual incidences of domestic violence and sexual assault is poor, sporadic and in some cases inaccurate. Nevertheless, the council makes most of their recommendations based on the conclusions of several academic papers and studies, and rarely address any comprehensive analysis of their own. Indeed, 'The Plan' never addresses the topic of violence that women commit towards men or towards children, nor does it accurately state the facts as they are in Australia.

"Data relating to violence against women and their children in Australia is poor. Data on services sought by, and provided to, victims is not readily available, and the way in which information is reported is generally inconsistent and does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of violence against women. Variations in data estimates across Australia are affected by differences in what is captured, counted and reported across States and Territories.

There are also personal and institutional barriers in decision making within and across systems that reduce the extent to which sexual assault and domestic and family violence is disclosed and reported. This affects the capacity of data to accurately reflect the real numbers of women and children who experience this violence. The difficulty [is] in measuring the true extent of sexual assault and domestic [violence]."[1-pg47]

What 'The Plan' lacks in substantial comparative statistical data, it makes up for with hyperbolic references to various academic publications which they imply contain extremely compelling data. However, when direct statistical data is mentioned, it is at best an out-of-context use of very some basic data; and at worst an obfuscation of the full picture of domestic violence. Here is an example of one statistic 'The Plan' mentions over and over again in several of its various publications:

"Violence in relationships remains high in our communities, and most would agree that unless the unequal power relations between women and men are more meaningfully addressed, the incidence will not change. Around one in three Australian women experience physical violence, and almost one in five experiences sexual violence over their lifetime."[1-pg59]

What they don't mention is this "1 in 3" (or 29%) stat isn't just domestic violence, or even violence men perpetrate against women - it's all forms of violence women experience. Furthermore, it's only violence that occurs after the age of 15, and does not consider child abuse experienced by young girls and boys. The exact same data set from which the National Council used, shows that over 41% of Australian men experience violence in their lifetime (12% more than women) as men are much more likely to be the victims of violence than women.

Here is the complete data from the same Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) source, which shows a larger picture of data on violence for both women and men.

Violence experienced since the age of 15:

• 29% (2,243,600) of women experienced physical assault
• 41% (3,031,800) of men experienced physical assault
• 17% (1,293,100) of women experienced sexual assault
• 4.8% (362,400) of men experienced sexual assault

In the 12 month data prior to the ABS survey:

• 4.7% (363,000) of women experienced physical violence
• 10% (779,800) of men experienced physical violence
• 1.6% (126,100) of women experienced sexual violence
• 0.6% (46,700) of men experienced sexual violence

Of these numbers:

• 79,500 men experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator
• 195,300 women experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator
• 77% of men (60,900) who experienced physical assault by a female occurred in a home
• 64% of women (125,100) who experienced physical assault by a male occurred in a home

What does 'The Plan' have to say about violence against men?

"While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence from strangers and in public, so different strategies are required to address these different types of violence."[3-pg1]

If the ABS data is correct, which does not include abuse to children under the age of 15, certainly men constituting one-third of all domestic abuse victims is not a "small proportion" in any sense of the meaning. In the prior 12 months to the survey for sexual assault, men experienced 27% of the incidents of sexual violence; again, not a "small proportion." The question must be asked why a well funded government study on domestic violence doesn't even begin to address the victimization of men when they do account for significant portion of domestic violence victims? According to the council:

"Enhanced community awareness and education programs are needed to change violence-supportive attitudes. These initiatives must be always based on the notion of gender equality and the need to shift men’s consciousness from one of privilege to one of mutuality. They need to make men question their own economic, social, and political power over women."[1-pg47]

Does the National Council believe that the violence men endure is not as important as the violence women endure?

"Attitudes and beliefs about gender are learned, and society often teaches deeply held sexist views. Evidence shows that communities increase the risk of violence against women when they allow norms that support men’s controlling attitudes and behaviour over women, or attitudes that support the notion of male privilege.[1-pg39]"

Let's look at the basic statistics for men in Australia in terms of health, education and welfare when compared to women, to see the statistical evidence of 'male privilege'.

• Men Live on average 5 years less than women - (in 2007-2009 men had a 40.9% chance of surviving to age 85 years compared with women’s 57.3% chance) [A]
• Men accounted for 93% of workplace fatalities in Australia (2009-2010) [B]
• Men die of suicide at 3 times the rate of women (2008 Men 16 and women 5 per 100,000 population)[C]
• At least 1 in 3 victims of family or domestic violence is a man [D]
• Men are more frequently victims of violent assault (3.9 % man compared to 2.4 % women)[E]
• Men are more frequently threatened with violent assault ( 5.0 % men compared to 3.5% women)[F]
• Men's enrollment in post secondary education for 2010 is 43.8%, women's enrollment is at 56.2% [G]
• Men are more than twice as likely to be victims of homicide (1.8 victims per 100,000 population) than women (0.8 victims per 100,000 population)[H]
• The imprisonment rate for men in June 2009 was 13 times the rate for women (329 prisoners per 100,000 male adults versus 25 prisoners per 100,000 female adults)[I]

Men seem to be on the disadvantaged side of many basic areas of concern for any Australian citizen. It's no secret that in the Western world, men have been falling behind for sometime now, which many would argue is due in large part to the emphasis in government on placing the needs of women above men. Moreover, the entire premise of this National Council's Plan is predicated on the belief that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence. Their own data refutes that claim, and furthermore, several significant studies have been done that show domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women.[5][6][7]

After close examination of the National Council's drastic recommendations of judicial and legislative changes, which call for 'gendered civil and criminal laws' meant to enact a type of gender profiling against men, holding them to a lower standard of proof for incidents of domestic violence, one can only wonder how such a one sided study made it past the desks of some of Australia's most prominent politicians without any protest. Furthermore, while the National Plan doesn't commit to equal protection under the law, they attempt to justify the 'gendered treatment for civil and criminal laws' stipulating that "reforming legal frameworks with the aim of improving the safety of all victims of family violence—the effect will be to the benefit of all victims, whether male or female."[4-pg51]

I think many Australians may be curious to ask if Prime Minister Julia Gillard knows the real facts about domestic violence, and if she is aware of the National Council's call to create gendered laws that will in effect be enforced against only the male portion of its population? Sadly, it appears, that the National Council's study regards the men and boys who are victims of domestic violence in Australia as irrelevant and unimportant.

No victim of domestic violence, whether they be a man or a woman, should be forgotten by society, simply because they are a man or a woman. Not one!


References:

[1] Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021

[2] The National Council's Plan  - 2010 Update 

[3] The National Council's Plan - First Three Year Action Plan

[4] Australian Law Reform Commission(ALRC) - Family Violence - A Legal Response 

[5) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62

[6] Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men's Health, 6, 54-71

[7] Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680

O' Buddhist World

First off, I want to apologize that I will not be working on this years Blogisattva awards. (shields self from boo's) I just don't have the time, so I'm not sure what will happen with that this year. We asked for help administrating them, but got very little interest. Seems people like to be a part of the project as in nominated, but not a lot in the department of volunteering time. Too bad, this year would have been a bit easier, since those who were criticizing them last year are all probably occupying something at the moment. Not that the OWS is good or bad per se, it's just a relief to know that the anarchists are off harassing someone else.

I lied about backing off on the Men's Rights thing. Yep, still writing about it as I get time. I've alredy written five articles for the MR activist site 'A Voice For Men' and for some reason many feminists don't really like me now. Wouldn't be surprised if many of them were the same Buddhists who disliked me. Hmmmmm, wonder why. While my own personal politics are rather moderate or centrist, I am finding it very interesting seeing conservatives, liberals, libertarians and everything in between coming to join the same movement and working together. It's very strange, but it works. Lots of new voices joining in the conversation everyday.....it's getting very big.

Ummm, been trying to think about something Buddhisty to write about, but I've been drawing a blank. Oh, I got one...publishers, please stop sending me books to review! No seriously, the just end up in a big pile of 'shit I'll never read'.

I have no idea what drama has been happening in the Buddhist world lately, I assume that the Chinese still hate the Dalai Lama and people still think Zen is something you can figure out with a cup of indie coffee house espresso, a $400 yoga mat, a mix tape of Maroon 5 and John Mayer with a teacher named Zen Master Bob. Yea, nothing has changed.

Killing us Quietly: How the US Government legally favors the health and well-being of women over men

In honor of Movember, I wanted to write a piece about the current disturbing situation regarding the enormous gap of disparity between men's and women's health inside the United States, as is legislated by our government.

In the United States, the life expectancy for men has lagged well behind that of women for quite some time. Today's life expectancy of men is 75.7 years, 5.1 years shorter than women, whose life expectancy sits at about 80.8 years. For black men, the data is even worse, as of 2006, their life expectancy was just around 69.0 years. The reasons why men die 5 or more years sooner than women is a rather complex question, which weaves in many different factors directly related to the cause of death. In order to understand this issue thoroughly, we need to take into account causes that men die from at much higher rates than women.

The two major events of morbidity for men that were usually of an 'unnatural cause' were accidents (in 2005 - 78,941 - of which 5,000 were work related fatalities) and homicides (14,717). Of the 1.2 million men and 1.21 million women who died in 2005, the percentage of difference factoring in these events was a mere 0.018%, which does not come close statistically to account for the current five year gap. Certainly, this leaves men with many serious questions about the outstanding and deadly medical conditions that effect them in larger numbers which ultimately lead to a shorter life span. With this information, one would believe that if the Federal government wanted to allocate funds for health research that it would want to spend at least some of that money on research for medical conditions that effect men which lead to their lower life expectancy.

Funny thing happened though; the United States Government did the exact opposite. Despite an already longer and healthier life span, Congress and the President, between 1970 and the present, have passed over 70 different medical programs, research projects and treatment initiatives, at costs exceeding $100 billion dollars, which are specifically allocated for women and girls. Indeed, not only did Congress aggressively pursue health issues and projects that related strictly to women, with the help and prodding of several feminist lobby groups on Capitol Hill, they completely and systematically rejected and ignored any calls to do the same for men. The disturbing and outrageous truth is the Federal government has consciously created medical offices, grants, and research programs for only one portion of its population, which just happens to be the healthier portion, women.

---

Federal Funding For Women's Health Initiatives 

One issue which came up often with women's groups and feminists in the mid to late 1980's, was the lack of federal funding for female centric diseases such as breast and uterine cancer. After many years of lobbying and activism, Sen. Barbara Muklski (D) successfully took up the challenge of championing this cause with federal legislators. In 1990, Congress passed the first in a series of women's health care programs entitled the 'Women's Health Equity Act', which established the first such gender specific entity, the Office for Women’s Health Research (OWHR) at NIH. In 1991, Congress passed the second 'Women's Health Equity Act' which established the Office on Women's Health (OWH) in the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) The bill was re-authorized again in 1993, and further saw the creation of the NIH Revitalization Act as well as funding for a Women's program at the FDA.

Again in 1996, Congress passed another version which created the 'National Center’s of Excellence in Women’s Health', which is currently run in several Universities throughout the US. Each successive year after the '96 bill, up until as recently as 2010, Congress passed greater funding for these and other women's health initiatives, which today adds up to over 70+ gender specific offices, projects, research grants and other female only health campaigns and actions. Well funded feminist organizations along with many women's councils and other associations have lobbied Congress every year for more funding and more programs, and have met with great success each Congressional term.

What started out as a call to fund research of diseases which were affecting only women, quickly snowballed into a 20 year avalanche of gender based legislation. Below are a small summary of many of the more public offices and projects that were the end result of these Congressional efforts.

• Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Women's Health(OWH)

With a FY 2010 Budget of $34 Million just for administrative operating expenses, the OWH is one of the keystone programs of the 'Women's Health Equity Act', acting as both an administrative hub as well as a think tank for new projects to promote women's health initiatives. The OWH main website, where it posts its programs and grants, can be found at 'womenshealth.gov'.

There is no Office of Men's Health, nor any menshealth.gov.

The stated goals of the OWH are:

"To develop and impact national health policy as it relates to women and girls To develop, adapt, implement, evaluate, and replicate model programs on women’s and girls’ health To educate, influence, and collaborate with health and human services organizations, health care professionals, and the public"

What else does OWH support?

National Women's Health Week (NWHW) - "National Women's Health Week is a week long health observance coordinated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office on Women's Health. May 13, 2012 and is celebrated until May 19, 2012. National Women's Checkup Day is Monday, May 14, 2012."

National Men's Health Week an event that is run by a private organization.

OWH also runs the 'The Heart Truth', a national awareness and prevention campaign about heart disease in women sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of the National Institutes of Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Heart Truth program excludes men from its focus, and has no comparable male only program.

Another OWH program is the Heart Attack Symptoms and Calling 9-1-1, a campaign for Women that was launched by OWH in early 2011, that educates women to call 911 when suffering symptoms of a heart attack. But why support one group of people with an awareness campaign for a medical condition, heart disease, that effects more men than women?

The campaign Heart Attack Symptoms and Calling 9-1-1 also excludes men from its focus, and has no comparable program.

There is GirlsHealth.Gov, dedicated to the health and well-being of young girls and teenagers, with the tag line , "Be Happy. Be Healthy. Be You. Beautiful."

There is no Boyshealth.gov nor comparable male only program. 

The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports
This governmental program is aimed at improving and promoting the physical fitness and health of it's citizens. The Council does has a fitness.gov/women which has a rather comprehensive annual study called 'A Report of the Surgeon General Physical Activity and Health Women', while men do not have the luxury of such a report.

The PCPFS has no such programs either under fitness.gov/men nor other comparable male only programs.

The President's Council also runs 'Physical Activity and Sport in the Lives of Girls' project and website at fitness.gov/girlssports.htm. I also entered in the URL for fitness.gov/boyssports, to see what the President's Council had to say about boys, and got 'Error 404, Page Not Found'.

The PCPFS has no such programs either under fitness.gov/boyssports nor any other comparable Male only programs.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

In 1994 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) created their own Office of Women's Health which have several programs and initiatives. While the CDC does have a Men's Health webpage, they do not offer any such special programs or offices such as those that were funded for women's health

• US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA)

The US Department of Veteran Affairs runs several female only health programs, two of the biggest being the 'Women's Health Sciences Division' (WHSD) and the 'Veterans Affairs Research and Development for Women's Health.' The mission statement for the VA's WHSD project states:

"The Women's Health Sciences Division located in Boston, MA, focuses on the special issues of women and PTSD, and especially on effective treatments. The Division has pioneered research on the psychological impact of military service on women veterans. Such initiatives include development of psychological assessment techniques, the impact of sexual assault and military sexual trauma, and on the effect of PTSD on women's health and medical problems."

Along with all the other health program that the VA operates for all Veterans, these two women's only programs have their own operating budget of $217.6 Million per year. Men have no such gender specific programs in the VA.

• National Institutes of Health (NIH)

In 1990, the National Institutes of Health established its 'Office of Research on Women's Health' (ORWH), yet men never received the same funding for an office of research. Instead, NIH gave men a generic link to a Men's Health page, much like the one that Health and Human Services placed under their OWH website. While no gender specific funding exists for male only programs, the NIH also funds three additional women's only projects above and beyond the ORWH. These projects are 'Specialized Centers of Research on Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Women's Health' (SCORs), 'Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health' (BIRCWH) and 'Advancing Novel Science in Women's Health Research' (ANSWHR).

---

Other Federal Agencies offering female only or maternal health programs that favor women at a 90% or greater rate

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - 'For Women' and 'Women's Health'.
Medicare/Medicaid - 'Women's Health USA'

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - 'Women: Life Stages Program'
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)  - Programs offered
HRSA's Office of Women's Health -(Annual budget exceeds $100 million)
Office of Maternal and Child Health ($660 million annually)
Women, Infants, Children and Youth – Part D ($78 million annually)
Healthy Start - ($104 million annually)
Family Planning - ($316 million annually)
Safe Motherhood and Infant Health (p131) - ($55.7 million annually)

---

Attempts at passing a Men's Health Act

As early as 1999, several members of both the House and Senate proposed a bill that would establish an Office of Men's Health as a compliment to HHS's Office of Women's Health. Idaho Senator Mike Crapo (R), who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1999, and underwent a radical prostatectomy in January 2000, became the spearhead of this effort to seek parity for health funding for men of the federal level. The Men's Health Act never made it out of committee, in either the House or Senate, and died a quiet death of a tabled motion. Crapo has since unsuccessfully attempted to bring this bill to a vote in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2009, Congressman Baron Hill (D) of Indiana tried to revive the bill, attempting what he thought would be a more acceptable approach by the members of Congress renaming it the 'Men and Families Health Care Act of 2009'. This bill also died in committee, never receiving a vote.

One of the several men's groups who supported both Crapo and Hill in their attempts to pass this bill noticed that "There appears to exist a lingering fear among elected officials that if they support any program designed to help men, they will be criticized as being "anti-woman" by certain gender advocacy groups." On the other hand, no feminist groups came out in direct public opposition to theses bills, as many of them worried that they might be seen as "anti-men." That didn't mean that many feminist groups weren't able to find other ways to express their disapproval over any such Men's Health Act, as several feminists spoke out in opposition as private individuals. USA Today reporter Rita Rubin was one such individual, who has been a frequent speaker at feminist gatherings concerning health issues, and wrote an Op-Ed piece in 2004 condemning the Men's Health Care Act stating:

"It might not have to be that way. Increasingly, research implicates behavior, not biology, for men's shorter life spans. Men are more likely to die violently or accidentally, and they're less likely to seek medical care when they don't feel well. Changing men's health behaviors is nearly as tricky as changing their biology."

Yet Rubin's argument against an Office of Men's Health, she presents no data or detailed research to support her claims. This is an argument many feminists have made against Men's Health initiatives in the past 10 years, however, by saying that because men die in greater numbers by accidents, (per year approx 78,000 men vs 42,000 women) homicides (per year approx 14,000 men vs 3,500 women) and poor health standards, that it isn't nature killing off men sooner, but rather reckless and dangerous behavior exhibited by men. Therefore, many have argued, that men just simply need to change their lifestyle and behavior if they want to live as long as women. This is a terribly disingenuous argument given several factors:

1) Approximately 1.2 million men and 1.21 million women die each year, meaning that a difference of 46,000 more deaths, or 0.018%, and does not statistically in any way account for the 5 - 7 lower life expectancy of men.

2) Over 4,100 of these deaths by accidents for men each year were on the work related fatalities, where women only make up about 7-8% of deaths on the job. Furthermore, many of these accidents for men involved work around the home, approximately 10,000. Even home repairs can sometimes be dangerous work, and these are activities that are traditionally preformed by men.

3) None of the 14,000 men a year who die by homicide asked to a victim statistic. So I find it very curious and rather ironic that some feminists would resort to victim blaming like this, (ie men put themselves in more dangerous situations to get murdered) in light of how vocal they are against the blaming rape victims because they placed themselves in more dangerous situations.

4) There is no evidence, that any credible institution has done, to suggest that men have a less healthy standard of living than women. Indeed, even if that were the case, would those who say people who don't lead healthy lifestyles don't deserve health care?

In 2001, one women's group did speak out to the public against endorsing the Men's Health Act, this time completely stating wrong information concerning dollars spent on research for women's issues:

"National Women's Health Network is not endorsing the bill, says Amy Allina, the group's program and policy director. At the same time, she says, "We believe there are health issues that are particular to men and we encourage health advocates who are concerned about men's health to work to get more attention for those things."

That given, says Allina, "We still think it's necessary across the medical field to work to get more attention to women's health. We think that women's health has been under-researched. Clinical trials as well as the historical medical practice model have assumed male as normal and female as a small version of men. From the perspective of saying women are getting too much attention and men need more of it. Obviously we had some problems with that. I appreciate that they've changed their approach to recognize that they can advocate for men's health without detracting from women's health."

Ms. Allina's reasoning has been the standard format used by many groups that have since opposed an Office of Men's Health, and has been rehashed by many feminist lobby group.

---

Cancer Research Funding

The National Cancer Institute(NCI) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) receive the bulk amount of Federal funding for critical cancer research, which they distribute to promising programs that are searching for treatments and cures for cancer.

This issue alone could be its own article, however these basic statistics showing how breast cancer, which effects 99% women, has become the most important health research program of the government and public. The funding disparity shown here, despite the many deaths by other cancers, included some male only cancers, says a lot about the current state of affairs regarding the perceived worth of one sex as more important than the other. Pancreatic cancer, for instance, that effects both men and women, and kills almost as many people a year as breast cancer, receives very little funding from public funds.

Suicide and Men

I would be remiss if I didn't talk about suicide, a serious mental health issue, or more precise the outcome of untreated mental problems, which men suffer from in very disproportionate numbers. In 2008, 28,450 men committed suicide compared to 7,585 women. Each year in the US, about 28,000 men will kill themselves, many of who never sought out or asked for help. And although women do attempt suicide in much greater numbers, men complete the act at almost four times the rate of women in the US. Here is an excellent site that discusses the issue of men and suicide.

These numbers are not much different in other countries, like Canada, the UK and Australia. Several of the programs dedicated to women cited above, do have some sorts of programs designed to help those who are suffering from mental illness. While generic help exists for disadvantaged persons with mental illness, the Federal government, outside of reporting the numbers from the CDC and NIH give each year, haven't directly addressed the problem of male suicide. If you look through the CDC list of programs offered by both the Federal and State governments to combat suicide, you won't see even a single mention of a project aimed at curbing the disturbingly high number of suicides among men. The Australian government has a Mental Health and Well-Being program that does acknowledge and attempt to take action against the plague of male suicide, which other countries would be wise to take a serious look at.

---

Conclusions

The point of all this is not to condemn health programs for women, or to say that women don't deserve gender based projects. Whether or not it is right or wrong, justified or unjustified to use public funds for these types of social programs I leave for others to debate. However, I feel strongly that any successful and prosperous democratic government must protect, defend and hold accountable all of its citizens, to equal and fair standards, to best of the abilities within any given circumstance, regardless of any human characteristic such as race or gender. Here in the US, this is embodied in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which is known as the equal protection clause. The second part of the amendment reads:

"....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Many times I'll hear people that are against Men's Rights say that equality is "not a zero sum game." And they are right in so far as the aspect of each person's individual abilities and needs. However, equal protection under the law is very much a zero sum game. To enforce or enact laws favoring 1/2 the population, without acknowledging the other half, is by its very nature the antithesis of equal protection. While there are times that arise in every country's history that a group may need some special protection or action, when the justifications for enacting these protections are false, but moreover, when such efforts intentionally marginalizes one group in favor of another, despite irrefutable evidence that the group receiving special benefits are in a better position than the vast majority of the other group, many would tend to call this systematic and institutionalized discrimination.

As I tried to demonstrate in my articles on homelessness and education, and in this article, we need to make it known that there are some rather ugly and destructive consequences which can result when the spirit of equal protection under the law is bypassed, ignored and willfully overridden, despite the good or bad intentions of the governing body. Almost everything about these health programs and projects, notwithstanding the necessary and justified maternity initiatives, by the very principle of the legal exclusion of men, violate both the spirit and the law of equal protection, which clearly promotes the health and well-being of one sex as more important than the other. Discrimination doesn't get much more obvious than this.

Where did our system go so wrong? And more importantly, how can we begin to change this?