insideMAN

How feminism and patriarchy hurt men and boys

by 60 Comments

The problems that men and boys face (and our re collective unwillingness to address those problems) started with Patriarchy not Feminism—-but feminism isn’t helping, argues Darren Ball.

I was recently criticised for giving the impression that I blamed feminism for the problems faced by men, which reminded me about my early interest in gender politics. What first attracted me to gender politics was not associated with feminism at all, but rather because I noticed a general societal ambivalence towards men and boys – from feminists and non-feminists alike. I have formed the view that most of the gendered problems faced by males are primarily due to our prevailing culture, and the culture that prevails is a derivative of old-fashioned patriarchy.

Our culture is mostly inherited from Christianity, which is one of the major Abrahamic religions: you don’t get more patriarchal than that. God, Abraham, Moses, Noah – they’re all father figures. Brides are given to the groom by their father. Men have traditionally competed for supremacy over each other, and women have married into that hierarchy as high as they could, but women were not equal, they were property: even the word “husband” is a farming term.

Patriarchies are hierarchies of men, and you can’t be at the top unless there are other men below you: every top needs a bottom. The patriarchy does not incentivise powerful men to look out for the interests of other men with whom they’re competing. Those men making decisions in our society are, by definition, those men who have done well and they cannot be relied upon to help other males (their competitors), other than their own offspring. Males who can’t make the grade go under – this entirely explains society’s general ambivalence towards them.

The root cause of men’s problems

Ambivalence towards males is not the preserve of feminists – the political right are the worst of all. Traditionally it’s the right-wing which imprisons the most men, closes homeless shelters, expels boys from school, sends troops to war, etc. The whole stiff upper-lip, men should be men, women first, etc., is drawn from our patriarchal past and remains today in the minds of socially conservative men and women. Since these attitudes that harm men are held equally by non-feminists, and are inherited from a pre-feminist era, we can conclude that feminism is not the root cause: it’s patriarchy.

Feminism has removed those parts of our dominant culture where women were disadvantaged. Note that I differentiate between dominant culture and popular culture. I’m defining dominant culture as the State, legislation, the judiciary and generally what is acceptable to say, do or believe if you hold public office and other large public-facing institutions. Although women remain under-represented in positions of hard power, women have all the rights of men plus some. Whereas popular culture is anything commonly said, done or believed by the general public – here feminism has much more work to do.

The result of feminist success in transforming the dominant culture is to leave a version of patriarchy that retains all those elements that feminists did not campaign to removed – those parts that didn’t negatively impact upon women.

Man still expected to “man up”

We are left with a pruned-down version of patriarchy that still allows men to sink or swim, still expects men to “man-up” and “grow a pair”, is intolerant of those men who fail to measure-up: the rough-sleepers, the mentally ill, the addicts, and so on. This version of patriarchy has also retained its paternal instinct towards women, which is evidenced in the criminal justice system, education, physical and mental health, family courts, and so on.

The literal definition of patriarchy is rule by the father. In a true patriarchy fathers would rule everything, from the home to the state; nobody could seriously claim that we live in a true patriarchy. Family legislation has made most fathers of dependent children de facto guests in their own homes and removable, with virtually no notice, by the State at the behest of their partner. Women also run for, and obtain, high public office (although not often enough).

A patriarchy is not defined as “rule by men”; that’s an androcracy, A patriarchy requires a paternal element.

In my definition, the dominant culture is the “father” and women are the “daughters”. A father can be oppressive and dictatorial to his daughters, or he can be doting – giving his daughters all that he can. It seems to me that feminism has had the effect of changing the type of father from the former towards the latter, but it’s still patriarchal. In my analogy, men are not the fathers but the sons, who are expected to forge their own way without assistance. Because the “father” is not a real person or persons, but a system of laws, beliefs and attitudes, the patriarchy can be administrated just as well by women.

Feminism isn’t helping men

To take this full circle and answer the question: do I blame feminism for the problems faced by men? The ultimate answer has to be no, but it’s not helping either. The feminist movement should be challenging any gendered disadvantage caused by our patriarchal structure, whomever it affects; both because feminism is a movement for gender equality, and because the movement is committed to end patriarchy.

However, as a movement, feminism does nothing to challenge patriarchy where the disadvantage is experienced predominantly by males, unless there is a vicarious benefit for women (i.e. encouraging men to share work and home responsibilities), and sometimes the movement actually uses patriarchal attitudes to press for female advantages to the detriment of males (such as issues around domestic violence and prison reform).

The huge contradiction is that feminists are very often pushing against a door that’s opened for them by socially-conservative, gallant, traditionalist patriarchs.

If feminism wants to be the go-to movement for gender equality, it needs to include male issues in its radius of concern, and give those issues proportionate concern. I’m not talking here about individual feminists who can be individually wonderful; I’m talking about feminism as a movement – what does it campaign for? When men’s issues are also feminist issues, they can sign me up.

Darren Ball is a regular reader of The Guardian and insideMAN magazine, he is not affiliated to any particular organisation.

—Picture credit: Flickr/Khalid Albaih

Also by Darren Ball:

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of the insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to to join the conversation about men, masculinity and manhood. Our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

  • https://todayinmaine.wordpress.com/ Dave

    Brilliant analysis. I view feminism as articulating half the gender picture while claiming to be the full picture. The men’s rights movement replicates this problem. But your article is holistic. Well done.

    Feminism’s articulation of women’s roles and needed reforms is essential. But I disagree that feminism could be the go-to movement for all sexes. It is female-ism and isn’t going to include males in its radius of concern.

    What you’ve described here is feminism and more, men’s rights and more, but without the vitriol. This full picture is what a go-to movement needs to look like.

    • Inside MAN

      In my paper on “Integral Gender Theory” I explored this a little.

      There are two key strands of thinking that I think are interesting—the first is the desire to integrate and make healthy all the different feminisms:

      In his book The Eye of Spirit (Wilber, 2000a), Wilber proposed the development of an Integral
      Feminism in which he said there are at “least a dozen major schools of feminism (liberal, socialist,
      spiritual, eco, womanist, radical, anarchist, lesbian, Marxist, cultural, constructivist, power)….which,
      ironically, have heretofore resisted being linked, integrated and connected”.

      One of the barriers to integrating different feminisms, according to Wilber, is that “orthodox
      feminists are threatened by integral feminism because it distributes power more fairly across other
      disciplines (including science, which is usually demonized as patriarchal)” (Wilber, 2000a).
      There have subsequently been some individual attempts to explore Integral Feminism (Mc-
      Carl Nielsen 2000, Barnett 2013), with perhaps the most extensive contribution being made by Dr.
      Sarah Nicholson, author of the book The Evolutionary Journey of Woman: From the Goddess to Integral
      Feminism (Nicholson, 2013).

      While existing feminisms are sometimes seen as being a barrier to addressing men’s issues
      (Farrell, 1993; Benatar, 2012), Lauren Barnett argues that Integral Feminism needs to address the impact
      that feminism has had on men and boys and be open to tackling men’s issue and incorporating
      men’s experience (Barnett 2013).

      It is important to note, however, that developing an Integral Gender Theory is not the same
      as integrating current feminist thinking. The framework outlined in this paper can be used by any
      individual studying gender irrespective of whether they are approaching the subject from a feminist,
      anti-feminist or non-feminist perspective.

      Pelle Billing, for example, has already used the integral approach to take a critical view of
      feminist approaches to gender in Letting Go of Feminism: The Case for Integral Gender Studies
      (Billing 2010).

      According to Billing “the word feminism represents a movement that simultaneously claims
      to be for gender equality and for the rights of women, thereby conf lating gender equality with
      women’s issues….replacing feminism with a less biased women’s movement would be beneficial for
      girls and women…. women too would benefit from a more nuanced, balanced and less accusatory
      gender discourse-a discourse that is informed by Integral Gender Studies, and not a simple continuation
      of postmodern feminism” (Billing 2010).

      Then there are those who speak of a “gender transition movement” such as Warren Farrell.

      For those interested my paper is here:

      http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/article/view/109/114

      Best

      Glen

      • https://todayinmaine.wordpress.com/ Dave

        Thanks for the link…a lot to think about here.

  • Nigel

    Dan. I think there is much in your analysis. I may be wrong but I’m probably older than you and view things through pre. “end of history” lense that notes the power od socio-economic class. Where clearly at any time in history aristocratic women and men had rights (variable in time and place) and the majority of the population were sefs or slaves (of either sex).
    That being said I suppose my particular exasperation with popular ,politically influential, feminism reflects the distance between it and the “liberation” of all gender roles promised by many in the 70s. What makes me particularly angry is that the very logic of a lot of feminist theory and the data often produced from its research is actively mis-represented or outright lied about, by people who must know they are doing this. So it was such research that identified the sentencing differentials, health differentials, education differentials, family court and divorce differentials amongst others. So simply by doing the research analysing by sex feminists were the people who “discovered” so many of the instances where males at least appear to get a raw deal. Much of it now decades old and repeatedly reinforced by report after report. In a sense at least social conservatives are honest about why they support policies while in fact many feminists are knowingly and deliberately dishonest. Those that claim some professional or accademic credentials are a particular disgrace. I have lost count of the times I have seen papers with facinating data and discussion only to find the recommendations or summary highly selective or even unsupported by the data. Was it Christina Hoff Summers who said most feminist research wasn’t worth the paper it was written on? In some sense that’s not true but many authors should hang their heads in shame, the more so as they are often in fields such as law, social policy or social work where citizens seek help at their most vulnerable.

  • Darren Ball

    Hi Nigel,
    I agree with you that many feminist and women’s activist are dishonest. Ultimately it’s politics and politicians are notorious for being dishonest.

    • Nigel

      Hi sorry I put Dan. Darren. In some respects I don’t expect activists and politicians not to do a bit of posturing. selecting the most favourable data for their cause. However I do expect more from those claiming rigour or professionalism in their work. For instance it isn’t surprising Womensaid and Refuge exaggerate in order to generate funding. What is inexcusable is that Public bodies act upon this as if it is fact and even more inexcusable is people using a false claim of rigour to put forward this understandable posturing as fact.

      • Darren Ball

        Not a problem Nigel.

        I’m less forgiving than you about Women’s Aid. There’s no excuse for their behaviour. How is it of any benefit to abused women for Women’s Aid to deny, excuse or justify partner abuse towards men? It doesn’t. They further damage a group of vulnerable men in order to maintain their belief that DV is the way in which men exert control over women – this has nothing whatsoever to do with their mission.

        Their dishonesty is so blatant that anybody could rumble them with five minutes on Google, so we have to ask the question: how do they keep getting away with it? I think it’s because society doesn’t care that they’re talking nonsense: they don’t want to hear about vulnerable abused men or violent women (especially violent mothers) and we’re quite happy to pretend that they don’t exist. That’s all part of patriarchal thinking of lovely mothers and tough men. All Women’s Aid has done is to tap a very rich vein that’s always existed.

        • Nigel

          Yes I agree with you that Womensaid go beyond creative use of figures. They actively trash the small groups trying to support men and deliberately campaign against the modest attempts to support men. As a gleam of hope I have found that some Womensaids (and like many “national” charities they have a national charity and then loads of local affiliates) do in fact offer decent help to men when approached. Homeless charities too often find they develop help to men. Both Womensaid and to a lesser extent Refuge do their best to cut of funds to such initiatives or bully local affiliates who accept men or accept funding to support men . In my younger years I was quite genuinely shocked at some of the tactics used. As you say using some very old fashioned assumptions of female fragility as a cover. I think it was Ms Horley who was quite open about the agenda. She said that allowing the notion that men needed help would risk the funding streams.

          • Darren Ball

            Hi Nigel,
            I’ve heard that about Horley but I can’t find the source. Do you have it?

            Best

  • Richard Collins

    I hope to add by commenting on your last para:

    “If feminism wants to be the go-to movement for gender equality…”
    It doesn’t, it’s a militant women’s union. It has no interest in men’s issues and is opposed to them.

    “…it needs to include male issues in its radius of concern, and give those issues proportionate concern”.
    I’m sorry to say that is pure and total wishful thinking.

    “I’m not talking here about individual feminists who can be individually wonderful; I’m talking about feminism as a movement – what does it campaign for? When men’s issues are also feminist issues, they can sign me up.”

    To be succinct – you sound under 40 to be so hopeful. Bitter experience has taught many men that feminism is FEMinism for a reason – as a man you are NOT welcome, your concerns are laughable and they appear to enjoy you having problems, and so do not want to solve them.

    I’m genuinely not being flippant Darren. You’re article is great and in some ways embodies the working man’s unionised view of the world – well done – but please do not expect feminism to let you in, with your man’s problems. What has been your experience when you knock on their doors? “Hello Darren, I’m looking to diversify feminism, please come on in and help me do that?”.

    In terms of solutions, AvFM and J4MB are the only way forward. I’m sorry to break it to you.

    • Inside MAN

      Thanks for you comment

      Just going to say that suggesting that any one approach is the only way —- be that feminism, men’s rights, christianity, socialism or whatever singular approach you care to mention—-is NOT the only way forward—-it is doomed to fail.

      Best Wishes

      Glen

      • Richard Collins

        Well my understanding of the above article is that Dan wants feminism to include men’s issues. So men’s issues need to be the focus of funding, debate and social change for the better.
        His wish that feminism is more inclusive for men simply will not happen. That is evidence-based.
        Ergo, the only way to get men’s issues in politics, active social change and legislation is through groups like J4MB, and conferences that AvFM hold.
        Do you have any other methods for getting men’s issues into politics and legislation and funding?

        • Darren Ball

          Hi Richard,
          Why do people keep calling me Dan? Anyway, my wife recently sent me a list of links in which feminists (mostly female) have written articles and posted them on feminist websites, in which they were showing concern for men’s issues. Just last week Yvonne Roberts wrote an excellent piece in the Guardian on male suicide.
          I remain unconvinced that feminism is yet a force for true gender equality – sporadic and episodic articles is not the same as men’s issues being considered feminist issues, but it’s a good start.

          What will definitely not work is MRAs such as J4MB and AVFM. Now that J4MB and AVFM are in the mainstream consciousness I am finding it impossible to raise men’s issues at all without people being horrified. Everything I say, no matter how carefully I word it, has some similarity with something on these websites, and I’m immediately tarred with the same brush.

          The liberal left has always had disproportionate influence over UK social attitudes, and in the main this has brought about great social progress on racism, homophobia, disability discrimination and, of course, women’s rights: the masses have been brought along kicking and screaming with the progressives. The liberal left hold the MRA movement in utter contempt: they will never allow it to succeed.

          If we want men’s rights to be taken seriously, we need to get people like Jon Snow on-board. Can you imagine Jon listening to anything said by Michael Buchannan and him thinking: “what an excellent point. I hadn’t realised what a bunch of liars feminists are. I think the pay gap is easily justified, etc.”. It’s more likely that he and the liberal left will want to distance themselves from anything and everything he says.

          All of my female friends are feminists and none of them are misandrist (obviously, otherwise they wouldn’t be my friends). It’s much easier to convince feminists to include men’s issues within their radius of concern, than it is to start a rival movement, and a rival movement will cause nothing but conflict, like sibling rivalry on an industrial scale; only a single integrated movement can take a balanced view. I think our best chance is for that movement to be feminism.

          • Richard Collins

            Firstly I’m sorry for getting your name wrong, Darren. Also, does anyone else have the rightside truncation problem when viewing replies, I have to copy and paste into Word to view it all?
            If you have the links where concerned feminists post on men issues, that would be good to see them? I bet the comments are :”Well it’s the patriarchy, we’re working on it, the end”.
            1) Here’s the thing: if feminism is really concerned about men (as opposed to lip service), can it still be called feminism?
            2) It would be interesting for your feminist friend to identify what they think is good in the J4MB manifesto and what horrifies them. A blanket reaction may simply indicate the reluctance to countenance that men have issues. Please advise on their response.
            3) Agreed the liberal left and MRAs are at odds, but so what? They hate UKIP (and I don’t want to go off on that tangent), my point is that UKIP are gaining support in spite of the media. In terms of MRA support, every rad fem article in the mainstream press gets hundreds of comments that slate the article’s attitude. I don’t think Mike B. has the character to be on the media, though Erin Pizzey does alright e.g. on Woman’s Hour and she’s MRA. I’ve yet to see or hear a good media-friendly MRA.
            4) “It’s much easier to convince feminists to include men’s issues within their radius of concern, than it is to start a rival movement”.
            Darren that simply isn’t true. Tell you what, ask your feminist friends to campaign for men (e.g. to get CALM to be publically-funder, or to get Race for Life to include men). I simply ask you to do this and let me know honestly what response you get.
            Do you believe that feminism will take on men’s issues, and can you provide proof this is any more than wishful thinking? At the end of the day, we are just two MEN hoping this may happen, aren’t we?

          • Darren Ball

            Wow, lots there to chew on, but in the meantime, here’s the link.

            http://brutereason.net/2012/09/20/in-brief-do-feminists-care-about-mens-issues-a-handy-list/

            I thought it was going to be a list of articles which appeared to be caring for men but in practice were concerns that had a vicarious benefit for women (i.e. for: it’s bad that men are still expected to be the main breadwinner, read: men should do their fair share of looking after their kids to allow the mothers to continue their careers.) But they’re not like that. Also add Yvonne Roberts recent article in the Guardian about male suicide (an easy Google).

            I’m wondering if the tide is starting to turn. I have to say that all my female friends are feminists are none of them are uncaring about men, it’s just that they don’t yet see that men also suffer gendered problems (i.e. bad things happening to them because they are men, as opposed to bad things happening to people, some of whom will be men). I think we can work on that, but not if men’s issues become synonymous with groups that are hostile to women.

          • Richard Collins

            I’ve seen the list of articles about “maybe feminism is starting to care about men” and many thanks for that, below. (For some reason I can’t reply directly underneath it). I will read in detail but my guess is it will be as you intimate gynocentric.
            Darren can we try a test in real life?
            Keep talking to your feminist friends, and see if they take anything on board and actually campaign for men. Let’s give it the rest of the year.
            Please be honest and let us know how it all went. Thank you.

          • Darren Ball

            Hi Richard,

            Actually the articles were not gynocentric. I thought they would be, but they weren’t.

            I agree that a dozen or so sporadic and episodic articles doesn’t define a movement, but it’s a start. I’ve not see anything like this before. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong places.

        • Richard Collins

          Acknowledge that most of the articles look at possibilities for men, though its ‘exploration for diversity’ angle is journalistic, not activist.
          Gender-based activism by feminists always favours women. I feel I’ve just written ‘the sky is blue or grey’.
          I’ll keep asking the question in hope of an answer: if feminism includes men, can we stop calling it feminism?
          I note Wales has just passed its first gender-based bill: ‘Violence against women…’ etc. and a letter from Refuge, Rape Crisis etc. in the Times wants the UK to ratify the Istanbul convention, which absolutely prioritises women in terms of DV.
          We can keep a tally of feminist actions and see if any include men.
          Let me know if your feminist friends are doing anything about MGM, FOM DV, the American draft, child custody for men, positive action for men in jobs, and training and grants just for unemployed men.
          We two are just typing messages to each other, whilst the misandric feminist juggernaut out there keeps on trucking.

          • Darren Ball

            Hi Richard,

            For the avoidance of doubt, I do not currently describe myself as a feminist for all the reasons that you have described. In general I’ve found the movement to be mostly ambivalent towards males, and often very harmful: a few male-centric opinion pieces is not going to make me sign-up (which, btw, is how I ended my article). However, feminism is a fluid ideology: it has reinvented itself before and can do so again. It is very hard to stop a juggernaut, but quite easy to steer one.

            I did answer your question about it being called Feminism, but for your ease of reference, I couldn’t care less what it’s called provided it gets the job done. I’d rather it be called humanism or something, but the term feminism isn’t offensive to me. I believe that it is the patriarchy that is at the root of gendered-based harm to males, and it is feminism that set itself against the patriarchy, starting with the way patriarchy damages females: if the conclusion of that long journey is an incarnation of feminism which genuinely looks for gender balance and seeks fairness for all, regardless of gender, then it’s fair to credit that outcome to feminism. The movement is not, by any means, at that point.

            My wife’s a feminist and she campaigned against male circumcision 25 years ago, she’s American and anti-draft. I think you’ll find that she’s typical of feminists on both points.

            All that notwithstanding, it does look as if the UN, EU, the WHO et al have let down boys on MGM, and this may have been influenced by a virulent strain of feminism that’s keen to use FGM as further proof of men maintaining control over women (just as they distorted the truth about DV for the same reason).

            For now the term feminism is meaningless, as some feminists believe it’s a movement only for females and others believe it’s a movement for equal gendered outcomes for all. I think for now I shall continue to just call myself a humanist, but it really doesn’t matter what one calls oneself: what matters is what you say and do.

          • Richard Collins

            Kudos for a great response. As always 90% of what you say I agree with. Nevertheless, some inaccuracies or misleading posts you make in my view:
            “My wife’s a feminist and she campaigned against male circumcision 25 years ago, she’s American and anti-draft. I think you’ll find that she’s typical of feminists on both points”.
            I’m afraid I have, in fact, actually, in reality, over many years found that that isn’t the case at all, most feminists don’t care about MGM nor the draft for men.
            “It’s easy to steer a juggernaut”. They won’t let you near the wheel mate. As I say, let me know how you get on with that aspiration, that wishful thinking.
            “It doesn’t matter what you call yourself”. Well try that on a feminist.
            I’m really not being flippant, just posting a reality check.

  • http://redpilluk.co.uk William Collins

    I think there is semantic confusion in the article. Dan says (I paraphrase) that since traditional (pre-feminist) attitudes also harm men we can conclude that feminism is not the root cause. That’s true. But his conclusion that it therefore must be “patriarchy” is false. Actually it is gynocentrism, the traditional pre-cursor to feminism. Dan seems to be using the word “patriarchy” to mean “the male hierarchy” in some places and to mean gynocentrism in others. But he isn’t using the word in the sense that feminists use “patriarchy”, i.e., the oppression of women by men.

    • Inside MAN

      Just a quicky William—-this is written by Darren Ball, not to be confused with Dan Bell!

      • http://redpilluk.co.uk William Collins

        Oops, sorry – apologies to both.

    • Darren Ball

      Hi William,
      I agree that feminists tend to use the patriarchy incorrectly, and I cover this in the article. Patriarchy means “rule by the father” not “rule by men”. I do not accept the our culture has ever been gynocentric. What it has always done, and continues to do, is be patronising to women.

      • http://redpilluk.co.uk William Collins

        Darren – I was at primary school in the early ’60s. In those days corporal punishment in schools was not just permitted but commonplace. Rarely a week went by without a boy being hit, sometimes it was a daily occurrence. All the teachers were women apart from in the last class. The one male teacher never did any hitting. All the women teachers did, though, once we were in the ‘juniors’ (age 7 upwards). The favoured approach was to be marched to the front of the class (to maximise the shaming) and then to be whacked over the knuckles with a ruler or the wooden block on the blackboard duster. Funny how no one remembers this anymore. But only boys, of course. It was unthinkable that anyone would hit a girl, neither teacher nor pupil.

        It was noticeable that some women didn’t really like doing it, they just thought it was their duty. Others seemed less reluctant. I recall one stand-in teacher who made a point of whacking someone within her first minutes. This lady insisted on visible signs of pain, either tears or crying out. It became a battle of wills between her and those tough enough not to oblige. We’re talking 9/10 year olds here.

        No one thought anything of the different treatment of boys and girls because, in those days, the sexes were treated differently in everything. But, Darren, which word best describes this vignette, “patriarchy” or “gynocentrism”? It certainly isn’t covered by “being patronising to women” is it?

        • Darren Ball

          Hi William,

          In answer to your final question, the asymmetrical approach could be explained by either or neither.

          Patriarchy because we’re preparing boys to be stoic and tough men. The teachers are patronising the girls by implying that they aren’t able to take a whacking in the way that the boys are, and that they do not need to be toughened up because they’re not going to be called upon to be tough adults.

          OR

          Gynocentricm because the girls are considered too lovely to hit.

          OR

          Many, many other possibilities. It might have been considered that boys are tougher, feel less pain, respond better to corporal punishment, are more in need of corporal punishment, etc.

          You cannot draw too much of a conclusion from this in isolation. The only explanation that I have found, that seems to fit everywhere, is patriarchy.

          • NHLfarmteams

            Darren, you’re Patriarchy theory doesn’t hold up. Young boys and young girls (to a lesser extent) no longer receive corporal punishment instead we drug them. Ritalin use and diagnosis of ADHD is rampant. Does that have anything to do with preparing young men to to be stoic and tough? Is it the fault of Patriarchy that we no longer allow any form of dissent (or in fact male expression) at our institutions of higher learning?

            You are confusing two fundamental feminist foundations, Patriarchy and gender norms. I fail to see how the oppression of women (Patriarchy’s claim to fame) has anything to do with beating little boys or drugging children. I do however see how it supports gender norms, we’ll either beat the “maleness” out of you until you submit or we’ll passify you with drugs.

  • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

    Darren, I do not think that your suggestion that feminists should be promoting men’s as well as women’s rights is going to work in practice. Coincidently, only last night I published the very blog post of mine in which I explained why this suggestion wouldn’t work, before I read your post today:

    Masculism, feminism and the Euro Tunnel
    https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/masculism/

    Secondly, It is true that genealogies through the male line occupy some space in the “Abrahamic” scriptures of Judaism and Christianity, creating for Christianity a weak case to answer, to the accusation that patriarchy (as you understand the term) is primarily a legacy of Christian influence upon society. But the answer to that charge is the weight of evidence that a far more important part in those scriptures is played by several heavily emphasised and often-requoted passages, one in particular about a social obligation to take equal care of the interests of one’s neighbour (and of his wives, sons and daughters) and of one’s own interests (and those of one’s own sons and daughters). “Love … thy neighbour as thyself” is one well-known translation of one such setting out of one of the core teachings of Judaism and Christianity.

  • CitymanMichael

    Darren, you have completely over analysed the problem though a feminist lens. The patriarchy has never existed. What did exist was the biological imperative of the protection of women and children in order that the species survived.
    I could go through your assessment line by line but that would be tiresome and I believe you are already lost in a feminist ideology looking for answers which you will never find there.

    Time to take a different direction – actually the opposite direction

  • karen woodall

    city man… you took the words right out of my mouth…

  • Nigel
  • Nigel

    In 1992 Sandra Horley, the director of the Chiswick Family Refuge, was quoted by Isabel Wolff, as saying;

    “Refuges for women are struggling to survive, and if we put across this idea that the abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding”. (‘Domestic Violence: the other side’, – by Isabel Wolff, The Spectator, 28 Nov 1992, p 24).

    • Darren Ball

      Thanks for this Nigel, that’s useful.

      I heard tale that she said something similar (but worse) and more recently to a parliamentary select committee, but I cannot find it. If you or anybody else has details it would be good to know.

      • Nigel

        I suspect not as evidence both REFUGE and Womansaid give usually makes a nod to men and boys and then proceeds to present highly misleading stats. Leading to the their expressed conclusion that there is no “demand” for services. This was so in the recent evidence Phase of the Gendered Violence Bill in the Welsh Parliament Last year and the Joint Human Rights Committee in the UK Parliament the previous year. In one sense the ONS, NICE (National Institute for Clinical Exellence) and other public bodies are more and more publishing the data and research and this is behind the changes in the evidence based commissioning services that Womansaid and Refuge are waging a political campaign against. Of course there is a problem of supply too. 5 years ago the home office actually accepted that the “Duluth” model of offender treatment was ineffective and re-commissioned its treatment programmes. The difficulty was that this required large scale providers and these were of course the very organisations that had delivered the “Duluth Model” . The result was that many of the programmes are much the same just re-labelled. And of course the move to more flexible services that can include males sometimes results in local Refuge and Womensaid’s to work on a human rights basis (anyone in need) rather than only with one sex. As I said not all local groups make a bad go of this.
        The thing that really gets me about this is that the very organisations that, rightly, argue the importance of listening, validation, and encouraging victims to feel they can come forward actually advocate the complete reverse for males. For instance are completely against helplines for women doing any “screening” to check the veracity of the cry for help, yet they advocate this happens in services such as the national MENSLINE. It’s obscene as any screening etc. comes later once the initial call for help is made. Can you imagine what it is like once you have plucked up the courage to make that call only to find you are being quizzed as a potential “perpetrator”. It is for investigative agencies afterwards to check stuff out not the fist point of contact.
        As I said if these organisations simply said that they were organisations for women and consequently weren’t interested in supporting males, after all many Vol. Organisations have their niche or strengths. However this is the only sector (in 30 years in care ) where Vol. Orgs so vociferously and consistently campaign against victims to ensure they are ignored and worse.

  • Nigel

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/03/domestic-violence-refuge-crisis-women-closure-safe-houses
    And more recently still arguing some support for men is a danger. Intrestingly this article selectively quotes Erin Pizzey who complained as she has always had the view that this is not a gender issue.

  • Darren Ball

    I don’t know why the sentences have been truncated, but here’s my response to Richard Collins again.

    Hi Richard,
    Why do people keep calling me Dan? Anyway, my wife recently sent me a list of links in which feminists (mostly female) have written articles and posted them on feminist websites, in which they were showing concern for men’s issues. Just last week Yvonne Roberts wrote an excellent piece in the Guardian on male suicide.
    I remain unconvinced that feminism is yet a force for true gender equality – sporadic and episodic articles is not the same as men’s issues being considered feminist issues, but it’s a good start.

    What will definitely not work is MRAs such as J4MB and AVFM. Now that J4MB and AVFM are in the mainstream consciousness I am finding it impossible to raise men’s issues at all without people being horrified. Everything I say, no matter how carefully I word it, has some similarity with something on these websites, and I’m immediately tarred with the same brush.

    The liberal left has always had disproportionate influence over UK social attitudes, and in the main this has brought about great social progress on racism, homophobia, disability discrimination and, of course, women’s rights: the masses have been brought along kicking and screaming with the progressives. The liberal left hold the MRA movement in utter contempt: they will never allow it to succeed.
    If we want men’s rights to be taken seriously, we need to get people like Jon Snow on-board. Can you imagine Jon listening to anything said by Michael Buchannan and him thinking: “what an excellent point. I hadn’t realised what a bunch of liars feminists are. I think the pay gap is easily justified, etc.”. It’s more likely that he and the liberal left will want to distance themselves from anything and everything he says.

    All of my female friends are feminists and none of them are misandrist (obviously, otherwise they wouldn’t be my friends). It’s much easier to convince feminists to include men’s issues within their radius of concern, than it is to start a rival movement, and a rival movement will cause nothing but conflict, like sibling rivalry on an industrial scale; only a single integrated movement can take a balanced view. I think our best chance is for that movement to be feminism.

    • Richard Collins

      Firstly I’m sorry for getting your name wrong, Darren. Also, does anyone else have the rightside truncation problem when viewing replies, I have to copy and paste into Word to view it all?
      If you have the links where concerned feminists post on men issues, that would be good to see them? I bet the comments are :”Well it’s the patriarchy, we’re working on it, the end”.
      1) Here’s the thing: if feminism is really concerned about men (as opposed to lip service), can it still be called feminism?
      2) It would be interesting for your feminist friend to identify what they think is good in the J4MB manifesto and what horrifies them. A blanket reaction may simply indicate the reluctance to countenance that men have issues. Please advise on their response.
      3) Agreed the liberal left and MRAs are at odds, but so what? They hate UKIP (and I don’t want to go off on that tangent), my point is that UKIP are gaining support in spite of the media. In terms of MRA support, every rad fem article in the mainstream press gets hundreds of comments that slate the article’s attitude. I don’t think Mike B. has the character to be on the media, though Erin Pizzey does alright e.g. on Woman’s Hour and she’s MRA. I’ve yet to see or hear a good media-friendly MRA.
      4) “It’s much easier to convince feminists to include men’s issues within their radius of concern, than it is to start a rival movement”.
      Darren that simply isn’t true. Tell you what, ask your feminist friends to campaign for men (e.g. to get CALM to be publically-funder, or to get Race for Life to include men). I simply ask you to do this and let me know honestly what response you get.
      Do you believe that feminism will take on men’s issues, and can you provide proof this is any more than wishful thinking? At the end of the day, we are just two MEN hoping this may happen, aren’t we?

      • Darren Ball

        Hi Richard,

        Regarding your first question, I couldn’t care less what the movement is called provided it gets the job done. As it happens, it was feminism that started the fight against the patriarchy, and if the inclusion of men in its radius of concern is the next stage of the movement – liberating men from unhealthy societal expectations – then it is proper to give feminism the credit.

  • Paul Mills

    Hi all,

    I’ve just reread the initial article and the entire thread (apart from the bits hidden by the grey RH margin….) after a few days ‘downtime’ from the WWW. What I am left wondering is, am I alone in thinking that the word patriarchy is so often misunderstood, as John A notes above. Am I the only middle aged man who is proud of his role in supporting and caring for his partner, his children, the young people he has worked with over 30 years? was I the only boy who knew part of his role was to protect girls and the vulnerable? am I wrong in engendering these values in my boys? . we are not talking here about inequality – but different and complementing roles.

    Is it right to focus on the potential negative interpretations of a ‘patriarchal’ society- by this I mean the broader sense of nurturing and leading/guiding by a leader of either gender. – let’s not forget the very significant female leaders in our joint histories…. In my life I have benefited greatly from the support of those in a patriarchal role and enjoyed in my turn supporting those whom are am likewise responsible for. Why do we tend to focus on the traits that mean someone gets to the top by competition – standing on the heads those below; rather than raised there by people who recognise their worth as a patriarch ? what does this say about us as a society?

    Seperately, I have similar recollections from school days as William’s. In my professional life I have also more often come across women being very hurtful to colleagues and clients alike; and continuing for much longer in such behaviour. As a residential worker, carer and teacher I recall many instances of girls ‘fall outs’ going on for days and weeks, compared to many between boys being more quickly resolved and settled. If the confrontation is physical then I would rather separate 2 boys raining blows on each other than 2 girls any day – and not for safe care reasons. Again – it’s about individuality and difference.

    • Darren Ball

      Hi Paul,

      I’m not suggesting for one moment that people shouldn’t stand up for others who are more vulnerable than themselves: in fact I absolutely applaud such behaviour. For instance, men should stand up for women who are being harassed on the night bus, but also, big men should stand up for smaller men, the fit and healthy for the infirm, the young for the old, adults for children, women for each other. This is not patriarchy, this is everybody looking out for everybody. It’s patriarchy when the burden falls only on men, especially if it’s expected to be for the benefit only of women.

      • Paul Mills

        HI Darren,

        I agree with all that you say apart from maybe the patriarchy definition suggestion – which takes us back to the whole terminology and shared definitions question. Of course patriarchy should not only be for womens benefit – apologies if my point suggested this to be the case; though I do believe that as part of gender differences the burden of protection should rightly fall somewhat more on men in some situations.

  • PF

    Darren, I like this piece in that it is well-written and moderate, not that I agree with many of its conclusions however! (Or, thinking about it, the conclusions you draw in this comment thread).

    The idea that we need to influence the liberal-left media to be on our side is terribly naive, in my view.
    After all they have had a long period of time to set out their vision of equality on their own terms, and in this context they have used this opportunity to discriminate against men, to encourage women and society in general to treat them with contempt, and to construct a narrative in which women are constantly in competition with the male sex, instead of viewing them as partners and friends.

    A few examples from over the years: the BBC running a series on how to train your husband like a dog and having a radio discussion on how feasible this might be; in the 1990s, when girls started leaving boys behind in education, the trailer for the BBC Panorama documentary showed a girl placing a dunce’s cap on a boy’s head, as if this was a terribly funny thing to do, not storing up structural problems for the future; the BBC running a female-only edition of Question Time just before the election, as if female gender issues were the only ones that counted or mattered, and a female-only audience discussion with Tony Blair to address their concerns.
    I could go on, but the list would quickly become intolerably grim.

    You mention the pay gap as a’ progressive’ issue, well George Osborne also used the term progressive when discussing the matter at the dispatch box a week or so back, praising how much it had fallen. I think we can safely assert that anything George Osborne thinks of as a ‘progressive’ issue most probably is not one at all.
    Ultimately, what we have witnessed is a powerful, elite group in our society, whose influence has gone wholly unchecked, imposing a vision of equality most people would not agree with, and then smirking to themselves quietly when some groups buy into it.
    Chronologically, the only time this has changed (i.e. Roberts writing an article like that) has co-incided with the emergence of a strong MRA presence on the web, hinting that men finally have the opportunity for some sort of organisation & action.
    Is this so surprising? Powerful, amoral people will do what they can get away with: they will only stop pushing their agenda, when it is demonstrated that it is not in their interest to do so.

    • Darren Ball

      Hi PF,

      It’s amazing how much we agree about and yet draw opposite conclusions. Everything that you’ve mentioned is something that bothers me too; which is why we need to influence the liberal-left and feminism to understand that they’re neglecting a whole group of vulnerable and disadvantaged people.

      It may be that MRAs are having a gravitational pull on feminism, which is good if it pulls feminism into the centre, at which point the MRAs will disappear.

      BtW, I didn’t mention the pay gap. I think that one is mostly sorted now (in fact, it might be over-done).

      • Richard Collins

        “which is why we need to influence the liberal-left and feminism to understand that they’re neglecting a whole group of vulnerable and disadvantaged people”.
        Forgive my blunt approach: there is no chance of this happening. Do you think missing out men’s issues over forty years was an accident – it’s policy that is not going to change.
        As I ask above: if feminism were to take on men’s issues, why would it be called feminism?

  • pf

    ‘and yet draw opposite conclusions’. Yes I know but the big difference for me is that I cannot believe these editors on the liberal-left have not been well aware of these problems already and have just chosen, quite deliberately, as a matter of policy, not to address them. (I use the phrase on the left, incidentally, as a shorthand because it is how they refer to themselves, when in fact these supposedly ‘left-leaning’ institutions have bought into almost all aspects neo-liberalism hook, line and sinker).

    Thing is, these are not ordinary people off the street. As well as having a lot of money, power and influence, they have all the data about what is going on in society readily at their fingertips. So far, they have not seen boys falling behind in education as a problem so much as a cause for braying triumphalism. They stood by while New Labour ran down manufacturing at double the rate as under Thatcher’s Tories and chose to say nothing. They watched while Straw and Blair caused the male prison population to skyrocket whilst only promoting serious reform for women offenders. I got it slightly wrong above when I said these people are amoral – they are actively immoral, and they won’t change unless they have to. Looking at their track record as a whole, the only conclusion you can draw is they just don’t have a commitment to genuine, honest equality when it comes to these things.

    • Darren Ball

      “Thing is, these are not ordinary people off the street. As well as having a lot of money, power and influence, they have all the data about what is going on in society readily at their fingertips. So far, they have not seen boys falling behind in education as a problem so much as a cause for braying triumphalism…”

      PF. This is patriarchy at work. Men at the top (who did do well at school, otherwise they wouldn’t by successful journalists) caring nothing about boys’ education (amongst other things) because it doesn’t affect them. They will be certain to make sure that any sons of theirs will do well, but beyond that, they couldn’t care less. They can prefer the needs of women and girls from their unassailable position.

      The political left used to champion the working class man and vulnerable men generally, and they can do it again, and they can do it without neglecting women. Currently they have this smug blind spot along the lines: “it’s easy for men – look at me; I did it.” Congratulations you Oxbridge-educated, privileged upper middle-class twat.

      • Richard Collins

        Darren it’s not just elitist patriarchy. It is radical feminists of both sexes who ignore men’s issues.
        Other than that, top post.

        • Darren Ball

          Feminists who ignore issues affecting men and boys do so by exploiting patriarchal attitudes. They would never get away with it if society was not so ambivalent towards men and boys.

  • Nigel

    “smug blind spot”  I think this hits the mark. Except the smug posh boys also favour their daughters and have been joined by posh girls too. I’m afraid PF is wrong in thinking that these new toffs  have all the data at their finger tips . The data is there but actually is rarely interrogated on the basis of sex or gender apart from occasionally looking for the number of women( and ignoring the men)  The truth is the smug blind spot means the data isn’t even asked for. 
    Being an old fart I’m in a much older paradigm. But at this moment I’d support anyone , left, right , MRA, Feminist who helps to “surface” the simple facts so there can even be a debate. In health I have seen concern for men’s health move from an eccentric concern of a few “cranks” to be a real policy concern( with even arch smugness Clegg leading on addressing male suicide). The first opening was to simply split  data by sex and keep repeating the simple facts and ask the questions. You would be surprised how rarely this is actually done even though all publicly funded bodies collect data so it could be so split. If anyone uses a FOI request to ask for data in this way often it will be the first time that it’s been done, even if they had extracted “female” before. The very fact that typically an FOI will be approved by a senior person may inject some “new” knowledge into the system. Following getting the data the question to ask is had the data on males been used in the Equality Impact Assessment? 
    And well done Darren your piece has certainly caused some thinking here. 

    • Richard Collins

      Well I think Darren’s a genuine and caring guy, but to be honest we have been criticising his speculative and untested concept that feminism will take on board men’s issues.
      For example, men could do with positive action to help them get jobs in HR.
      Please Darren, ask your feminist friend what they honestly think.
      Another example is that the patriarchy is dismantled and men get to keep custody of the kids and the wealthy wife supports him and she moves out of the home.
      Test that one out please.

  • Richard Collins
  • Karen Woodall

    Gender equality is an oxymoron, gender is inequality. Feminism needs to fight for the eradication of gender, not for it to be enshrined and protected in legislation.

    There you go, writ large. Feminism is not about gender equality because gender IS inequality which means that as a man you will always and forever be an oppressor. So, feminist men, time to stop collaborating with these women who want your gender eradicated. Time to stop believing that by being feminist you are somehow working for a better world, you are not, you are colluding with a group of people who would have the very essence of who you are eradicated.

    And you wonder why so many men are killing themselves.

    I think feminism is a dangerous movement, it is not benign and it is not about gender equality.

    • Richard Collins

      Where’s the like button?

    • Fullmoonfolly

      I am at a loss to understand your point. Gender is a scientific term which explains how babies are made. How is it that we can eradicate it? Are you saying feminists want to eradicate gender? How and why would we enshrine and protect it in legislation? I know many men who don’t oppress me! I am a feminist who does not want to eradicate the essence of men. Do you suppose I don’t realize it because I do it while I am asleep? Should I wrap myself in plastic to protect my husband at night?

      • Mahadhir Monihuldin

        I think what you’re referring to is sex, the biological characteristic of men, women, trans, unisex, etc in virtue of the genitals they have. Gender is believed to be an identity that people commonly associate with one’s sex, either out of sociological or biological reasons, and this makes up the crux of this OP’s argument. Feminists argue that gender- be it masculinity or femininity or anything else- is purely a social construct that people attach to men and women respectively. They believe that the world would be better off without them as it reduces division among humans. If im not mistaken and please correct me if im wrong, but the OP on the other hand believes that biology plays a key role in determining one’s gender and therefore, to the OP, the Feminist goal to abolish gender would also mean the obliteration of masculinity, what is believed to be the essence of being a male. Its quite a huge debate right now on whether gender is primarily determined by society or by biology.

  • Karen Woodall

    should say the first two lines in that post come from the article highlighted by Richard above. Chilling.

  • Darren Ball

    I’m re-posting due to my text being truncated on your answer.
    START
    Hi Richard,
    For the avoidance of doubt, I do not currently describe myself as a feminist for all the reasons that you have described. In general I’ve found the movement to be mostly ambivalent towards males, and often very harmful: a few male-centric opinion pieces is not going to make me sign-up (which, btw, is how I ended my article). However, feminism is a fluid ideology: it has reinvented itself before and can do so again. It is very hard to stop a juggernaut, but quite easy to steer one.
    I did answer your question about it being called Feminism, but for your ease of reference, I couldn’t care less what it’s called provided it gets the job done. I’d rather it be called humanism or something, but the term feminism isn’t offensive to me. I believe that it is the patriarchy that is at the root of gendered-based harm to males, and it is feminism that set itself against the patriarchy, starting with the way patriarchy damages females: if the conclusion of that long journey is an incarnation of feminism which genuinely looks for gender balance and seeks fairness for all, regardless of gender, then it’s fair to credit that outcome to feminism. The movement is not, by any means, at that point.
    My wife’s a feminist and she campaigned against male circumcision 25 years ago, she’s American and anti-draft. I think you’ll find that she’s typical of feminists on both points.
    All that notwithstanding, it does look as if the UN, EU, the WHO et al have let down boys on MGM, and this may have been influenced by a virulent strain of feminism that’s keen to use FGM as further proof of men maintaining control over women (just as they distorted the truth about DV for the same reason).
    For now the term feminism is meaningless, as some feminists believe it’s a movement only for females and others believe it’s a movement for equal gendered outcomes for all. I think for now I shall continue to just call myself a humanist, but it really doesn’t matter what one calls oneself: what matters is what you say and do.

  • Darren Ball

    I was responding to a post in which William was recalling a time when boys, but not girls, did receive corporal punishment. That does fit with patriarchy and also fits with a gynocentry and other things too. By itself it neither proves nor disproves my hypothesis.

    Your point seems to be that teachers are trying to make boys be more like girls. Let’s say you’re right. That would not be patriarchal, I agree. But these teachers are most likely to be feminists. Some feminists sometimes use patriarchal attitudes to advance their campaigns (which is a point that I do make in the article), but in general feminists are opposed to patriarchy and it’s not at all surprising then if they behave in ways that are unpatriarchal. I don’t think your point invalidates mine.

  • Fullmoonfolly

    Thank you Darren! I love just about every word in this article, and am saving it to show to every man who tells me feminists are all misandrists and that there is no patriarchy. I get why a man might not see any direct benefit to being a feminist, but it we could become egalitarians together, we could bring down the patriarchy.

    • Darren Ball

      @fullmoonfolly,

      I’m pleased you liked it.

      “I get why a man might not see any direct benefit to being a feminist, but it we could become egalitarians together, we could bring down the patriarchy.”

      My sincere hope is for this to be the next wave of feminism. I honestly don’t think it’s there yet, but I have enormous hope that today’s young people are beyond gender insofar as it affects anything other than reproduction. Sexual discrimination will be as distant to them as racial segregation or criminalising homosexuality is to us in the west; they’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad.