insideMAN

  • Who we are
  • Men’s Insights
  • Men’s Issues
  • Men’s Interests
  • About Men

When I talk about men’s issues, my wife says I sound like a “C*@%”!

October 26, 2014 by Inside MAN 14 Comments

Meet insideMAN reader Darren Ball, a jolly nice, North London, liberal sort of chap who has a bad habit of bringing up men’s issues at dinner parties.

—This is article #16 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

After sharing a glass or few of chardonnay with my wife, she once told me something that surprised me; she said: “When you talk about gender issues you sound like a c**t”.

She then said something that surprised me even more: “I told you that because I love you”.

Okay, a little bit of work required on her bedside manner perhaps, but I sympathise with her. There exists online, a grotesque “manosphere” of angry individuals, claiming to talk for men and boys, but is really a cover for deeply held misogyny. As a Guardian-reading Stoke Newingtonite, I have a bit of an image problem.

I’m a socially-liberal atheist humanist, which is not at all contrary to feminism. I would be very happy to throw my weight behind feminism if only it campaigned on all gender issues in proportion to their relative significance: including problems faced by males. This is not like asking the Cat Protection League to rescue dogs: feminism is billed as being either, a movement for gender equality, or a movement to end the patriarchy. Operating under either remit it should care for a raft of male issues that currently, as a movement, it ignores.

If the genders were reversed there’d be a feminist shitstorm

Males have especially poor outcomes across a range of areas that affect their physical, mental and spatial wellbeing; education; and their role, status and place in the home (especially by family courts). We know there would be a feminist shitstorm if the genders were reversed on any of the issues that disadvantage males. We know this partly because, for some issues in the past, the genders were reversed and there was a shitstorm (e.g. education attainment gap), and partly because some societal ills have become women’s issues despite the fact that they predominantly disadvantage men (i.e. the Corston Report on vulnerable female inmates and a national strategy for women’s mental health – men would equally benefit from similar strategies directed at them but none exist despite men being the more affected gender).

Male’s inferior outcomes in these areas, and others, are due to some combination of unequal concern and the patriarchal hierarchy requiring a top and a bottom amongst men. Either way, true feminism should include these problems within its radius of concern. You’d have thought that somewhere on their spectrum between honour killings and female-targeted advertising, feminists would find a place for at least some issues where gender inequality/patriarchy negatively impacts upon males, but they would rather talk about being patronised by washing powder commercials and miss-sold probiotic yoghurt than the disproportionately high male suicide rate and their sons’ failed education.

If feminism won’t campaign for gender inequalities delivering poor outcomes for males, then surely they won’t mind if men form groups to help themselves? Wrong. If ambivalence towards males wasn’t bad enough, some feminist activism directly briefs against vulnerable males:

1)    Leveraging off men to promote women’s interests.

When leveraging off men to promote women’s interests, Newton’s third law applies – that of equal and opposite forces. Women are pushed up by pushing down on men.

As before with the Corston Report for vulnerable female prisoners (as an example), Corston uses traditional notions of male stoicism to argue that conditions that are too degrading for women are acceptable for men. Rather than dismantling the patriarchy, Corston (a feminist BTW) is cynically using it to advance the interests of the five per cent of prisoners who are female while justifying atrocious conditions for 80,000 men. She even suggests taking women out of prison to make room to incarcerate even more men despite the fact we already imprison more men than any other country in Western Europe (absolute numbers and per capita), 70 per cent of whom have at least two diagnosed mental illnesses.

2)    Actively denying that a vulnerable male group exists at all

Feminists have resisted male equivalents of female university groups, even though men are the minority and are living in a very changed world to their fathers. With the most serious forms and consequences of mental health problems disproportionately affecting young men, feminists should be encouraging space for young men to reflect upon what it is to be a young man in a modern western society. However they resist attempts by men to help themselves, often dismissing their concerns as “What about teh menz” and mislabelling them as misogynist.

Much worse however has been the feminist reaction to male victims of Domestic Violence (DV). Since the 1970s they have argued that DV is one of the ways in which men enforce the patriarchy, so it’s a bit inconvenient if they have to acknowledge female perpetrators.

Feminist groups have gone to great lengths to convince us all that men who claim they’ve been abused by women either deserved it or are exaggerating. Again the patriarchy, that feminists are avowed to dismantle, is used to advance their cause (we protect her and insist that he mans-up). This particularly virulent strain of feminist activism is actively vilifying an abused group with the full support of the liberal left and the conservative right.

I have also come to understand much more about the issues that affect women and girls. They do have a different path through life than men, meaning that they will face different challenges for which society should adjust. I don’t understand people, especially young women, who argue that feminism has run its course and women now have full equality. What about:

  • The full spectrum of sexual harassment (from Page 3 onwards)
  • Under-representation of women in our supposedly representative parliamentary democracy and judiciary
  • Women in public life judged by their looks regardless of their profession
  • Discrimination against women in certain careers(usually those where competitive men want to joust with each other, from fields as diverse as investment banking to comedy
  • Online abuse of women by internet trolls – seemingly regardless of the subject

The reality is that sexism and patriarchy hurts males and females, just differently.

If I have succeeded in convincing both sides of the debate that my wife’s tipsy description of me required no further explanation: good.  I haven’t a side, I’m a humanist.

Regular insideMAN reader Darren Ball, is as an individual with a keen interest in gender equality, who’s trying to find balance and make sense of it all. He considers himself neither a feminists nor a men’s rights activist.


—Picture credit: Flickr/AdronicusMax

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Insights Tagged With: #100Voices4Men, Darren Ball, Feminism, men’s issues, men’s rights

  • karen Woodall

    the ‘patriarchy’ whatever that means, doesn’t exist, it’s another of those delusions that feminists dreamed up to explain the imbalance in power dynamics. Get rid of the word and use of it to describe the power balances you see in the world and what you are left with is a recognition that in different parts of the world there are beliefs and cultures in which men are seen as leaders and women as followers and power is arranged around that belief. Work with that from an equalities perspective and it is possible to even up the power balance without having to tip the see saw in the other direction so that women replace men in the dominant position in the hierarchy – which is all that has happened in the western world. Balancing power relationships without this daft idea of patriarchy allows relationships between the sexes to adjust and change whilst continuing to accept and address the different needs of men and women. referencing everything back to patriarchy gets you nowhere and just allows women to keep harping on and guilt tripping men, it doesn’t exist, it never did, it’s just a word not a universal truth. We live in a world of relationships in which some are sometimes out of kilter and which can be balanced harmoniously without sex wars and paranoid delusions of persectution. We regularly have a knees up on the Isle of Dogs your c***tery would be welcome!

    • Darren Ball

      Hi Karen,

      Thanks for responding to my article.

      I don’t think that there can be any doubt that the patriarchy existed in the past: women obeyed their husbands who were allowed to discipline them as if they were children (“just chastisement” and all that). Women were (and still are) given away at weddings by their father – the clearest sign that in a marriage the husband takes over the responsibilities of the father. Even the word husband means authority.

      My contention is, that whilst feminists argue that they want to destroy the patriarchy, in fact they just want to change it to a different style and then use it for the benefit of women.

      Where previously the patriarchy was like one of those mean, authoritarian types of fathers, it has now morphed into one of those fathers who dotes on his daughters: protecting and providing for them. If their brothers (men’s advocates in my analogy) complain that it’s unfair, they’re told to man-up, grow a pair, etc.

      I think most feminists believe we’re living in a patriarchy because men have almost all of the hard power: that is not the definition of patriarchy. It is possible to live in a patriarchy with women holding all of the levers of power. Patriarchy places cultural expectations on men and women to behave in certain ways and to expect certain behaviour from the opposite sex. These expectations also inform our laws and legal judgements.

      The current form of patriarchy is what some feminists have called “benevolent sexism”. It is responsible for our society being much more concerned with women’s issues than men’s issues. We have managed to get to this position because there is no serious opposition: feminists have made use of it (even though they are ideologically committed to destroy it) to advance better provisions for women, and the conservative right behave like gallant old fools allowing it all to happen. In many areas, when feminists push against a door a chivalrous conservative opens it for them: it’s a huge contradiction.

      Thanks again for commenting.

  • CitymanMichael

    Coincidentally, my wife says the same about me! I am however, an anti-feminist. It is very difficult to voice opinions about the gender imbalance today without some people labelling you a misogynist – which I am not.
    Sure, back in the sixties and seventies, women in many ways got the wrong end of the stick – as did many men. This is absolutely not the case today and the gender imbalance is very much against men. Many people in society see this and one study showed that just 20% of young women identify as feminists .
    It really is up to people like you and I to highlight to society the plight of men and boys. The pendulum will eventually swing back to a centre position but it needs help.
    The earlier the better because while we dither, boys are in absolute crisis and men are struggling in a hostile world.
    Keep up the good work!!!

    • Darren Ball

      Hi Michael,
      Unfortunately you credit me with too much: I don’t actually do anything, apart from bother the Guardian from time-to-time and upset my closest friends. Perhaps in the future…

  • http://youtube.com/user/therealjoshobrien Josh O’Brien

    The full spectrum of sexual harassment (from Page 3 onwards)
    ~Well, first problem with this is the idea that a woman who consensually shows her tits on a newspaper page is in any way related to non-consensual harassment, and the second problem is the idea that it’s uniquely a female problem or that it is a gender issue (in so far as men are the perpetrators and women the victims, rather than some women being victims and some perverts being perpetrators)

    Under-representation of women in our supposedly representative parliamentary democracy and judiciary
    ~As women are the majority of the voting public in the majority of constituencies, the people who bear the blame for a majority male legislature are women. If every woman in the UK wanted a female party leader/PM, they could have one. If every man in the UK wanted a male party leader/PM they would be blocked by the sheer amount of women (assuming all men and all women voted against each other respectively). Further, it’s a problematic assumption that women, regardless of views, are better representatives of the general female public than a man with specific views. A pro life woman is surely not as good representative as a pro choice man, for example. The gender is not a relevant factor, only the beliefs, and this idea of needing more female ministers etc ignores that.

    Women in public life judged by their looks regardless of their profession
    ~Cry me a river. You think men’s looks aren’t judged? You think that women should be free from someone having an opinion on their looks? Women aren’t wilting flowers with no ability to shrug off other’s opinions, they’re strong and independent people who are capable of so much, and don’t need to be protected from the mean men who think they’re attractive.

    Discrimination against women in certain careers(usually those where competitive men want to joust with each other, from fields as diverse as investment banking to comedy
    ~Men, moreso than women, display competitive instincts and jousting. If you are suggesting we rewrite male nature to accomodate female nature, I have very little else to say. Again, women are responsible adults who can deal with situations they might not like, or not enter those situations if they feel they can not deal with it. My sociology teacher, a female, once said to me “there’s only the one male teacher in the department, and some of the stuff we say to him is horrible, if he said it to us he’d be fired in an instant, but he deals with it”. Male dominated fields may not be enticing to females, in the same way that female dominated fields may not be enticing to males. Deal with it.
    Online abuse of women by internet trolls – seemingly regardless of the subject

    ~I assume you haven’t seen the PEW research showing that it is MEN and not women that receive the majority of online harassment and abuse?
    http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

    Other than that, good article.

    • Darren Ball

      Hi Josh,

      I cannot fully answer all of your points without writing a posts that’s longer that my original piece and going off-thread. The main point is that women experience sexual discrimination in different ways to men and we shouldn’t accept either.

      Regarding P3. Obviously the model isn’t the victim. The victims are other women. I have no objection to porn per se, it just shouldn’t be in a daily newspaper where men and schoolboys get to feast their eyes on a woman’s naked body, often in full view of colleagues, fellow passengers, etc, and often passing derogatory comments because, even though the model has a spectacularly good physique that most women could never obtain, this fat old bastard has a preference for tits of a slightly different shape, etc. Obviously this can make some women feel insecure and promotes the view that women are to be judged by their looks.

      Democracy: I am always astonished about the double-standards of both feminists and male activists when there is evidence of unequal outcomes.

      I suspect, that like me, you are bothered by the education attainment gap and that men represent only about 40 per cent of graduates. Why are you bothered though? Boys have the same chances, go to the same schools, take the same exams, etc. There’s no reason why boys shouldn’t attain the same grades as girls, other than because boys are not equally engaging in school work. Similarly, women could be equally represented in parliament, but women are not equally engaging in politics.

      Education attainment gap is a problem (although few feminists would agree) and lack of women in parliament is a problem. Women have a different path through life to men and therefore a representative democracy would have equal numbers of women in parliament and government. If the current system of selection doesn’t work for women (which it clearly doesn’t) then we should change it so that it does. Being female should be a prerequisite requirement for half the seats. You cannot convince me that there aren’t circa 300 women in this country who are willing and able to fill the posts – we need to find them.

      Similarly, if the way we teach children isn’t working equally for boys, then we should change it for one that does.

      Women in public judged by their looks. The BBC retired female news-readers at age 50 because they were too old. Prof. Mary Beard received the most vile comments because some thought she wasn’t sufficiently attractive to talk about the Romans. I have a female friend who went on Newsnight once – the next day she was receiving rape threats. She hadn’t said anything controversial – she was just a woman with a lot to say. This is not the same for men.

  • Nick Langford

    As Karen affirms, there is no such thing as the patriarchy, except in the pages of the Grauniad. I would read a little more widely, if I were you, and try to find another explanation for the effects you observe. And I don’t recognise the ‘grotesque “manosphere” of angry individuals, claiming to talk for men and boys, but [which] is really a cover for deeply held misogyny’. Sure, some of these men are misogynist – so would we all be if what has happened to them had happened to us – but I don’t believe it is as extensive a problem as you suggest. Challenging feminism, or its cherished beliefs, does not make one a misogynist. There are those, of course, who seek to exploit the righteous anger of disenfranchised men for their own ends, but that is something else.

  • Nigel

    Dan. I sympathise with you. I was a student in the late seventies, one of Labour’s new generation enabled by grants and encouragement to go to Universities. My widowed mother had, in the sixties, experienced some vestigial legal discrimination in taking on a mortgage and loans and inflexibility at work. So I was indeed lefty. Supporting feminism as it appeared then to have a strong strand of breaking down the stereotypes for both sexes. Over the years I have observed and experienced the death of this and growth of an ideology so peverse it blatantly lies about Domestic Abuse and says things like baroness Corston that men can take hardship and more should be in prison in ways that show a complete compassion bypass for humans with penises. If it were the case that feminists simply let men ( and many women) organise around issues that particularly affect men I could forgive the intellectual dishonesty of not addressing “gender” for males. But time and again quite modest work by men and women is attacked and campaigned against. It is actually deeply saddening that so many self proclaimed feminists are such a shameful disgrace and so purposely use their platform to trash people raising issues often highlighted by an analysis of gender. I have personally seen female researchers being abused by female and male feminists for doing work on female gangs, daughters abuse of parents and female violence fuelled by drink ! Hardly controversial I would have thought. 
      Josh I am so heartened by young people like yourself who simply expect equity and can see that popular modern feminism at it’s heart assumes women cannot be fully adult. The very antitheses of the feminism one would have thought. 
    Indeed Dan you may, if feeling brave, point out name calling and shaming is pretty juvenile stuff from your “other half”. 

    • Darren Ball

      Hi Nigel,

      I should clarify that my wife wasn’t name-calling. She was warning me what people might think of me if I didn’t heavily qualify everything I said, and this is because some very unpleasant people in the men’s movement have made it necessary (she opined) for me to differentiate myself from them. However, this is a bit like starting a sentence “I’m not a racist but…” It doesn’t work. I have come to accept that some people will think I’m misogynist. Such people are either intellectually bereft or they haven’t actually listened to what I’ve said.

  • AJ

    The general sentiments in the article are reasonabe but ‘the partriarchy’ is an unpleasant sexist ideology constructed to allow women to blame all of societies wills on men, absolve women from any responsibility for those ills and allow women to feel superior to men whatever the circumstances. All negatives are blamed on men and masculinity through the patriarchy whatever the circumstances. The fact that women have gained so much over the last century and the many areas of society where men are disadvantaged should put the lie to ‘the patriarchy’.
    Expecting that feminists campaigning aganst the Patriarchy is going to benefit men in any way is delusional. Feminists campaigning for equality can benefit men if they can overcome socities blindness and indifference to male disadvantage and suffering.

    Your list of areas where women are disadvantaged relative to men is problematical. There have been only a few surveys of internet abuse but thos ethat exist show that wome recieve far less abus ethan men so this is NOT an area where women are disadvantaged. Society does care about the abise of women much more.

    I do not see how page 3 can be construed as sexual harassment. Who is being harassed, cleary not the model. If a nude picture is harassment then the statue of David is sexual harassment of men which is ridiculous.

    The judgement of women by their looks rather than their actions is perhaps regretable but everyone is judged by their appearance not just women and the fact is that when people are judged by their appearance women have a huge advantage. WOmen are routinely believed and favoure dover women by strangers simply becaus of their sex as many recent studies have shown. THis is a massive advatage to women not a disadvantage.

    The nume rof wome who are elected representatives and the numbe rof women judges are less than men but there is no evidence of sexism in fact what evidence exists is of sexism in the opposite direction. It is easy to find lots of examples where the rules of political parties explicitly favour wome and very hard to find the opposite.

    It is simplistic to see any statistic with a difference between men and women as evidience of sexism but stranegly the only statistics that are ever discussed ar ethose that show women as being disadvantaged. In most of the key areas where men are disadvatage dthe evidence is not jus teh statistics of different utcomes but quiet overt differences in policy and treatemnt of men and women. This is true in health, education, the law, the media (look at complainst policies which explicitly favour women).

    I am sure some sexist discrimination against women does occur but is is rare because if it could be convincingly it will have resulted in a media outcry and legal action. The opposite is not true.

  • Inside MAN

    Comment from our facebook page:

    Craig Cahall: I wish more men in the movement were as eloquent and even-tempered in their analysis. I think your commentary addresses a fundamental problem in the current gender equity discussion: that men and women ARE different beyond the influence of purely cultural pressures. Those differences need to be acknowledged and their impact on male success need to be addressed. It is not enough to blame patriarchy, and indirectly males, for the problems men face disproportionately. We must acknowledge, as the author does, that to address the horrific male suicide rates, for example, we needn’t ignore other very legitimate issues of injustice faced by girls and women.

    • Darren Ball

      Thanks Craig,

      Unfortunately I don’t do facebook or twitter but your comment was passed to me.

  • karen Woodall

    Darren, no, no, no, no….you’ve fallen for the trap laid for you by feminists (I was a second wave feminist for many years, Lee Comers book Wedlocked Women and Shulamith Firestone’s Dialetic of Sex is still on my bookshelf. You are falling for the lie, the nonsense the hysteria that women’s studies created around the whole culture we lived in.

    Yes there was power imbalance, yes women were not in a good place but please don’t tell me they were trapped in prisons of patriarchy because honestly it is just a way of looking at the world that was devised by second wave feminists who replaced one political analysis with another.

    I am 52 years old, I grew up with this stuff, all that rubbish about the ‘rule of thumb’ meaning a man could hit his wife with a stick if it were no bigger around than his thumb have all been shown to be utter bollocks. I lived this, I know what it does to your mentality, don’t fall for it and please don’t tell me what second and third wave feminisms are because it makes me really sad to listen to the brainwashing coming out of the mouths of young men who deserve more than this.

    Men might have some of the hard power in some places but try telling separated dads they have the hard power, or men who have been beaten by their partners or men who are living on the breadline whilst Harriet Harman and other such women weild hard power over them….please, take off the goggles of your own self subjugation and look around you.

    Come and have a knees up with us on the Isle of Dogs where the cut and thrust of men and women’s politics doesn’t rely on the Guardian for its politics and life beyond feminism is an everyday reality.

    Women are no more wedlocked in this day and age than men are and patriarchy is just a daft idea that feminists harp on about because it means they get to hector and lecture the rest of us. Life is so much more fun without it. And honest and real.

    and fair and just.

  • Darren Ball

    Hi Karen,
    I don’t think we disagree on much. I think we only disagree about the role of patriarchy.

    Traditionally men were the legal and moral head of their families – this is a perfect definition of patriarchy. Along comes second wave feminism which accuses the father-led nuclear family as being a millstone around women’s necks. Feminism sets about trying to dismantle this. For instance:

    “Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true, willy nilly, so let’s get on with it.”
    Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (1970).

    This ideology never caught on. We do not live in a Marxist state with children raised in all-women communes. What did happen was the style of patriarchy changed. Whereas previously it was controlling and dominating, now it’s doting.

    Western culture has not been formed in the image of second wave feminism where women are encouraged to be strong and independent. Western culture is, however, a precise fit of a generous patriarchy where women’s needs (societies daughters) are prioritised and men are expected to man-up or go under. I gave some examples in my article, so I won’t expand here unless asked to. I think we both agree on the areas where men are disadvantaged – we’re only disagreeing about which ideology is disadvantaging them.

    Blaming the patriarchy does not let feminism off the hook. Feminist groups, whilst being ideologically committed to ending the patriarchy, are in fact using it to bring about female advantage and male neglect. The popular movement no longer has any adherence to a cohesive ideology unless it’s the ideology of having one’s cake and eating one’s cake.

    What happens at the Isle of Dogs?

InsideMAN is committed to pioneering conversations about men, manhood and masculinity that make a difference. We aim to create spaces where the voices of men, from many different backgrounds, can be heard. It’s time to have a new conversation about men. We'd love you to be a part of it.

insideNAN cover image  

Buy the insideMAN book here

Be first to get the latest posts from insideMAN

To have new articles delivered direct to your inbox, add your name and email address below.

Latest Tweets

  • Why Abused By My Girlfriend was a watershed moment for male victims of domestic abuse and society @ManKindInit… https://t.co/YyOkTSiWih

    3 weeks ago
  • Thanks

    5 months ago
  • @LKMco @MBCoalition @KantarPublic Really interesting.

    5 months ago

Latest Facebook Posts

Unable to display Facebook posts.
Show error

Error: Error validating application. Application has been deleted.
Type: OAuthException
Code: 190
Please refer to our Error Message Reference.

Copyright © 2019 · Metro Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.