insideMAN

We need to take a stand for men’s issues in 2015

by 7 Comments

If we want to make a difference for men and boys we need to take a stand in 2015 says Mark Brooks of the ManKind Initiative.

We all know there are a multitude of challenges facing those of us who work, volunteer and advocate for charities working to overcome the problems and barriers that men and boys face. Two challenges we regularly face are the exclusion of men and boys in the public story (often on purpose, which is a form of discrimination by omission) and also the problem of Straw Man arguments. There were examples of both of these at play in Parliament this month.

Discrimination by Omission

This discrimination by omission phenomena is more often than not created deliberately, but then is unknowingly taken on, unchallenged and accepted as a truth – especially if it fits snugly into an accepted political framework (men=bad, women=good).

The exclusion from the public story can be seen in discussions where a debate affects men and boys as well as women and girls. It doesn’t matter whether women and girls are the main victims (eg sexual violence, domestic abuse etc) or if  men and boys suffer the most (eg educational attainment), the debate is focussed women and girls either way-if there is a debate at all (eg homelessness, suicide, family law, male cancer etc).

The recent debate here at insideMAN about the Guardian’s exclusion of including boys in the circumcision debate is one example of discrimination by omission.

Straw Men

Straw Man arguments are those to try and misrepresent the views and/or actions of people as a means of attacking them. Last year te ManKind Initiative video, ViolenceIsViolence, was successful at raising awareness of our double standards around violence between men and women. The video demonstrated how the public is more tolerant of violence by women against men.   An article on the blog “we hunted the mammoth” claiming our video was a fraud, is a classic example of a  Straw Man argument.

Parliamentary Business

This month in Parliament there were two clear examples of discrimination by omission and straw men arguments.

Firstly, there was the First Reading of the Equal Pay (Transparency) Bill proposed by Sarah Champion MP. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure the employers with more than 250 employees publish data on the pay differences between male and female workers. The government already have the powers to force companies to do so under the Equality Act 2010 but they have chosen so far not to invoke the powers. The Bill went through to its Second Reading with 258 voting yes with 8 noes.

We can debate the gender pay gap for hours and whether it is due to lifestyle choice vis a vis the family unit or direct discrimination but if the debate and the Bill were really about equal pay for everyone then why was there no mention that men between 22 and 39 are on average paid less than women.

This gap will surely grow as in the very same week, UCAS highlighted the gender university gap whereby 34% of 18 year old women go to university but only 26% men – the equivalent of 32,000 missing males. Ironically in Rotherham, Ms Champion’s constituency, 24% of 18 year old women go to university and only 14% of men, a gender university gap of 42%.

So was the debate really about just equality and ending discrimination because if so the debate and the Bill’s intention would not have omitted the statistics above. And was it also a Straw Man to paint men in a bad light as if we all sit in smoke filled boardrooms actively discriminating against women?

Excluding male victims of domestic violence from help

The following day, another Bill was proposed this time the Women’s Refuges (Provision and Eligibility) Bill 2014-15.

And as can be seen by the debate, it did what it said on the tin and failed to recognise the awful situation in the UK where for male victims and their children there are only just over 50 safe house/refuge places run by 11 organisations.

There are huge swathes of the UK – London, North West, Scotland, East Anglia for example, where there is not one place (London has nothing for heterosexual men). I recognise there are not enough places for female victims but to ignore male victims and fail to call for provision for men in the same way as for women shows another clear cut example of discrimination by omission. It is a straw man argument as it suggests that only men commit domestic abuse. How can this Bill be about equality when it purposely ignores 40% of domestic abuse victims?

So what we do about it?

For me, 2015 has to be the year where those of us I mentioned at the start of the article have to be bolder in speaking up for our causes and challenging those who ignore them – whether on purpose or through the belief in what they have been told is true or the full story. As set out in a previous article for iNsideMan, there are ways to address this, but the examples from this month shows we have to up the ante – we have no choice, we have to speak up on behalf of those we fight for.

—Picture credit: Flickr/Karen Roe

Mark Brooks is Chair of The ManKind Initiative, a charity that helps and advocates for male victims of domestic violence. Follow them on twitter @ManKindInit.

The views expressed in this article are not necessarily 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.

  • Nigel

    Well said Mark. As you point out the precise details are less important than the simple fact that to ignore males altogether is in itself discriminatory. It is of course completely at odds with all the equality legislation too! It is exhausting to keep have to point out the facts but if it is not done any and everywhere the simple expedient of simply ignoring the reality will go on. It is in fact rare to find agencies actually producing their data in a gender breakdown. And it is no good saying they should without pushing them to do so. There is often not a conspiracy so much as incompetency. The most they do is produce occasional stuff on women. Yet if (for example prompted by simple Freedom of Information Requests by any member of the public) they have to produce the stats. then one can see some “lights” going on. This has certainly been the case in health where screening and other programmes have been hotly debated and often enacted by simply pointing out the “gendered” data. It is a long road but there is a job simply to make males “visible” whilst “equality” still means “women”.

  • http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/ David Mortimerb

    Hi Mark,

    As you rightly say there’s many issues & I’ve always thought child protection should be given paramount consideration but this coalition hasn’t acted in the best interested of children since they have been in office despite the pledges they made in their pre-election manifesto. The problem with UK child protection policies is they are not evidence based. There is no specific legislation or regulations which require local authorities to collect & hold information on child abuse perpetrators or for them to use that information to formulate evidence based child protection policies.

  • Dhee Sylvester

    Sick and tired of how feminism has taken over almost every aspect of our social life. Politicians being what they are, are always too eager to bow to it pressures, and the media is a complete sell out because the number supporter of all things the feminist want.
    The only way we can default this though, is if we force the issue by standing up to constituted authority in a way that though peaceful and civil, sends a strong message to them that men aren’t going to sit back and continue suffering because of what some sexist, selfish group of women want.
    We must say till our voices get heard, and we must do till efforts get rewarded. No more playing the gentleman while deing, it’s time for us to get back all that the feminist agenda is intent on denying us.

  • Nigel

    It is one of the great paradoxes of England and probably the UK that its self image as “pragmatic” and “reasonable” is in fact not what happens in local or national government. For all the huffing and puffing about “evidence based” policy in fact the absolute reverse is the case. The democratic process in national and local government in effect means that policy is very political and frequently impervious(or just ignores) evidence. Consequently the civil servants (national and local) are well schooled in reflecting the political policy without overt challenge based on counter evidence. This dramatic difference has come into sharp relief as Public Health teams moved from the NHS to local authorities. In so doing they are discovering how little public policy is even cognisant of evidence particularly if it gets in the way of favoured policies. In one sense this is good that broadly policy tends to reflect reasonably closely the views of the people elected by the electorate. It does however make myths and “sound bites” particularly influential and difficult to shift. Of course much of our life is in the hands of agencies and groups at a distance from elected people and here one should expect more professional standards.

  • Karen Woodall

    we need to create and maintain a narrative which powerfully describes the reality of how the stats have been presented for too many years. The vid by Mankind did this very very well, this is the kind of narrative which speaks to people’s subjective experience, something the feminists have been all too good at doing all of my lifetime at least. Having spent a couple of years sloughing off the remnants of my feminist skin I have come to understand the way in which feminist doctrine works by taking a subjective experience and politicising it and using statistics to uphold a ‘truth’. When one launches these stats using the ‘tyranny of the weak’, something I am intensly interested in and will write about again this year, one takes power and creates a new narrative by guilt tripping those who perceive themselves to be in a privileged position. Guilt tripping is an emotionally manipulative tool, it causes some very powerful reactions in people – this is the basis of what the men’s movement calls the ‘straw man’ debate and feminists are incredibly skilled at using it to silence people. I recognise that I still use it myself, Nick Langford refers to it in one of his comments, it is clearly a habit that I have hung onto from my feminist training and it is something that I see being used again and again in feminist polemics. The question is do we take some of that and cause it to affect people in reverse or do we continue to try and argue from the logical position which men are usually more comfortable with – picking off the arguments logically is a slow and laborious business and is always prey to being overwhelmed by the feminist counter attack which triggers uncertainty and confusion in people – do we point out the reality of gendered statistical evidence or do we use counter manipulation to establish a narrative about men and boys? I know which one I think is the quickest – it is however not perhaps one that men might feel comfortable with. This is the heart of the gendered difference in men and women’s campaigning for me and why the female of the species is so much more deadlier than the male because the tyranny of the ‘weak’ is real and it is coming at us from all directions without us even knowing it. As I continue to wrestle with these questions I am learning so much more about how to integrate and equalities based agenda that allows people to be free to make choices to wear what they like, think what they like and do what they like so long as it harms no-one and so long as they are not imposing their own realities upon other people and demanding conformity. Sounds a bit post modern, but it is about freedoms and most of all about helping new generations to grow up without the shackles of political doctrines that stifle us. As you said Glen, I will never have a good thing to say about feminism again, having seen it for what it is and what it does how could I? But I found your article about boys and dresses thoughtful and it allowed me to think through something that I would have previously shot down in flames as being the result of feminist eradication of masculinity…thinking about it differently is enlightening for me so perhaps 2015 will find me exploring rather than attacking and reflecting rather than rejecting everything! Perhaps! I wish you and everyone at Inside Man a fantastic 2015, the debate here is interesting and invigorating and I am thoroughly enjoying the wide range of commentators that are starting to appear. Here is a place where new narratives about men and boys are made, a place safe from the domination of women and their issues and a place where men can be men and women like me can learn more and share more. Looking forward to much more – Happy New Year!

    • Inside MAN

      Thank you Karen! It’s great to have your sharp analysis and depth of experience engaged in the formation of these new narratives. Here’s wishing you a happy New Year and a wonderful 2015 as well! Dan

  • http://www.theskirtedman.eu Jeremy Hutchinson

    I fully agree with your article Mark. I do my support as and where I can even though thankfully the issues do not affect me directly but knowing a different throw of the ‘dice of life’ it could have been so different for me.

    Knowing the stigma of society about dress code for men as opposed for women in this modern era of apparently freedom of choice, rights, freedom of expression etc. I do understand the many frustrations groups like yours face when raising examples of discrimination towards men. I accept this stance of mine and others like me is not as serious as the issues you and others raise but the same one sided hurdles, barriers, arguments and exemptions placed by society for some but not others applies equally.

    You and other campaign groups like yours have my support. I believe in equality, acceptance, discussion & debate on issues that should apply equally to both genders – true gender equality, not one side favouritism.