New Delhi, India — Men Helpline has expressed disappointment over recent remarks made during discussions at Times Evoke under the theme “Technology and Women’s Rights,” where Artificial Intelligence was portrayed as being inherently “designed by men and for men.”

Men Helpline strongly rejects such characterizations, calling them technically flawed and socially divisive.

Prominent economist and Member of the European Parliament, in the said debate, remarked that the digital world promotes toxic masculinity while overlooking crimes committed by women and male issues. Men Helpline believes such framing risks reducing complex technological governance debates to gender-based narratives.

Artificial Intelligence systems are shaped by datasets, institutional policies, and regulatory design — not by biological identity. Reducing complex technological governance questions to gender-origin rhetoric oversimplifies the issue and distracts from measurable fairness standards.

“Selective equality in AI governance risks turning a technical oversight matter into a gender blame narrative,” said Kumar S Ratan, Founder of Men Helpline. “Public policy must remain evidence-based, not ideology-driven.”

Gender is Not an Issue

Men Helpline emphasized that there are ways to identify if any bias exists in AI systems, then the response must focus on structural accountability mechanisms, including:

• Independent audits of training datasets
• Publication of comparative error rates
• Transparency regarding content moderation asymmetries
• Clear disclosure of safety filter design standards

In the debate, while bias was discussed during the debate, no empirical dataset or audit evidence was presented to substantiate claims of systemic gender-origin bias.

We believe that technological governance requires transparency, empirical evaluation, and symmetrical enforcement — not identity-based framing.

Equality Must Include Male Vulnerabilities

While public debates often highlight women’s safety in digital environments, Men Helpline pointed out that such discussions frequently overlook male vulnerabilities, including:

• Male suicide rates
• Male victims of domestic violence
• Boys’ educational decline
• Father–child separation
• Male health concerns such as prostate cancer
• Long working-hour patterns with less compensation recognition

“Equality cannot be partial,” the statement added. “Frameworks that consistently ignore male suffering cannot claim to represent universal justice.”

Overcorrection Is Not Justice

Men Helpline cautioned against bringing new imbalance with AI.

“Protecting one gender by marginalizing another does not build fairness — it institutionalizes asymmetry,” the statement added.

We reject any attempt to redefine equality as a one-directional policy tool.

Men Helpline Propose

Men Helpline advocates for:

• Gender-neutral AI governance frameworks
• Symmetrical safety enforcement mechanisms
• Data-driven and independently verifiable audits
• Transparent regulatory standards
• Universal human protection principles

Men Helpline reiterated its opposition to ideological narratives that divide society into competing victim categories.

Closing Statement

Men Helpline urges policymakers, media platforms, and public leaders to adopt balanced, inclusive approaches when discussing technological governance.

“In a rapidly evolving digital era, all genders are adapting, contributing, and striving for growth in equal environments. Framing AI as a gendered instrument risks deepening division rather than strengthening accountability,” the statement concluded.

AI governance must be accountable to all humans.

Justice cannot be selective.

Men Lives Matter Too – End the Bias
Equality Means Everyone

Ironically, while governments run hundreds of schemes aimed at women’s financial empowerment, the legal system still assumes dependency at the time of marital breakdown. This contradiction raises a serious question: Is the law truly empowering women, or is it preserving outdated assumptions?

“This is dependency not empowerment”, Kumar S Ratan

This blog argues for a much-needed reform – Provision of Zero Alimony for Short-Term Marriages.

Today’s Time

• Women participate actively in the workforce
• Remarriage is increasingly common and socially accepted
• Financial independence is no longer an exception

Still our laws function as if every marriage permanently disables a woman’s ability to earn. On contrary that short term marriages which has lasted in few months or in few years, has no much impact on spouse finance, it do not have any significant impact on their career.

Provision of alimony in short marriages often turn into:

• A pressure tactic during divorce negotiations
• A means of financial extortion
• A tool to harass not just the husband, but also his family

This misuse of process of law does not protect women—but it damages the credibility of genuine cases and destroys families through prolonged legal conflict.

Empowerment Vs Permanent Dependency

If a woman is capable to manage business or corporate life are also capable of rebuilding their lives, like men. Allowing women to get a lifetime alimony from husband is like making them permanent dependent on their ex-husband’s hard earned money.

So where there is dependency there is no empowerment, we believe.

Zero Alimony is Justice

Demanding Zero Alimony for short-term marriages is not anti-women. It is pro-justice, pro-equality, and pro-reform.

Laws must protect the vulnerable—but they must also prevent misuse. Law must reflect current social realities, not outdated stereotypes.

Ease of Doing Business vs. Ease of Being a Man

India takes pride in climbing the Ease of Doing Business rankings. Simplified regulations, single-window approvals, and digital governance reflect a belief that trust empowers people. When citizens are free from unnecessary control, the economy flourishes.

Yet this principle of liberty halts at the home’s threshold. Men are trusted in boardrooms but doubted in bedrooms.

In family disputes, the same government that trusts businessmen with billions doesn’t trust men with fairness. A single allegation can shatter reputations and lives. The presumption of guilt shadows men even before the first hearing begins.

The Pressure to Be Politically Correct

Modern men live under constant watch. Every word, reaction, or pause is examined through a gendered lens.

• Express anger → “toxic.”
• Stay silent → “indifferent.”
• Assert a boundary → “controlling.”
• Defend themselves → “insensitive.”

“Men must always be politically correct—not because they’re wrong, but because society expects them to be wrong.”, Kumar S Ratan

Meanwhile, women’s expressions of emotion are hailed as empowerment. Men’s expressions are viewed as aggression. This double standard suffocates authenticity and destroys genuine communication in relationships.

The Liberty Gap

India liberated its markets, not its men.
There are reforms for start-ups but none for fathers, husbands, or sons.

A businessman who fails is called “innovative.”
A husband who fails to please is called “abusive.”

Family courts and social norms have tilted so far that men must prove their innocence to earn basic respect. Fathers struggle for visitation; husbands fight stigma more than cases. The system meant for protection has turned punitive for one gender.

The Human Cost

This constant vigilance breaks men silently.
They suppress emotions, withdraw socially, and internalize guilt.
Mental-health issues among men—depression, anxiety, suicide—are rarely treated as a national concern, even though they stem from emotional injustice and societal neglect.

Time for Social Reform

India needs not only economic freedom but emotional freedom for men.

Just as we measure the Ease of Doing Business, let us measure the Ease of Being a Man.
Let it reflect:

• Fairness in laws
• Respect for men’s human rights and fathers’ rights
• Recognition of men’s mental health
• Equal empathy in family courts

Because a nation that ignores the well-being of its men cannot build healthy families—and without strong families, no economy can sustain growth.

Closing Thought

Ease of doing business strengthened India’s economy.
Now, we must strengthen its families by creating an Ease of Being a Man Reform.

A man trusted in the boardroom should not be broken in the courtroom.
He should not have to be politically correct to be respected— only human to be understood.

Whenever we hear the word dowry, dowry law, society immediately imagines women as victims and men as oppressors. Newspapers, TV channels, and NGOs repeat the oppressors narrative endlessly. One sided Statistics on dowry deaths of women are quoted again and again. But what about the suffering of men? Why is their pain invisible?

At Men Helpline, we see a very different picture. Behind every law that claims to protect women, there are hundreds of men and families being destroyed.

The Harsh Truth of Section 304B and 498A

• Under Section 304B IPC (dowry death), if a wife dies in her matrimonial home, the husband and his family are automatically treated as culprits. No investigation, no fairness — just instant blame.
• Under Section 498A IPC (dowry harassment), men can be arrested solely on the statement of a woman. Even the Supreme Court has called this a form of “legal terrorism” because of the widespread misuse.

But here’s the reality no one wants to discuss: when a husband dies due to harassment, financial pressure, or abuse by his wife, there is no law to protect him. In fact, the wife inherits all his property.

Is this justice?

The Silent Epidemic: Men’s Suicides

• In 2022 alone, over 90,000 married men died by suicide (NCRB data). Family problems and marital stress were the biggest reasons. Compare this to the 6,516 reported dowry deaths of women, and you will see the imbalance in the narrative. More Importantly this law don’t lodge men’s death.
• When a woman dies, society rushes to demand justice. But when a man dies, society shrugs. His death is dismissed as “personal problems,” never linked to harassment or extortion by his wife. This silence is nothing less than discrimination.

Alimony – Punishment for Being Married

Alimony is presented as a woman’s “right.” Courts force husbands to pay lifelong maintenance, even when wives are capable of working. At the same time, governments and NGOs run hundreds of programs for women’s financial empowerment.

So why do courts keep women dependent on men’s earnings? Is this empowerment? Or is it simply punishing men for the act of marriage?

We call this begging, not rights.

Marriage – A Burden for Men

Marriage has become a heavy burden for men. Wives demand that husbands:

• Earn money for the household.
• Share household chores like cooking and cleaning.
• Fund luxuries and comfort.

And yet, the husband is treated as disposable, a servant in his own home. If disputes arise, the entire family — parents, siblings, relatives — can be dragged into criminal cases, all on the mere word of the daughter-in-law.

In business matters, the government talks about liberalization and growth. But in family matters, it promotes criminalization and destruction.

The Collapse of Indian Family Traditions

The sad reality is that decades of feminist lies and biased laws have broken down our Great Indian Family traditions. Families that once stood united are now shattered under the weight of false cases and extortion.

If giving gifts to husbands is called dowry and treated as a crime, then gifts to wives should also be treated as a crime. If demands by husbands are wrong, then demands by wives should also be wrong. Equality must be for both genders — not one-sided empowerment at the cost of men.

Our Call to Brothers

Brothers, we cannot stay silent anymore. The plight of men must be spoken about, written about, and brought into the open. Each false case, each suicide, each broken family is not just a personal tragedy — it is a national loss.

It is time to unite and fight against the misuse of dowry laws, against biased alimony systems, and against the false narratives that portray men only as oppressors.

The truth is simple: men are suffering too, and their suffering deserves justice.

FAQ – Police Harassment & Men’s Rights

The traditional model often favored sole custody, a wealth of scientific research now powerfully supports joint parenting as the arrangement that most consistently promotes children’s well-being. It is important for parents navigating the emotional and legal challenges of separation or divorce, choosing the right custody arrangement is one of the most consequential decisions for their children’s future.

Moving from Custody to Parenting

The word “custody” carries a connotation of ownership or possession, which fuels litigation by framing the dispute as a contest to “win” the child. In contrast, the term “parenting” shifts the focus from parental ownership to parental responsibility, cooperation, and the child’s developmental needs.

Kumar S. Ratan, who has been working in the area of joint parenting and joint parental responsibility for more than a decade, argues that language shapes legal interpretation, judicial mindset, and litigants’ approach. By adopting the term “parenting” in place of “custody”, India can create a psychological shift in how separated parents view their role — from adversaries seeking control to co-guardians jointly nurturing their child.

Various research studies indicate that children have better lives when they remain connected with both parents and spend healthy, meaningful time with each of them. However, high conflict between parents can negatively affect a child’s development. The current custody laws focus on sole custody, which is like taking the ownership of the child. It is like “prize” for one who wins the custody (often the mother).

“change the vocabulary and mindset — replacing “custody” with “parenting” — so that the law itself becomes an instrument of cooperation rather than conflict.”, Kumar S Ratan

The Best Interest of the Child: The Legal and Ethical Cornerstone

Every custody decision is guided by the principle of the “best interest of the child,” which places the child’s welfare, development, and happiness above all other considerations. This foundational tenet is reflected in international conventions, like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in family law across the world. The crux of the joint parenting argument isn’t about parental equality—it’s about securing the child’s fundamental right to continuous and meaningful relationships with both parents.

What the Empirical Evidence Shows

The science is resounding: studies have repeatedly shown that children in joint custody arrangements fare significantly better than those in sole custody homes, across multiple developmental, emotional, and academic measures. A landmark meta-analysis determined that children raised in joint physical or legal custody are as well-adjusted as those from intact families, and much better adjusted than peers in sole custody settings. These benefits span family relationships, emotional and behavioral health, and self-esteem.

Research also links joint custody to improvements in psychological adjustment, social skills, and academic performance. The involvement of both parents provides children with a stabilizing routine and supportive foundation, reducing the anxieties of post-separation life and helping them focus on learning and healthy social development.

The Role of Both Parents—Particularly the Father

A consistent and involved father-child relationship is a critical component of a child’s long-term health. Studies have found that less time with fathers after divorce correlates with poorer emotional bonds and diminished physical health outcomes in adulthood. More time with dad not only sustains emotional closeness but also predicts stronger, healthier relationships years later.

The evidence is equally compelling for very young children. Contrary to outdated beliefs, even infants and toddlers benefit from regular and overnight time with both parents, fathers included. Denying young children substantial time with either parent, especially their father, can compromise the quality of the developing bond and future emotional security.

Parental Conflict: Separating Fact from Myth

A frequent objection to joint custody is the presence of high parental conflict. Yet, research clarifies that while conflict is stressful, its harmful effects on children are primarily mediated through poor parenting behaviors, not the conflict itself. Most crucially, the benefits of joint parenting—particularly abundant time with both parents—hold true regardless of the level of parental conflict.

A comprehensive review of over 40 studies found that children in shared custody arrangements enjoy better outcomes than those in sole custody homes, even amid high disagreement. These findings suggest that the stabilizing presence of both parents is more powerful than the disruptive effect of parental conflict.

A New Paradigm for Families

Joint parenting represents a transformative approach to post-divorce family life. It dismantles the old assumption that a child must choose one primary home—and instead recognizes their right to strong bonds with both parents. By choosing joint parenting, families aren’t merely dividing time but are investing in a child’s emotional, psychological, and physical future.

Legal professionals, policymakers, and families alike should heed the mounting evidence: the best interest of the child is most often served with two parents, two homes, and shared devotion to their child’s thriving.

References used in the above article

• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; legal best interest principle
• Meta-analysis: Bauserman, R., “Research about Joint Vs. Sole Custody”
• Postdivorce adjustment: “Postdivorce Living Arrangements” study
• Father involvement: Fabricius & Luecken, 2007, “Long-term Physical Health Correlates for Children of Divorce”
• Early childhood consensus: Warshak et al., 2014
• Parental conflict and child adjustment: Clinical Psychology Review study
• Review of 40 shared custody studies: Nielsen, 2014

Whatever we knew about gender-based violence and oppression came only from what mainstream media, textbooks, Bollywood, and activist campaigns wanted us to believe. Stories about men being harassed, abused, or even killed were almost never told. The truth was buried under layers of propaganda.

Today, the rise of social media has changed that. Incidents of men’s harassment, abuse by women, and even cases where women have killed their husbands or abused senior citizens are now reaching the public eye—uncensored, unfiltered, and undeniable. But make no mistake—these incidents didn’t suddenly start happening. They have always existed. The difference is that now we have platforms where the truth can bypass the traditional gatekeepers.

The Myth of “Thousands of Years of Oppression”

One of the biggest lies ever sold to society is the feminist narrative that women have been oppressed for thousands of years. This claim has been repeated so often that it has been accepted as unquestionable truth. In reality, our cultural history tells a different story—one where women held a respected, even sacred place in the family and society.

Feminist activists have weaponized this myth to justify gender-biased laws, dismantle traditional family structures, and paint men as the villains of history. Over the last 70–80 years, this narrative has been carefully cultivated in schools, in the media, and even in government policies.

The Role of Bollywood in Male Demonization

Cinema has always been a powerful tool for shaping public opinion. For decades, Bollywood has churned out movies where men are portrayed as violent, cruel, and morally corrupt—while women are shown as eternal victims. These stories have seeped into our subconscious, influencing how society views men.

The result? A society that is quick to believe the worst about men and dismiss their suffering.

The Cost of Propaganda: A Broken Family System

The family system that sustained Indian society for thousands of years has been systematically weakened.

• False narratives have created mistrust between men and women.
• Laws have been skewed to favor women, often without safeguards against misuse.
• Social attitudes have shifted to assume men are guilty until proven innocent.

The damage is visible—rising divorce rates, fatherless children, and increasing cases of depression and suicide among men.

The Truth Is Finally Out

Social media has given men a voice. Incidents that would have been buried in the past are now being discussed openly. People are questioning the old narratives and asking—why were we never told these stories before? Why was the suffering of men ignored?

The fight for truth is not about hating women—it’s about demanding fairness, equality, and an end to the propaganda that has fueled gender-based injustice for decades.

Finally:

The “men are monsters, women are victims” narrative is crumbling under the weight of reality. Thanks to social media, the truth about men’s harassment is finally coming to light. But this is only the beginning—if we want a society based on fairness, we must challenge false narratives, demand gender-neutral laws, and rebuild the trust that has been eroded over generations.

Date: 24 June 2025
From: Men Helpline Org

Men Helpline has issued an open letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council, raising strong concerns about the biased report A/HRC/59/47 by Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. The report unfairly portrays men only as perpetrators and women only as victims — ignoring the reality of male victims of domestic violence, false accusations, legal harassment, and suicides.

We, the Men Helpline Organization — supporting men who are facing domestic violence, false accusations, gender-biased laws, and mental health crises — strongly object to the biased approach taken in the recent United Nations report titled:

“Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues” (A/HRC/59/47) submitted by Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem.

Such gender bias in international reports promotes discrimination, fuels one-sided laws, and denies justice to men and boys.

Our Concerns: (stereotypes version of report)

Biased Narrative

The report presents men only as perpetrators and women only as victims. It ignores the lived reality that men and boys also face violence, harassment, false cases, and discrimination under current gender-biased systems.

Denial of Harassment with Men

Nowhere does the report acknowledge male victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse of boys, or men driven to suicide by false allegations and harassment — all well documented across many countries.

Promotion of Legal Discrimination with Men

By asking States to make laws even more sex-specific (female-only protections), the report promotes policies that violate the basic human right of equality before law. Men would continue to be denied protections even when facing violence or false charges.

Ignoring the Issue of False Accusations

False cases under laws like IPC 498A (anti-dowry), false rape or molestation accusations are a growing epidemic in countries like India. Innocent men face arrest, loss of career, family breakdown, social stigma, and even suicide — yet this reality is completely missing in the report.

Silence on Male Suicide Crisis

According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, over 70% of suicides are by men — often due to legal harassment, family breakdown, and gender bias. The UN report ignores this massive human rights crisis.

Report Discards the Reality

Yet — the report completely ignores the reality of harassment with men and instead promotes a narrative that:

Only women and girls are victims of “sex-based violence”
Men are the presumed perpetrators of all violence
There is no mention of the misuse of gender laws, false accusations, or the suicide crisis among men

Our Appeal to the United Nations:

• Recognize that men and boys also face gender-based violence and discrimination.
• Future reports must include male victims and be written in a gender-neutral, objective way — not using one-sided narratives.
• Promote gender-neutral laws that protect all citizens equally, regardless of sex.
• Address the growing global concern of false accusations and the legal system’s bias against men.
• Include male suicide linked to gender-based discrimination as a key human rights issue.
• Discard the Reem Alsalem’s biased report.

The United Nations must not allow its human rights mechanisms to become tools of gender bias. Equality before law, fairness, and neutrality are fundamental values. No human — whether male or female — should be treated as guilty by assumption or denied protection from violence and injustice.

We urge the Human Rights Council to take immediate steps to correct this imbalance and stand for human rights for all.

Refer the attached report for reference.

In a significant judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed a false dowry harassment case filed in 2002 against Mr. Ghanshyam Soni and his family, citing lack of evidence, vagueness of allegations, and gross delay. While this long-overdue relief to the falsely accused is welcome, but the apex court did not initiate any action against the complainant who misused the law. The woman just dragged a man and his entire family through 23 years of trauma, and escaped any consequences.

The case involved generic, unsubstantiated allegations, no medical or corroborative evidence, and clear signs of misuse of legal provisions to harass aged parents-in-law, five sisters-in-law, and even a local tailor. The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash FIR No. 1098/2002 and the chargesheet, admitting that the entire proceedings were unjustified.

“No punishment for false accusers only encourages them further“, quotes Kumar S Ratan, Founder of Men Helpline.

Yet, despite acknowledging the abuse of law, the Court:

• Did not take suo motu cognizance of the false complaint,
• Issued no guidelines to prevent such misuse in the future,
• And did not recommend punishment or perjury proceedings against the false accuser.

Is this a Double Standard?

This judgment raises an uncomfortable question:

What if a man had falsely accused a woman and dragged her through courts for 23 years?

It can be easily imagined the outrage, contempt, and possibly harsh imprisonment that would have followed. But when a woman misuses the law and destroys a man’s life and reputation for two decades, the system quietly lets it go — offering a symbolic justice in the name of justice, without accountability.

The Bigger Problem: Misuse Without Consequences

The Supreme Court on multiple occasions has acknowledged the rampant misuse of Section 498A IPC, but:

• No concrete safeguards are in place to stop misuse.
• There is no mechanism to restore the dignity or compensate the falsely accused.
• The judicial system continues to remain silent on prosecuting false complainants (specifically women), creating an environment where innocent men live in fear and shame for years, while accusers remain untouchable.

Our Stand

We at Men Helpline (group) demand:

• Punishment for false accusers under IPC sections like perjury and malicious prosecution.
• Suo motu guidelines by the Supreme Court to stop blanket arrests and frivolous cases.
• Legal reforms to balance gender laws and protect innocent men and families.

Justice delayed is injustice. But justice denied for the falsely accused — without any accountability for the false accuser — is not just injustice, it is also ignorance of the of the rule of law.

Allegations by Wife:

• Dowry demands (car, fridge, LED TV) started immediately.
• Physical abuse and mental harassment by husband.
• Husband allegedly had an affair with Poonam Kumari.
• Claimed husband earns over ₹2 lakh/month from salary, business, and rental income.

Husband’s Defense:

Marriage solemn as per tribal (Oraon) customs, not Hindu Marriage Act.

• Wife stayed only one month post-marriage, then left voluntarily.
• Alleged she aborted pregnancy without his consent.
• Filed divorce and a theft case against her.
• Claimed he made efforts for reconciliation, but she demanded ₹75 lakh as lifetime alimony.
• Asserted wife re-married (unconfirmed but stated by witness).

Court’s Observations:

• Wife denied pregnancy, but medical evidence (Dr. Indu Chouhan’s prescription) proved otherwise.
• She refused to return, despite husband’s repeated requests and even rejected reconciliation during mediation.
• Her testimony was inconsistent, and allegations of abuse and adultery were not substantiated.
• Court found that she left her husband without sufficient reason.

Important Point– Section 125(4) CrPC:

A wife is not entitled to maintenance if: (No Maintenance to wife)

• She is living in adultery,
• She refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason,
• They are living separately by mutual consent.
• Since the Court ruled she left without sufficient reason, maintenance was denied.

Final Verdict:

The court set aside the Maintenance order of ₹15,000/month (issued earlier by Family Court), the Criminal Revision allowed in favor of the husband.