Why men and women should unite against the patriarchy

March 23, 2015 by Inside MAN 37 Comments

Darren Ball is right and describes it well. The real enemy is patriarchy, a system that despises men who are weak or vulnerable, and does nothing to support fathers’ greater involvement in caring, because that means them working less and competing less to get to the top.

I gave up my international career to work from home – I am an embarrassment to patriarchy (and proud of it). I never quite saw it that way, till I read Darren’s piece, so thank you, Darren!

If patriarchy is a common enemy between advocates for both men and women, then it follows that collaboration is a rational way forward.

It so happens that I read Darren’s article and watched the film, Pride, on the same long journey to San Francisco to attend the world’s biggest annual fatherhood event. When I was not laughing myself out of my tiny seat at the back of Air France economy, I was thinking: if London gays and lesbians can find common cause with Welsh miners and their mums, then surely the different opponents of patriarchy can find common cause against a common enemy?

Just do it

The gays and lesbians did not propose conditions to the Welsh miners before they showed solidarity, even though they feared for their own safety. They just did it, with hilarious and amazing consequences. Welsh miners ended up leading London’s Gay Pride March in 1985.

Which brings us to feminism. In all the articles I read on Inside Man (and I read every one), there is a persistent misunderstanding about feminism – namely, that it is uniform. This is not so. When it comes to men, feminism is diverse, and if our aim is to change things, rather than to be righteous, then we have to understand this fact and work with it.

Within feminism there is a long tradition that only the total dismantlement of patriarchy can deliver its aims. Feminists in this tradition reach out to men who are fighting patriarchy too. It’s not because these feminists happen to be nice, but because they are being strategic.

‘An unholy alliance’

When I was CEO of the Fatherhood Institute, I was invited by such feminists, led by one Minister in the then Government, to join the board of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I accepted wholeheartedly – they needed fatherhood advocates and we needed them.

There is another very different belief: that not only is patriarchy a problem, but men also. Glen Poole has observed this many times. I have seen it in family services, in a lack of ability to engage with male vulnerability. A father who is struggling (e.g. with employment, housing or parenting skills) tends not to be seen as someone who needs help, but as someone who has made foolish choices and needs to change.

The underlying belief is that men have power, and so are responsible for their own misfortunes. Many vulnerable men buy into this, and so do not seek help when they need it. The deep irony of this, as Darren points out, is that it is actually a position that sits very comfortably alongside patriarchy – an aversion to male weakness and vulnerability.

I encounter this unholy alliance in my work to promote real sharing of caring responsibilities. When it comes to encouraging the sharing of caring roles between women and men, our system of leave entitlements is a shambles – and the system coming in this April will fail just like all the others did. Our rejection of the principles that have worked for decades in other countries is no co-incidence.

‘Torpedoed by the maternal lobby’

Each time the debate about leave entitlements comes round – once every five years – proposals for real change are tabled. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and his team came up with some amazing ideas last time round. But they were immediately torpedoed by maternal lobbies who argue that if men get hold of leave entitlements on an equal basis, they will abuse women by forcing them back to work and stopping them breastfeeding. (Scandinavian men don’t do this, as it happens, but who knows what British men could get up to!) Only women in UK can be trusted with leave entitlements, for them to share out at their own discretion if they wish.

This, combined with the quiet threat from the business sector, which does not want to see men taking any time off work, is enough to see any proposals that would actually work to enable sharing wiped off the slate before they are even public. Nick Clegg did the best he could, but the new leave arrangements simply won’t allow more sharing of roles.

Note the dynamics here: this bit of the campaign against patriarchy is supported by women and men and opposed by women and men, with feminists and non-feminists on both sides. The true battle is nothing like how it is commonly depicted.

I do not like reading about feminists and anti-feminists arguing with each other. I lose the will to live if I read too much of it. I do understand it though: if you see or experience real pain and suffering, and then people absolutely deny it or mock it, then it is truly enraging. But at that moment we have a choice. We can make demands to be accepted unilaterally by the other side, something that never works, or do what the London gays and lesbians did, unilaterally offer solidarity.

All the time that the shouting continues in social media, there are real advocates for the vulnerable, be they women or men, who work day in day out to make real change happen on the ground.

Really changing things requires partnership and strategy, not righteousness.

Duncan Fisher was one of the founders and CEO of the Fatherhood Institute and is currently developing a project called MumsAndDadsNet

Duncan is also developing a campaign for shareable leave entitlements, creating an alliance between all the interested parties in order to be strong next time the Government changes things. If you are interested, please contact Duncan.

Photo: Batega

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

Also on insideMAN:

CitymanMichael

Duncan, I am not sure if really believe that you can change hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution in one generation and exactly why you believe the feminist mantra of the patriarchy [sic] – human development has occurred and every human community which has ever thrived has done so by treating its women and children as precious and its men as disposable – Warren. So where is the patriarchy [sic] in that situation? Patriarchy [sic] does not exist – it never has.
I watched to a programme last night where a nutritionist explained that our stone age brains crave for sugar – why is it so difficult to believe that those same stone age brains also control our primeval social functions to the point where there always will be wars and stock market crashes – and of course biological interactions between the sexes.
Darren Ball

Hi Duncan,

Is it just me, or do you think that there’s an increasing number of articles appearing in the feminist-friendly media, such as the Guardian and Indy, which are sympathetic to men’s gendered issues? Are we turning a corner at long last?

The two types of feminists you describe are so fundamentally different that they render the term “feminist” rather meaningless (IMHO).
Alan Fournier

What the writer fails to realize is that the patriarchy is a construct of the male/female dynamic. It is the collective male gender role hierarchical response to what author Warren Farrell calls female “primary fantasies” . Among those primary fantasies that a women looks for in a man are protection, financial security, provision of resources and strength. Men on the other hand, have one “primary fantasy”, that being access to sex. That is why men objectify women sexually and why women objectify men as providers, protectors, strength as well was a number of other things. Taken collectively those male gender roles can translate into wars, resource hoarding, oppression etc.. In short they are and continue to be rewarded through natural selection.

Just look at fifty shades of grey and the female romance novel in popular culture. The male heroes are strong, dominant, wealthy, handsome and sexually vigorous. The female heroine is usually young, beautiful and virtuous and swept off her feet by the gallant prince to live happily ever after. In her critique of the romance novel, ENDLESS RAPTURE, author Hellen Hazen describe how the heroine goes off to a life of endless rapture. The female romance novel is the largest selling genre in English literature.

Yes the patriarchy is oppressive to men. Prison, racism, violence, murder, homelessness, homophobia, mental illness, suicide, reproductive rights, workplace injuries and death, military deaths, parental bias, failing our veterans failing education, lack of compassion, degradation, dehumanization, etc. etc. etc., are all overwhelmingly male experiences.
With the possible exception of sexual assault, female victimization pales in comparison. Since long before the face that launched a thousand ships, men have oppressed, emasculated castrated degraded and slaughtered each other by the hundreds of millions, possibly billions, to be what Farrell calls “genetic celebrities”. Here in North America a black man in the Jim Crowe south could beaten, castrated and/or lynched for a simple glance at a white women who chose to be offended.

I love chivalry. It’s that innate ability in most men to protect women from all other dastardly men, except of course themselves. Most male gender feminists who denounce the patriarchy are in fact aspiring patriarchs. Google the chivalry hypothesis? Women have thrown off gender roles that they deem oppressive. Not so for men. Gender feminists still demand that they continue to be oppressed by their gender roles. The patriarchy they profess to hate, actually enforces that oppression on other men.
Nigel

Well leaving aside my general view that ” the patriarchy” doesn’t really exist as a thing. I think there is every reason to form any alliances around the issues that challenge the straight jackets that constrain males. This should include many feminists who genuinely are concerned to liberate both sexes from having to conform ( even though given a free choice they may mainly conform still , the point is that this is a choice).
So supporting equity in parental entitlements seems perfectly good. Indeed equity in many parts of life would indeed be a genuine transformation. However the real sticking points come at a particular strain of feminist theory wedded to an “essentialist” view of badness on the part of males. A strain that undermines the notion of shared parenting or male caring by waving the shrouds of Sexual and “Domestic” violence and essential female goodness. A strain that propels society to regard males , from the 8 year old at school excluded for an assault ( well kiss) to spurious claims of DV to secure advantage( and legal aid) , as generally a threat to their partners , children and “women and girls”.
Leaving aside whatever fanciful conspiracy theory may be involved too many modern feminists behave to demonise males. A demonisation probably far more powerful in preventing gender equity with regard to children than any fuzzy notions of chivalry or wistful imaginings of 50s motherhood. For after all the traditionalists merely claim males will be unsuited or incompetent the feminist claim boys and men will be evil and dangerous.
Nigel

This also reminds me that in the years prior to the demise of the EOC ( and the DRC) in favour of the EHRC the EOC had commissioned research and reports which were illuminating and generally intellectually honest. Overall recognising the shifts over time the EOC focussed on sharing childcare as a core policy aim. I miss their work. I realised why because the “gap” has been filled by “advocacy” research and reports without the rigour .
This is important as it has changed the terms of debate, from the EOCs evidence based approach to an altogether more political platform. Changing the terms is crucial , as illustrated be a long comment piece I read recently . Essentially comparing experience in an shared parenting state of the USA, where the system was built around facilitating shared parenting unless proven to be impossible and in England where a father has to prove exemplary character and disprove accusations to achieve limited care, the latter system clearly without a presumption of shared care. The former likely to outcome with shared parenting unless a proven impediment the latter terms achieving that outcome either at the behest of the mother or as the result of particular determination on behalf of the father.
Clearly a core principle to an alliance is a commitment to equity in rights and responsibilities between parents. And of of course this will be impossible for those convinced males universally are an inherent risk.
- Alan Fournier
  
  You’ll have to excuse my ignorance on the acronyms you’ve used. But I do have a points to clarify.
  
  The North American (US and here in Canada) reality is that fathers are expendable in divorce. Any notion of shared parenting is really just that. Over here we refer to most modern feminism as gender feminism as defined by author, Christiana Hoff Summers. It has no interest in male advocacy. Especially when it comes to divorce. There is no place for men in gender feminism. This is why I responded to this article. Any alliance between feminism and men would be at the expense of other men. There are already a cracks developing here in the gay feminist alliance. As a gay man i have always felt that the alliance was misandrous and therefore hypocritical for men to attack the gender they profess to love. The male part of the hierarchy (patriarchy) must be challenged by the men below to stop institutionalized chivalry.
Nigel

I’d tend to see capitalists but you might see patriarchs. But this sums it up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11482506/Is-it-time-Britain-had-a-Minister-for-Men.html
- Alan Fournier
  
  If it’s just capitalists, how do you account for the enormous numbers of chivalrous white knight gender feminist men on the left? When in power they have no qualms getting there and maintaining their power at the expense of other men.
  
  Chivalrous white knighting knows no political boundaries. Here in North America the MRM is growing like never before. They include men and women from all political spectrums. And it’s only just begun.
Nigel

I would observe that capitalists reached the apogee of their power in the UK with a nominally socialist government in power. One priding itself on it’s pro feminism. In fact I suspect that the claim to be “left” or “right” is a pose these days rather than has much substance. The socialist government in power at the point that the somewhat delayed cyclical downturn occurred was replaced by a right of centre coalition which , despite it’s rhetoric, largely followed it’s predecessors policies. My point is that the test isn’t what is said but what is done. For instance NOW in the US consistently trashing attempts at a presumption of shared parenting. I think a good “test” is a commitment to legal equity giving both sexes equality of opportunity and protections. And then seeing what people choose to do.
My observation is that the most forcefully opposed to such equity , albeit ably supported by “White knightery” are self labelled feminists who have embodied misandry in the abstract “patriarchy”. As in Duncan’ s example the solidarity was about doing.
karen woodall

Oh the old stratgic argument, that which FI and all it’s followers are ever so fond of and why not, it garners a whole load of cash which leads to a comfy lifestyle being an ’embarrassment to patriarchy’ and it leads to what in terms of change? Well, from where I am looking, not very much at all over the 22 years I have been involved in family services. You can strategise all you like, you can trojan horse your way into the inner circles, you can storm the barricades of the feminist defences by joining together against patriarchy and what do you get? Well, pretty much the same as what you had two decades ago in my view. As for righteousness, well, when one faces the regular death of one’s client group because they cannot hang on to their lives in the face of the absolute injustice which is riven through family services (created and maintained by feminists and those who support feminism) and when you watch men’s lives disappearing down the can on a daily basis (real men’s lives I mean not just those who fancy themselves as representatives of real men) and when you recognise and understand that this is not because these men are bad men but because feminists upturned the power structures of their own self diagnosed patriachy in order to ensure that men were not included in family lives in any significant way and when you understand that the very men who call themselves feminist are not even regarded with recognition never mind respect by said feminists – even though they think an article or two in the Guardian means a corner is being turned – when you recognise all of that and you live all of that and you burn in your blood and your bones for a fairer, more just, more egalitarian society whilst all the time witnessing the subjugation of men not only by women but by men themselves it makes you feel more than righteous. Get off your knees for gods sake and fight for the right to be men, to be whole, to be human and stop asking for crumbs of approval from women who don’t give a shit. When you do the work you do will move mountains, until then it will take you (and us) round and round and round the same old circle. There. That righteous enough for you?
- Darren Ball
  
  Hi Karen,
  
  I’m genuinely interested to understand why feminists, very many of whom have male partners and sons whom they love, would actively seek to arrange their society in ways that damage men and boys?
  
  I know that some feminists have no males loved-ones, but that is not the norm.
  
  Can we not agree that most feminists believe that they’re fighting for equality, even if we disagree with them as to what equality looks like? Do you have some insight here that I don’t?
  - Richard Collins
    
    This comment was deleted as it breached our comment policy — everyone is invited to take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.
    
    As such we cannot allow personal attacks against contributors to close down this crucial discussion.
    
    Our comment policy is outlined here:
    http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/10/01/why-men-and-boys-need-a-voice/
- Alan Fournier
  
  Well said.
Karen Woodall

Darren. Watch this. Then tell me feminism is about equality. This is feminism. This is child abuse. This is acceptable in our society because of feminism. These kids are spewing lies, they are six years old. This is feminism for you. Not your ever so lovely, nice and fluffy, lets all be nice to each other and break out of our gender roles feminism but feminism never-the-less. Until you see that the analysis of your life is a political ideology and that within that you can never be other then the enemy you are part of this charade, this cult, this absolutely destructive belief system. Those feminists you know of who think they are being oh so equal and only fighting for a just and fair cause get their equality off the back of things like this – oh and the death of men, the disposal of men and the absolute denigration of what it means to be not female. I know what feminism does to your mind, I lived it for many years of my life and yes, actually I think that does give me some insight that you don’t have. At 52 years of age and living through second and third wave feminism as I have, I think I have got apretty good idea that it is most definitely NOT about equality. Most feminists don’t even know that what they are doing is built on dead men and dead men’s hopes and dreams (though some do and don’t give a toss about that). But enjoy this little bit of feminism, I am sure women fought really hard for the right to do this to little girls.
Darren Ball

Karen,

We both agree that some feminist are arseholes, but all of my female friends are feminists and none of them are arseholes. As Duncan writes in the original post – feminism is split between those who are genuinely interested in gender equality and those who believe that feminism is only for the advancement of women’s interests: for that reason the term “feminism” is meaningless as it applies to two diametrically opposed ideologies. I believe that the former are much more numerous than the latter, but in some areas the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

As before, I don’t believe that the average feminist wants to create a society that discriminates against her son, husband, boyfriend, brother or father – it doesn’t make any sense.
- Kat
  
  Darren, You ask a valid question, but I don’t think it is hard to answer. Like you most of my friends, male and female would, if not directly say they are feminists, say they believe in feminist values and they are not bad people. The way I view it is that if you have grown up surrounded by dogmatic thinking of any kind you do not question it. On the surface our society believes that feminism is about gender equality, it is about getting equal rights for women such as getting the vote, getting into the labor marker, equal pay, acknowledgement of domestic violence and justice for rape victims. Who would not support all of those things. Hence feminism is not questioned and only a few scrape the surface and sees the monster behind the mask.
  
  I had a discussion with a friend and he said to me “how can you not be a feminists, women still do not get paid the same as men, that is so unfair” I told him how those statistics were generated and he was shocked. The same reason is behind the acceptability of that sickening video of the little princesses – no one questions the statistics that the girls are shouting and who would not be upset and think something should be done if those statistics were correct. Most people don’t know they are lies and they do not see how the people who start to question the dogma are treated.
  
  One good example is the discrepancy of what the population thinks of shared parenting and what is happening in reality. If you do a survey the vast majority of people are in favor of shared parenting. The feminist organisations such as Gingerbread, women’s aid et al will do their utmost to make sure that shared parenting will not happen in this country. It is not questioned because they state concerns about child safety and who would not agree we should keep children safe. Of course it has nothing to do with child safety and everything to do with them keeping their funding.
  
  We all grow up being taught that feminism is about equality, few question the dogma. Of the ones who do, most keep their head down and don’t dare speak up for fear of being ostracised. That that fear is real we see regularly: here is one example:
  http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2015/03/24/what-happens-when-a-feminist-man-dares-to-speak-out-against-the-sisterhood/
  - Darren Ball
    
    Hi Kat,
    
    There might be something in that line of argument: most feminists are unaware of what’s going on behind the scenes in the name of feminism, and government etc are unable to challenge what is going on without sounding anti-female.
Karen Woodall

Oh yes, of course, the ‘not all feminists are like that’ argument…of course they’re not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-OcTSeVcs

Equality which is built on the bones and the death of hope and dignity of one half of the human race is not the equality that I aspire to Darren.
- Darren Ball
  
  Karen,
  
  Just so that you understand me: I’m genuinely interested in understanding your perspective – I’m not arguing for the sake of it.
  
  It seems to me that the vast majority of feminists are “not like that”. Aren’t you focusing on the minority who are? The nasty minority are having disproportionate influence in some areas, I’ll grant you. But there are plenty of valid feminists issues – if feminists aren’t going to fight for them, who will?
  - CitymanMichael
    
    Darren, you say that “there are plenty of feminist issues” – it would be nice if you listed even 5 which are pertinent in the western world?
    - Darren Ball
      
      Michael
      
      You’ve asked for five feminist issues applicable to the western world. Here goes.
      
      1) Women being judged by the way they look, regardless of their profession. This includes female newsreaders being retired from the BBC at age 50, twitter abuse of Prof. Mary Beard, etc.
      
      2) Sexual harassment, Women suffer sexual harassment on a regular basis. Not just the stuff that gets reported to the police, but everything from inappropriate comments, sexual advances, groping, rubbing up against, etc. I have spoken to women about this and I was shocked to learn how common it is.
      
      3) Lack of women in Government and the judiciary. In a representative democracy we should be governed and judged by people who are like us. Women have a different path through life than men and are, therefore, their own constituency. For whatever reason, women are not adequately represented. I make no judgement as to why they’re not, they’re just not, and that is a feminist issue.
      
      4) Attitudes towards rape. There is still a stubborn minority of men and women who believe that a woman is responsible for having been raped, if for instance she got drunk and dressed in a certain way.
      
      5) Employment. Although huge progress has been made here, with no pay gap for full-time employees under 40, etc, etc. Nobody would ever have questioned giving me a job because I’m of an age where I’ll probably want to start a family; this is not true of women of child-bearing age.
      - CitymanMichael
        
        Hi Darren, thanks for that. The right hand side of your piece is starting to get cut off, hope mind is not further to the right!
        1)The reason why women are judged by the way they look is biology – ask any woman you know about a wedding she was at 5 years ago and she will remember what almost every woman in the room was wearing – something which you would never remember. This is very basic human mate attraction. But to say that in the west today women are being AFFECTED by the way they look is a gross overstatement and one which feminists love to exaggerate wildly to the point of lying.
        2) Sexual harassment – groping is never OK – but wolf whistling etc. which feminists call harassment is a case of women dressing to attract a mate (albeit subconsciously) and men showing their interest. That has always been the case for millennia and most ORDINARY women will tell you that when it stops, they miss it and when they get that attention, they get a feeling of femininity.
        3) Lack of women in high office – the effect of work equality and birth control obviously takes a while to filter through several decades – judges are never known for their youth – and since the majority of barristers nowadays are women it is only a matter of time before there are many more female judges. It should also be remembered that to get into high office most people need to have served several decades at the job doing long hours and studies have shown that whereas 4 out of 7 men are work-centred, only 1 woman in seven is work-centred, so it should be expected that women will never make up 50% of high office unless and until women as a class start making different life choices regarding their employment. Regarding government – well women are the largest voting demographic – so it is they who dictate who are the MPs – and you should note that many governments keep passing female friendly laws.
        4) Attitudes towards rape – you should know that it is women more than men who societally control women’s dress. You should also know that rape statistics have been falling right across the western world and that “stranger rape” is very rare. Indeed men are the enforcers of anti-rape in society. The “slut-shaming” you refer to a feminist mantra to ensure that women are always treated as victims without agency – in every other walk of life anyone who falls victim to a problem is examined for a possibility of contributory negligence on their part, eg. drunk driving, burglary, robbery, pickpocketing, etc. etc. – but not rape! Rape is a horrendous crime and is and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but feminists poo-poo the rate of false accusations – simply because they do not care about the effect on men.
        5) Feminists managed to have the law changed so that NO employer can discriminate against a women due to the possibility of her getting pregnant. As a small ex-employer, that law created huge problems for me and many other employers are in the same position. But the situation is that what you say is now against the law.
      - Darren Ball
        
        I shall post a fresh comment below to avoid this.
Karen Woodall

I know you are not arguing with me for the sake of it Darren, I know you think that feminism is benign, I know you think it is about equality.

But it makes me angry, actually it makes me absolutely boiling mad if I am honest with you, when I see this kind of stuff being written as if it is somehow about furthering the wellbeing of the lives of men and boys, because it isn’t, it really isn’t. What it is about is about appeasing the feminists who have a stranglehold on the discourse about equality and whilst ever that appeasement goes on (and it largely goes on within the circles of very privileged white men ironically) it stops progress in terms of arguing for change in the lives of men and boys in all of their shapes and sizes.

When those men who run the Fatherhood Institute and other agencies working with me that proclaim themselves feminist, fight for their brothers who are dying every single day across the world because feminism has decided that their needs are not as great as women’s, when these men get off their knees and recognise that being a man is not just about wandering the earth proclaiming that feminism is about equality, it is also about the man who digs the shit out drains so that the water flows and the bloke who picks up dog shit from the parks for nuppence an hour and the man who never manages to have a shower because he is running from one pick up job in the blackwall tunnel to the next (for six months at a time) and the blokes who manage the railway tracks and the man whose job it is to pick up the dead bodies from the tube when someone has killed themselves…when those men, who currently spend their time telling men how to be more like women, actually roll up their sleeves and stand up for their brothers, THEN….then, I will enter into a dialogue instead of being righteous.

And those issues which only feminists can fight for? What would they be then? Equality for men and women ? Health and wellbeing for men and women? Equal opportunities for men and women boys and girls? You’ll find that I and plenty more non feminists are doing that daily (strangely enough I am not an MRA though many mistake me for one).

But if you look at how the feminists fight for the same I think what you will find is that what they are fighting for is not equality, it is supremacy and that is because feminism is a political ideology in which prevailing power hierarchies have been upturned with those perceived most priviliged at the bottom and those perceived less so ranking in order to the top. Which is why, when you comfortable middle class white men try to say you are feminist you get told to go and check your privilege.

The idea that feminism is split into two camps is nonsense. Feminism is feminism is feminism and feminism means women’s rights first and everyone else second and those who are not capable of understand that because they have fallen for the mantra of the cult that feminism is about equality are about as useful to their brothers and sisters who are suffering under this regime as appeasers throughout eternity.

In my (granted not so) humble opinion.
- Darren Ball
  
  Hi Karen,
  
  “Which is why, when you comfortable middle class white men try to say you are feminist you get told to go and check your privilege.” hmm!
  
  I’m not a feminist – I’ve told you that several times now. I will not be a feminist unless and until feminism campaigns on behalf of all gendered issues in proportion to severity, and that includes gendered issues that predominantly affect men and boys. Based upon the preponderance of column inches, air time feminist blogs, feminists care more about being targeted by the advertising industry, for example, than they care about boys failing at school or men killing themselves.
  
  I’m not sure that I’m middle class either but you’re right about me being white.
  
  I agree with everything you say about working-class men being betrayed by privileged male feminists. As I have blogged before, there’s nothing more annoying than some upper-middle-class twit declaring how easy it is for men and how it’s time for us to step aside in favour of women. I’ve no doubt it was easy being them but they are not well-placed to speak on behalf of men generally.
  
  So far, so good – we’re in agreement, yes?
  
  We disagree only insofar that I believe that there’s a schism within feminism. Some self-identifying feminists believe that feminism is a movement for gender equality and, if they become aware of a gendered issue affecting males, they’ll incorporate it into their radius of concern.
  
  Other feminists believe that feminism is a movement for the advancement of women’s rights and should not concern itself with problems affecting men or boys. Any problems faced by men and boys is of their own making.
  
  These two views are diametrically opposed. How can one ideology include such a contradiction? It would be like saying that some Christians believe in Christ and others don’t.
  
  You and I are also equally scathing about the second type of feminist, especially as these are the ones who seem to have the most influence despite being the minority.
Nick Woodall

It’s interesting to see, in this article and others, all kinds of gymnastics to create new definitions of ‘patriarchy’.

A belief in ‘patriarchy’ (or somewhat bizarrely, ‘The Patriarchy’) is central to feminist doctrine. Patriarchy, from a feminist analysis, is a belief that ALL men and boys are, a priori, privileged and all women and girls are oppressed by male privilege. It also contends that male patriarchal privilege is maintained through violence, or threats of violence, against women.

So central to feminist doctrine is this analysis that it’s difficult to see how anyone who did not accept this could describe themselves as a feminist.

It is therefore a nonsense to suggest that men who are ‘weak or vulnerable’ suffer from patriarchy. From a feminist perspective, ALL men benefit from patriarchy. And that is why feminism can never help men deal with the problems that they face. Because, each time it is pointed out that men are not actually privileged, that they suffer and that they too have problems, feminism ignores it. If feminism did accept that boys and men are not a priori privileged, then it’s central theoretical foundation – patriarchy – would be exposed as the fallacy that it is.

Declaring that men as well as women suffer from ‘patriarchy’ is just another wheeze to cosy up to the people whose belief system causes so much harm to men and boys (and, of course, to the people who hold the purse strings and fund those who claim to represent men and boys). Of course not everyone who declares themselves to be a feminist hates men or wishes to oppress them but that does not mean that feminism is not a political doctrine that will always favour women’s rights over equality.
- Alan Fournier
  
  Have you ever read any of Warren Farrell’s works? There is and always has been a male hierarchy. You can call it what you want. Farrell calls them genetic celebrities. But you can’t deny it. Men have always paid the price for it. There is a huge male underclass in far worse shape than the female underclass. It just can no longer be denied, despite the efforts of gender feminists and their chivalrous male champions who are themselves basically aspiring patriarchs.
Nigel

One need only take a foray into social work training in “Anti Oppressive” Practice , in which the apogee of oppression is an adult white male. To see the conceptual justification for deliberate action by those charged with helping children and families to render the “oppressor” powerless. The result the carnage all to obvious in this country. I cannot see those so trained or influenced finding it within their minds possible that a universal oppressor so toxic to children can also safely be left unsupervised. Hence I think it unlikely that there be any true solidarity on men taking the parental leave to take the lead in childcare.

I think Neil Lyndon’s question should spark a series. For such horrific “facts” should end any prospect of males being in contact let alone care for any female or child.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11483433/Why-do-we-believe-such-terrible-things-about-men-that-cant-be-true.html
Darren Ball

To Citymanmichael

Your responses are most certainly “further to the right” than mine. In response to your response:

1) Judging women by the way they look.

It’s looks as if you’ve been reading “The Woman Racket” written by that internationally renowned biologist Steve Moxton. Sorry, not biologist, the other one that’s not a biologist: ex-civil servant. Am I right?

The jury’s out on the extent of biological differences and to what extent any difference is exaggerated by the environment. Unless you’re going to quote world-class experts at me, I’m going to ignore that sort of argument.

Nevertheless, even if you’re right, it wouldn’t mean that Moira Stuart shouldn’t read the news and Prof. Mary Beard shouldn’t tell us about the Romans, just because (apparently) they don’t have sufficient “mate value”. You have proven my point in your response: the only reason you’d have a female presenter instead of male one is if she looked like somebody you’d like to fuck.

Not only have both of these women been directly discriminated against in ways that have dramatically affected their lives, all women are harmed by pervasive attitudes that tell us that a woman’s value is correlated to her looks. The message is transmitted directly and indirectly and it is internalised by women and men.

2) Sexual harassment.

I prefer the anecdotes from women I know and love, including my wife’s, over your commentary. THEY tell me that in order to avoid harassment (from wolf whistles upwards, including groping) they have to dress especially frumpy with no makeup at all, baggy clothes, etc. They should not have to dress this way in order to avoid sexual harassment whilst going about their day-to-day activities.

3) Lack of female MPs and judges.

I’m not bothered about lack of women on corporate boards per se: that might be due to life-style choice. However, particularly with parliament and government, for whatever reason women are under-represented. It is very likely that it’s not due to prejudice because it behoves any party to increase its proportion of women – I’m sure that all of the major political parties would like to swell their ranks with women as it would be good for votes. Nevertheless they’re not there and that means we need to change the way that we find our MPs, or whatever needs to be done, until they are there. There’s only about 600 MPs – surely there’s 300 women who would be willing and competent to run the country.

In the same way, by the way, the fact that there aren’t enough men graduating university is an unequal outcome that needs addressing, despite boys and men having equal access to education. It works both ways.

4) Attitudes towards rape.

Wow! What “contributory negligence” can there possibly be? Getting drunk? Dressing in a sexy way? Again you display the very attitude that justifies my inclusion of this in my list of five.

5) Employment.

Feminism isn’t only there to change the law; it’s there to change attitudes. Some employers will discriminate against women of child-bearing age, even though it’s illegal.

Thanks again for justifying my list of five.
- CitymanMichael
  
  Darren,
  1) I do agree with a lot of what Moxon says. Moira Stuart – “In April 2009, the departing head of BBC News, Peter Horrocks, was quoted as saying: “I regret the way some viewed her departure. Many people came to believe that Moira left for reasons of ageism, or other -isms. This was never the case.” So I am unsure of sexism/ageism in this case and others. Certainly I have absolutely no problem with Moira – though she was an exceptional newsreader.
  2) Women intuitively know what is the appropriate dress, they learn that from a very young age. I do not accept that ordinary women regard wolf whistles as harassment although they are continually being brainwashed by feminists – and it is getting worse in that a man simply smiling at a woman is construed by some feminists to be harassment – also opening a door for a woman is sexist!.
  3) Are you really saying that the best person should not get the job? The best potential MP should not be selected? Positive discrimination is never a good idea.
  4) If a woman gets blind drunk to the point where she lies on the ground, on her own, in a public place she is foolish. Yes, she is not a rapist – but she remains extremely foolish – if you or I did the same we would be extremely foolish. You have fallen for the feminist view that women are NEVER to blame for anything and that just infantilises women. If your own daughter acted in this way, you and your wife would certainly have something to say about it & you would be absolutely correct.
  5) “Feminism isn’t only there to change the law; it’s there to change attitudes” – you really are a feminist with feminist attitudes. Such a pity, because feminist has done so much to harm men & boys and continues apace. Back in the sixties when women (as well as men) were discriminated against the women’s rights movement effected some overdue changes in society, however, that day has long passed.
  One analogy which I read put it as “the room was cold and the heating was switched on – the room got to a nice temperature – now the room is overheating and the heating is up even higher making everyone uncomfortable”
  I see lots of women now in the MRM and welcome that because men will put up with all sorts of pain without coming together – they just “check-out”. Women are much more biologically programmed to be supportive and I see a great future for the MRM.
  I hope you join us someday – after you see the true suffering of men & boys due to feminism.
  - Darren Ball
    
    1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098498/I-got-wrong-older-women-BBC-boss-admits-ARE-TV.html
    
    Mark Thompson admits that ageism is a problem for women at the BBC and all other broadcasters.
    
    2. You have not addressed my point at all. My point is that women, especially young women, are being regularly harassed even when they dress modestly. However, they should not get harassed under any circumstances, no matter how they dress. You don’t have the right to harass a women just because you judge them to be inappropriately dressed. In some cultures, just showing their face is inappropriately dressed.
    
    3. Being a woman in a representative democracy should be one of the qualifications for half the seats. There are circa 17 million women in the UK within the age range 25 to 65 (perhaps under 25 is too young and not many people are looking for work much after 65). You don’t think we can find 325 who’d make excellent MPs, of which about a dozen would make excellent Ministers? Currently we have only 148 female MPs. Don’t you think it’s odd that the supposed best person for the job is a man in three-quarters of occasions? Can you think of a biological reason for this?
    
    4. Whether or not she’s foolish, and what I would say to her, is irrelevant. She’d still not be to blame for being raped. In fact, I have been that drunk – most of us have at some point – and if I’d been raped, I’d not have thought I was to blame.
    
    5. I am not a feminist. I am not anti-feminist. I am critical of feminism for not embracing men in their radius of concern. One day I hope that feminism will evolve to the point where I can join up. I will NEVER be an MRA.
    - CitymanMichael
      
      Darren, I disagree with your basic tenet and there is nothing to be gained by continuing this discussion. Even if you do not self identify as a feminist, the remark you made “Feminism isn’t only there to change the law; it’s there to change attitudes” would only be made by a feminist. At some point in the future either you or someone you love dearly will be damaged by something which feminism has caused and that may cause you to rethink your stance. But thank you for the discourse.
      - Darren Ball
        
        Just because I know what feminism is for, does not make me a feminist.
        
        I agree that there are some women’s activist movements, who self-identify as feminists, who do extreme damage to men and boys, and that feminism, as a movement, has done little or nothing to stop them, nor even distance themselves from them – for this I remain critical of feminism.
Darren Ball

CityMichael.

Just because I know what feminism is for, does not make me a feminist.

I agree that there are some women’s activist movements, who self-identify as feminists, who do extreme damage to men and boys, and that feminism, as a movement, has done little or nothing to stop them, nor even distance themselves from them – for this I remain critical of feminism.
- CitymanMichael
  
  PS, Darren, the world-class experts you might listen to are interviewed in this documentary – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
karen woodall

Just to be clear Darren, though you are doing a sterling job on here, my righteousness was directed not at you but at the author of the piece, who is a self declared feminist and who wrote the piece which included arguments about righteousness and who ignited my fury with what seems to be to somewhat self congratulatory ignorance of what the really shitty world of men’s lives actually look like.
Nigel

A really interesting dialogue. Personally I’m focussed on that which is enforced. That it is equitable.
I have no problem with individuals or groups campaigning to change attitudes. Over my lifetime I have seen attitudes to sex move dramatically and in becoming more liberal and varied probably more open to negative trends as much as positive.
It may well be helpful for some clearer “rules” to emerge from debate.
With regard to sexual offences there is considerable clarity now and it is important that the laws are understood. But also that the laws are applied fairly.
There seems a reasonable argument to encourage people into political life as the “employer” is the electorate and the role has within it the very idea of “representative”. It’s not a job in any usual sense of the word. I’m not so sure about Judges as that is a job? However magistrates are a good place to seek more representative variety as they are meant to be citizens.
It think it an interesting debate about what is actually just “show business” and again yes to campaigning but the law? Again in show biz. it’s what the public wants and people will have jobs because they are attractive to the audience. It is of course quite different for actual jobs not dependent on audience ratings.
I guess this is the problem for me, that issues become poisoned by the insistence on linking the annoying but comparatively minor with OPPRESSION. Even this would be no more than really irritating if it wasn’t for the fact that this OPPRESSION has to be met by the power of the state intervening with a heavy hand. In fact actually being oppressive.
So boorish behaviour by some men that should be called out becomes RAPE. The audience penchant for attractive youthful female and lantern jawed male presenters is OPPRESSION. A disinclination to wade through the tedium of committees and eccentric constituents which is the lot of most local and national politicians is OPPRESSION. And so on and on demanding sanctions from the state by equating a whole variety of often very variable attitudinal stuff through the alchemy of “the patriarchy” to an evil plot. As is commented on in this thread in a number of ways it is this core idea of a conspiratorial plot by and for all men which inevitably gives rise to the oppressive applications of state sanctioned discrimination to combat this evil. The whistling builder goes from plain rude to a terrorist.

Share article