Wednesday, October 21, 2009

CSM Op-Ed Falls Flat with Claim that Family Courts Routinely Give Custody to Abusive Dads

My letter to the editor of the Christian Science Monitor:

Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

You allowed this author to publish unsubstantiated claims with respect to cases in Marin County Ca, and offering unsupported and erroneous information relating to a theory of abuse of children called Parental Alienation Syndrome.

I am guessing this was offered to the author as an opinion piece and was published without authentication by your editor. You will escape liability for slander on it because she didn't name names but one of the cases she obliquely refers to is well known involving the kidnapping by a so called protective parent of a child. This parent was subsequently arrested, jailed and tried but found to have personality related issues, which is not uncommon. She got a gender discount.

For future reference moms are the largest cohort of abusers and killers of children in the USA. They are also given sole custody of children in 84% of all cases in the USA. Ms. Russell's opinion which states otherwise is no more than that and is factually incorrect. Allegations of abuse are not proven facts of abuse. If allegations were the only criteria of proof most of the country would be in jail. I can easily cite you any number of allegations that are untrue and ought never be used to obfuscate the truth.

I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.MJM

Contact the Christian Science Monitor here:

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By Robert Franklin, Esq.

They're baaaack. As if they'd ever left.

I refer to the anti-dad crowd whose latest shtick is to oppose children's rights to paternal access by claiming, against all the evidence, that fathers pose a unique danger to children. What actual social science shows is that mothers do far more (about twice as much) child injury than do fathers. That comes from the Department of Health and Human Services

Adminstration for Children and Families statistics on child injury and maltreatment, among others.

Still, that's the main thrust of the recent counter-attack on fathers' rights in Australia. This article is a special riff on the theme, though (Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09). Author Kathleen Russell co-founded an anti-PAS organization in Marin County. Hers is another claim that family courts routinely ignore a parent's claims that the other parent is abusing a child in order to give custody to the abusive parent. But take even a passing whiff of that claim and it doesn't pass the smell test.

Why would a family court judge ignore well-founded evidence of child injury or sexual abuse and grant custody to the abuser? Uh, gee, I can't think of any reason.

The strong impression these people give is that it's pervasive bias against mothers by family courts. They seldom come right out and say it, but with books entitled "Divorced from Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by Family Lawyers and Judges," not much is left to the imagination. To suggest that a system that gives custody to mothers 84% of the time and makes little effort to enforce the visitation orders of fathers is biased in favor of fathers, just doesn't cut the butter.

So where do those people get such a bizarre notion?

Well, they usually cite a single source - a study published in the May, 2000 issue of the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse by Ann Goetting and Amy Neustein. According to the website Stop Family, the authors conclude that,

"In a study of more than 300 custody cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, 70 percent resulted in unsupervised visitation or shared custody with the alleged sexual abuser. And in 20 percent of cases, the nonviolent parent lost custody completely."

Oh. Those would be allegations of sexual abuse. Stated another way, in 70% of cases in which sexual abuse was alleged, family courts found that there was either no evidence thereof or insufficient evidence to deprive the child of its access to the target of the allegations.

But to the anti-dad crowd, all allegations of sexual abuse are true, at least when made against a father. And if they were, the study's findings would indeed be alarming. But neither the Goetting/Neustein study nor its advocates like Kathleen Russell make any effort to sort out whether the allegations were true or not.

The patently false notion that family courts routinely turn over children to sexual abusers, absurd on its face as it is, is rendered all the more so by the fact that its proponents have a hard time coming up with a single case which, on close examination, supports their claim. The Sadie Loeliger case, the Genia Schockome case, the Holly Collins case and others, are all examples, not of abusers getting custody, but of courts taking reams of testimony and concluding that in fact it was the mother claiming paternal abuse who was the dangerous parent. Indeed, study co-author Amy Neustein's is yet another case of exactly that phenomenon. I'll expound on that further in a future post.

If, as the Russell op-ed claims, there are 58,000 examples each and every year of sexual abusers getting custody, shouldn't the anti-father forces be able to come up with one that bears them out?

You'd think so, and to that end, Russell offers for our consideration the case of Jonea Rogers, a Petaluma, California woman who, so her story goes, sought the help of various law enforcement agencies in dealing with her allegedly abusive ex-husband (or maybe his father), only to be rebuffed at every turn. Rogers then fled with their daughter to various foreign countries. Once caught, the child was returned to the father, Ian Stone, and Rogers was jailed for violating the court order setting out the father's rights.

A Marin County jury acquitted Rogers of violating the court's order apparently convinced that she acted without the requisite state of mind necessary for conviction. Astonishingly enough, Russell would have her readers believe that the failure to convict Rogers of the criminal charge means that Stone in fact sexually abused his daughter. Needless to say, the jury found no such thing and their acquittal means no such thing.

And by the way, Stone still has custody.

So far, the nitty-gritty on the Rogers case comes strictly from a few newspaper articles like this one (Marin Independent Journal, 8/10/06) and this one (Marin Independent Journal, 8/8/06). But it's enough to strongly suggest that we can add it to the list of cases in which, contrary to the bleats of the anti-dad crowd, the mother who cries "abuse" and kidnaps the child is in fact just trying to deprive a hated ex of his child.

Consider the ease with which temporary restraining orders are obtained on little or no evidence in custody cases. Did she get one? Did she try? The articles don't say so.

Consider the fact that a variety of law enforcement officials investigated her claims over several months, but found no evidence of abuse.

Consider the fact that Child Protective Services likewise investigated Rogers' claims but found no evidence of abuse.

Consider that what Rogers was doing was so obvious to one of Marin County's sheriff's deputies that he told Ian Stone that Rogers was "setting him up" and that he should hire a lawyer.

Consider that no article makes any mention of medical evidence that the child had been injured or abused.

Consider that Rogers planned the abduction and getaway over the course of many months, secretly selling her house and small business in the process. Are those the actions of a mother who is so panicked about the sexual abuse of her child that she needs to flee immediately?

And finally consider that the child has been living with Ian Stone ever since Rogers was jailed in 2004 and is now at least 12 years old. If he sexually abused her before, he's surely done so since. Where are the charges by enraged law enforcement and prosecutors? Why doesn't Rogers renew her efforts to have him charged and get custody of the girl? And of course, what does the girl herself say?

If Russell and the others who are determined to keep children from their fathers at any cost, even that of the truth, are so sure that Stone is a child sexual abuser, what are there answers to these many questions?

And why was Russell so careful in writing her op-ed as to avoid even naming Ian Stone or making any statement that could be construed as libelous or defamatory?

I think I know. Based on their performance in other cases, their claims in the Rogers case are as threadbare as they've been in countless others. And that pretty much sums up their whole cause against fathers and their children - threadbare.

Barbara Kay: Boy-hating is in

Posted: October 21, 2009, 3:00 PM by NP Editor

As my first-born was a boy, I quite reasonably hoped for a girl the second time around. In my technologically antediluvian era, one discovered one’s child’s sex upon delivery. So the long gestational lull was filled with suspense and a good deal of base-covering hypocrisy: “Oh, I don’t care really, as long as it’s healthy” and “Brothers are so cute together!”

Needless to say, when informed I had produced a girl, I gave way to honest emotion and ’fessed up to great joy. I’d realized my tidy fantasy — as the old song goes, “a boy for you and a girl for me.” But had I delivered a second boy, there would still have been joy, and brothers really are cute together...

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Dr. Anthony Synnott ~ Concordia University discusses his new book Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims

A well reported article from Katie Brennan that didn't unfairly dump all over Dr. Synnott. They did finally publish my eye opening comments after a second admonishment which seems to have put potential censorship in context.

Dr. Anthony Synnott may have not discussed some of the other hidden areas of gender differences that tend to obscure that women (mostly single mothers) are 2.5 times more likely to kill or injure their children, that children raised by single mothers are far more likely to have negative social outcomes compared to two biological parent families or single father homes, yet judges award physical custody in a 9-1 ratio favouring mums, women initiate DV (upwards of 70% in some studies) more then males, that women initiate 75% of divorces in Canada and the list goes on.

Over the past 35 plus years men have been demonized in the mass media and made sport of as buffoons on sitcoms. Its an interesting juxtaposition for the gender that invented almost everything we use to ease the labour burdens, discovered most of the world and beyond and saved the world on more than one occasion from totalitarian regimes.

Times are changing and there are many men stepping up to the plate to change the gender paradigm dynamic that we are evil abusers rather than loving fathers. I commend Dr. Synnott for his bravery. It isn't easy overcoming everything taught in women's studies programs often by misinformed ideologues.

Mike Murphy

Andrew Meade / The Brunswickan

Katie Brennan, 13 Oct 2009

A new human rights issue was brought to light this past week at UNB: what about men’s rights?

On Thursday, Oct. 8 Dr. Anthony Synnott from Concordia University stood in front of a roomful of students and professors and spoke about his new book Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims. Synnott sat in the hot seat as he discussed his theories on masculinity and equality for men. He believes that in the quest for women’s rights, men’s rights have been either forgotten or ignored.

Synnott points out that during and since the feminist movement, society has portrayed men as inferior and a social problem.

Synnott suggested that it is not uncommon to hear women complain that a “good man is hard to find,” to see comics or t-shirts that read “so many men, so little ammo,” or “men are stupid, throw rocks at them.”

Synnott takes this further by saying, “Prejudice against ethnic groups is called ‘racism’; prejudice against women, ‘sexism’; and prejudice against men is considered really, really funny.”

Continuing to draw attention to society’s prejudice against men, Synnott admits that men do commit more homicides and crime than women, but men are also killed more in homicides than women.

So why are men killing men, and why aren’t we doing something to stop it? Because men are seen as naturally more aggressive and dangerous, he suggested. Hate literature discusses how men are ‘in fact’ the inferior and more violent sex, proving their point by using the examples of male villains throughout history such as Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc.

Synnott reminds us of history’s heroes: Gandhi, Churchill, Mandela, Terry Fox, etc, as well as the reality that the majority of men are not killers and rapists.

Synnott is not only concerned with the negative portrayal of men in society but also the lack of support men receive. He said that while it is true that male dominated jobs have higher wages and are unionized more than female dominated jobs, but jobs that men are more likely to have are the jobs that have recently been cut.

Women, he says, have taken over the workforce and there is not nearly the amount of organizations or support groups out there for men as there are for women. And, Synnott said, because of this, men make up the majority of the homeless population.

And there are other statistics we are choosing to ignore, he said. There are more females enrolled in post-secondary education than males. He says men usually work in more high risk environments and are more prone to health issues, yet there is a higher percentage of men who do not have healthcare. Less money, Synnott says, is put into the research of male-specific diseases and there are fewer academic studies done about male problem areas.

Although talking about heavy subject matter, in a roomful of people ready to jump down his throat, Synnott was able to crack lots of jokes and keep his audience smiling. And after being interrupted a few times by inquiries about his sources, followed by some debates, questions were taken, putting Synnott’s viewpoint under the microscope. After his presentation, Synnott seemed relieved to be finished. He said that he often faces hostile and defensive audiences and that it surprises him how closed-minded people can be toward his unique perspective.

Synnott calls out to men to “man-up,” a term he learned from a student. But he does not share her definition, which requested that men, “Get beer, not white wine. Don’t get the baguette, get the steak. Stop whining, and just do it… oh, and hit on us more.”

No, Synnott requests that men start organizing and fighting for their rights as women have done. Because as we have all learned at some point or other, ignoring problems does not make them go away, they only come back later to bite you even harder.

“So gentlemen, man-up! There are things to do here.”

Yeah - Thank you Mr. Synnott for bringing this subject to Universities, where it is long, long over-due. As a women I have had many wonderful men in my life, my father, brother, friends, husband and now my sons. I don't want my sons gowing up believing they were somehow born inferior to women, are inherentely violent or that they have to "pay" for the perceived mistakes of the past. The women's movement should not be at the detriment of men and boys, but too many times it is. Discussions such as yours, based on REAL facts and statistics (not out-dated or even mis-represented ones) are so important. Please continue your good work!


* reply

Excellent Dr. Anthony Synnott your courage will not go u notice there is a long road ahead to improve the situations dealing with mens issues about health, suicide, family court ect... but you have sent a strong message to many who will not ignore mens voices any longer this will inspire other students at other Universities to talk about their mens issues and I include the female students also

this is no more a battles of the sexes but a fight for equality for all

Mike M

* reply

The inhuman extremism and extraodinary dishonesty of the western women's movement, as it has transformed itself under the banner of feminism during the second half of the 20th century, will eventually be look back upon with horror and disbelief by future generations of human beings who will have witnessed its full social and economic consequences. That is inevitable I believe.

Peter C.

* reply

Bravo Dr Synnott! Your courage is very much appreciated. Speaking truth as you have done in a hostile and "women first" arena is modeling for us men to actually "man up" and start to voice the truth of our situations. The world is and always has been built for the needs of women. Men are automatically assumed to show concern and put energy forth in order to provide and protect women and children. This is a given and most people carry this unconscious and powerful belief though most don't realize the depth to which it impacts their everyday decisions and behaviors. Dr Synnott is calling attention to the reality that our world is filled with automatons who expect men to be providers and protectors and NOT HAVE NEEDS THEMSELVES. This is how our idiot lawmakers have seen fit to not have any sort of special program for men and boys who are suicidal even though 80% of the competed suicides are boys and men. If it was 80% women and girls we would have multiple commissions studying the problem and money being dumped into trying to solve suich a horrible situation. Men are disposable.

Bravo Doc!


* reply

"Synnott admits that men do commit more homicides and crime than women"

Only because they are bigger and stronger and are taught to be violent from childhood - what excuse women like Aileen Wournos have i dont know.

Porky Domesticus

* reply

Interesting. It's about time this hit Academia...

I've been an MRA (Men's Rights Advocate) for over a decade and a half. I've recently completed the first issue of a magazine devoted to men's issues, and there is a huge community of us online....

Try glenn sacks' site, mensnewsdaily, Stand your Ground .com, or angry harry's site for a UK perspective.

Like i said, it's about damn time......


* reply

There are many, many examples of blatant sexism against men in our society. Dr. Synnott has only scratched the surface, but I applaud his focus on some of the more serious ones.

Divorce courts and child custody battles routinely favor women, we only allow genital mutilation of baby boys in this country and responsibility for under age sex is always the males crime, never a females regardless of age or consent.

Men are humiliated by the opposite sex in our prison system where women are protected from this type of abuse. Female reporters have demanded, and gotten, access to the locker room of the opposite sex while female athletes are given privacy and respect. There are too many to list here.

Its not just the double standards, its the attitude from women that they are entitled to discriminate against men based on gender. If we are to change all inequalities, we must be educating women and girls that they should give out the respect that they are so quick to demand from men.


* reply

There's nothing new about the need for men's rights. Historically, both men and women were institutionally discriminated against based on gender roles. Men were discriminated against in parenting laws, child custody, military conscription, forced labor, criminal sentencing, domestic violence policies, rape laws, public health policies, genital integrity laws, and more. This paper examines these and issues in more detail below.

We often hear of gender disparities at the top of society (government, CEOs), but rarely do we hear about the disparities at the bottom. Men account for 80-99% of homeless adults, work-related deaths/injuries, prisoners, combat deaths/injuries, and suicide deaths, are much more likely than females to drop out, skip a grade or be placed in special education, and still die younger and have higher death rates than women for the ten leading causes of death.

The reason for the disparity at the top of society is that women have more options than men to be primary parents. A recent study funded by the U.S. Department of Labor found the pay gap is due to choices, not discrimination The "pay gap" is only a snapshot of average yearly full time incomes. It does not account for overtime (90% male) or other factors like flexibility, shorter hours, physical risk, experience levels, etc.

Below is a partial summary of men’s rights issues followed by links to men’s rights movements worldwide.


Fathers have historically been denied equal parenting rights with mothers. The 19th Century “tender years” doctrine explicitly gave mothers presumed custody for children age 13 and younger. Even after being replaced by the “best interests of the child” doctrine, the tender years doctrine still thrived.

As late as 1971, the Minnesota State Bar Association’s handbook advised lawyers and judges that “except in very rare cases, the father should not have custody of the minor children. He is usually unqualified psychologically and emotionally.” Time Magazine, 11/11/03, “Father Makes Two,”,9171,1101011119-183968,00.html

Today, fathers usually ask for 50% custody while mothers ask for and usually get 80% custody, and fathers are relegated to visitors and must pay high child support with hardly any enforcement of their parenting time. The myth that fathers get custody when they ask for it 70% of the time has been repeatedly debunked. See Cynthia McNeeley, “Lagging Behind the Times, Parenthood, Custody and Gender Bias in the Family Court,”

Research overwhelmingly shows father involvement is a very important part of a child's development, behavior and well-being.

It also shows fathers are equal with mothers in nurturing instincts and capabilities.

Research on joint custody laws in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany that controls for pre-existing levels of conflict strongly supports presumed joint physical custody.

Although we often hear about "deadbeat dads," maternal gatekeeping (maternal resistance to father involvement) is a significant contributing factor to the shortage of father involvement.

Most men would quit their jobs or lower their pay if their partner could support the family.

Dad's are even stigmatized for taking parental leave or denied equal rights to take it.

An Urban Institute study entitled “What About the Dads?” found that CPS case workers attempted to contact fathers of children at risk in their mothers care only a little over half the time. That was true even though they knew the father’s identity in 86% of cases.

Fathers are also frequently subjected to false accusations and restraining order abuse in order to gain an advantage in divorce or custody. The California State Bar has expressed concern about the rising abuse of restraining orders in divorce.


The American Journal of Public Health (5/03) has declared that men are in a “silent health crisis.”

Almost every chronic illness affects men more often than women. Men die younger and more often than women for the ten leading causes of death.

Men account for 80-90% of homeless adults, job deaths and suicide deaths. Men more often have mental disabilities but are less often treated. They are the majority of special education students and are more likely to skip a grade or drop out of high school.

But men’s health has been seriously neglected. There are 7 federal offices of women’s health and similar offices at every level of government but no offices of men’s health except in Georgia. Breast cancer gets by far the most funding of all cancers, and has been known as a “horde” of existing cancer funds. In fact, for decades the National Cancer Institute spent about four times more on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer research.

Men’s Health Magazine did an entire story on how all other sources, including the Department of Defense, have funded breast cancer at far higher and disproportionate rates compared to prostate cancer.

The claim that women were excluded from medical testing is not only antiquated (from the 60s) but is an exaggeration that has been refuted by experts such as Dr. Sally Satel. Historically, women participated in 95% of NIH clinical trials going back to the early 1970s and men were underrepresented in research on cancer, reproductive health and sex hormones. Today men represent about 37% of participants in NIH-funded research, and gender-specific budgets favor women by more than a 2:1 margin, according to this report by Men’s Health America.

See, Young, C., Satel, S., M.D., “The Myth of Gender Bias in Medicine”; Satel, S.: PC, M.D.:, “How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine.”


Recent research shows men still get higher penalties than women.

Seattle Times, “State courts unfair to men, minorities, UW study suggests,”

This correlates with prior studies that found men receive higher sentences than women for the same crime even when all other factors are equal (age, race, priors, family situation, etc.) and that “gender differences, favoring women, are more often found than race differences, favoring whites.” (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v 35, pp 136-168.)

A study published in Justice Quarterly in 1986 found that, for the same felony, being male increased the chances of incarceration by 165% (being black increased the chance 19%).

The gender of the victim matters as well. A drunk driver will receive an average of a 3-year higher sentence for killing a female than for killing a male (compared to a 2-year higher sentence for killing a white instead of a black). (“Unconventional Wisdom,” Washington Post, Sept. 7, 2000.)

Researchers Edward Glaeser (Harvard) and Bruce Sacerdote (Dartmouth) examined 2,800 homicide cases randomly drawn from 33 urban counties by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and found killing a female instead of a male increased sentences by 40.6% (compared to 26.8% for killing a white instead of a black).


For years, the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 exempted “able-bodied males” between ages 18 and 45 from the ban on slavery and forced labor. See Article 11 at

We never hear of this in gender studies courses. And although the exemption was eventually eliminated, Article 2 still exempts prisoners and soldiers (90+% male).

Male slaves are frequently ignored by human rights laws and policies.

For example, male slaves in China have had trouble getting their slavemasters prosecuted because only women were protected from slavery.


Male victims of domestic violence have been seriously neglected in public policy, outreach and services. But they are not rare. They’re less likely to report it, which makes oft-cited crime data (DoJ, etc.) unreliable especially for men.

Prevalence and Injuries

Virtually all empirical survey data shows women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men in heterosexual relationships and that men suffer one-third of physical injuries from domestic violence. Over 200 of these studies (and growing), using various methodologies, are summarized by Professor Martin Fiebert at

Harvard Medical School and the American Psychiatric Association both recently announced a major national study in the U.S. that found half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal and that: "Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women."

The study also found: "As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time)."

A recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and as controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide.


Many government-funded domestic violence programs still discriminate against male victims. In Australia and the UK, the government had to revoke funding from domestic violence shelters for refusing to help male victims.

Other governments, like Holland, have created funds for battered men’s shelters.

But in many countries, battered men’s shelters remain without any public funds.

Battered men's shelters have recently formed in Serbia in Croatia.

In October 2008, the National Coalition For Men won a landmark appellate case in California that held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from the statutory funding provisions or from state-funded services. Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658.

NCFM did this on a pro bono basis and thus focused on overturning the law, not on doing deposition and gathering evidence of the discrimination itself. The court accepted the State's claim that 15% of state-funded shelters refuse to help men (which is significant in itself especially when they are concentrated in certain areas), but the number is much higher than that. The ones that "help men" usually just refer them to a far-away shelter that gives men hotel arrangements.

The federal Violence Against Women Act discriminates as well. First, it explicitly excludes American Indian men from its provisions on Native American. Second, it is implemented in a discriminatory manner nationwide, as the funds get routed to state coalitions that limit the funds to women. Dr. Richard Gelles explains this in his article, "Male Victims: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence."

Finally, the very title discriminates and stigmatizes male victims by leaving them invisible and downplaying the seriousness of male victimization, making them an afterthought at very best. We don’t have a “Men’s Occupational Safety and Health Act” just because 92% of occupational deaths happen to men.

"Build Your Own Shelters"

Some claim men's groups do not really care about male victims or do anything to help them. First, this claim is misleading because the main goal of men's rights groups is to end discrimination against men, similar to other anti-discrimination groups. Second, men's groups do care about and help male victims. Battered men's advocates also built a privately-funded men's shelter in Yreka, CA and set up the National Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women. NCFM networks with sober living homes in parts of California to shelter battered men referred by NCFM and has transported battered men to and donated money the Valley Oasis shelter in Lancaster, donated money to Valley Oasis, sent volunteer advocates to court with male victims, and provided moral and other support to male victims.

Telling men to "build your own shelters" is like telling women "build your own unions" because men built most unions. The discrimination we challenge is in taxpayer-funded programs, and men pay at least half of those taxes. It will take decades to establish the geographic spread that existing shelters have and meanwhile taxpayer-funded shelters can at minimum offer hotel vouchers to battered men, but most do not.


Another common criticism is that the studies showing women initiate domestic violence as often as men are based on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) which, they say, is not contextual enough and does not account for self-defense. At the outset, this is a hypocritical argument because these same critics have used CTS-based studies for decades to cite figures on female victims and they only criticize CTS when it applies to male victims. Even the DoJ, which most feminist groups cite, uses CTS. It is the most common methodology used in science to measure abuse.

In response to the criticism, researchers updated the CTS in 1985 to ask who initiated the violence first and found the same results (and even if one can "initiate" violence in self-defense, that would be true of both sexes).

Dr. Richard Gelles explains:

"Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we reexamined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The women reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men."

"The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; Male Victims," 1999, The Women's Quarterly, re-printed with the author's permission at

Professor John Archer further explains:

“It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating the attack. (Bland & Orn. 1986; DeMaris, 1992; Gryl & Bird. 1989. cited in Straus. 1997) or that the proportions are equivalent in the two sexes (Straus, 1997). Two large-scale studies found that a substantial proportion of both women and men report using physical aggression when the partner did not (Brush, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1988). This evidence does not support the view that the CTS is only measuring women’s self-defense."

"Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review, Psychological Bulletin," Sept. 2000. v. 126, n. 5, p. 651, 664.

Subsequent research asked about motives and self-defense and found self-defense is only a small percentage of the violence by either sex. For example, one of the largest studies ever done in England found not only equal perpetration by gender but that men and women assaulted their partners for the same reasons, most often “to get through to them,” while self-defense was one of the least common motives for both sexes and men were hitting in self-defense slightly more often than women were. Carrado, “Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships: A Descriptive Analysis, Aggressive Behavior,” 1996, 22: 401-415.

California State University surveyed 1,000 college women: 30% admitted they assaulted a male partner. Their most common reasons: (1) my partner wasn’t listening to me; (2) my partner wasn’t being sensitive to my needs; and (3) I wished to gain my partner's attention. Martin Fiebert, Ph.D., Denise Gonzalez, Ph.D., “Why Women Assault; College Women Who Initiate Assaults on their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior,” 1997, Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590,

A 32-nation study of domestic violence by the University of New Hampshire in 2006 found women's violence in dating relationships was just as controlling as men's.

Professor Don Dutton further refutes the self-defense myth. See Dutton, D., & Corvo, K., "Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice," (11) 2006, 457-483


Historically, many rape laws excluded male victims from the protections women receive. The Model Penal Code of the United States, for example, defined "rape" so that only women could be victims.

In England, funding for sex abuse victims is often denied for male victims.

The federal government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying rapes on college campuses while ignoring rapes in prisons where men are frequently subjected to prison rape or sexual abuse, and not just by other men. In fact, consensual sex between prisoners and guards is considered sexual abuse, especially when the prisoner is a minor, and female guards commit this form of abuse in significantly high numbers.

"Inside youth prisons, scores of female guards violated boys."

See also, "Female Prison Guards Are More Likely Than Males to Have Sex With Inmates"

Rapes of males frequently occur in the form of statutory rape, and not just by other males. A student survey in New Mexico found 43% of teacher sex abuse comes from female teachers but over 90% of prosecutions are of male teachers.

A recent study found 2 out of 5 South African boys say they were raped, “most often by adult women.”

A large study in Canada found high rates of homeless kids being molested, with 3/4 of the molestations of boys being by adult women, but there were still no programs for the boys, only for girls.

Though there is little empirical research, adult women do forcefully rape men, including disabled men. For example:

African men being raped and battered by women in Namibia

Quadriplegic man used eyes and toes to testify about female caregiver raping him.

Female Caregiver For Mentally Disabled Man Charged With Rape\

Tembisia police report women gang raping men.

An increasing number of men in Tasmania are reporting sexual assaults.

Two Kuwaiti women were convicted of kidnapping and raping a man.

Nun receives only one year in jail for raping two boys.;_ylt=Ai...

Police Say HIV-Positive Woman Raped Boy

Men are also frequently victims of “sexual coercion” by both women and men. (Sexuality and Culture, Summer 2000.) According to a May 2008 study by the University of New Hampshire, 28% of college women and 11% of college men experienced unwanted sexual contact and the perpetrator was a member of the opposite sex 98% of the time for girls and 91% of the time for boys. See Table 1 at


Almost every month we read of another man let free by DNA after years of incarceration due to a false rape accusation. False accusations are hard to measure and there is not much available research, but the existing research shows the problem is not uncommon.

A study in India found 18% of rape accusations are false and are often “coached.”

In a nine-year study of 109 rapes reported to the police in a Midwestern city, Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin reported that in 41% of the cases the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred. In a follow-up study of rape claims filed over a three-year period at two large Midwestern universities, Kanin found that of 64 rape cases, 50% turned out to be false. Among the false charges, 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi. Kanin EJ. An alarming national trend: False rape allegations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994 Kanin was once well known and lauded by the feminist movement for his groundbreaking research on male sexual aggression. But His studies on false rape accusations, however, received very little attention.

The U.S. Air Force study found 60% of rape accusations were false and the most common reasons for false rape accusations were: (1) spite or revenge; (2) feelings of guilt or shame; or, (3) to cover up an affair. Mental illness also played a role. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.

According to a 1996 Department of Justice report, “in about 25% of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI, ... the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.6 It should be noted that rape involves a forcible and non-consensual act, and a DNA match alone does not prove that rape occurred. So the 25% figure substantially underestimates the true extent of false allegations. Connors E, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T. Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. June 1996

According to former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman, “For 16 years, I was a kick-ass prosecutor who made most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. ... I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. ... A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45%.”

According to the FBI, about 95,000 forcible rapes were reported in 2004. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Forcible rape. February 17, 2006. Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American. Innocence Project: Facts on post-conviction DNA exonerations.

Some of these men are wrongly convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned. Even if there is no conviction, a false allegation of rape can “emotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person. False accusations of rape are a form of psychological rape that is not included in the traditional definition of “rape.” And false accusations are not studied enough because it’s politically incorrect to talk about. Meanwhile the names of the accusers are often protected while the names of the accused are not.

Here are just a few sample stories about false accusations:

Four young men traumatized by false rape accusations.

Man released on rape charge after 22 years in prison.

6 falsely accused young men rescued by video of orgy directed by accuser.,-babe_2006-02-09.html

Female rapists sentenced for rape and false accusation.

Women falsely claims rape to justify lover's attack on ex boyfriend.

17 year old boy released after false rape accusation.

Innocent man falsely accused of rape to win back lover.

Victim Now Accused of False Report," The News Herald, 11/22/06.!news

Orange County woman jailed for false rape claim.

U.K. judge jails "skillful actress" who falsely accused man of rape.,,1939368,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

Woman charged with filing false claim of sexual attack to police after road rage incident.,0,7666977,comment-display-all.story

The claim that only 2% of rape accusations are false is totally unfounded and is purportedly based on FBI crime data though we have yet to see this confirmed by anyone and crime data is never a reliable source to project upon the population as a whole, as compared to empirical research. But no matter what the numbers are, there is no excuse for the lack of attention to the problem or the hostile and emotional reactions that come when anyone discusses false rape accusations.

Falsely accused persons are victims too, and to deny or downplay the experiences of those victims is a hypocritical form of victim-blaming. False accusations of rape are a form of psychological rape that can damage a person for life regardless of whether there is a conviction.

Much more attention and research is needed in this area. False accusers should be prosecuted (they rarely are) and face same punishment their accused could receive. And the names of the accused should be protected as much as the names of the accusers.

For a good site on false accusations of rape visit


No gender oppression is comparable in magnitude to the deaths of males in war, which includes forced conscription. Over 20 million male soldiers died in WWII alone, about 500,000 of them U.S. soldiers.

Historically, a large percentage of men were drafted before they were old enough to even vote. The Vietnam Memorial has 58,000 male names and 8 female names. Males throughout the world are still forced to fight wars, even at ages as young as 6 in some countries. In the U.S. males must still register for the draft by age 18, including “only sons” and even disabled men if they can move about.

People who say “men make war” are the same ones who find it sexist to say men make science, medicine, etc., as women were restricted from participating and still did contribute in many ways. The same is true of war. Women leaders supported and declared wars, and women in the general population have supported wars at almost the same rate men have. E.g., 76% of women and 86% of men supported the U.S. military attack in Kuwait and Iraq during the Gulf War.

In his report, “War and Gender,” University of Massachusetts political scientist Joshua Goldstein documents how women have actively encouraged military adventurism, both in modern and indigenous societies, and that in the face of imminent conflict, women goad their men into combat. For example:

- During the American Revolutionary War, women were known to withhold sexual favors from reluctant fighters.

- During the American Civil War, Southern belles refused to accept suitors who did not take up arms.

- In World War I, British women organized the White Feather campaign in which they gave a white feather to men who refused to fight, as a sign of their unmanliness.

- Among the Bedouin, frenzied Rwala women bare their breasts and urge their men to war.

- Before the 1973 coup in Chile, women threw corn at soldiers to taunt them as “chickens.”

- During the era of the Soviet Gulag, female interrogators were just as ruthless as their male counterparts in extracting confessions.

- In the Rwanda genocide, Hutu women played a major role in killing Tutsi men:

“Women of every social category took part in the killings. … Some women killed with their own hands. … Women and girls in their teens joined the crowds that surrounded churches, hospitals and other places of refuge. Wielding machetes and nail-studded clubs, they excelled as “cheerleaders” of the genocide, ululating the killers into action.” African Rights report, Rwanda – Not So Innocent: When Women Become Killers, August 1995.)


The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors. The Department of Labor recently funded a study that proved this and found the pay gap is caused by choices, not discrimination.

See also, Prof. June O’Neill, Ph.D. (former director of Congressional Budget Office), “The Gender Gap in Wages, circa 2000,” American Economic Review, 5/03.)

This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., which examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men.

Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce.

This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).

Blaming men for women's choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives outearning them.

Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family.

Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents.

For more, see:

ABC News: “Is the Wage Gap Women’s Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity”


Role of the Foreskin

The male foreskin is a highly-functional sexual organ that has been present in all mammals for over 60 million years, but is most highly developed and erogenous in the human male. In addition to protecting the glans and producing chemicals such as pheromones and anti- viral substances it contains a profusion of nerves that are highly sensitive to fine touch and are also found primarily in our lips, eyelids and fingertips.

The president-elect of the International Society for Sexual Medicine, Dr John Dean, has commented on his netdoctor entry on circumcision that a reduction in penile sensation is an “almost universal’’ result of the surgery.

A recent study used fine-touch medical instruments for the first time ever to study the fine-touch sensation on 19 points of the penis and found circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis and that an intact penis is much more sensitive than a circumcised penis. Sorrells, Snyder, et al., “Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis,” British Journal of Urology International, v. 99, issue 4, p. 864, April 2007.

The full study is posted at

A subsequent study in China confirmed the same thing. Yang DM, Lin H, Zhang B, Guo W. [Circumcision affects glans penis vibration perception threshold]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2008; 14: 328-30, Dept. of Urology, the First Hospital Affiliated to Guangzhou Medical College, Guangzhou,Guangdong 510120, China.

Prior studies on this issue – which had mixed results – were unreliable because they were based upon self-reports of men who were either circumcised as adults for medical purposes or were circumcised as children and could not compare the difference. One of the study’s authors, Dr. Robert Van Howe, explains that the male foreskin is concentrated with high-sensory nerve endings that are only found in our eyelids, lips and fingertips. The foreskin has many other roles as well, such as acting as a buffer and lubricant.

Non-religious circumcision has been traced to the prevention of masturbation. And historically circumcision has been a cure looking for a disease, constantly being claimed to prevent one disease after another and repeatedly disproven afterwards. For more, see

HIV Prevention

There has been a flurry of media coverage over three studies in Africa that found male circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV. The conclusions of the studies have been criticized by a number of experts. See

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians reviewed the studies and concluded there is "no evidence to support routine circumcision of newborn and infant males." They also suggested parents wait until their child is old enough to give informed consent, and added: "There is evidence that circumcision does result in memory of painful experience."

This confirms what the American Academy of Pediatrics found long ago.

Dr. Dean Edell called the African/HIV conclusions "silly" and warned, "it will backfire." He recognized the gender double standards, the loss of sensation in the penis, how condoms and education are the solution, and how the U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision in the West and also the highest rate of HIV while European men don't circumcise and have lower HIV rates.

In fact, there is research showing female circumcision also reduces the changes of contracting HIV. Stallings, R. Y., and E. Karugendo. “Female Circumcision and HIV

Infection in Tanzania: For Better or for Worse?” Abstract of paper given at Third International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. Rio de Janeiro, July 25–27, 2005. But even the least intrusive form of female circumcision is illegal to perform on an infant girl. But the male foreskin is gynecologically equivalent to the removal of the clitoral hood, one of three forms of female circumcision all of which are forbidden by law. See Darby, R. and Svoboda, J. S., ‘A rose by any other name?; rethinking the similarities and differences between male and female genital cutting,’ Medical Anthropology Quarterly (2007), Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 301-323.

For much more, see:


The media has repeatedly publicized studies that purportedly found men do not do their share of housework. These studies, including one by the United Nations, were seriously flawed as they did not account for work outside the home and/or failed to factor many traditionally male forms of housework. The mass media also virtually ignored subsequent studies that disproved the housework myth. For instance:

A recent 25-nation study by economists from Berlin, Brussels and Texas, which included rich and poor nations, found men do as much work as women when all types of work are combined.

A University of Maryland study found the total workloads of married mothers and fathers is roughly equal when paid work is added to child care and housework, at 65 hours a week for mothers and 64 hours for fathers.

A University of Michigan study found women work an average of 11 hours more housework per week more than men while men an average of 14 hours per week more than women outside the home.


INDIA struggle-against-biased-laws_100232981.html

MEXICO (men’s rights march in Mexico City)












ALPHA PHI ALPHA (Black fraternity wamts White House Council on Men and Boys)

Marc A.

* reply

Thank you Dr. Synott for speaking out. Your views are also expressed in many books especially Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power."

For sources I recommend people look at

Marc A.

* reply

Dr. Anthony Synnott may have not discussed some of the other hidden areas of gender differences that tend to obscure that women (mostly single mothers) are 2.5 times more likely to kill or injure their children, that children raised by single mothers are far more likely to have negative social outcomes compared to two biological parent families or single father homes, yet judges award physical custody in a 9-1 ratio favouring mums, women initiate DV (upwards of 70% in some studies) more then males, that women initiate 75% of divorces in Canada and the list goes on. Over the past 35 plus years men have been demonized in the mass media and made sport of as buffoons on sitcoms. Its an interesting juxtaposition for the gender that invented almost everything we use to ease the labour burdens, discovered most of the world and beyond and saved the world on more than one occasion from totalitarian regimes.

Times are changing and there are many men stepping up to the plate to change the gender paradigm dynamic that we are evil abusers rather than loving fathers. I commend Dr. Synnott for his bravery. It isn't easy overcoming everything taught in women's studies programs often by misinformed ideologues.

Mike Murphy

* reply

Saturday, October 10, 2009

West Virginia Court Voids DV Rules as Gender-Biased

The Pamela Cross' of the world need to pay attention to their mistaken ideological premise in Canada as well. The walls of radical feminist ideology are falling around the world. Its only a matter of time for Canada to wake up to its blatant discrimination courtesy of Cross and her ideologue "Sisters."MJM

October 7th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Last Friday, a West Virginia Circuit court struck down three administrative rules governing the licensing and operation of domestic violence shelters in that state. It did so in part because the rules and their application were explicitly gender-biased, contrary to the "crystal clear" gender-neutral language and intent of the statute.

The full opinion is here and is well worth reading. It draws a clear and detailed picture of a state agency utterly in thrall to a concept of domestic violence that is well established as false. To men's rights advocates, it strongly suggests effective litigation tactics for attacking the blatantly discriminatory statutes and administrative rules that so distort our response to the problem of domestic violence.

Here, as I understand it from the court's opinion, is what happened in West Virginia. The legislature passed a law that established an administrative agency, the Family Protection Services Board (FPSB), whose mission it is to license and oversee DV shelters, and programs to assist DV perpetrators in changing their behavior. The FPSB was empowered to set standards for these programs and shelters, and did. But the intent of the legislature was clear - all West Virginians, irrespective of sex, were to have access to services.

But when the FPSB swung into action, it directly contradicted the "crystal clear" intent of the legislature. First, it relied exclusively on the feminist DV group, the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It promulgated a rule that required at least one-third of the staff of a DV shelter to have been trained by the Coalition. Into the bargain, the Coalition refused to train anyone who was not a member of the Coalition. In short, members of the general public who wanted to be trained in domestic violence response or advocacy, were barred from doing so. Only those with the "correct" ideology were permitted licensure.

And, given the political slant of the Coalition, it should come as no surprise that the court found that this rule "excludes any person who does not adhere to the gender-biased fundamental beliefs of the Coalition." Those "gender-biased fundamental beliefs" meant that men and adolescent boys were excluded from all DV shelters in the state based solely on their sex (and age). That, of course is standard Duluth Model practice, but it is not gender-neutral as required by West Virginia state law.

The same held true for perpetrator intervention programs. Again, in strict compliance with the political doctrine that holds that only men commit DV and only women are victims of it, the Board, through its hand-picked agent, the Coalition, directly contradicted the clear terms of the law. In doing so, it deprived female abusers of the benefits of intervention programs, while simultaneously depriving their adult male and child victims of the benefits of intervening in the perpetrator's behavior. The court struck down that rule too.

Through the lens of a court opinion, it looks like the Board was taken over by the usual radical DV advocates, who then appointed the Coalition to do the daily work of creating and maintaining a DV shelter and intervention system that blatantly discriminated against men, women and boys.

Not only is it clearly discriminatory, it doesn't work. It doesn't work to address the problem of DV because its approach to the problem is ideological. By pretending that DV is a political, as opposed to a psychological, matter, the approach taken by DV shelters and programs across the country cannot work. The simple fact is that they misperceive the problem. Plenty of psychologists know this and have said so. If we truly want to deal effectively with DV, we'll listen to them.

The West Virginia case carries the seeds of future attacks on the blatantly discriminatory DV industry. As such it is a valuable tool as well as a landmark decision of sorts.

I do have one criticism, though. Without being overly technical, the plaintiff in the case was an organization called Men and Women Against Discrimination. It sought to advocate against DV in a gender-neutral way and was prevented by the gender- biased requirements promulgated by the Board and implemented by the Coalition. Among other things, the legal wrong done to the organization was the limitation on free speech the Board's rules placed on its members.

That's fine as far as it goes, but attorneys in future court actions will be well advised to include an individual man or men who sought DV services but were refused. Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion is any notion that the Board's rules violated anyone's due process or equal protection rights. Clearly, if the suit had included an individual plaintiff, instead of just a corporate one, those vital legal concepts would have come into play and the judge would have had an opportunity to rule on them.

But beyond that, this is a great day for men's rights.

Thanks to our good friends at the American Coalition of Fathers and Children for sending along the court's decision.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Sex Assault stats fraud ~ UC Davis: Procedure on reports to be changed

This is only the tip of the iceberg. You can bet the Profs in the UCD women's studies programs and some feminist law professors, not only knew about this but use inflated and cherry picked stats all the time to support the notion the patriarchy rules women. It gets them funding for studies and in this case funding from the Feds who don't care if they are accurate. It is good to see them get caught in action. If UCD wants to find more misinformation just check the above two faculties for more of the same. In fact anywhere you have a known 3rd wave feminist, especially in Academia, you will find fraud associated with their stats and it occurs in all western democracies, .MJM

Sacramento Bee file, 2000

Sacramento Bee file, 2000 Jennifer Beeman, who officially retired from the university in June after 16 years as director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program, has been accused of grossly inflating federal statistics on sex crimes at UC Davis for the past three years.

Published: Friday, Oct. 2, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 10A
Last Modified: Friday, Oct. 2, 2009 - 9:02 am

Past problems with misreported campus sex crimes statistics, through both understatement and exaggeration, re-emerged Thursday at the University of California, Davis.

Officials alleged that the former head of campus anti-violence efforts, Jennifer Beeman, had grossly inflated the number of forcible sexual offenses in three years of mandatory reports to the federal government.

Beeman officially retired from the university in June after 16 years as director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program. She did not respond to The Bee's attempts to contact her Thursday.

University officials said Beeman was placed on administrative leave in December 2008 amid separate allegations that she improperly charged travel expenses to federal violence prevention grants.

That investigation was closed after Beeman repaid $1,372 for overbilling for hotel costs and mileage to meetings she apparently did not attend. But a second investigation related to those travel expenses is ongoing, officials said.

At a news conference Thursday, one top campus official called Beeman's alleged over-reporting of sexual offenses "an isolated incident" that the university hadn't seen coming.

"It's a sound program and this one incident of misreporting should not cloud that fact," said Robert Loessberg-Zahl, the assistant executive vice chancellor.

But it wasn't the first time the reporting of sexual assaults on the UC Davis campus had been called into question or that Beeman had been embroiled in controversy.

In an investigative series published in 2000, The Bee found the university had consistently under-reported sexual assaults to the federal government.

In 2001, a Bee story revealed Beeman had written a federal grant application in 1999 in which she said that as many as 700 students at UC Davis were victims of rape or attempted rape each year.

In that same time frame, the university was officially telling federal authorities that rapes and assaults on campus were practically nonexistent.

Beeman's estimate was part of a proposal that netted the school more than $500,000 from the U.S. Justice Department for crime-fighting efforts.

At the time, Beeman said she had extrapolated the number from statistics that showed 1 in 20 college women was a victim of rape or attempted rape.

While Beeman's grant application to the federal government included the statistic, a copy she gave The Bee omitted it. Beeman explained the difference between the two as a mistake.

Yet after that discrepancy was exposed, Beeman was nonetheless allowed sole authority for reporting her office's sex-crime statistics � a move described Thursday by university officials as a mistake.

From now on, they said, a panel of campus police, lawyers and students would be involved.

Annual campus crime reports to the Department of Education are required under the Clery Act � a federal law named for a freshman murdered at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University in 1986. Clery Act reporting violations can result in a fine of $25,000 per incident, according to the university.

Not until Beeman was out on medical leave did another UC Davis employee review her figures for previous reporting periods, officials said.

Marisa Messier, a victim advocate at the violence prevention program, said she was stunned to find no records of many of the incidents Beeman had reported.

Messier said she was "shocked and incredibly disheartened" by her discovery.

Loessberg-Zahl summarized the findings of an internal review and an investigation by an outside expert.

In last year's Clery Act statistics, based on Beeman's figures, UC Davis reported 48 forcible sexual offenses in 2005, 68 incidents in 2006, and 69 offenses in 2007, he said.

But reviews showed the actual numbers were less than half that high: 21 in 2005, 23 in 2006, and 33 in 2007, Loessberg-Zahl said.

Whether the misreported statistics had played a role in a nearly $1 million crime-fighting grant awarded to UC Davis and other University of California campuses by the Justice Department in 2007 could not be determined Thursday.

In total, past announcements suggest, Beeman may have played a role in securing nearly $3 million in federal grants awarded to UC Davis during her tenure.

UC officials said Beeman's alleged misdeeds had been reported to the Justice Department and the Department of Education.

A Justice Department official said need, usually shown through crimes statistics, is one factor in awarding violence prevention grants.

UC Davis officials said Clery Act statistics were not used directly in the $1 million grant application. Asked whether the false reporting would affect the prestigious grant, campus Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said, "Our hope, of course, is that it would not."