insideMAN

‘What is feminism’s role in tackling men’s issues?’ asks member of Surrey University’s Feminist Society

by 51 Comments

To mark International Men’s Day in November last year, Mike Parker, a psychology student at Surrey University, gave a talk on men’s issues to his university’s feminist society. Here is how one of the society’s members responded to the talk.

As part of International Men’s day in November, we at the University of Surrey’s Feminist Society wanted to have an event which thought about the role of men in the Feminist movement, Men’s issues and how Feminism should address these issues.

We turned to Mike Parker who had come to our meetings regularly and had frequently displayed a good knowledge of men’s issues and he was willing to make a presentation looking at some of the things that men face in modern society. Despite Mike’s insistence that he was “not an expert”, the amount of research that Mike put into his presentation was extremely thorough, and despite the inevitable vagaries of statistics, it really conveyed the issues in a fully rounded way and giving a focus towards the whole context.

Mike particularly managed to create a presentation which linked back to the feminist society itself, thinking about the effect of masculine and feminine gender roles in creating and shaping these issues, how it fitted into feminism and include it fully into the agenda of feminism, and how feminism can help men.

‘What is feminism’s role in tackling men’s issues?’

Specifically, Mike focused on domestic violence towards men, male victims of sexual violence, men’s depression and suicide and what can be, and is being, done about these issues. Unfortunately, there were was only a finite number of issues that we could address, but Mike still briefly highlighted other issues throughout the presentation, such as the disparity of achievement between girls and boys in the education system and the harsher sentences men generally receive in court.

Something that I found particularly interesting in Mike’s presentation was the issue of domestic violence towards men and the lack of safe spaces and support for men to seek out, and more broadly the lack of visibility of this problem. Of course for the feminist society, the important task was finding our role, the role of feminism, in dealing with these issues, and despite statements to the contrary, it was clear form Mike’s presentation that focusing on women’s issues does not prevent us from also dealing with men’s issues, particularly as the issues frequently intertwine and influence one another.

For example, Mike mentioned the fact that in divorce cases women are much more likely to get custody of the children: and this stems from gender stereotypes of women as emotional carers, and conversely men as unemotional and in a sense ‘unfit’ for taking care of children. It is clearly important to see the whole context of issues in order for us to be able to solve them. While frequently the world is seen as one where men prosper at women’s expense, it is, at the very least, not that simple.

Mike’s presentation was impeccably researched, very informative as well as showing how Feminism should be concerned with the interests of all people. There are clearly a great many issues which men face today, and a great many which are almost invisible to the public at large, and I believe that is much that Feminism as a broad movement can do to solve, mitigate and highlight these issues.

By Ed Mumby

You can read the article Mike wrote about his talk here

  • Darren Ball

    Well done Mike, well done Surrey University’s Feminist Society and well done InsideMan for running the two articles.

    Every men’s issue has it’s root in patriarchy. It is easy to see how a hierarchy of men, all of whom have been raised with their stiff upper lips and “big boys don’t cry” attitudes, would be relatively unsympathetic to other men who haven’t made the grade or suffer physical hardship.

    A hierarchy of emotionally unavailable men have a tendency to be unsympathetic to men who are imprisoned (serves them right), attacked by their partners (grow a pair, man-up), sleeping rough (get a job), have mental health issues (pull yourself together man), and so on. These attitudes are patriarchal and feminism is about ending patriarchal attitudes, ergo men’s issues are feminist issues. However, until MEN define their problems as such, it’s very difficult for feminism to help them.

    • AJ

      So it’s mens fault when women are disadvantaged and it is men’s fault for not being more like women when men are disadvantaged.

      The differences between men and women are certainly not all the result of how men and women are brought up even if it is very unclear what the split between nature and nurture is. Even if we accept men’s stiff upper lip etc is simply the result of up bringing it is women at least as much as men who perform that upbringing.

      The reality is that society cares much less for male lifes than female lifes as is evident from healthcare resources, treatment under the legal system and education. The media makes this paticularily clear with the way conflicts are reported so that male deaths are hardly worth mentioning compared to the suffering of women whose husbands or male relatives are killed. A women who is down on her luck, being harassed or attacked can expect to receive assistance. A man will be very lucky to receive any help.
      If a man is attacked by his wife or partner the last thing he can do is report it to the police as he will probably be arrested and there is no one to help him.

      Men have to be self reliant because we will not be helped and are discriminated against in every aspect of life. The icing on the cake is that self reliance will, as in this comment, be used to blame men for that discrimination and the consequences of it. It is very dangerous to bring men up to expect support and help in the way women receive help. Unless society changes to treat men as well as women are treated the result is likely to be more male suicides rather than less. At the moment society is changing to become even more sexist towards men than previously rather than the other way around.

      Feminism meanwhile continues to reinforce and deepen negative stereotypes about men and debilitating stereotypes of women as helpless victims. Femisinism does everything it can to increase discrimination, fighting domestic violence support for men, urging even more unequal treatment for convicted women, even more support targetted at womens education and so on. It damages men and women by doing so but it is men that bear the brunt.

      Femisinism does not want to help men, it actively works to disadvantage men.

      • Darren Ball

        Hi AJ,

        I agree with everything you say about society’s relative ambivalence towards men’s suffering. However, as far as I can tell, this relative ambivalence pre-dates feminism; it’s the way our society has historically been and our society has historically been rooted in Christianity, which is an Abrahamic religion – you don’t get much more patriarchal than that. God is a father, so too was Abraham, Moses, Noah the Pope and Priests (called fathers). Allied to all of this, we have Father Christmas. It’s all father, father, father.

        In a patriarchy, the Government takes the role of father (the definition of a patriarchy is rule by the father), women take the role of the daughters and men take the role of the sons. Some fathers treat their sons differently to their daughters and that is what you’ve noticed about our own governence.

        Our PATriarchal Government PATronises women, which has some benefits for women, but ultimately no adult wants to be patronised – it’s not equal.

        Some people who self-identify as feminists have exploited our society’s patriarchal attitudes for the benefit of women, such as Women’s Aid in dismissing male experiences of DV and Baroness Corston’s report into prison reform for women. In the case of the Corston report, I read a blog by one feminist who was very annoyed by the report and called it “benevolent sexism”. For benevolent sexism read chivalry, and for chivalry read patriarchy. Okay, some people who call themselves feminists don’t really understand what feminism means and are a contradiction to their cause – feminist ideolgy is about ending patriarchy, not using it.

        The real enemy here is patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a person, or a group of persons, it’s a way of being, it’s an ideology, it can even have women in charge of it. Our patriarchy expects more from its sons than it does from its daughters: this is not good for the sons who don’t measure-up and it’s not good for the daughters who do.

        Too many men fall by the wayside and too many talented women don’t climb as high as they should. This is why feminists are mostly concerned with the lack of women at the top and MRAs are mostly concerned about too many men in the gutter.

        I think it’s time to end this silly sibling rivalry and see this for what it is. It’s one problem requiring one solution.

        • BASTA!

          However, as far as I can tell, this relative ambivalence pre-dates feminism;

          This is the wallet fallacy: “the idea and practice of theft predates me, therefore I did not steal your wallet”. Feminists haven’t invented ambivalence towards men’s suffering, but they currently practice it, and they are currently the main force that perpetuates it. Every major progress with lessening this indifference in the 21st century was achieved by winning a battle against feminists.

          “Patriarchy” is a rhetorical and memetic gimmick that has no intrinsic meaning. Its only purpose is to serve as a lexical hook for the notion of “men are doing it to themselves, therefore their suffering does not merit active solidarity; they just need to quit being evil privileged oppressors and they’ll be fine”.

          • Darren Ball

            Basta,

            You are still conflating men with patriarchy. Patriarchy is a belief, not a person or group of persons. Both men and women support our patriarchal belief system. So blaming patriarchy is not blaming men.

            I agree that some feminists do exploit patriarchal attitudes to the detriment of men, and when you see this happen, you have a very powerful argument against them because it’s a direct contradiction of what they claim to beleive.

          • Partridge

            Your patriarchal belief system is, as I tried to explain above, a complete myth. You’ve obviously been too much influenced by the false ideology of feminism.

          • BASTA!

            You are still conflating men with patriarchy. Patriarchy is a belief,
            not a person or group of persons.

            The word “patriarchy” is conflated with “men” by its etymology: “pater” cannot possibly be a woman, therefore on the basic etymological level the word “patriarchy” carries the exclusive ascription to men.

            Both men and women support our
            patriarchal belief system. So blaming patriarchy is not blaming men.

            This syllogism is not valid because it mixes reasoning about facts with meta-reasoning about persuasion. The first sentence is a factual statement; it also happens to be true. But the second sentence is a meta-statement about persuasion. “Blaming” is an act of persuasion: it means convincing someone that a particular agent or phenomenon is “to blame” for another phenomenon. In the second sentence you are claiming that convincing someone that patriarchy is to blame for certain evils does not also result in convincing that person that men as a group are to blame for said evils. Since this is a statement about beliefs and changes of beliefs (i.e. persuasion), you cannot support it with a statement of fact.

            You could support it with a claim like “most people do not believe that only men ‘do’ patriarchy”, and then you could validly follow this premise with ‘so blaming patriarchy is not blaming men’. To analyze this for you, you would be arguing: “Most people do not reflexively make the men=patriarchy equivalence in their mind, therefore convincing them that patriarchy is to blame for something doesn’t usually result in also convincing them that men are to blame for that thing”. This argument however is false because the premise is false: most people actually do make that equivalence in their mind.

            Feminists know this, and they also know that critics might be fooled by the invalid syllogism of “A is factually not equivalent to B, therefore convincing someone that A is true will not make them believe B”. When feminists blame stuff on patriarchy, they tell you that patriarchy ≠ men in order to get you to stop complaining, but they don’t tell it to the target of their persuasion, and they absolutely rely on the target believing the false men = patriarchy equivalence, because their goal is to convince the world that men are evil.

            Since the word “patriarchy” unavoidably carries exclusive ascription to men, any use of this word without repeated bold and red disclaimers reinforces this ascription. This is why I consider the word harmful.

          • Darren Ball

            Thank you – I understand the Greek origins of the word patriarchy. Literally it is rule by the father, not by men per se. Our cultural inheritance is provided by Christianity (a patriarchal religion). Patriarchy is therefore an ideology. You can support the ideology regardless of your gender. Similarly, feminism is an ideology obviously derived from the word feminine, but you don’t have to be female to be a feminist.

            You have made bold statements that most people assume patriarchy = men. I don’t agree with you at all – this is your bold leap of unjustified belief. However, even if this is the common belief, it doesn’t make it correct. I have set out very clearly in my various posts what I mean when I say patriarchy. The definition I have used is nothing more than a re-statement of easily verifiable facts which easily explain society’s relative ambivalence towards men in need.

            So instead of insisting on using a definition of patriarchy that neither of us agree with, why not accept than the relative neglect of men’s issues has its roots in patriarchy, then, when you find yourself debating with a feminists who refuses to acknowledge men’s problems as gendered, you can simply explain to them that they’re being patriarchal and remind them that their movement is avowed to fight patriarchy. Ergo, men’s issues are feminist issues.

          • AJ

            It is not a bold leap to assume patriarchy = men.

            The dictionary defintion is: ‘a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.’

            I mentioned in my earlier post the dishonest elasticity of meaning of patriarchy but in its most common form when not being used to suppress and minimise concern for anyone not a middle class women it means government by and for men.

          • Darren Ball

            OED definition of feminism is: The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

            Given this definition who, other than a total arse, would be anti-feminist? And yet you’re not a great fan, are you? This definition is very narrow and doesn’t capture the complete picture. Dictionary definitions are often very superficial; the same applies to your dictionary definition of patriarchy.

            For a start, the dictionary definition must apply to all patriarchal systems – past, current and future, and from all cultures. I am talking about our very own patriarchy and the impact of its legacy on men today. Not very long ago we lived in a literal patriarchy exactly as the dictionary definition. That patriarchy continues to influence our attitudes towards men (and women too, but here we’re talking about men).

            Didn’t we start this debate because you thought that a criticism of patriarchy was inseparable from a criticism of men? My view is that patriarchy is an ideology – one way of ordering society. Both men and women have traditionally supported this, and increasingly both men and women are opposing it. I don’t see how this debate has anything to do with the dictionary definition of a literal patriarchy.

            Even if you found my original post ambiguous, I feel I have done enough now to clarify my use of the word.

            Men’s problems are the legacy of an all-male hierarchy with winners and losers.

          • Elysiadon

            BASTA: You are brilliant. Despite considering myself anti-feminist, I’m often disappointed in the rhetoric used against feminism. Just about every point you’ve made has had me shout-whispering (is that a thing?) at my computer screen in agreement: they’re things I’ve thought myself, but have never been able to articulate.

            I do, however, disagree on your point that “every major progress with lessening this indifference in the 21st century was achieved by winning a battle against feminists.” There are a couple of instances (notably the paternity leave issue, which is admittedly not yet resolved to anyone’s satisfaction) where men’s interests have been served by some feminist campaigns. I do fear, however, that the feminist groups fighting on the paternity front have largely framed the issue as a women’s issue rather than as a men’s issue. I’m not trying to play a stupid game of who’s-got-it-worse. I simply believe that it’s important for there to be forums to discuss men’s issues as men’s issues: nothing more and nothing less. Presenting men’s issues as women’s issues is a practice that is rooted in (and that reinforces) society’s ambivalence towards men’s lives.

            I’ve also seen feminists demanding that the U.S. Selective Service be either expanded to include women or be disbanded, which is commendable.

        • Estwald

          If “patriarchy” is a system that has been established by men, collectively, to benefit themselves at the expense of women, then how is it that, starting from a position of intrinsic equality between the sexes, men were able to arrive at a position from which they were able to impose their collective will upon women without women acting to prevent it?

          Do men even have a collective will?

          • Darren Ball

            “If “patriarchy” is a system that has been established by men, collectively, to benefit themselves at the expense of women…”

            This is not something I’ve argued. I don’t know how we came to have a patriarchy in the first place, but we do have one. Also, the patriarchy may not have benefited men collectively – just those at the top. It’s a hierarchy of men, which means some men will be at the bottom.

          • Partridge

            Again, the mythical Patriarchy! There is not, and never has been, a Patriarchy such as you (and feminists) describe. The hierarchy you speak of, from top to bottom, includes women too, and has nothing to do with any patriarchy, mythical or otherwise. But then, if you believe the distorted feminist version of history I suppose you’ll believe anything.

          • Estwald

            …the patriarchy may not have benefited men collectively – just those at the top.

            Would you, therefore, disagree with the common claim by feminists that there is a universal “male privilege” that benefits men at all levels at the expense of women at all levels?

            I don’t know how we came to have a patriarchy in the first place…

            Quite a mystery, isn’t it? Not to despair, I have yet to encounter anyone who can offer a reasonable answer to that question. It would probably even stump an anthropology professor.

            If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a human social system can be classified as a “patriarchy” if it meets two conditions: 1) There is a hierarchy of men. 2) The men at the higher end of the hierarchy of men benefit at the expense of everyone else.

            Since the characteristics that you refer to as “patriarchy” seem to occur in nearly all human social systems – throughout all of history and across all of geography – it would seem natural to wonder:

            Why are the characteristics that you refer to as “patriarchy” common to nearly every human social system?

            What are the circumstances that lead to the emergence of these characteristics within a human social system?

            Do these characteristics serve an as yet unidentified function in the operation of a viable social system? If so, how will that function be carried out in a system that lacks the characteristics that you refer to as “patriarchy”?

            Should I consider the characteristics that you refer to as “patriarchy” to be undesirable characteristics? If so, why?
            =

          • Darren Ball

            Q1. I do not fully agree with the notion of universal male privilege; I don’t see the world through these binaries. As a man I’m unlikely to be sexually harassed on the bus or passed over for a job because I’m of an age where I’m likely to have children. However, when I look at real couples and the life-choices they make for themselves, it’s not clear to me that the men generally have the best deal.

            Q2. You seem to have transitioned from saying there’s no patriarchy to saying that it’s a human universal. I don’t know if that’s true, but it might be. You have to bear in mind that so much of the world’s population live under the influence of Abrahamic religions, so just one religious origin has had huge sway. Add to that the Chinese and you’ve covered almost all of the Globe. Was Britain patriarchy before the Romans? I’m not sure that it was. The Cherokee still aren’t patriarchal. There really are different ways of ordering a society.

          • Estwald

            …You seem to have transitioned from saying there’s no patriarchy…

            I have not transitioned; I did not make such a statement in the first place. I have no way of determining whether there is or is not a “patriarchy” until I am clear as to the concept that is represented by the term. We are currently engaged in the process of clarifying the concept by means of this conversation.

            …that it’s a human universal. I don’t know if that’s true…

            …my mistake for assuming that you believed that without asking first. That opinion is predominant among feminists who I encounter. That led me to the error of assuming that you would share that opinion. My apologies.

            I do not fully agree…

            Does that mean you partially agree? If so, with which parts do you agree?

            As a man I’m unlikely to be sexually harassed on the bus…

            There are certain behaviors, of a sexual nature, that are sometimes displayed by men toward women and that women tend to find intimidating. When those same behaviors are displayed by women toward men, there is a lower probability that men will find those behaviors intimidating. The reason that women are more likely to experience sexual harassment at the hands of men, rather than vice-versa, may have as much to do with the perception of women as it has to do with the behavior of men.

            Sexually harassing women on buses? What kind of community do you live in? And what does sexual harassment on buses have to do with “patriarchy”? Are you claiming that if there were no hierarchies of men with the higher end of the hierarchy benefiting, then anti social behavior would cease?

            There really are different ways of ordering a society.

            Yes there are. Does anyone actually order society? Or is order the emergent result of individuals interacting with one another within a population?

            Are members of a population able to manipulate the forces that produce social order and achieve predictable results?

            How does the environment which a population occupies influence the form taken by the social order that emerges within that population?

            You have advised some other commenters:

            The real enemy here is patriarchy.

            You have suggested that problems will be solved by attacking and defeating “patriarchy”. How do we go about this, considering that we have no idea what produces “patriarchy”?

            …so much of the world’s population live under the influence of Abrahamic religions…

            If so many people are influenced by Abrahamic religions, then who influenced Abrahamic religions in the first place?
            =

          • Groan

            So I’d suggest the hierarchy is socio- economic. Clearly aristocrats and then merchant classes carried power and benefits for both sexes. The trouble with the notion of Patriarchy is that it takes a notion of class derived from socio economic analysis and then tries to use it on the basis of genitals. Both Byron and Caroline Lamb could outrage their society because they both had the privilege of aristocracy. The hierarchy has never been just about your sex.

        • Partridge

          It’s time to end this dangerously deceitful notion of a patriarchy in the sense that feminists define it. There is not, and never was, such a patriarchy. The idea has been effectively debunked by the likes of Karen Straughan, Janet Bloomfield, and others.
          Throughout the ages it was women who were the protected, cossetted, and privileged sex, as a matter of survival for the human race. This was the patriarchy of the Abrahamic religions. Men were expected to sacrifice themselves for their women and their children.
          An ideology? Feminism, yes: an ideology as false and insidiously damaging to society as Fascism and Communism ever were. But the mythical patriarchy? Looks as if you’ve suffered from feminist indoctrination.

          • Darren Ball

            Partridge.

            I’m not sure that I am talking about patriarchy in the way that “feminists define it”. I don’t know that there is a standard feminist definition of patriarchy, but most people think of patriarchy as rule by men, but that misses the point: it’s a fatherly rule. Rule by men would be called an androcracy. Since you’re not a feminist, why are you using their definition of patriarchy? You don’t need feminists to frame the debate for you to react to. Why not take the debate to them?

            After denying that there ever was a patriarchy, you then go on to describe how the Abrahamic patriarchy protected women and harmed men. Are we now agreed at least on the point that this IS a patriarchy which sometimes works against the interests of men? If so. we are at least on the same page. I would go on to say that it is this Abrahamic patriarchy that is at the root of all gendered problems faced by men.

            I would add that sometimes people calling themselves feminists exploit patriarchal attitudes to further their cause for women, good examples would be the Corston report in to prison reform for women and some discussions around Domestic Violence. However, there is nothing intrinsic about feminism that justifies these positions: on the contrary, they are a contradiction of feminism. They are what some people call “benevolent sexism”. Benevolent sexism is patriarchy.

            For example, Corston (who self-identifies as a feminist), argued that prison conditions that are degrading for women are okay for men. That’s a patriarchal attitude coming from a feminist. Do we blame patriarchy or do we blame feminism? We should certainly blame patriarchy. We can’t blame feminism because Corston does not speak for all feminists and her position is ultimately an affront to feminism (as some feminists have indeed argued).

          • Partridge

            Darren, your first paragraph indicates a confusion in your thinking. To quote a definition as defined by feminists is not to let them frame the debate. And you appear to be using different definitions of patriarchy interchangeably in order to support your own position. You also present as facts unverifiable assertions (such as: ‘That’s a patriarchal attitude coming from a feminist.’) which are unfounded opinions based on.. what? Methinks you are getting so tied up in the intricacies and convolutions of modern feminist discourse that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

            Let me try to make it clear: the Patriarchy as defined by feminism and the patriarchy that is inside your head do not exist and have never existed. There has ever been only one patriarchy: the one defined traditionally and historically in the dictionaries before feminism ever existed; the patriarchy insofar as it is to be found throughout the ages in religion, politics, and history (and I do not mean the distorted and false history promulgated by feminism): the patriarchy that required men to protect and provide for their families and to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the societies in which they lived, societies in which, for the most part, both sexes had their natural and biological roles, simply to ensure survival for themselves and their societies. That these roles have become more fluid in modern times is due not to feminism but to the advent of industrialisation, modern technology, medicine and contraceptives. Such a patriarchy always worked for the benefit of women and children rather than men. Feminism, of course, with its own evil totalitarian agenda to pursue, sees it all somewhat differently.

          • Darren Ball

            The illogical flip-flopping on this thread is truly mind-boggling. Post-after-post like yours criticising the so-called “normal feminist” definition of patriarchy because it focuses only on male privilege and power. Then criticising me for using a different definition that includes the way in which patriarchy actually harms men. You don’t like the so-called “normal feminist” version but won’t allow any other version to exist.

            I believe that patriarchy has been a double-edged sword for both men and women. It has expected more from men than it has from women. This has protected women in some ways, but also denied them full empowerment (the patronising element of patriarchy). Men have had the opposite experience: opportunities to achieve, but also the expectation to achieve. Our society is relatively unsympathetic to those men who don’t make the grade. It’s as if traditionally women weren’t given enough respect and men were given more respect than was good for them.

            We no longer live in a literal patriarchy, but we did until quite recently and much of that legacy remains.

            My posts here have all been about just one-quarter of the influence of the patriarchy: that way that it harms men. Unless you believe that no patriarchal influences remain, or that they do but they don’t harm men, I don’t see what you’re arguing about.

          • BASTA!

            Nonsense. No one is criticizing you for using another definition. We are criticizing you for not coming up with another word for it. We are criticizing you for attempting to salvage “patriarchy” as a term of art. We believe that salvaging this term serves the purpose of feminists and is against the interests of men. It is in the interest of men that this word be finally and permanently discredited and abandoned.

          • Darren Ball

            “Nonsense. No one is criticizing you for using another definition. We are criticizing you for not coming up with another word for it.”

            Doh! Enough said on this thread me thinks.

        • AJ

          Patriarchy is a humpty dumpty word:
          “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a
          scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more
          nor less.’ ”

          The normal feminist usage is a society within which men hold the power and exercise it to men’s advantage and women’s disadvantage. ‘The patriarchy’ is used to mean a male establishment that disadvantages women. This is the reverse of reality and easily refuted. When challenged or when any problem that is not part of feminist dogma is raised feminists change the meaning of patriarchy tomean to any tendancy of society to treat anyone badly or inequitably. Most significantly it includes the disdvantaging of men and the exercise of power by women as well as men.

          This flexibility of meaning is used to prevent any discussion let alone action on any issue that does not advantage well educated middle class women.

          Whenever an issue is identified where men are disadvantaged or feminisim is clealry on the wrong side of the argument it is absorbed by using the second meaning blaming patriarchy. The whole point of the second ‘meaning’ is that it is so broad as to cover anything at all. Then all problems are redefined as problems with ‘the patriarchy’ and feminism proposed as the solution even when it is feminists who are causing the problem. When it comes to actual action then only the first meaning is used.

          • BASTA!

            This. I’m glad more and more people begin seeing through this manipulation of meaning and describing it with their own words. “Can’t fool all the people all the time” is finally coming into effect with respect to this.

          • Darren Ball

            I agree that the definition of feminism often used by feminists is incorrect (they often describe an androcracy). I have been clear about my definition of patriarchy, which I believe is more faithful to the original Greek meaning. Again, you want to have an arguement with about things I’ve not written.

      • Estwald

        …the split between nature and nurture…

        There is no split between nature and nurture. Nurture is nature.

    • Estwald

      …men’s issues are feminist issues. However, until MEN define their problems as such…

      “Will you walk into my parlour?” said the spider to the fly.

    • http://www.mystware.co.uk/ mancmanomyst

      Patriarchy is the choice of women and it’s not a bad thing, it’s a survival thing!

      As a species, our ultimate goal is to survive and in order to do that we need to reproduce. For women, throughout most of human history, reproduction was risky. Child birth could be fatal and the women and the offspring were vulnerable to attack.

      To give herself the best chance of survival, she needed a partner that was capable of protecting her and her children as well as providing food. Men who cared about their own emotional needs above those of his partner were therefore less likely to attract a mate.

      For a hunter, it’s important to forget about your own emotional needs and safety and put the goal of bring home food first. If you’re rearing children, then you need to be in tune with your emotional needs and the needs of your children otherwise there is a greater risk that they won’t survive.

      This is why we’re a gender dimorphic species, both men and women have developed the best set of traits possible for their own roles.

      Feminism sees the way our societies have been structured as something men have created to advantage men but it’s actually the opposite. Women have always had the ultimate power decide which men got the opportunity to pass on his DNA and which men did not.

      Patriarchy massively benefits women and always has. Feminism takes advantage of the good nature of men and natural desire to want to please women. If patriarchy existed for men’s best interests, men would not put their bodies and their lives on the line for women and feminism certainly wouldn’t have been able to gain the traction it has.

      • Groan

        I think your last point is most powerful. For the simple fact is that all the “feminist” legislation etc. has been enacted by powerful men.

      • Darren Ball

        You might be completely right. So what? Now that we have Waitrose I don’t need to go off and kill my own buffalo. We have a system of governance that originates in a bygone age. Maybe it was necessary to get us to where we are, but we’ve socially evolved to the point where we don’t need these gendered divisions.

        Forget feminism for a moment. Apparently, the reason we don’t have prison reform for men is because the public have no mood for any Government going soft on criminals, although it was politically acceptable to reform prisons for women. That is patriarchy – why is that in any way desirable?

        If 85 per cent of rough sleepers were women, would something more be done about it? Of course. It’s not feminism causing the apathy – it’s patriarchy. Similarly with male suicide, workplace injuries and fatalities and every other men’s issue. Okay, feminism isn’t helping much and sometimes even makes things worse, but it didn’t cause patriarchy and it wouldn’t be able to exploit it if it didn’t already exist.

        • http://www.mystware.co.uk/ mancmanomyst

          You’re assuming that we no longer need those same survival instincts but that’s where you’re wrong. We still need men to do these dangerous jobs like working on oil rigs, mining fishing etc. This is why 93% of workplace deaths are males.

          In the comfortable western world, we may be cocooned from all these necessary dangerous activities that go on but without them society would not be able to function and we would revert backwards.

          Now, I am not saying that feminism is the root cause for all issues men face in society but it actively makes the problems worse. For example, in the USA a proposal was put forward to change the law so that in a child custody case you started with the presumption of 50/50 shared parenting. Guess who objected? Feminists.

          This is not a one off case. Every time a group of students try and form a men’s rights society on a university campus to discuss issues such as homelessness, educational inequality and soaring suicide rates, it’s feminists that try to block them.

          This opposition to any action aimed at spreading awareness of male issues has spread so far it’s reached the UK parliament where MPs like Jess Philips believe that men don’t have any problems and that even if they did, they’re not important. The disposable male narrative is ingrained and feminism is not a part of the solution, it’s a part of the problem!

          A true patriarchy would actually be a big improvement on how things are in the west right now. The role of the father is being eradicated and with it goes morality and discipline. Young boys and girls are growing up with no respect for themselves or each other because they’re not getting male role models at home or at school.

          Patriarchy is just the feminist equivalent of Satan, it’s the invisible bogeyman they can blame rather than introspecting and looking at how their own behaviour is negatively affecting their own lives!

          • Darren Ball

            In the UK workplace fatalities are usually around 97% male and we too have lost the 50/50 presumption of shared parenting: now the mother is legally the default parent.

            My point is not that feminism is without its faults, but that it is not the root cause of men’s problems: patriarchy is. Sometimes this is aided by feminists, I agree. But feminism is such a broad church that you cannot blame “feminism” per se, you can only blame individual behaviour.

          • Partridge

            “But feminism is such a broad church that you cannot blame “feminism” per se, you can only blame individual behaviour.”

            But patriarchy is such a broad church that you cannot blame “patriarchy” per se, you can only blame individual behaviour.

          • Darren Ball

            Some patriarchies are much worse than others, I agree. However, the one that’s prevelent in the west is pretty well defined.

            The very premise of patriarchy is wrong – it’s the belief in rigid gender rolls. I can blame patriarchy as an ideolgy in just the same way that I can blame racism.

            I cannot fault feminism’s ideolgy at all, although I would fault some of the practice.

          • http://www.mystware.co.uk/ mancmanomyst

            roles, not rolls – unless gender rolls are some sort of delicious baked good.

            Patriarchy is not an ideology. It’s a Marxist construct – it doesn’t exist in the way you think it does.

            Gender roles are necessary for survival! You’re trying to fight against human nature itself!

          • Partridge

            Cannot fault feminism’s ideology? Then you really should carry out some serious and objective research to open your eyes and discover the truth. Unless, that is, you have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated by feminism that you will not recognise the truth when you see it..

          • Estwald

            You are absolutely correct in your reference to feminism as a “church”.

          • http://www.mystware.co.uk/ mancmanomyst

            You cannot blame a society led by fathers for all the problems women come up against, yet that’s what feminism does. It blames all issues on men.

            Feminism may be a broad church but all it’s denominations share a belief that women are oppressed by men and always have been and that simply isn’t true!

          • Darren Ball

            I have not made this argument. This is the problem with most of the responses to my posts: people assuming I’m saying something that I’m not.

          • http://www.mystware.co.uk/ mancmanomyst

            Yes you have. A society led by fathers is the true definition of a patriarchy and you’re blaming men’s issues on this mythical beast!

        • Partridge

          For you, it seems, everything is because of ‘patriarchy’. But your arguments are, to put it mildly, unconvincing.

      • CitymanMichael

        You are absolutely correct and as Darren, feminists et al wake up in their warm beds, switch on the light and go for a shower they have really forgotten that the system in nature which developed over tens of thousands of years made our species the top of the food chain. If aliens came to earth, they would say, gosh those humans really got their act together – they must have had a fantastic system working.
        This is the “System” which was so great and has served us well. But it did it by favouring women, as the bottleneck in reproduction, to the expense of men and that is still what we have in society today. In effect, none of us would be here today if it was not for the “System”.
        Feminists have tried to make the “System” into a dirty word and call it the Patriarchy.

        • Darren Ball

          So much here that I disagree with, but on the only point that’s relevant to anything I’ve ACTUALLY said, we agree: patriarchy is bad for men. You might not agree with me that EVERY men’s issues is rooted in patriarchy, but at least some are – I’ll work with that.

          Feminism is a movement opposed to patriarchy – that is why men’s issues should be feminist issues. The fact that they rarely are is an issue for the feminist movement to take on board, but it would help if men would at least ackowledged the root cause of their issues was patriarchy and not feminism.

          • CitymanMichael

            Femininism is not about opposing (patriarcty)sic, but about female supremacy, or at least that is the desired effect of what they actually do. And that is why this talk by Mike Parker is very unusual. I await the next actions by UoS feminist society with great interest. Time will tell whether you or I have the truest grasp of feminism.

          • AJ

            In Britain you might as well argue wolves are bad for men. It is completely irrelevant to modern or even recent society. You could argue that wolves does not mean what is commonly understood or the vast number of people believe but means any form of life including bacteria which has a negative impact on humanity. The same applies for patriarchy in its accepted meaning it simply does not exist. You can redefine patriarchy to mean anyway in whcih society collectively disadvantages one gender relative to the other but doing so is misleading and dishonest. Why not simply say ‘society’.

            Feminism is only oppose dot thos eissues that negatively affetc women. They only oppose patriarchy even in the broad sense of society to the extent it is an advanatge to women to do so. There is no concern at all for men in feminism by definition:

            ‘The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.’

            Where to men come into this?

      • Darren Ball

        “Patriarch massively benefits women”

        So we both agree that Patriarchy exists. That’s a start. I would say that every men’s issue has its roots in patriarchal attitudes. You believe that patriarchy benefits women at the expense of men – in other words, it’s bad for men.

        Since we’re both agreeing that patriarchy is bad for men, and the topic of the orginal discussion is men’s issues, I don’t see what your issue is. It seems that you want to have an argument with me about something I haven’t said but you assume that I do believe. I’m not going to be drawn off message: the only poiints that I’ve made are that a) patriarchy is the root cause of men’s problems, b) since feminism opposed to patriarchy, feminism ought to include men’s issues within its radius of concern.

        I fully accept that feminism isn’t always helpful and is sometimes very unhelpful, but the first step to reverse that is for men to acknowledge the root cause of their problems is patriarchal attitudes and expectations. .

        • http://www.mystware.co.uk/ mancmanomyst

          No, patriarchy as defined by feminists as a system whereby society is run by men and for the advantage of men does not exist and this is demonstrably not the case.

          If such a system existed, men would not sacrifice themselves on battlefields and doing difficult and dangerous jobs.

          If you’re not using the feminist definition of patriarchy then you need to define exactly what it is you’re using this label to describe.

          If patriarchy is a system whereby men take on the responsibility of protectors then yes, such a society exists but no, it is not the root cause of all men’s issues.

          For a start, a lot of the issues that men face are not unique to men, they’re part of being part of a social species but the difference is these issues are ignored by society as a result of a gynocentric attitude whereby both men and women value women’s experiences over men and deem men to be disposable.

          Feminism might not be the cause of those issues just like petrol doesn’t cause fire, but both are accelerants in creating an environment hostile to men!

  • j24601

    Mike is a useful idiot to the feminist project, and nothing more. Feminism has NOTHING to offer men and boys in their struggle with a misandrist hegemony, because feminism is the true heart of the beast. Until we all, men AND women wake up to this we will not succeed in addressing the problems faced by men and boys in “advanced” western societies today.

  • Pingback: International Men’s Day is for everyone | IMD UK()