Mark Brooks OBE is Chair of the Mankind Initiative, a charity which supports male victims of domestic violence. Here he describes what he says is a game-changing moment for the recognition of the suffering experienced by the hundreds of men his charity receives calls from each year.

For decades there has been a reality gap when it comes to domestic abuse. It is the same across the world. This reality gap is based on the view that domestic abuse is a crime that only affects women, even when the reality is much different.

This reality gap is reflected in government policy – which frames domestic abuse as a gendered crime based on the view that it is a cause and a consequence of wider gender inequality. This is despite the fact that government figures show one in three victims of domestic abuse are male, while also the government does not view suicide or rough sleeping as being gendered issues when far more men suffer from this than women. This can and does affect service provision.

The reality gap is also reflected in how society views domestic abuse – with a gap still remaining with the public in not recognising male victims in the same way they do female victims. This cognitive bias can affect responses from “blue light” responders and also can lead to no or delayed responses from the public – including friends, family and neighbours. The award winning #violenceisviolence video shows the stark reality of the gender differences in how society views domestic abuse.

The way society and government views domestic abuse also affects male victims. It means they fail to recognise what is happening to them, feel ashamed, feel they won’t be believed and do not know where to turn.

This is set against the backdrop of an estimated 450,000 men (1 million women)  – broadly 30%  – being victims of partner abuse every year yet only around 5% of those victims using domestic abuse services are men. In addition, just under 50% of male victims do not tell anyone against 20% of female victims. The figures are too high for both genders and it is vital that we eradicate domestic abuse against women as much as we do against men.

The moving BBC Three documentary “Abused by my Girlfriend” broadcast in February has made such a difference in closing this reality gap. It charts the story of Alex Skeel (an Ambassador of the ManKind Initiative charity) and how he became a victim of domestic abuse, how he was rescued and how he is rebuilding his life.

It was seen by over 1.6 million alone on BBC One (Tuesday 19^th February) and has been a real discussion point all week on social media and in workplaces. What has been significant is the number of women of all ages who have been at the vanguard of so much of this momentum – sending Alex messages, promoting the broadcast on social media and generally speaking out. The fact that Alex’s mother plays such an important role in the documentary especially when she recalls her sister saying “he just wants his mum” was a significant emotional moment that resonated with so many other mothers.

This week also saw Libby Wright, being awarded a prestigious High Commendation in the National Crimebeat awards. In her former role as Durham’s Young Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner she was behind a campaign, No Less Of A Man, to make people aware of male domestic abuse and how to get support.  The Paul Lavelle Foundation, named after Paul who was killed by his partner who was convicted of manslaughter, also opened a new service for male survivors in the Wirral. The foundation is led by his brother, his family and a wide group of friends.

These events are crucial in encouraging more men to come forward, more people to reach out to them and a better response when they do come forward especially from the police and other blue light services. Significantly, it closes the domestic abuse reality gap so that domestic abuse is no longer seen as a gendered crime or a crime that is only a “woman’s crime”. It is becoming seen as a crime that affects everyone – women and men in heterosexual and same-sex relationships. In that way we will see more men coming forward, more male-friendly services and a more inclusive society which is in keeping with a modern and diverse Britain.

Mark Brooks OBE

Chair of the ManKind Initiative charity

Dear New Statesman,

At the close of a year in which Robert Webb made important and welcome contributions to debates on masculinity and male wellbeing, it was immensely disappointing to see him use his NewStatesman column [December 7^th] for an ill-informed and spiteful attack on International Men’s Day (IMD).

In the UK alone, IMD 2017 was marked by well over a hundred events hosted by charities, campaign groups, health services, local authorities, schools, churches, synagogues and mosques. IMD organisers and activists come from across the political, ideological and social spectrum and their concerns criss-cross a complex network of men’s issues. It was marked by women and men of all backgrounds across the UK and some of the most heartfelt contributions were from women celebrating the roles their fathers, sons, brothers and partners play in their lives.

It is a pity Robert was unable to attend the inspirational Rocking Ur Teens event for inner city boys  in London, or the One Blue String busking challenge in the centre of Manchester, supporting the one in six men who are survivors of sexual abuse or rape. He could have attended the live comedy podcast recording by the wonderful Sarah Millican, or he would have been welcome at any of the academic conferences on topics including LGBT issues; men’s mental health; male victims of domestic violence or men and boys’ experiences with eating disorders, where he would have found, ironically, that his own book was widely mentioned and discussed.

It is particularly baffling that Robert holds up CALM, the Campaign Against Living Miserably, as an example of an alternative to IMD, apparently unaware that CALM have long been at the forefront of promoting IMD and are among our most active and prominent supporters. Just a quick glance at the UK IMD website could have shown him that IMD 2017 was also celebrated by numerous overtly feminist organisations including Women’s Equality Party branches and university feminist societies.

It is unquestionably true that within the broad men’s sector there are elements which can be labelled “a noxious bunch of antifeminist cranks.”  However, these elements did not create IMD, have never significantly promoted it, and their involvement has never been more than marginal. It is downright harmful to attribute ownership of IMD to those groups –  that serves to inflate their reach and influence, while seriously undermining the important work of charities supporting boys and men in need.

Robert concludes by saying International Men’s Day could and should be “just like Christmas: a celebration of shared humanity. But it’s also a time when we spare a thought for those of us especially vulnerable to the cold and dark.” This is not only a beautiful description of what IMD could become, but of what it already is. We look forward to IMD 2018, when we hope Robert will be standing at our shoulders helping IMD to bloom, rather than carping misguidedly from the side-lines.

Glen Poole,
Ambassador, UK Men’s Day

Yes. There, that’s that dealt with. Next question?

Except of course, it’s not nearly as simple as that. If you’re a regular insideMAN reader, I have a hunch that like me, you’ll take it for granted that men should be allowed to feel anxious, low and depressed. But the reason I’m writing this blog, is that according to a new stereotype-busting campaign by Lynx, men are repeatedly asking Google the question in this headline. That suggests many people don’t think it’s OK for men to be depressed at all.

There’s a strange contradiction going on here. On the one hand, it’s never been more acceptable for men to open up about their feelings – in fact, the last 14 months have seen a sea-change in the cultural conversation around men’s mental health.

From the House of Commons holding its first Parliamentary debate on male suicide on International Men’s Day 2015; to princes William and Harry (who are, FYI, male, Royal and ex-military) recently launching their Heads Together mental health awareness campaign in partnership with male suicide prevention charity CALM; to the Southbank’s Being A Man festival; to the fact Lynx, about as mainstream a brand as you can get, have launched this campaign to breakdown male gender stereotypes.

If we’ve got everyone from MPs and Royalty, to high street male grooming brands all championing the idea that it’s OK for men to be open about their feelings, surely we’ve got this stiff-upper-lip thing licked? Right?

Deep roots

Except that isn’t the story that’s being told by the statistics. When I first started writing about men’s mental health around ten years ago, suicide was the biggest killer of men aged under 35. Since then the male suicide rate has in fact gone up, to the point where it is now the biggest killer of men aged under 50.

So what’s going on? I mean, how can the male suicide rate actually have risen, at exactly the same time as society has been telling men it’s more acceptable than ever for them to talk about their feelings?

One answer, of course, is that the expectations society places on men to be stoical, strong and silent, have profoundly deep roots that aren’t going to be easily eradicated overnight, no matter how high-profile the campaigns promoting a different kind of message about manhood. The idea that “real men” should provide and protect and damn well keep quiet about it, still has a powerful grip on both men and women.

But that said, I believe there now really is a greater acceptance of men expressing their fears and anxieties. The suicide debate in Parliament, the princes’ mental health campaign and Lynx’s focus on broader ways of being a man, may all be recent, but they are signs of a profound cultural shift – MPs, Royals and high street brands don’t get behind ideas that haven’t already got mainstream acceptance.

How does all this add up? Isn’t men’s fear of appearing weak, their tendency to bottle things up until it’s all too much to bear, the root cause of the high male suicide rate? If it’s easier than ever for men to talk and show their feelings, why is there still an epidemic of male suicide?

Bigger questions

But maybe these aren’t the right questions – or at least, maybe they aren’t the only questions we need to be asking. You see, over the years I’ve been writing about men’s issues and after being immersed in the hundreds of personal stories we hear at insideMAN, I’ve come to believe there is another question that’s at least as important, but gets asked far less often. And that question is: “What’s driving male depression in the first place?”

Because it’s not just suicide that disproportionately affects men – there are a whole gamut of other disadvantages that also hit men hardest and that go right to the heart of a person’s wellbeing. From the fact that young men are now 35% less likely to go to university than young women, to the disproportionate impact of the recession on male-dominated industries, to the pain faced by men who are separated from their children, to the fact men make up 88% of those who sleep rough — anyone of these would have a negative impact on a person’s mental health, I know they would on mine.

What these issues also have in common, is that there’s a lack both of awareness that these are gendered issues affecting men, and of popular concern to address them. And it seems to me, that one crucial reason for this is society’s ingrained expectation that men must be strong and stoical – if a man faces disarray in his life, our almost instinctive reaction is that he should “man up” and fix his own problems.

I think it’s brilliant that Lynx and our culture as a whole are starting to challenge stereotypes about what it means to be a man. But if we’re serious about breaking down the expectations placed on men and improving male mental health, I think there are a some tough questions that we still need to ask ourselves. And I’m pretty sure Google won’t have the answers.

By Dan Bell

You can find out more about Lynx’s ‘Is it OK for guys?’ campaign here

If you need help or feel like you can’t be yourself, visit ditchthelabel.org 

BBC comedy chat show All Round to Mrs Brown’s has triggered outrage among domestic violence survivors and campaigners after it depicted real-life domestic abuse by a wife against her husband as comedy and then gave her the show’s ‘Mammy of the Week’ award.

The segment of the popular Saturday night light entertainment programme, in which each week a mother is nominated for the award, shows a daughter describe to a laughing studio audience how her mother has repeatedly attacked her father with household objects and on at least one occasion with a knife.

Accompanied by Benny Hill-style comedy music, canned laughter and with the mother shown laughing in the corner of the picture, the daughter says: “She really likes to throw things and it’s dad that gets the brunt of it. He’s had pretty much everything thrown at him over the years, toasters, hair dryers, you name it.

“There’s still a dent in the wall from where she threw a knife at him — he says it’s a constant reminder to stay in her good side.”

At one point, as the daughter is describing the violence, a photograph of the mark made by the knife is shown on screen, accompanied by another burst of canned audience laughter, then followed by the words: “BUT STILL AN AMAZING MAMMY”.

Mark Brooks, Chairman of the ManKind Initiative, a national charity supporting male victims of domestic abuse, said: “It is frankly staggering this was ever broadcast by the BBC let alone treated as funny and a cause for celebration.

“It shows how deeply ingrained society’s view is in failing to understand or accept men are victims of domestic abuse too. This broadcast makes matters worse by reinforcing that view. Watching this would have been deeply upsetting to many men who are going through an abusive relationship or have done so in the past and still live with the memories – in fact it would have made matters worse.

“I am confident that the BBC understands both the sensitivity of the subject and the important role it plays in raising awareness. They should delete this segment thereby making it clear that this was unacceptable television that should never have made it to the nation’s screens and living rooms”.

‘I feared I would be laughed at’

Ian McNicholl, domestic abuse survivor and Ambassador for the ManKind Initiative said: “When I was experiencing domestic abuse, my biggest fears were that I would not be believed and that I would be laughed at if I told anyone.

“Had I been watching this at the time, it would have reinforced these views in my mind and made it even less likely that I would escape. As a society we have to be clear that domestic abuse is wrong whoever the victim is and this is why the content and tone is unacceptable as it is both completely insensitive and disrespectful to all male victims and survivors.”

The ManKind Initiative said is has written to the BBC Trust and co-producers Hungry Bear Media and BocPix, calling for an apology and for the episode to be deleted.

Mr Brooks said the segment “highlights and reinforces the continual belief that this type of abuse is acceptable and humorous when it is a man who is the victim. It normalises the belief that this behaviour is acceptable.

Double standards

“It also exposes the double standards applied to male victims as, rightly, both the BBC and the production companies would never treat a similar insensitive situation where the genders were reversed as a ‘celebration’ or ‘humorous’ let alone broadcast it.

“This makes male victims more vulnerable as it makes it far harder for them to find the courage to get help and feel they will be believed, when they see a national broadcaster and the audience think this type of activity is a source of amusement, not one of equal importance to both male and female victims.”

According to the Office for National Statistics, 450,000 men per year are victims of partner abuse – one in three of all victims with one in every six men suffering in their lifetime.

The cross-government definition of domestic abuse is any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality.

Watch the segment here from 44:10:

On Wednesday, the BBC reported there had been a 16% rise in the number of people sleeping rough on the streets of England in the last year and that since 2010, the number of rough sleepers had more than doubled.

The report went on to outline a range of issues impacting on these more than 4,000 people who are the “most vulnerable” members of society, and to separate the numbers in terms of region, age and nationality.

But what stood out, was that when it came to breaking the numbers down in terms of gender, at no point did the BBC mention that fully 88% of rough sleepers are male – a “rough sleeping gap” that has increased from 85%.

Not only this, but the report in fact went on to highlight the 12% minority who are female.

But… why??

insideMAN tweeted at the BBC calling on them to explain why they had chosen to erase this glaring male gender disadvantage, while at the same time drawing attention to the minority of women who sleep rough.

The BBC did not reply, but our tweet was retweeted scores of times and triggered a passionate discussion online.

The big question was: how could a broadcaster that is dedicated to highlighting gendered disadvantage when faced by women, seemingly deliberately erase gender disadvantage faced by some of the “most vulnerable” men in society?

Here, insideMAN news editor, Glen Poole, gives his insight into the deep and complicated reasons why, and offers a radical way forward in thinking about gender that includes issues facing both men and women.

***

Why does the BBC ignore male rough sleepers? Well, first we’re going to need to do some gender theory.

The issue of society being blind to homelessness as a gender issue that affects men is a combination of male privilege/burden and female privilege/burden. In simple terms it’s “the masculine realm” and “the feminine realm” at play.

The masculine realm is built around the public citizen who was historically male. Men had rights (“privilege”) and responsibilities (“burdens”) that women didn’t – such as the right to a career, the right to vote versus the responsibility to provide for (earn) and protect others (e.g. conscription).

The feminine realm is built around the private world of nurture and care, which was historically female. Women had the privilege of being protected and taken care of (women and children first) but also the duty (or burden) of domesticity/childcare and a lack of rights to participate as public citizens.

This was just the “natural order” of things, we were largely blind to it until feminism (in its broadest sense) began making gender visible and asking awkward questions like why can’t women vote, have an education, have careers, be free from the burdens of the motherhood and domesticity?

What we still haven’t had is an opposite and equal push from men to say why can’t men be stay-at-home-dads, win custody of their kids when they separate, be protected and taken care of, and also be free from the burdens of the protector and provider role?

So, we have two forces at play:

1. Traditional and conservative views of gender that remain blind to men’s gender issues and either reject women’s gender issues as “political correctness gone mad”, or accept them from the traditional viewpoint that women are the weaker sex and should be protected and taken care of.
2. Progressive views of gender that seek to make gender visible, but only highlight the “privilege” of the male experience and the “burden” of the female experience. Or as we say in populist terms, the view that “Men ARE problems and Women HAVE problems”.

(As an aside, feminist masculinity studies, in particular, explicitly set out to make men visible — to name and problematise men and masculinity as things that should be the object of study, criticism and public policy, but with the intention of addressing the “problem” of men.)

Anyway, so yes, our failure to see homelessness as a gendered issue that mostly impacts men is shaped by traditional/conservative views (which some call patriarchy) because the failure to see homeless male citizens as gendered individuals is built on top of deep, historic social structures that established the default public citizen as male (which some people see as male privilege and the female burden in action).

But, our failure to see homelessness as a gendered issue that mostly impacts men is not just a problem of patriarchal thinking, it’s also shaped by progressive thinking too (or what some would simply call feminism). Because what progressive thinking is blind to is the way it preserves the privilege of victimhood/vulnerability — particularly the female privilege of being taken care of and protected, which it preserves by fiercely defending the position that “it’s a man’s world and only women can be gendered victims” (for example, some of those in the women’s refuge movement don’t just advocate for female victims but also advocate against male victims).

Then we need to throw into the mix the view that men have agency and women don’t, that men are agents of shaping this gendered world we live in and women are objects of it, that men act and women are acted upon and from this universally held view you get the unspoken belief (what some call unconscious bias) that:

Homeless men are failures and homeless women are victims (another version of men ARE problems, women HAVE problems).

Why is this?

First, because of the view that men have agency and are privileged in the public, masculine realm of work and are expected (first and foremost) to protect and provide, homeless men have failed in their duty to fulfil the privileged role of being a male citizen — they are failures and because they are male they are assumed to be independent and have agency and therefore are seen to be the cause of their own problems.

I read a newspaper leader in Australia last year, in the “progressive” Sydney Morning Herald, that was about men’s health and it used this phrase: “Man, an Aussie bloke is his own worst enemy” — which is a great example of the belief that because men are privileged and have agency (unlike women) that when men have problems they have no-one to blame but themselves. (Like those pesky, suicidal men, for example, if only they’d stop being so macho and talk about their feelings…).

Second, because of the belief that men have agency corresponds with a view that women don’t have agency and should be protected and taken care of and provided a “safe space” in the private feminine realm of the home, when women are homeless it’s seen more as society’s collective failure and leads to calls for specialist, gendered interventions.

Yes, these ways of thinking have deeply structured roots (that Evolutionary Psychologists would argue are grounded in biology and psychology) but they are not just locked in place by conservative/traditionalist thinkers (“women and children first”) but also by progressive thinkers (“women and girls first”).

Pretty much all charities working in homelessness and prison reform are run by progressive thinkers and they are pretty much blind to the view that men have gendered problems (and so see male prisoners and homeless men as victims of class, poverty and race… but not gender).

Neutrality, attack, or inclusivity?

I wrote about the failure of homeless charities to see homelessness as a gendered issue here in 2015.

So it’s not just the Government’s fault or the BBC’s fault or the homelessness sector’s fault — it’s a symptom of the “public story” about gender that’s shaped both by traditional (“patriarchal”) and progressive (“feminist”) thinking.

So our challenge is how do we challenge those deeply structured ways of thinking in a way that he vast majority of people can hear it?

There are basically three ways to response to this:

1. Call for GENDER NEUTRALITY: we should help ALL homeless people, ALL prisoners, ALL kids not getting to university, ALL victims of violence, ALL suicidal people etc. etc. etc. etc., regardless of gender – “let us talk no more of women’s problems and men’s problems, let us just deal with human problems…”
2. React against the one-eyed view of gender: attack the BBC, attack Government, attack biased policy makers… attack, attack, attack, declaring “what about the men?” Which is a valid response and certainly one of the ways I respond to a lot of issues… in a way this approach is fighting against gender exclusive ways of thinking, but it can also be hard to differentiate from other voices who react to every gendered initiative as another example of “political correctness gone mad”.
3. Take the visionary, moral high ground and be role models in our willingness to champion highly effective GENDER INCLUSIVE approaches to social issues that take into account the fact that men and women may face the same problems (homeless, domestic violence, suicidality) but have different needs (both as a group AND as individuals).

Rather than saying it’s bad and wrong that the Government, the BBC, homeless charities etc. are highlighting the gendered issues facing homeless women, I think we should be more enthusiastic about this that anyone else on the planet.

More gendered thinking, please!

Because what we need, is not LESS gendered thinking we need MORE gendered thinking and we need MORE gendered thinking that is MORE THAN just focusing on the problems women have (and the problems men cause).

So let us enthusiastically embrace every single manifestation of gendered thinking we come across and demand MORE of it; let’s celebrate gendered thinking about social issues and be at the leading edge of getting people to think MORE deeply about gendered issues.

How does that look, in practical terms?

It starts with an enthusiastic response to every example of gendered thinking we encounter:

“It’s FANTASTIC that the BBC is highlighting that homelessness is a gendered issue for some women, what we’d love to see is the BBC also highlighting how homelessness is a gendered issue for the 88% of homeless people who are men.”

Take a breath… be visionary.

What this approach has the potential to do is bring BOTH supportive small-c conservatives AND open-minded progressives along with us.

Small-c conservatives are more likely to think “well I don’t really like all this gendered nonsense, but if we’re going to take a gendered approach to women’s issues then it only seems fair and right that we take a gendered approach to men’s issues too, and if it pisses off a few feminists in the process, then that’s a bonus!”

Progressives are more likely to think:

“I believe in gender equality and that ‘patriarchy is bad’ — this is proof that ‘patriarchy hurts men too’ so yes we should be taking a gendered approach to addressing this issue.”

So while a knee-jerk, gut reaction to stories that ignore or down-play glaring male disadvantage, is often (understandably) to think “fuck this, what about the men?” …if we can take a breath and respond from a visionary place, from our higher selves, and remember that whatever our individual views, then we can authentically say that we think:

“It’s GREAT that people are taking a gendered approach to tackling women’s issues… and what we stand for is a world where we take a gender inclusive approach to social issues that tackles BOTH women’s issues AND men’s issues, fairly and equitably.”

It’s not the BBC or the Government or the homelessness sector that’s the issue here, it’s us, the men’s movement. We haven’t yet won the argument that men have gendered issues and that homelessness is a gendered issue that mostly impacts men. We have to win that argument by persuading enough people over enough time that is the most moral, ethical and effective way to think about the problem.

We won’t get there (I believe) by correcting and complaining. We will get there by championing gendered thinking and evolving it to the next logical stage of its evolution.

Here Dr Ben Hine, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of West London and co-founder of the Men and Boys Coalition, explores some of the deeper issues behind recent moves by police forces to re-categorise crimes against women that are motivated by their sex as hate crimes.

Since the 4^th April 2016, Nottinghamshire Police Force has classified incidents targeted at women, specifically because of their sex, as hate crimes. This was in response to the Misogynistic Hate Crime Review 2016 by the same force that found an alarming 38% of women who had experienced a hate crime explicitly linked it to being a woman, and that, even more shockingly, only 28% of women would report such crimes to the police[i]. Indeed the scale of the problem is evident, both through direct observation and discussions with family and friends (quite uncomfortable ones at that I can assure you), and through disturbingly ironic incidences such as the public harassment of BBC reporter Sarah Teale as she reported on the change[ii].

Clearly, misogynistic harassment of women is a serious and prevalent problem in our society, and the creation of this classification can be viewed as an important step in encouraging women to report their victimisation and to show how seriously police officers take crimes of this nature. Indeed, a number of additional police forces across England and Wales are now considering expanding their definition of hate crimes to include misogyny[iii]. However, before this becomes common practice, for me there are a number of issues which haven’t been fully considered in taking such a move.

The review itself describes misogynistic hate crimes as ‘incidents against women that are motivated by the attitude of men towards women and includes behaviour targeted at women by men, simply because they are women’. The examples provided range from unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement, to the taking of photographs without permission. It is also important to note that this new categorisation is not a crime within itself, but rather elevates existing crimes that meet this definition to a higher priority on police systems once reported.

‘Inherently discriminatory and sexist’

So what’s the problem, right? I believe one comment from Nottinghamshire Police’s Facebook page sums up the main issue – ‘Will the harassment of men also be deemed as a hate crime? If not then this policy is inherently discriminatory and sexist’[iv]. To put it frankly, and in the hope you will read on, I have to agree.

Whilst I can list a huge number of incidences of harassment towards women by men that I have either directly witnessed or heard second-hand, there are also plenty of examples I can conjure of the reverse. Bar-men harassed whilst women order drinks, men’s bums pinched on the dance floor, and inappropriate, presumptive, and very forward advances towards men by women who find them attractive. As the title of this post suggests, I have also genuinely heard groups of women (think hen-dos) shout ‘show us your cock!’ to men they see on the street. We must therefore recognise that a number of men find themselves experiencing similar types of harassment to women, by women. And whilst some don’t feel aggrieved, many report feeling deeply uncomfortable, and sometimes even threatened by some of these advances. So, whilst these incidences of harassment are based on the fact that they are men, and whilst they could report the harassment itself as a crime, why does no opportunity exist for them to have that report specifically classified as a hate crime?

There are a number of reasons. 1) Maybe people believe harassment of men by women isn’t as serious because they think it doesn’t happen as often? Well, the frequency of such incidents is difficult to assess as at the very outset men and women may perceive, categorise, and report harassment of this nature differently. Whilst some men do think of a pinched bottom as harassment, many don’t, whereas women almost certainly would. That being said, whilst many statistics do suggest that prevalence is higher for women, a significant proportion of men are also affected[v]. Regardless, as with domestic and sexual violence, just because fewer men are victims of these crimes, this doesn’t mean that male victimisation is any less serious.

2) Maybe it is because people believe men don’t mind, or even like the attention, so therefore it’s not harassment? This is also a popular belief, and again one where it is hard to assess prevalence/impact. If it turns out men really don’t view harassment towards them as seriously as women do, is this because they have been told by society that that is how they should feel? Or because they genuinely don’t mind as much as women? Or both? Some would question whether the harassment of men is even a problem because men don’t mind sexual attention of any kind or in any form, as long as it’s attention! However, as mentioned above, many men report feeling uncomfortable by some of the comments and actions taken by women towards them.

Balance of power

3) Finally, maybe people believe that whilst both men and women may experience harassment, it’s more serious for women because it’s more threatening and/or dangerous. This, for me, is the most important, as whilst all of the reasons outlined above can be argued to have some validity, this particular idea ties into fundamental beliefs about the balance of power between the sexes that affect our perceptions of many interactions, including crime.

Many theories of gender socialisation would suggest that, from a young age, boys and girls are taught to believe that they inherently occupy different positions of power within society – boys are socialised to believe they are powerful, girls are socialised to believe they are powerless. This is part of a broad system of beliefs and processes that help to shape our understanding of gender, and the abstract associations that accompany masculinity, manliness and being male, and femininity, womanliness and being female. And whilst these processes are undergoing some change, socialisation of power between the sexes is still prevalent and highly influential in shaping children’s understanding of the world around them in terms of gender.

These socialised beliefs then manifest in our understanding of things like harassment and other ‘gendered’ crime. For example, whilst domestic violence is most certainly perpetrated towards both men and women, studies demonstrate that abuse scenarios are routinely perceived as more serious and severe when perpetrated by men towards women than the reverse[vi]. These effects are found despite the fact that the physical attributes of the men and women involved are controlled (i.e., they are described as having a similar physical stature).

What does domestic violence ‘look like’?

We can argue therefore that perceptions of men and women in these scenarios are fundamentally rooted in who we feel has more power (as well as more ability to threaten, intimidate and control in any given situation), as well as our traditional beliefs of what domestic violence ‘looks like’ (i.e., aggressive male being physically violent towards a scared, weak female)[vii]. When a man harasses a woman, this is seen as a powerful and threatening act towards someone in a position of less power. When a woman harasses a man, it is not seen as serious or threatening, because women aren’t inherently viewed as threatening. Take what happens when a woman and a man walk alone on the street. If a man begins to follow them, a woman is likely to cross the street as she feels under threat, whereas a man will not. Neither will cross if it is a woman following.

Regardless of the extent of one’s subscription to the narrative that crimes like domestic/sexual violence and harassment are direct results and representations of a patriarchal society, and men’s exertion of dominance over women, beliefs regarding imbalanced power between men and women exist in many of us, and clearly affect our interpretations of crimes when they occur. Combine this with other beliefs tied to gender, such as men’s supposed appreciation of any kind of sexual interaction regardless of how it comes, and you get a clear distinction between serious male-on-female harassment and funny female-on-male ‘attention’. A distinction which, I feel, is actually reinforced by the categorisation of harassment specifically by a male towards a female, as a hate crime.

Maybe some view the elevation of these crimes as just a natural way of addressing that imbalance of power, by placing the law on the side of women? However, whilst with one hand this delivers a message regarding the seriousness of such crimes (a message which I wholly support), with the other it reinforces the idea that men are powerful, predatory and dangerous as harassment perpetrated by them is deemed particularly serious. This as an idea which not only serves to undermine the idea that a man can be harassed by a woman (or indeed another man) because of the fundamentally ‘powerful’ position men occupy, but helps to reinforce the idea of women as weak and needing extra protection and provision within the law. I would draw similar criticisms of sexual violence legislation in this country – for example, why is rape a gender-specific crime (i.e., can only be classified as rape if the assault involved penetration by a penis)? Does this not create a clear distinction between the seriousness and trauma of ‘proper rape’ (of a man or woman by a man), as opposed to say sexual assault by penetration (performed maybe by a woman on a man)? Aren’t they both equally traumatic and violating?

More harm than good?

As I stated at the start of this post, the sexual harassment of women is a serious, dangerous, and abhorrent feature of our society. I have spoken to many female friends who feel threatened, and even physically endangered when approached, and sometimes persistently pursued by men. At one party recently, a female friend of mine felt the need to arrange a complex system of interactions with us in order to finally convince one guy to ‘fucking leave her alone’. However, whilst classifying misogynistic incidences as hate crimes is a bold and important statement, it is not without issue. How are we to ever to challenge conventional beliefs about power between the sexes, and the narrative of ‘men as problem, women as victim’, when we are almost enshrining that imbalance within the law itself.

I am not sure what the alternative is, but I can’t help ask whether we shouldn’t maybe instead focus on highlighting the negative effects of harassment and abuse regardless of gender? And in doing so, help to re-educate men on their perceptions of what is/isn’t harassment? This would not only help to encourage men to recognise and call-out any harassment they experience, but also help them to more fully understand how intimidating their behaviour towards women is. And should we not also focus on breaking down the model of socialisation experienced by both girls and boys’ experience that leads to the unequal perception of power, and that may lead boys and men to believe such behaviour is acceptable, and lead girls and women to believe such behaviour is inevitable?

Above all, I believe that equality before the law is essential. Whilst crimes such as harassment are not gender-specific, the new hate-crime classification essentially creates a two-tiered system, where crimes towards men and women are not viewed equally. It is not my place to say whether this is right or wrong, but I do question where it leads us. Will this spread to other ‘gendered’ crimes, such as domestic and sexual violence? And what does this do for the smaller proportion of male victims? What of their pain and suffering that arguably becomes further diminished and trivialised by emphasising the importance of female victims and the severity of their victimisation? And whilst changes to these laws may help in some ways (i.e., encouraging reporting), do they actually end up encouraging our perception of women as ‘victim’ or as weak? Or am I coming at this whole question from a position of male privilege? Unable to fully understand or assess the problem because I have no idea what it feels like to experience harassment from a female perspective? And have I just interpreted any harassment I receive differently because of my male upbringing and my belief that I am never under threat? Regardless, research tells us that there is a clear difference in the way that harassment and other crimes are evaluated based on which genders are involved – and enshrining such perceptions within the law could end up doing much more harm than good.

By Dr Ben Hine

Dr Hine is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of West London and a chartered member of the British Psychological Society (BPS). He is a co-founder of the Men and Boys Coaltion.

---

[i] Misogynistic Hate Crime Review (2016). Nottinghamshire Police.

[ii] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/10/misogyny-hate-crime-nottingham-police-crackdown

[iv] Misogynistic Hate Crime Review (2016). Nottinghamshire Police.

[v] http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/

[vi] Seelau, S. M. & Seelau, E. P. (2005). Gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of heterosexual, gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 363-371

[vii] Dutton, D. G., & White, K. R. (2013). Male victims of domestic violence. New Male Studies: An International Journal, 2, 5-17

The ManKind Initiative, Britain’s first charity to support male victims of domestic abuse, has today launched a new groundbreaking and sensitive documentary portraying the real stories and experiences of male victims of domestic abuse in the UK. The documentary (embedded below) is released as part of the wider #uksaysnomore campaign that aims to end domestic abuse and sexual violence.

The charity believes that society and statutory services still have a long way to go before domestic abuse against male victims is recognised in the same way it rightly is for female victims. This video is aimed at changing attitudes and also in giving hope to men that they can escape from domestic abuse.

Real Men Do Cry was produced by Emma Mitchell, edited by Alex Martin and directed by Lisa Cooke — all men featured in the video are real victims of domestic abuse.

Mark Brooks, Chairman of the ManKind Initiative, said: “This groundbreaking and powerful documentary video is aimed at showing society the devastating effects domestic abuse has on male victims. It also will help men in these situations recognise they are a victim and give them the confidence that they can escape.

“We would like to thank the team behind the documentary for their kind permission in allowing us to broadcast this video, as well as those brave men who willingly shared their experiences.”

Ian McNicholl, ManKind Initiative Ambassador who is featured in the documentary, said: “I am very confident that this documentary will really open people’s eyes to the plight of male victims of domestic abuse and the damaging effect it has on them both physically and mentally.

“I hope that men who are going through this awful crime recognise they are victims and can escape. This video will support families, friends and work colleagues who think a man they know is a victim to reach out and help him.”

UK Says NO MORE is a public awareness campaign designed to engage bystanders around ending domestic violence and sexual assault, the campaign launched in the United Kingdom in May 2016. No More was launched in the USA in March 2013 by a coalition of leading advocacy groups, service providers and major corporations; NO MORE is supported by hundreds of national and local groups and by thousands of people who are using its signature blue symbol to increase visibility for these hidden issues.

Watch the documentary here: