insideMAN

The three reasons I don’t support feminist equality campaigns

by 45 Comments

This week I was challenged by the university lecturer Martin Robb to stop “touting” myself as a non-feminist and give my backing to feminist campaigns for gender equality instead, writes Glen Poole.

Martin’s challenge was a response to my article in the Daily Telegraph asserting that boys should have a right to choose whether to be feminist or not. So for the benefit of Martin and anyone else who is interested, I thought I’d outline the main three reasons I don’t support feminist campaigns for gender equality. Here they are:

  • I’m not a feminist
  • My definition of “gender equality” is different from most feminists
  • Many feminist initiatives designed to “engage men in gender equality” actively exclude non-feminists

That being the case, then why would I support feminist campaigns for gender equality when they don’t align with my own principles?

I’ll expand on these three points in this article but  before I do I’d like to address some of Martin’s comments about me. Firstly, Martin describes me as someone who is “simply playing games with labels” by “touting (myself) as a ‘non’ feminist.”

“Tout” is an interesting word to use. To me it means to sell things, often illicitly, for personal gain and a great cost to others! Wikipedia describes a tout as “a person who solicits…in a persistent and annoying manner”! It is neither a neutral nor a complimentary word.

Why is this important?

This is important to note because there is a subtle game of “othering” people who think differently here which reflects the feminist movement’s discomfort with intellectual diversity. Martin presents “feminism” and “male pro-feminism” as the only legitimate gender political views for a man to hold and describes people, like me, who hold other views as “touts”.

What does it mean to “stand outside” feminism he asks as if those who are NOT feminist or pro-feminist belong to a mysterious “other” tribe with strange beliefs and superstitions. There is a clearly an intellectual hierarchy in gender politics as far as Martin is concerned and feminists/pro-feminists sit on top of it and the “others” like me, are the unwelcome outliers at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Martin then accuses me of “tarring all feminists as intolerant” on the basis of an article in which I described the feminist whose work I was critiquing as being intelligent, compassionate and self aware. I used these words because I look for the greatness in all human beings and in the case of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie I didn’t have to look far—she is an extraordinary human being. Martin dismisses my acknowledgment as softening my criticsm, it was no such thing—it was a heartfelt, acknowledgement from one human being to another.

At the same time the title of her book—“we should all be feminists”—is a fundamentalist statement that has been embraced by feminists who hold that viewpoint. And my extensive lived experience of gender politics is that when feminists adopt a fundamentalist belief that everyone else should be feminist too, there is a very real risk that they will become intolerant of “others” who don’t share their worldview.

In describing the act of holding a non-feminist worldview as “touting”, Martin demonstrates both his intolerance of, and his difficulty having empathy for, men who don’t share his pro-feminist worldview. Martin says that “in many years of working as a man alongside feminists, I’ve never been made to apologise for anything”.

I don’t doubt that what Martin says about his lived experience of feminists is true, but why does he use his experience to invalidate my lived experience of feminism? Why does his lived experience have validity, but mine doesn’t?

This is a very common ploy used by pro-feminist men to dismiss the experiences of “other” non-feminist men.

When a non-feminist man points out that feminism has a problem with intellectual diversity, for example, and is intolerant of those with different worldviews, for a pro-feminist man to respond by saying  “I’ve never had a problem” misses the point. Rather like a straight man saying to a gay man “well I’ve never experienced any homophobic bullying from straight guys”!

The point is, that the movement Martin is part of has a problem with the way it treats “others”—and for a movement that prides itself in promoting “equality AND diversity” that is a core issue.

So even though Martin says he agrees with my assertion that we should “teach our boys to become free-thinkers who can choose for themselves whether they want to be feminist or not”—he still concludes by saying  that if you’re a man you should “get stuck in” and “lend your support” to feminist campaigns for gender equality, even if:

  1. You’re not a feminist
  2. Your definition of “gender equality” is different from most feminists
  3. Many feminist initiatives designed to “engage men in gender equality” actively exclude non-feminists

What does a non-feminist believe?

Martin provides three examples of campaigns that non-feminist men should support, which provides me with a useful opportunity to demonstrate how my view of gender equality is different from most feminists as the table below shows.

What I believe as a non-feminist What feminist equality campaigns believe
  • There are lots of areas in life where women and girls are unequal to men and boys (and vice versa)
  • There are lots of areas in life where women and girls are unequal to men and boys
  • When men and women experience inequality (and where it is appropriate) we should take collective action to address those inequalities
  • When women experience inequality we should take collective action to address those inequalities
  • Men’s primary job in the drive for gender equality is to address the issues faced by men and boys (and support initiatives focused on women and girls if they want to)
  • Men’s primary role in the drive for gender equality is to support feminist initiatives focused on women and girls and oppose non-feminist gender equality initiatives.
  • Equality of autonomy is a far more important measure of gender equality than equality of outcome (though equality of outcome is still an important measure)
  • Equality of outcome is by the far the most important measure of gender equality but only when it relates to women and girls.

To prove this point, here’s what the three organisations that Martin says “ensure equal chances for all”, have to say about gender equality.

#HeForShe

This is a UN Women campaign that asks men to take the following pledge:

“I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.”

Note there’s no commitment to take action against violence and discrimination faced by men and boys, even though around 80% of victims of violent death in the world every year are male.

MenEngage

MenEngage says: “We believe that men should be engaged in advancing the rights, health and well-being of women and girls. We are committed to working as allies with women and women’s rights organisations to achieve equality for women and girls.”

Note there’s no concern for the rights, health and well-being of men and boys and no commitment to work with men’s organisations to achieve equality for men and boys.

White Ribbon

White Ribbon asks men to make the following pledge: “I promise never to commit, condone or remain silent about violence towards women”.

Not only does this pledge ignore violence against men, this is also a deeply misleading pledge. In reality, the White Ribbon campaign only wants men to say feminist-approved things about violence towards women, as the Psychiatrist Dr Tanveer Ahmed found out earlier this year when White Ribbon took action to silence him for daring to voice a “non-feminist” view.

Why would someone who is committed to promoting gender equality for all, support initiatives that are about promoting gender equality for women and girls, but not men and boys?

Why would I make the White Ribbon pledge to “never remain silent” about violence against women when I know that if I speak out about this issue, that White Ribbon will want to silence me because I don’t hold a feminist view on the subject?

Feminists who are fundamentalists don’t welcome the simple idea that a diversity of worldviews is needed if we are to tackle major world problems like violence. As such, fundamentalist feminists are actively (and at times abusively) intolerant of people who hold different worldviews. Here’s the feminist CEO of domestic violence charity, Karen Ingala Smith, responding to my article in The Telegraph on twitter :

“Hahaha, bollocks of the highest order”

This response is not, in my experience, untypical of the level of contempt that high profile feminists in positions of power have for non-feminist thinkers like me.

As a younger man I used to call myself a feminist because I was concerned with the issues that affected women and girls. As I became aware of the issues that men and boys also face, I consistently found feminists and feminism to be not only dismissive of these concerns, but also actively hostile towards men and women who were working to address these issues.

I’ve been experiencing this feminist hostility for nearly 20 years now. It comes in many forms and needs to be addressed if we are to make sustainable progress in the global drive for gender equality.

To highlight just one strand of my work, for the past six years I’ve been promoting and co-ordinating the celebration of International Men’s Day in the UK. It’s an inclusive platform that invites anyone and everyone to put on an event, no matter what their gender politics.

Supporters of the day included charities that help male victims of rape and sexual abuse and campaigners working to address the fact that in the UK, 13 men die from suicide every day. Over the years a small number of feminist groups have also got behind the day, but some high profile feminists like the founders of MenEngage and White Ribbon advise their global networks to “stay away from the day“.

The reason? My view is they stay away from International Men’s Day because it isn’t controlled by feminists—and fundamentalist feminists can’t cope with inclusive approaches that require them to share a gender political platform with non-feminists.

“Fuck off and leave us the fuck alone!”

Then there’s Kate Smurthwaite, a feminist campaigner named by the BBC as one of their “100 women” who responded to an International Men’s Day press release in 2014, by sending me a foul-mouthed email saying:

“Would you please tell whoever wrote this utter shit to go fuck themselves? Feminism is the same thing as gender equality. Those who say it is not are lying assholes trying to divide and destroy the movement. Please let them know they are misogynist dickwads and that feminism doesn’t want their help. Feminism wants them to fuck off and leave us the fuck alone”.

Then there’s the Labour MP and former domestic violence charity worker, Jess Phillips, who tied herself in gender political knots over International Men’s Day this year, first sniggering at it; then offering an apology of sorts for her reaction to it; then saying she was for men’s issues; then deriding International Men’s Day’s track record; then comparing International Men’s Day (with it’s focus on helping male victims of rape and preventing male suicide, amongst other things) to “white history month or able body action day”.

More pertinently, she also publicly declared her hatred for people with a different gender political view to her saying: “I hate fools who think men don’t have equality”.

I’m one of those fools that Jess hates. My non-feminist view of gender equality is that there are clearly areas where women and girls experience inequality and there are areas when men and boys face inequality too. Both of these things are true and both need addressing—it’s not a zero sum game, helping men AND women does not require us to choose between men OR women.

This simple viewpoint is one that feminists and feminism struggles to contend with and this is  deeply problematic for a movement that too often claims to be synonymous with “gender equality”. How can any movement claim to be all about gender equality and struggle so profoundly to respond to the many gender inequalities that men and boys face?

Take the case of the University of York, where the Equality and Diversity Committee decided to support International Men’s Day. The response by feminists within the institution was not “Great how can we help?” but “Shit, how can we close this down?”

In total, 200 academics, students and alumni signed an open letter opposing the day and the institution responded by abandoning its plans. This episode was covered in several places including The Telegraph, insideMAN and The Independent. The silver lining on this story was provided by a wonderful York student, Ruth Morris,  starting a petition FOR International Men’s Day that garnered over 4,000 signatures.

Contrary to what Martin claims, I am not in the business “tarring all feminists as intolerant”. When I see tolerant and inclusive feminism, I celebrate it and so here’s Ruth demonstrating what tolerant, inclusive feminism looks like:

“True feminists should be fighting for gender equality for both men and women. To cancel men’s day is simply hypocritical. Equality is not just for women and should concern all genders. All feminists are being wrongly portrayed here which is simply unfair. We are not man-haters and the university should go ahead with plans to celebrate all diversity, not just one gender.”

These incidents demonstrate the vital importance of creating non-feminist and non-feminist-inclusive spaces to discuss gender issues—particularly those affecting men and boys. One reason is simply that such initiatives bring to light the fundamentalist opposition to intellectual diversity that seems to be endemic in the feminist movement.

Another reason is that if feminism really is about gender equality and yet struggles to address the gender equality issues that men and boys face (which it clearly does), then embracing and supporting “others” who are committed to and focused on addressing the equality issues facing men and boys is surely something to be welcomed?

If feminism is really about gender equality for all, then why is it so hostile to those who are concerned with highlighting and addressing the equality issues that men and boys face?

These fundamentalist tendencies within feminism go to the very top. In 2014 I was privileged to be invited by UN Women to attend a workshop about the #HeForShe campaign with Emma Watson and a select gathering of experts. There was a magical moment before the event started when I asked one of the organisers why they’d invited me to speak. He told me there were lots of female academics talking about men and gender but not many men and they wanted a male academic to contribute—albeit a pro-feminist one.

Then I dropped the bombshell “but I’m not an academic and I’m not a feminist”!

The look of absolute horror on the guy’s face was priceless, like a caterer at a Bar Mitzvah suddenly discovering the chef has put ham in the soup that has just been served to all the guests.

You see, had they realised I was a non-feminist in advance, they would never have invited me, because #HeForShe and UN Women are feminist campaigns for gender equality for women—-not non-feminist-inclusive campaigns for gender equality for all.

Then there’s the European Union.

In the 2012 the EU agency EIGE (European Institute for Gender Equality) created a network of approved NGOs that work with men on gender equality issues. The feminist team behind the project went through an extensive process of defining how men should (or shouldn’t) be allowed to engage in gender equality work across Europe (including the UK).

The report promotes pro-feminist work involving men and gender equality policies across Europe and rejects non-feminist approaches and theories that highlight discrimination against men—which includes anti-feminist, men’s rights and fathers’ rights approaches.

At the same time, the European Institute of Gender Equality (EIGE) compiled a database of approved men’s organisations across Europe who were considered to be suitable for inclusion in gender equality work.

Any organisation or individual considered “to have rejected the study’s understanding of gender equality” was excluded. And therein lies the fundamentalism of feminism writ large across publicly funded gender political thinking in Europe.

The team behind this project identified five types of gender politics that men engage in:

  • Men’s liberation
  • Anti-sexist or pro-feminist
  • Spiritual and mythopoetic
  • Christian
  • Men’s rights and fathers’ rights.

The hierarchy of gender politics 

What this list represents is a hierarchy of approved gender political viewpoints. The top groups are considered to be superior and are included in an approved list of stakeholders working for gender equality. The bottom three groups are considered to be inferior and excluded from the list (though may be let in if vetted and approved).

I don’t fit neatly into any of those boxes and there are groups that are completely overlooked—for example charities and campaigns working to end male circumcision don’t fit into any of those categories (though men from each category may support their aims).

What this incomplete list confirms is that there are many forms of “non-feminism”. My own personal version of non-feminism includes aspects of all five groups and more besides (though I am neither Christian nor pro-feminist). More broadly, beyond my own specific viewpoints, I believe that approaches to addressing gender equality should include ALL of those groups and more besides.

And this is where I find myself at odds with the fundamentalist approach to gender equality that feminists and pro-feminists promote.

Essentially, what feminism does is to create a closed club that excludes people with particular worldviews—like myself—and then when we criticise feminism for attempting to exclude us from the world of gender equality, we are attacked for not supporting feminism.

It’s like not inviting people to a party, putting bouncers on the door to prevent us from getting in and then when we complain, attacking us for being rude and not showing up at to the party.

We need diversity in gender politics 

The fact is that gender politics is a diverse field and I happen to believe that we should work to embrace that diversity, rather than seek to create hierarchies of gender political thought that actively exclude particular worldviews.

In this respect I tend to find myself at odds with both feminists AND anti-feminists because while anti-feminism is one form of non-feminism (and while I agree that many of the issues highlighted by anti-feminists are not being addressed by feminism), my experience of anti-feminists is that they also find inclusivity and diversity in gender politics confronting.

However as anti-feminists tend to have very little (if any) power in the world of gender equality, this is mere trivia when compared to the damage that feminists and feminism is doing with its fundamentalist resistance to intellectual diversity in gender politics.

Nor do I think that the report’s analysis of anti-feminists “seeking to undermine gender equality” is a fair or reasonable analysis. Most (though not all) anti-feminists that I have encountered simply see themselves as having a different view of what gender equality is to most feminists.

From my own perspective, the reason I am a non-feminist is that I care deeply and passionately about every girl and boy on this planet being given every opportunity to flourish and thrive and fulfil their potential.

I believe that deepening our understanding of men, masculinity and manhood is central to that. But unlike the feminists and pro-feminists I don’t view “men and masculinities as socially constructed and produced, rather than ‘natural’“.

As an integral non-feminist thinker, I believe that gender is a product of both nature (i.e. biology and evolved  psychology) and nurture (social and cultural conditioning).

There are lots of different ways to define people’s gender politics (and we all have gender politics) and one way is to consider if you think being a man is a product of nature; a product of nurture; or a combination of nature and nurture.

As the majority of feminist thinking emanates from the social sciences, other valuable perspectives from disciplines such as biology, psychology and neuro-science are often excluded from our approach to gender equality. This is another manifestation of the fundamentalist tendency within feminism to exclude worldviews that are not readily aligned to feminist thinking.

When feminists are absolutely brilliant 

But if we want to live in a world that works for everyone—and I do—we can’t do this by trying to force everyone to think the same, we can only do it by learning to integrate the very best of the many different worldviews that are found around the globe.

The feminist approach to gender equality does not do this. It excludes people like me—and many wonderful men and women around the world who don’t tick the “feminist” or “pro-feminist” box. The reason I don’t support feminism is that I support equality and diversity and I support the inclusion of worldviews that I don’t agree with, in the world of gender politics.

Feminists are absolutely brilliant at trying to promote all manner of sexual diversity and gender diversity in the world and while I don’t always agree with the methods, I do 100% support the intention—-and all I ask of feminists and feminism is that you extend that brilliant thinking to embrace intellectual diversity, which means welcoming and including those who hold views that are non-feminist into the worlds of gender politics, gender issues and gender equality.

I know that this is a big ask. It’s difficult for people in power to let go.

But while as an individual it is perfectly acceptable to think “we should all be feminists”, once you become a collective force that holds power, authority and influence, you have a responsibility to be inclusive of a diverse range of gender political viewpoints—and feminism is shirking that responsibility big time.

And that for now is why I don’t support feminist campaigns for gender equality, because:

  • I’m not a feminist
  • My definition of “gender equality” is different from most feminists
  • Too many feminist initiatives designed to “engage men in gender equality” actively exclude non-feminists

And most importantly of all I believe the way to resolve the world’s problems is not to enforce a singular worldview on any issue, but to develop our ability to integrate and include a diversity of ways of thinking about problems, rather than excluding people who dare to think differently.

As the freethinker Claire Lehmann argues: “almost every advance in human history first came from a person willing to look at the world, or the status quo, from a different angle”.

—Photo courtesy of Flickr

Glen Poole is the news editor of online magazine insideMAN, author of the book Equality For Men and UK coordinator for International Men’s Day.

 

  • DavidDuBay

    Well done. This sort of non-polemic discourse is what I like about insideMAN. For my part, the reason I support gender equality but don’t identify as a feminist is that feminism, in my view, has a blind spot:

    Feminism seeks to expand the female role beyond its narrow traditionalist confines and to address other issues that affect women and girls. Changes to the male role are necessary to accommodate this. But feminism ignores and often opposes addressing men’s and boys’ issues that aren’t concerned with expanding the female role, especially when these issues don’t reflect positively on women (such as women who abuse men and boys).

    I don’t expect feminism to address men’s issues that don’t directly affect women because feminism is a female perspective on gender, and so these men’s issues are beyond feminism’s scope. But feminism’s insistence on dominating gender discourse to the point of monopoly has created an unbalanced perspective on gender that permeates our entire culture. And this is a problem not only for the male perspective on gender, but also transgender and intersex perspectives, which many feminists try to subsume under the feminist umbrella (though some feminists are anti-transgender). But in my view, all of these perspectives deserve to share the stage with equal billing along with rather than under feminism.

    • Glen Poole

      Thanks David

      This is great. I am so pleased that you found insideMAN and we have connected in the past year.

      Creating non-feminist-inclusive spaces like insideMAN is vital—and one reason is it helps people connect.

      You are a fantastic example of a non-feminist thinker—and that feminists/pro-feminists seek to exclude men like you from the gender equality discourse highlights the problem with feminism.

      So we do one of two things:

      a) We ask feminism to become more inclusive—I don’t think that’s the approach—I don’t expect feminism to put more focus on men and boys

      b) We accept and honour feminism as it is right now and open the door for non-feminist to take part too.

      Approach b. is my preferred approach — I’d much rather spend more time focussing on men and boys’ issues rather than spend time fighting for the right for men and boys’ issues and non-feminist approaches to be included in the global gender discourse.

      And wouldn’t feminists rather spend time focussing on women’s issues rather than fighting to keep non-feminists and people advocating for men out of the gender discourse?

      Thanks for following, reading and commenting, great to have you in our global network.

      Best

      Glen

      • Glen Poole

        PS: I like a bit of polemic too from time to time — and really appreciate what you said about the non-polemical tone.

        • Partridge

          But this is why your plan (b) will also ultimately not work. If you are involved in gender politics it will be impossible to avoid dispute and controversy, because the mindset of feminist ideologues is almost totally totalitarian and anti-men.

          There were people who were merely non-Fascist, non-Nazi, and non-communist, until they realised the damage those bigoted fanatics were doing to their societies and that such people were impossible to deal with. There will come a time, too, when every non-feminist will arrive at the same conclusion: one must be either pro- or anti-feminist; there can be no middle ground.

          One should not be afraid to face this inevitability. To be anti-feminist is not to be anti-women. Indeed, more and more women are now declaring themselves to be anti-feminist, as they come to see the harm feminism is bringing, not only to society generally, but to their husbands, sons, fathers, brothers, and male friends and colleagues.

          Accept and honour feminism as it is right now? No way.

          • Glen Poole

            Patrick

            If you want to recruit me to anti-feminism you have just failed spectacularly with that post.

            Glen

          • Partridge

            Glen I was not trying to recruit you, nor coerce you, nor obtrude upon your free will. I don’t need to. Just give it time, and you will understand: feminism not only cares not a hoot about the issues adversely affecting men and boys (many of which are the result of feminist actions) but it actively campaigns against them. In such a situation, if you truly care about men and boys as well as women and girls, your current position will be untenable. One cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

          • Glen Poole

            “Unfortunately, history has shown that it’s impossible to work with ideologues, bigots, fanatics and extremists.” Thanks for your wise words Patrick.

          • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

            Taking a “non” stance toward anything does not preclude taking an “anti” stand against it if such a move is warranted. Indeed, it tends to confer a moral high-ground position upon the “non” partisan when/if a more conflictive situation arises.

  • http://www.fighting4fair.com/ Crusty Theprawn
  • Groan

    In the heady mixed up 70s I was very much a liberationist. There were many strands of thought and action. From a single parent household with my mother’s experience of both legal discrimination (mortgage) and attitudinal (no family friendly hours at work) I was easily persuaded that women and men should be liberated from constraints and boxes. I remember Erin Pizzey and her refuge and views. One thing that appears to have happened is that diversity of views seems to have been forgotten/hidden. Having been busy with a young family and economic chaos in the 80s I came up again with feminism in the 90s supporting a male in law with his difficulties with his drug addicted wife. Here I discovered the complete mis reading and mis direction of Social Workers blinded by a “gendered” analysis. This took me on a journey which I found more and more disturbing. Far from gender equality or liberation a sort of secular religion appeared to have taken over. One marked with gross hypocrisy. At one time saying men should not seek support from their sisters but organise themselves , yet facing outright hostility and every wrecking tactic if they did as suggested!
    I cannot say I have delved into the theories, as I judge by what is done. And what I see is self identified feminists behaving as an intolerant clique in positions of power. Whatever their theory their behaviour betrays the true intent, which honestly is less about advancing women as advancing their clique and creed.
    The most disgraceful episodes are the co-opting of the very real evils found in the wider world to make hay for themselves here.
    So personally I too am most happy now to be not a feminist. I still have respect for those feminists who act with integrity even if I may think their view is partial or incomplete. And those who feel their theory will stand up to debate.
    What is clear is that the behaviour of shutting down or out diversity of view, is a sure sign that the orthodoxy is felt to be brittle and thin by those so keen to protect it from even the most gentle buffeting by alternative views.
    So well done you for championing diversity and its great to read all the variety here.

    • Glen Poole

      Fabulous comment, you managed to capture decades of change in a few paragraphs and showed how your gender politics is shaped by your humanity and your concern for the wellbeing of both women and men. Thank You

  • bakamonosan

    What an inspirational article, Glen. Thank you.

  • http://martinrobb.wordpress.com Martin Robb

    Glen, I appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to respond to my blog post. I’m not going to reply to your long response in detail: I think there are others who have greater knowledge and expertise of the field, and longer experience of the gender equality field, who could do a better job of tackling some of your detailed points. I just want to say a few things. Firstly, I acknowledge the integrity of your personal experience of working in this field, and the contribution you’ve made to a better understanding of men’s experience. However, I’m still not sure I see the point of calling yourself a ‘non feminist’. For me, feminism – or in the case of men, pro-feminism – is simply about (1) recognising that gender inequality exists and (2) wanting (and working) for it to diminish and disappear. On that definition, I think we’re both ‘pro feminist’. To be sure, as I acknowledged in my own post, there are some intolerant and exclusive feminists – the same is true of any social movement – and maybe I’ve been fortunate in not coming across too many of them. The only difference I can see in the way you describe your views is that on my first point – ‘recognising that gender equality exists’ – I’d go on to say ‘and the main victims of this inequality are women and girls’. Whereas I think you’d want to emphasise the issues that men face. That emphasis, I think, is where we’d differ. Yes, I think there are particular issues for men – but (a) these are not at all comparable to the long, historical and widespread oppression that women have faced and (b) many of the problems faced by men are themselves a spin-off from the gender stereotyping that disproportionately affects women. So women’s liberation would also be men’s. Finally, I think your claim that non feminists are somehow being ‘excluded’ from gender equality campaigns by feminists and non feminists is another straw man. I certainly didn’t argue for anything like that in my blog post. Again, my experience may be unusual, but I’ve never experienced any ‘entry tests’ for involvement in gender equality campaigns – I’ve no idea, for example, if the male business leaders and voluntary org representatives sitting around the table with me at the ‘Men as change agents’ working group the other week would call themselves ‘feminists’. Probably not. But nobody asked when they signed up, and nobody cares. What matters is their proven commitment to improving opportunities for women and girls in education and employment. And yes, that means providing greater opportunities for boys and men to be fully involved in childcare, family life and non traditional professions (incidentally, most of my academic and professional work has been with boys, and about improving things for young men). That’s what I mean by forgetting about labels and striking poses and getting stuck into the much-needed work of fighting for gender equality.

    • http://www.genderratic.com/ Ginkgo

      “For me, feminism – or in the case of men, pro-feminism – is simply about (1) recognising that gender inequality exists and (2) wanting (and working) for it to diminish and disappear.”

      Feminists make no secret of their opposition to gender equality, and this has been true for at least 20 years. In the 90s it was the way they treated male rape victims – some of them children! – at the rape centers they ran, where they very often treated these victims like potential rapists, as a function of their patriarchy narrative. Then it was the mad dog resistance to seeing and handling men as victims of IPV, even though the evidence is pretty clear that women initiate the majority of it. Now it is the rape hysteria withc hunts on US campuses where the basic rights of accused men are waved off as if they shouldn’t even exist.

      Yes, I think there are particular issues for men – but (a) these are not at all comparable to the long, historical and widespread oppression that women have faced and (b) many of the problems faced by men are themselves a spin-off from the gender stereotyping that disproportionately affects women.”

      This is a chivalrous distortion of history. That abomination Emmeline Pankhurst didn’t go around handing white feathers out to teenaged girls to hound them into the trenches, did she? It wasn’t women who were expected to risk life and limb in mines and factories and on the sea, was it? It wasn’t women who were paraded around and degraded in public when their spouses beat them, was it? If any of these historical references or the social conditions and cultural expectations they typify are unfamiliar to you, you have some work to do.

      “So women’s liberation would also be men’s.”
      It has been 50 years and wee are still waiting for that to happen. A very big obstacle to this happening is so many women’s resistance to true equality. Tell them they have no one but themselves to look to for their welfare and safety and suddenly it’s “MISOGYNY!!!!!”.

    • OirishM

      “However, I’m still not sure I see the point of calling yourself a ‘non
      “feminist’. For me, feminism – or in the case of men, pro-feminism – is
      simply about (1) recognising that gender inequality exists and (2)
      wanting (and working) for it to diminish and disappear. On that
      definition, I think we’re both ‘pro feminist’.”

      This is commensurate with the point Glen was making – why do we have to define our stances in terms of support for your side? Why can’t it simply be ok to ID as non-feminist, and to seek gender equality in a different way to you? For someone who accused Glen of playing games with labels, it seems to be very important to you that people identify with *your* label, and not any other.

      Btw, every gender movement claims to be seeking equality – so we could just as easily spin your stance as “really” being non-feminist.

      “To be sure, as I acknowledged in my own post, there are some intolerant
      and exclusive feminists – the same is true of any social movement”

      No-one is denying that. The difference is, the intolerant minority of non-feminist groups is used as an excuse to justify no-platforming any non-feminist gender groups, stonewalling their activism, and banning them. But feminists can stonewall, engage in outright bigotry, harass, threaten, dox – and “hey, that’s just a few bad apples. Not All Feminists Are Like That.”

      If feminism held itself to the standards it assumed it has any right to police other groups with, it would cease to exist.

      “Yes, I think there are particular issues for men – but (a) these are not at all comparable to the long, historical and widespread oppression that women have faced ”

      Give any objective metric for this. Please. You’d be the first pro-feminist to do so. What I suspect you’ve actually done is mistake your own subjective value judgements of a particular subset of gender issues as objective truth.

      And don’t get me wrong, I’m not coming in from the opposite pole and saying men are “the true” victims of gender oppression. I’m saying that trying to evaluate which gender has it worse overall is a profound waste of time, but that this sort of rhetoric is harming men’s issues by causing them to be neglected.

      “and (b) many of the problems faced by men are themselves a spin-off
      from the gender stereotyping that disproportionately affects women.”

      One can, again, spin this either way.

      “So women’s liberation would also be men’s.”
      How, exactly? Trickle-down equality – where we only address women’s issues and assume men’s issues will naturally improve as a consequence – has been in play for the last 50 years, and it has been an abject failure. To improve these issues affecting men, we will actually need to talk about specifically, and address them specifically.

      This is what something like International Men’s Day is trying to *do*, and this is also something that feminists keep claiming they *want* men to do – and yet when the events actually roll up, which group is most often found blocking the way? Feminists. Look at Jess Phillips and York Uni – these are not random, obscure feminist trolls, these are people with ties to the operation of public bodies.

      “That’s what I mean by forgetting about labels and striking poses and
      getting stuck into the much-needed work of fighting for gender equality.”

      People will stop actively IDing as non or anti feminist as soon as your movement stops getting in the way of equality.

      • Groan

        Indeed judge by what is done. If Mens groups were simply left to do their thing and feminists showed confidence in their arguments by either engaging or just letting people decide for themselves my view from the 70s would have held that both sexes were involved in making a new freer world. What actually happens is that “no platforming” and attempts to silence happen time and time again .

        • Partridge

          Indeed, we all favour equality, but my experience is that it is impossible to debate with and reason with feminists; most of them appear to have an unbending totalitarian ideological attitude, with actions and deeds to match.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/international-conference-on-mens-issues-london-8-10-july-2016/ baller

      ”I think there are particular issues for men – but (a) these are not at all comparable to the long, historical and widespread oppression that women have faced”

      Martin, thanks for your response. I do however think the above statement is misguided and symptomatic of the myth that women have always been oppressed. Both sexes today have advantage over their mothers and fathers.
      Working class men a hundred years ago were hardly basking in privilege. And as you and I both know most men got the vote at exactly the same time as women, while no women were blown to pieces in the trenches or shot down over Germany during our two world wars. Men and women have both suffered the ‘long, historical and widespread oppression’ that you elude to.

      • john widmer

        Its like that privilege oppression pciture Ive seen. The man working in the coal mine has privilege stamped across him, while the woman in the house dusting has oppression stamped across her.

    • Partridge

      (“On that definition, I think we’re both ‘pro feminist’.”) No, not pro-feminist. You’re both egalitarian or humanitarian.

      You are wrong and misguided on so many points; I only wish I had time to respond to them all. You appear to have been completely indoctrinated by feminist ideology.

      Perhaps this is why you talk about, for example, improving opportunities for women and girls in education and employment, but fail to mention the gender inequality in education; if that situation were reversed, feminists would be up in arms.

    • john widmer

      Women weren’t historically oppressed. Men and Women at the top of political foodchains were gods and could have and do what they want. Lilith bathory anyone?

      Men and Women at the bottom of the foodchain had equal problems. One was enslaved to families and supporting them with their blood and sweat, the other was enslaved to cleaning the household and helping farming work.

      Read The Good Earth, if you think women are oppressed more than men. Both genders had gender roles to play. Both were slaves to those roles. Even today, men who are stay at home dads develop a lot of jealousy in their partners who start to think of them as burdens or that they’re not pulling their weight. Those partners are women.

      A man who doesn’t work much, or who doesn’t have high ambitions or at least act like he’s a god, is not a man who inspires lust or love in women, because he isn’t playing to his gender role.

      While women have been freed from theirs to go be career people, men still have to do it all to be seen as fully masculine and worthy of sex or a relationship with a woman.

      It’d be the same as if we went back to the days of not marrying women unless they were younger, haven’t had sex before, and were promising to be a good housewife.

      Both genders had “oppression” going for them. Men had to work, women had to provide babies.

    • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

      “What matters is their proven commitment to improving opportunities for women and girls in education and employment.”

      If these men were indeed as you describe here, it might seem to imply that they had already internalized much of the feminist worldview (in this case, the assumption that women as a group need special treatment to overcome “oppression”.) That being so, it would be arguable that these men were objectively feminist in their thinking regardless of what they labelled themselves.

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

    A very interesting article Glen. Well written and balanced. Very open, honest and sincere.

    I am a genuine believer in true gender equality. These latter years I too now consider myself as a non feminist. I much prefer the term egalitarian, a word I had not come across until a couple of years back. A word that is rarely used in the debates of gender equality, possibly because as a word it does not flow easily or perhaps because it makes the determined feminist and non feminist camps realise their errors. Since joining the debates on gender equality early 2014 I have found the likes of yourself and the InsideMan site very informative and balanced along side one or two others. I recognise inclusive debates not singular. I find them to be similar to my ethos of outlook on gender equality which is both genders have issues, shared and specific and gender equality can only be achieved by inclusion of both genders and all issues. Discussing one gender only or predominately does not achieve gender equality. Society of past proved this with the exclusion of women over the centuries. I do not hold by the argument, we suffered so you must too. Two wrongs do not make a right and those who were not of the past or partook in the recent past if labelled as though they were will only stir resentment. I feel the strict one side views of gender debates are only causing trouble not solving.

    After years of being subjected to societies gender battles, primarily for being a man, being told what to do, expected of me etc in comparison to women within my ‘lived experience’ I too started to make a stand for myself. Initially for a specific gender equality I, and other men like me are denied, although not illegal, cannot partake in as freely as women have demanded over the last 20 years for themselves.

    In 2014 after a feminist, who had never met me and knew nothing about me accused me of being a privileged white Heterosexual male who had access to anything in life unlike women made me start to look at the gender debates and I soon realised that my ‘lived experiences’ of inequality as a man was not just my imagination others experienced similar and more seriously, both men and women. This imagination of mine had affected and moulded my life and yes quite often by women (thankfully not all) and by women who could manipulate position or knew as a women females in higher authority would listen to them regardless.

    My activity of supporting gender equality as an egalitarian has dramatically increased. Initially promoting my own personal experience of inequality starting in 2011 through to social media and sites like InsideMan in 2014, placing my own articles on my site about subjects on gender to campaging and writing letters to MP’s, Prime Minister and the Governments Equalities Office in late 2015. This activity was unheard of by me pre 2012. Why, because I am sick and tired of this one side propaganda of gender debates, especially targeted in favour of women and in, at times, in complete disregard to men. I’m also fed up when men are chastised for behaviour and language when womens is ignored and this includes from feminists. We are all human beings, all have emotions, feelings and sentiments. Both genders have issues to be resolved and I firmly believe gender equality will not be achieved by such behaviour.

    My articles, especially the recent ones over the last 8 weeks, give more brief information as to why I am a non-feminist but egalitarian. Two latest ones are about the BBC and it’s 100 Voices for Women and the other was about an email I had from HeForShe asking to partake in a survey for gender equality and their new site. I wrote the article because I doubt that my replies are really what they are looking for. I have aired my thoughts on if progress is being made in gender equality and another is are we swapping patriarchy for matriarchy. I have never ever lodged complaints but in 2015 I have both within my own personal life due to womens behaviour at me and also recently two to the BBC about its stance on 100 Voices for Women and a very one sided article in support of a foul mouth feminist who is upset because she is ‘trolled’ by men and women for what she says. I am one of many men who are now turning and speaking for themselves and other men.

    I understand Glen.

    • Glen Poole

      Jeremy

      Thanks so much for that comment—I’ve read lots of things from you and by over the last year or so. You are a brave, brave and this comment, I think, made me feel more connected to your personal experience as a man than anything I have ever read—-and is a great example of why we need non-feminists and non-feminist-inclusive spaces to allow conversations and interactions like this to take place—-you and I would never have had this exchange (I believe) i a feminist or pro-feminist space.

      Thank You

      Glen

  • Nikki van der Gaag

    Glen Poole seriously misrepresents the work that Sandy Ruxton and I, together with a number of other researchers from around Europe, did for the European Institute for Gender Equality.(Then there’s the European Union)
    In our report and the accompanying database, our criteria were explicit and were agreed with staff from EIGE following extensive discussion. They are much more sophisticated than the parody of a division of organisations into ‘feminist’ and ‘non feminist’ (whatever that means) allows for.
    We excluded very few organisations. Where we did so, this was only after careful re-examination of all the available information, and further discussions with researchers from that country. Organisations were rejected for a variety of reasons. Some did not do any specific work with men as their remit was more general. Others stated that they did not work on gender equality; this was especially the case with some LGBT organisations. And finally, yes, there were some organisations – mainly from a men’s right orientation – who were openly hostile to gender equality and to progress for women and girls. In other words, they aimed to maintain or restore gender rela­tions based on gender inequalities. In these circumstances, it was hard to see valid
    grounds for inclusion.
    In practice, many of the organisations included in the database would not describe themselves as
    feminist. Moreover, various organisations are represented that work on ‘men’s issues’, such as violence against men and work with separated fathers. Far from being the closed feminist club that Glen complains about, the database is actually a diverse big tent.

    • Glen Poole

      Hi Nikki

      Good to see you around this parts, thanks for taking time to comment.

      I note Martin Robb at the OU responded to this article saying that:

      “No-one is excluding no-one. This is another straw man, Glen.”

      Thanks for clarifying that Martin is incorrect and that you did exclude some groups in your EIGE project on men’s involvement in gender equality work across Europe.

      Many people who are deeply concerned about and committed to addressing the gender equality issues that impact men and boys feel (rightly or wrongly) excluded from feminist/pro-feminist work on gender equality.

      What the EIGE process demonstrates is that some groups ARE actively excluded. Whether that’s justified or not, let us agree that it happens.

      That being the case, rather than simply tell critics of pro-feminist gender equality work that they should be supportive (as Martin Robb does) surely it makes sense (for all us concerned with men and gender equality) to get a better understanding of why some people do and don’t support different versions of this work—and which people are actually welcome and not welcome within certain movements.

      Where people are not welcome on the grounds of their gender politics, let’s be open an honest about that. It’s what insideMAN does, we are open about our editorial policy on which perspectives we do and don’t tend to publish.

      Your EIGE report was partly transparent about your inclusion/exclusion policy which is commendable and helps us to deepen our understanding of this question of inclusion/exclusion.

      What would be great. would be if you could go a step further with your transparency.

      In 2011, after the First National Men and Boys Conference in Brighton which you attended, nearly 100 UK organisations and individuals signed a joint letter to the UK government to mark International Men’s Day:

      https://internationalmensdayuk.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/giving-a-voice-to-men-and-boys-issues/

      All delegates were invited to sign—you didn’t include yourself. You also appear to support Gary Barker and Michael Kaufmann in opposing International Men’s Day (judging by your response the their Huffington Post article on the initiative).

      You are free to do that of course, but let us have an open discussion about what we do and don’t support and be honest about how our personal gender politics shapes those choices.

      The 2011 letter called for gender equality issues that impact men and boys to be addressed, that simple—and was signed by feminists/pro-feminists / non-feminists and anti-feminists—so a broad and inclusive church.

      Yet the EIGE report confirms only 24 UK organisations were chosen for inclusion in the database at at the time of publication in 2012—clearly not as broad a list and presumably not as diverse.

      So at a time when you were aware of at least 100 individuals/organisations concerned with addressing gender equality issues affecting men and boys in 2012 (and probably many more besides)—-you only included 24 organisations on your list.

      Could you provide a list of the 24 here so we can publicly see which 24 you included in your “diverse big tent” in 2012.

      Could you also provide a list of the organisations you considered and excluded—and the specific grounds for exclusion in all cases?

      For the benefit of anyone reading this can you confirm that the following is true (quotes lifted directly from your EIGE report). Is this a “serious misrepresentation” of the process or a fair summary taken from page 22 of the EIGE report:

      * In terms of different groups within the UK men’s movement you considered five overlapping strands:

      “men’s liberation; anti-sexist or pro-feminist; spiritual and mythopoetic; Christian;and men’s rights and fathers’ rights.

      *In your work for EIGE you “decided to include actors from the first two categories above” automatically — that’s “men’s liberation” groups and “anti-sexist or pro-feminist” groups

      “A more in-depth assessment was undertaken of spiritual/mythopoetic groups and …..‘men’s rights’/‘fathers’ rights’ label

      *Christian men’s groups were neither included nor assessed….so the were automatically excluded, is that correct?

      *Groups which in your view strived to “conserve traditional notions of masculinity…….were excluded from the database”.

      *Organisations considered to have rejected the study’s understanding of gender equality….were excluded

      *Organisations considered……hostile to women’s organisations were excluded.

      *Organisations considered……hostile to women organisations were excluded.

      Thanks for you time Nikki, I’d appreciate your open and honest response to the matters above.

      Best Wishes

      Glen

      • Nikki van der Gaag

        Dear Glen We are not going to agree on this, so I am
        not going to get into a long discussion or reply further, but I will try and
        answer the points you made and make one more general comment. First, for the
        sake of accuracy, the research we did for EIGE was in 2011 so before the
        conference you mention. Second, research is a process that involves choice – we
        were researching 27 countries, clearly we were not going to include every
        organisation from every country, we needed some kind of methodology for selection,
        and our remit from EIGE was organisations working on men and gender equality. I
        am afraid my experiences of the two Men and Boys’ conferences that I attended
        were that many of the organisations were anti-women and misogynistic, and even
        more importantly for me, took no account of the unequal power relations that
        continue to exist between men and women. I absolutely acknowledge that men also
        suffer in many ways – from violence, rape, injustice – and I talk and write
        about this a lot, but in the context that women have been discriminated against
        for hundreds of years. Which is why I am a feminist, why I don’t think we
        should have an International Men’s Day and why I disagree with many of your
        arguments.

        • Glen Poole

          Thanks Nikki

          You are right about the timing of the conference you attended happening in November 2011 just after the EIGE research concluded—-however we made the UK researcher on the EIGE project aware of the conference in June 2010 (I have the email) so your research team was easily able to access information on all the organisations involved before completing your research project.

          However the timing is academic as the reason for excluding most of these organisations was not lack of knowledge of their existence, by gender politics.

          The reason you and I don’t agree is because we have different gender political viewpoints—I don’t have an issue with that, freedom of thought, speech, conscience and belief are fundamental tenets of international human rights.

          The difference is you hold a gender political viewpoint that has power in the world of gender politics and gender equality work—including at the EU’s tax-payer funder European Institute of Gender Equality where you led on research advising how should and shouldn’t be engaged in gender equality work across Europe.

          You do not acknowledge the power imbalance between feminists and non-feminists in the world of gender equality work—your gender political viewpoint holds a position of privilege and power that is exercised with a sense of entitlement to exclude those who hold a different gender political view from mainstream work on gender issues.

          At the same as actively excluding those with non-feminist from mainstream gender equality work (such as the EIGE work on involving men in gender equality across Europe) you also oppose initiatives—like International Men’s Day—which provide a platform for people with a more diverse and inclusive range of gender political viewpoints to connect and take action to make a difference for men and boys.

          So you both oppose the involvement of non-feminist organisations in mainstream gender equality work AND you oppose the creation and existence of alternative platforms that include non-feminist organisations (excluded from the mainstream).

          I believe in freedom of association (another universal human right)—so I have no issue with pro-feminists forming alliances that exclude non-feminists—you have a right to associate freely—however where you have power and privilege and have been funded by the tax-payer, I believe you have a moral and ethical duty to NOT exclude people on the grounds that they have a different gender political view.

          You acknowledge that in your work with the EIGE you used gender politics as a basis to exclude those with with different gender political viewpoints from work on men and gender equality across Europe and had a specific methodology (designed by feminists/pro-feminists) for excluding people, a methodology which is outlined in the EIGE report and enabled you to automatically include certain groups with a gender political worldview that is aligned with feminism/pro-feminism and to exclude groups which are not aligned with that worldview.

          You take issue with organisations that in your view take “no account of the unequal power relations that continue to exist between men and women”— by which I am assuming you mean “unequal power relations that benefit men and impact women—and not vice versa”.

          Many people working with men and boys deal, on a daily basis, with the unequal power relations that benefit women and impact men—and not vice versa—something you seem to take no account of. You also highlight women being “discriminated against for hundreds of years” but don’t highlight the discrimination against men that dates back hundreds of years and still impacts men and boys today.

          Surely in the context of helping men and boys, understanding discrimination against men and the unequal power relations that impact men takes precedent? (Just as organisations designed to help women generally give precedent to understanding discrimination against women and the unequal power relations that impact women?)

          Why one rule for women’s groups and the opposite rule for men’s groups. Isn’t that being sexist and discriminatory against men and boys?

          When you say that “many of the organisations” which attended the National Conference for Men and Boys in 2011 and 2012 were, in your gender political view, “anti-women and misogynistic” it would be useful, for the sake of transparency, if you would name names as there were more than 100 organisations represented and you do them all a great disservice with such an unqualified statement.

          Hearing a feminist calling men’s organisations “anti-women and misogynistic” is not uncommon in the world of gender politics—it’s as common as hearing anti-feminists calling women’s organisations “anti-men and misandrist”.

          Maybe there is truth in both statements—but only one viewpoint has the power to exclude groups from work in gender equality and the other doesn’t. As you are the person in the position of power, I’d ask you to exercise your privilege with great care when labelling people “anti-women and misogynistic” .

          Please be clear, which organisations, in your view, are “anti-women and misogynistic”?

          For anyone reading your comments on the two conferences you attended, I’d recommend also reading Dan Bell’s 2011 write up:

          “It is far too easy to shame men into silence, either for somehow being weak for acknowledging their vulnerability, or for being bullies because they are demanding their legitimate concerns be heard. This is why men and women who care about what happens to boys and men in our society need to stay in touch with each other.”

          https://brightonmanplan.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/a-great-review-from-a-conference-delegate/

          And Ally Fogg’s 2012 review in The Guardian:

          “The men’s sector, as represented that day, includes many brilliant organisations. In isolation they have done great things. But in coming together as a sector….we may be seeing the seeds of a new unity, a recognition that the problems they face are often the same one.”

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/international-mens-day

          Note the stark difference between Ally Fogg’s impression of the conference—“many brilliant organisations”—and your impression “many of the organisations were anti-women and misogynistic”.

          In 2012 your EIGE report listed 24 organisations (and individuals?) in the UK considered to be appropriate for inclusion in a Europe-wide database of “actors” working on the involvement of men in gender equality.

          I asked in my previous message if you would provide a list of the 24 UK organisations you included in your “diverse big tent” so we can publicly see which of the “many brilliant organisations” working on men’s issues you chose to excluded from this list.

          If we looked at that list would we discover that you had only included feminist/pro-feminist organisations and excluded those deemed to be non-feminist?

          It seems to me that you take a very hegemonic approach to gender politics and support a structure where the feminist worldview is seen as the cultural norm that continuously connects feminists to power and funding in the global gender equality sector.

          I am taking a stand for a much more diverse and inclusive gender equality sector that doesn’t exclude feminists, but does include non-feminists. According to YouGov around 80% of people support gender equality but only 20% identify as feminists—by excluding non-feminists from the gender equality sector we are missing out on three quarters of the talent pool.

          As a feminist you oppose non-feminists being included in gender equality work.

          That is the heart of our disagreement.

          I only wrote this post because an associate of yours made the public claim that “no-one is excluding anyone”. You have integrity to acknowledge that people are excluded on from gender equality initiatives on the grounds of their gender politics and so have been drawn into this discussion.

          So I thank you for taking time to respond Nikki, the best response to gender political difference is always (in my view) to have honest and open discussions about our gender political differences.

          Best Wishes

          Glen

        • Partridge

          I have not read the EIGE report; have the excluded groups declared themselves to be openly hostile to gender equality, or
          is this just a perception as seen through the feminist eyes of the EIGE? There are indeed a few extreme and weird minority groups with which I would not wish to be associated in any way. However, it seems to me that the way to deal with those who oppose and disagree with you is not to exclude and to sideline, nor to silence and ban and censor, but to engage them in debate with superior argument. You may not win them over to your way of thinking, but you might persuade many more who are undecided. Of course, it’s also possible they may change your own mind!

          Misogyny (hatred of women, which is extremely rare) should not be confused and conflated with anti-feminism. The vast majority of men’s rights activists love women but oppose feminism, just as
          many women who support feminism also love men. But feminism does not speak for most women. And observation and experience tells me that feminism says and does nothing about the issues adversely affecting men and boys in today’s society.
          It also refuses to listen to non-feminists and anti-feminists on these issues.

          Perhaps this is why many women are also men’s rights activists and supporters, and many more refuse to identify with feminism because they, along with most men’s rights activists, see the damaging effects it has on society, or even see feminism for what it is: a totalitarian ideology based on false history and distorted statistics, not a true academic discipline but an indoctrination process, and an ideology which you appear to have gullibly swallowed.

          Unequal power relations? Discriminated against for hundreds of years? The truth is that historically, because of biology, necessity and natural circumstances, men’s and women’s roles in society were simply a matter of survival for the human species. And if one sex was more cosseted, protected and privileged than
          the other it was (rightly) the female one. It was men who, of necessity, faced the dangers and hardships and responsibilities of providing for and protecting their families. And yes, in some societies these responsibilities were formalised to ensure that men remained liable in law to maintain their families and adhere to their societal duties, even in such matters as making men liable to pay for their wives’ debts. And men recognised and accepted these duties.

          It was not suffragettes or feminism which led to female emancipation. It was the advent of modern technology and the invention of the female contraceptive pill which more than anything freed women from centuries of child-rearing and domestic chores. Historically, men and women always lived together in true partnership and harmony, as they generally do today, despite the harm caused by feminist ideology.

          As for ‘men’s rights activists’, personally I don’t approve of the term at all. The majority of men’s rights activists, in my experience, are not anti-women, but, like many feminist supporters, are for all human rights generally. Egalitarian or humanitarian are more appropriate terms. But in this respect feminism is no better: if it is, as it claims, all about gender equality, why does it call itself feminism?

        • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

          “..took no account of the unequal power relations that
          continue to exist between men and women.”

          See, that’s just the problem. Your statement here loads the dice with the foregone assumption that such “unequal power relations” really do exist – but that is exactly the point at issue. Not everybody shares this assumption. In fact, many people find this assumption problematic and at least open to skeptical interrogation.

          So…this may serve to illustrate why non-feminist inclusion and intellectual diversity are so very much needed.

          • john widmer

            glen poole shut her down pretty well, which is why she chose to agree to disagree so early. A good way to opt out of an argument when you’ve made poor conclusions with bad premises and correlations.

    • Estwald

      …hostile to gender equality…

      …equality according to whom?

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/international-conference-on-mens-issues-london-8-10-july-2016/ baller

    Great article Glen, its depressing to read just how established feminism is in the political institutions that effect all our lives.Its great that we have a few shining stars prepared to talk about this.

    Its difficult for those interested in mens rights to work collectively. Feminists tend to centre around university campuses and can rally a hundred strong demo in a few hours. Men on the other hand are more isolated, probably dont have the time due to work and family commitments and find themselves constantly having to challenge the established assumption than only women have problems.

    I’m against making men victims in the way feminists have done to women. We are all the masters of our own destiny and we have to take responsibility for what happens to us, but thats not to say we shouldn’t challenge a political system that is becoming increasingly stacked against us.

  • CitymanMichael

    The Anology – The room was too cold and the temperature thermostat was turned up, the room got to a comfortable temperature, but the heating was left on and now the room is getting hotter and hotter – is an apt description of gender relations between women and men this past 4 or so decades.

    Unfortunately, it is often a zero sum gain, and some advances made by feminism recently are hurting men. For example government funding for shelters and family court’s bias. As time passes, more women are distancing themselves from feminism, more men are moving to non-feminists and more people are becoming anti-feminist.

    The way feminism has turned up the temperature has made this inevitable. Expect this trend to continue.

  • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

    It is vitally important, I believe, to establish “non-feminist” as a political identity in its own right, and to foster a growth of solidarity among the many flavors of non-feminism which exist in the world at large.

    The feminist view of reality is that everything beyond the purview of feminism is no better than passive empty space waiting to be filled with feminism. The task now before us, is to revolutionize feminist understanding by making it clear that this so-called “empty space” is capable of talking back, and even pushing back.

    That is to say: feminism is no longer the only game in town, and the feminist monopoly of discourse is “trust-busted”. Non-feminist alterity is a thing.

    Or, to hearken back to the French Revolution: “The third estate (non-feminism) is everything, but under the present regime (feminism) it has been nothing. It must now become Something.”

  • gush

    very cool article!

  • crydiego

    Wow, what a great article! Glen Poole, I will remember that name.

  • john widmer

    If “lads” talk about how to chat up and bang a girl, its degrading objectifying sexism. If women talk about “how to bag that man”, its empowering because they should feel safe to go after sex with any guy they want.

    Feminism.

  • Bora Bosna

    “(though equality of outcome is still an important measure)”
    Really?
    Equality of outcome is Marxist utopian nonsense, and is absolute feminist ideology. (Of course they don’t care about equality of outcome in sewage, mining, construction, military, homelessness etc.)
    Equality of outcome caused so much destruction in communist states, like famines.
    Equality of outcome destroyed many jobs, many talented people, many men’s athletic programs etc.
    Disappointed in the article. Being against equality of outcome is just so damn important. It must be fought against fiercely.

  • Jack Strawb

    I’m puzzled as to why anyone who understands feminism as well as you do, would call themselves a “non-feminist,” when it’s abundantly clear that anyone who opposes that gender supremacy movement would-in good conscience-have to be an “anti-feminist.”

    Contemporary feminism actively works against the interests of boys and men. It has been a hate movement since the first women’s rights conference in Seneca Falls in 1848, where its Declaration of Sentiments painted men as the active oppressors of women, and claimed that men consciously sought to establish “a tyranny” over women. Contemporary feminism traces its philosophical lineage to that 1848 conference.

    Any supremacy hate movement must be smashed. Today, feminism is that movement.

    • http://counterfem2.blogspot.com fidelbogen

      Look, it’s simple. If you are not a non-feminist, then you must ipso facto be a feminist.

      Anybody who is not a feminist, is a NON feminst. Is that really so hard to figure out?

  • Lastango

    You do not grasp the feminism’s fundamentals.

    You hope feminists can grow to embrace intellectual diversity in the service of humankind, and regret that they have yet to discover and embrace this opportunity. You wish feminists would step back from the error of their ways. But feminism did not become what it is through error, or through failure to understand the human significance of classical liberalism. Feminists are not misguided people making a mistake or a misjudgement. To see what is actually motivating feminists, and why they operate the way they do, it can help to begin with Feminism’s agenda.

    There is only one feminism — one which, at its core, has always been a calculated drive for coercive, totalitarian power. Its only ideology is Marxism. It has no other foundational ethos. Feminism’s communizing, collectivist nature explains why it is so intolerant of outside voices and why it brutally smashes questioning voices within its ranks. Feminism has nothing whatever to do with securing equality or liberty for women or for anyone else.

    This is also why it is not possible to bring feminists to a fuller understanding of men and masculinity. Disenfranchising and exploiting men is foundational to how feminism takes and holds power, and reaps the benefits of power on behalf of its perpetrators. To imagine otherwise would be like trying to conceive of an ancient empire that grew without subjugating other peoples and seizing their land.

    Feminists are uninterested in the humanism represented in classical liberal worldviews. Engaged in a calculated, coordinated campaign to seize control of all narratives which define western culture and politics, they are waging war to consolidate and extend their power and wipe out opposition. It is therefore profoundly futile to believe they have a higher nature which can be appealed to, or to hope they have any interest whatsoever outside of securing and exercising coercive totalitarianism.

  • iggy

    Equality of outcome (rather than legal equality of opportunity) is a communist worldview I will never support… in fact I will actively battle against this ideology for as long as I live. It does not matter if that communist worldview is wrapped up in another label… like “feminism”.. or gender politics .. like “women’s issues”. So yes, I am an anti-feminist.. and an anti-communist.. and anti-stateists (the state definitely sells their ability to use force to create equality of outcomes). So long as feminism remains an ideology that is based on the idea of blaming men for any negative outcomes of women… I will actively rail against it. We had separation of church and state for this very reason. Its time we have separation of gender and state. Gender biases in politics is just too lucrative and easy for politicians to sell.

  • Mr. E

    I’d like to know why we don’t let GIRLS choose whether they want to be Men’s Right’s Activists. who are interested in ACTUAL EQUALITY, and not just WOMEN.