insideMAN

Joint campaigns for Government action on issues facing men and boys — latest

by 3 Comments

Over the past six months insideMAN has been a signatory on two joint letters calling for Government action on issues that impact on the wellbeing of men and boys. Here is the latest on both of these campaigns.

In December last year, we joined dozens of other writers, thinkers, charities and campaigners in a submission to the European Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) strategic plan consultation, calling on the EHRC to recognise areas of disadvantage and discrimination faced by men and boys.

Then in March of this year, insideMAN was one of 40 signatories in a joint letter to the Government’s Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, requesting that she follow up her 2014 Annual Report, entitled “Health of the 51%: Women”; with an equivalent report on the health of men.

In terms of the first of the two letters, the initial response by the EHRC was that our submission had in fact somehow not been included in the consultation – we naturally voiced our serious concerns about this.

However, following a series of exchanges, the EHRC’s eventual response here does state that they will be considering a range of the issues that were raised. We will monitor this closely.

Regarding the second letter sent to the Chief Medical Officer, we asked her to consider Men’s Health as the focus for her 2015 Annual Report (each annual report refers to the previous year’s work), and if she shoes not to do so, to provide a full explanation why she will not be matching her 2014 report on women’s health with an equivalent report on men’s health.

In her response to our request, she said she has already chosen her subject for the 2015 report but that she would consider Men’s Health for 2016.

However, she also said there are other subjects she has in mind so there is no guarantee. She also declined to give an explanation on why Men’s Health was not the chosen subject after Women’s Health in 2014. The copy of Dame Sally Davies’ response is here.

We’ll keep you updated with any further developments on both of these campaigns when we hear more.

Does the NUS have a man problem?

by 15 Comments

Aaron Golightly, a journalism graduate from Bournemouth University, was disturbed to read of the NUS’ dismissive response to recent findings by a major think tank that universities need to do more to support male students. Here he asks, is this just one example of a pattern of NUS failures to support male students?

On May 12 the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) published a 64-page report that concluded young men were not performing as well as women in higher education. However if you imagined that the National Union of Students would respond to these findings with a resolve to tackle the widening inequality gap in this area, you’d be wrong.

On the publication of the findings, Nick Hillman, co-author of the report and the Director of HEPI, said: “Nearly everyone seems to have a vague sense that our education system is letting young men down, but there are few detailed studies of the problem and almost no clear policy recommendations on what to do about it.

“Young men are much less likely to enter higher education, are more likely to drop out and are less likely to secure a top degree than women. Yet, aside from initial teacher training, only two higher education institutions currently have a specific target to recruit more male students. That is a serious problem that we need to tackle.”

“Battle of the sexes?”

The response from NUS vice president Sorana Vieru, quoted in the Independent dismissing the findings, was that the report took a “complex and nuanced issue and turned it into a ‘battle of the sexes’.” It’s impossible not to reserve some admiration for an individual who accuses a 12,000 word report of ignoring nuance and complexity within the confines of a soundbite, yet I find it difficult to believe that if you replaced the words ‘young men’ with perhaps ‘young women’, their response to the report would be so glib and contemptuous.

The NUS do campaign against inequality in a number of different areas affecting women, LGBT and black and ethnic minorities. One group that it seems to constantly overlook however is men. If you trawl the website looking for various campaigns and issues that they’ve seen fit to promote over the years you’ll notice one rather glaring omission. Whilst there exists multiple references to their fight against ‘Lad Culture’, including their own 38-page audit report, there doesn’t appear to be room to address either the subject of male suicides or the widening gap between male and female university applicants.

The Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM) reports that in 2014 there were 4,623 male suicides in the UK, the single biggest cause of death in men under 45. Given that probably around half of all members are likely to be young men, it’s an issue that would seem a natural fit for the NUS to champion, but you’d be wrong. It’s difficult to find a single thing that anyone from the NUS has ever said urging prioritised concern for this issue, let alone evidence of a concerted and organised national campaign to raise awareness of it.

“Do they just not like men?”

It’s not just at national level where what might be described, at best, as willful ignorance of the subject matter exists. Recently Durham University’s Student Union rejected an application from students wishing to establish a Men’s society that sought specifically to create an environment where male students could address issues such as mental health and suicide where otherwise they might feel uncomfortable or perhaps even less macho doing so.

Does the NUS not care specifically that suicide is the biggest killer of their male members or do they just not like men? You could easily conclude the latter if you perused the Twitter history of NUS committee member Sarah Noble who last year was suspended from the Liberal Democrats for Tweeting her desire to “kill all men”.

If you’re gay and reading this and think that at least you’ll be immune from the blatant misandry then I’ve some bad news. Earlier this year the NUS called for all LGBT societies to drop the position of gay men’s representative in a motion that also concluded that gay males were the likely perpetrators of sexism, racism and transphobia. This assertion wasn’t backed up by facts and figures or even anecdotal testimony, so one can only assume that this conclusion was reached using the logic of: it’s men, innit.

A further, yet perhaps comparatively slight, example of how the NUS care little for the welfare of their male students is seen in their handling of domestic violence awareness. Nobody could or should seek to deny that domestic violence affects women disproportionately and that it is sensible to target awareness campaigns at them. Similar to how you’d imagine the NUS would target awareness on the issue of suicides on the group disproportionately affected (but don’t).

As part of their admirable ‘Recognise the Signs’ promotion of domestic violence awareness the webpage states:

“Domestic violence can also take place in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships, and can involve other family members, including children.”

Yet despite acknowledging that domestic violence exists within gay and bisexual relationships, the only support information they provide are the National Domestic Violence Helpline and Women’s Aid, two services that exclusively offer help and support to female victims of domestic violence. This oversight on its own could be considered innocuous, but within the general context of how the NUS seems to view men and the inequalities they face, it’s hard not to view the omission to provide information of any service that would help male victims as part of the ongoing culture of not seeing men’s issues as worthy of concern.

“Drinking from a mug of male tears”

The awful truth is that when it comes to representation from their union, male students are at the back of the queue. Your student rep is far more likely to drink from a ‘male tears’ mug than they are to have ever led or taken part in a cause that promotes awareness of male health issues.

You only have to look at the Twitter accounts of those in senior leadership positions, such as Vice president (Higher Education) Sorana Vieru who in September Tweeted: “I’m no fan of cis white men”.

Or the account of Shelly Asquith, who is, incredibly, Vice President (Welfare) at the National Union of Students, and boasted she was “drinking prosecco from a mug entitled (sic) Men’s Tears” and that she was repulsed at having to “face disgusting men” on her commute to work.

It should perhaps come as no surprise then, that young men feel unable to ask for help on mental health issues when structures that should be there to offer help and support, seem preoccupied with mocking and dismissing their concerns based on historical patriarchy that they had absolutely nothing to do with.

The failure of the NUS to be a prominent voice in campaigns to raise awareness of the issues of male suicides and male educational underachievement cannot continue to go unnoticed. As an organisation it has failed men by refusing to champion issues that affect male students, including suicide and the growing disadvantage men from certain working class backgrounds face in higher education. It’s either that the NUS don’t feel comfortable championing these issues, or it doesn’t care about them.

Either way it’s never been a better time to ask: Does the NUS have a man problem?

By Aaron Golightly

Photo courtesy Flickr/rawdonfox

Duke of Cambridge welcomes national task force on male suicide

by 12 Comments

Today the Duke of Cambridge will join the Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM) at the launch of a unique coalition of front-line services to help tackle the issue of male suicide, the single biggest killer of men under the age of 45 in the UK.

Convened by CALM, the coalition includes The Samaritans and front-line services from land, sea, and air: National Rail, Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), Highways England, British Transport Police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Chief Fire Officers Association and the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives.

The aim is to pool all members’ substantial expertise in dealing with suicide at first-hand to develop a resource which helps men identify and support others, and themselves, when down, depressed or suicidal. The coalition will also include male grooming brand Lynx, one of CALM’s key partners.

The Duke of Cambridge welcomes the coalition, to which he will bring his own experience as a Search and Rescue helicopter pilot. He will attend the coalition’s inaugural round table discussion and then visit the RNLI Tower Lifeboat Station to meet first responders who deal with male suicide on a daily basis.

With an estimated daily cost of £20 million, male suicide accounts for 76% of all suicides in the UK. It has a huge impact not only on individuals and families, but also on the workforce of many frontline services and other organisations.

Jane Powell, CEO of CALM, said: “Suicide is frequently bracketed as the actions of the ‘mentally ill’. However, from our helpline we know that men who are suicidal are often tackling the kinds of life problems which can affect any of us, male or female, although it’s damned hard for men to admit to needing help or even find it. With the support of these male-dominated industries who know only too well the impact of suicide, we’re determined to normalise getting men help.”

Jonny Benjamin, who was stopped from jumping from a bridge by a stranger, said:“It’s great to see this fantastic coalition of emergency and transport agencies come together with CALM and Samaritans around the issue of male suicide. There is a real need for a resource to help men feel able to offer help, whether that’s a stranger on a bridge or your best mate.”

The male suicide prevention coalition is announced ahead of Mental Health Awareness Week (16 – 22 May) and the launch of Heads Together, a national campaign spearheaded by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry to promote mental wellbeing.

‘Masculinity isn’t toxic — our attitudes to it are’

by 20 Comments

On Thursday night the world-famous, 200-year-old Cambridge Union Society — whose speakers have included everyone from Stephen Fry to the Dalai Lama — hosted a debate entitled: “This House Believes Masculinity is Damaging to Everyone”.

The six panelists debating the motion included insideMAN’s Features Editor, Dan Bell; Samaritans CEO, Ruth Sutherland; Marketing Director of the Lad Bible, Mimi Turner and Clinical Psychologist, Mental Health Campaigner and friend of insideMAN, Martin Seager.

Here’s the presentation Martin made as part of his powerful argument in opposition to the motion:

  1. Masculinity isn’t harmful or toxic, just our attitudes to it including the title of this debate! The implication is that masculinity requires genetic or social engineering! The masculine gender is the only group not protected by political correctness – the only group whose identity we can publicly demonise and get away with it – we don’t ask women, homosexual or disabled people or faith or ethnic groups to change who they are – we celebrate their identity – but we never celebrate things masculine – even Shakespeare is never celebrated for his gender – soldiers are never thanked for their gender — we only ever see the bad side of masculinity.
  1. Masculinity and femininity of course are the Yin and Yang of the Universe – they come as a system and shape each other.
  1. Masculinity isn’t something we choose or a role we play – that would insult transgender people for a start – it is an embodied and evolved part of our species. Gender is not a stereotype — it’s in fact closer to a universal archetype: You can’t split the mind and the body.
  1. It’s equally bad science to see gender as fixed and completely separate from each other – in science differences are measured by averages and there is room for a lot of individual variation and no human is 100% masculine or feminine.
  1. Even if masculine gender was just socialisation – males are raised largely by female adults – so what would that tell us about femininity and the origins of masculinity?
  1. My main point, however, is that males have evolved to protect the social group – the opposite of damaging it.
  1. Our freedom and democracy is based on much male sacrifice. Even at the height of “patriarchy” soldiers without the vote had to die in WWI because of their gender – the Battle of the Somme was near enough exactly a century ago – think Baldrick not Lord Melchett! – we never celebrate the gender of all these soldiers – and on the Titanic the average male survival rate was 20%, but for females 74% — so masculinity has always been about protecting women and children even at times of so called “male privilege”.
  1. Society to this day tolerates massive inequalities in risk, harm and death to males: There is an “empathy gap” — work related deaths are 97% male, homelessness 84%, addiction 75%, life expectancy — a four-year gap, suicides are 78% male, without any gender policy or strategy to tackle these issues. This “male gender blindness” reflects the assumed role of the male as protector. Working class male life (builders, soldiers, servicemen, miners, deep sea fishermen, bin men) carries on as before, unchanged – we all depend on it – it protects us and the risks are necessary.
  1. Masculinity, like anything, can be damaging when taken to extremes – macho culture is clearly not helpful, but this is only one extreme version of masculinity, not the norm.
  1. When damaged, genders do show different patterns of behavioural disturbance – men can be physically violent, sexually aggressive and abusive – but these are a damaged minority, an extreme that is not representative of a whole gender.
  1. Domestic violence in any case is 40% female on male but no-one takes male victimhood seriously and it is under-reported. Social psychology street experiments show that the same level of physical force used by male-on-female perpetrators elicits serious and horrified responses from the public, but female-on-male abuse elicits disregard or even humour.
  1. In the discourse around mental health, masculinity is not respected – it’s seen as emotionally illiterate and men are blamed for not opening up, when it is we who need to listen differently and honour the male gender and emotional style in the way we design services. When this happens  men do talk, open up and get better – men are not emotionally illiterate but differently literate.
  1. The positive value of masculine emotional life is never celebrated – e.g. control and focus in dangerous situations.
  1. It is not men or masculinity that’s toxic, it is our society that is toxic towards things masculine – just as society needed to change to support female identity, rights and needs, it’s also society that needs to change to help men, not men who need to stop being male.

To read about the excellent presentation made by Samaritans CEO, Ruth Sutherland, see their release here

Photo credit: The Samaritans

The rise of the men’s issues radio show

by Leave a Comment

Last month saw the first edition of Talking Men, a six-part radio series on Cambridge 105, that’s specifically devoted to tackling issues that affect men and boys.

It’s one of a growing number of local and national radio shows generating exciting new conversations about what it means to be a man in the UK today — from PonderLab in Manchester, also launched in March, to The Naked Man Show in Frome and the BBC’s nationally broadcast Men’s Hour.

All three follow in the footsteps of Men’s Matters in Portsmouth, presented by James Williams, which although no longer on air, broke new ground in addressing a wide range of hard-hitting issues, such male victims of domestic violence, suicide, and fathers’ post-separation relationships with their children.

Digging deeper

Cambridge 105’s Talking Men is the brainchild of local radio presenter, Matt Webb – who himself has suffered from depression and who has dedicated air time to men’s issues in the past, including special programmes around men’s mental health and International Men’s Day.

This new dedicated programme — which airs monthly on Wednesdays at 14:30 as part of Matt’s Afternoon show — aims to dig deep into some of the issues affecting men and boys in society, with a specific emphasis on Cambridge men.

As part of the new series, Matt is joined every month by Nigel Beaumont, a trained counsellor who will be exploring different therapies for men suffering from mental health problems.

There’s also a monthly wrap up of all the men’s issues and men’s health news in the aptly named ‘Men’s Bits’.

Stepping out of the shadows

Matt told insideMAN about what inspired him to launch a male-focused radio show.

“Presenting a men’s issues show or feature is often met with mixed views. On the one hand you can sit back and not produce a show and people will say ‘why isn’t there a men’s show, you have a women’s show’. On the other hand you can step out of the shadows and produce a programme targeting specific issues and topics affecting men and you’re frowned upon.

“I feel fortunate that the radio station I’m head of production for; we’re open-minded about producing a broad range of programmes, appealing to all members of society.

“At Cambridge 105, we’re always looking to produce programmes for underserved members of the community – and explore issues which are often overlooked by mainstream media outlets. In the case of men’s issues, it seemed to me like a great topic to explore and when the opportunity to produce a series came up, I was glad to take it. I have personal experience of mental health, having battled with depression myself for several years.

‘If the response is good, I’d like to air all year round’

“There are so many topics that affect men across Cambridge and the UK. You only have to look at the massive rates of suicide in men under 45; boy’s lagging attainment in schools, the increase in male victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, the rise in men who are homeless and issues surrounding paternity leave and pay. I’ve only mentioned a handful of issues here, but there are many more that need exploring.

“We hope to discuss as many issues as we can over this six-month Talking Men series and if the response rate is good from listeners, I would certainly look at making the feature into a regular spot all year round.

 “Our series compliments the station’s newly launched ‘Cambridge Women’ programme which also airs monthly. Both myself and the presenter of the women’s show, Kay Blayney, are keen for both shows to support one another and cross promote issues and topics where possible. There’s even a special joint show on the cards for International Men’s Day on 19 November.

 “If you have any men’s features you’d like to discuss or perhaps you’d like to appear as a guest – please email me: matt@cambridge105.fm.”

 You can listen back to the first edition of Talking Men here

Photo credit: Museokeskus Vapriikki

Has the UK become institutionally sexist against men and boys?

by 8 Comments

From suicide and homelessness, to boys’ educational underachievement and the lack of provision for male domestic violence victims, there is an on-going and conspicuous silence from Government in terms of addressing the issues that primarily affect men and boys. Why?

On Thursday, as part of a series of talks by UCL’s Gender Equity Network, Mark Brooks, equalities campaigner and Chairman of male domestic violence charity The Mankind Initiative, presented detailed research into the structures of Government, the third sector and the media that determine the UK’s approaches to tackling gender issues.

His troubling conclusion was that over the past 40 years, an ingrained set of attitudes and structures have developed in Government, policy and the media that oppose discussion and corresponding action on issues that adversely affect the well-being of men and boys.

You can see his full presentation in the videos below. What do you think?

Part 1:

Part 2:

More than 40 advocates for men and boys sign joint letter calling for equal focus on men’s health

by 12 Comments

Why is the Government’s most senior advisor on public health refusing to put equal focus on the health of men and women?

That is the key question asked by a joint letter to Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies, signed this weekend by insideMAN and 40 other leading advocates for the well being of men and boys.

At the end of 2015, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) published her 2014 Annual Report, entitled “Health of the 51%: Women”; following this the Men’s Health Forum wrote to Dame Sally Davies asking for her 2015 Annual Report to focus on men’s health.

She turned down this request to place equal focus on the issues that affect men and also refused to give any commitment to producing any report focusing on men’s health in the future.

Here are a handful of the health inequalities faced by men that urgently need addressing:

  • 75% of premature deaths from heart disease are male
  • Once cancers that can only affect one sex or the other are taken out of the figures – men are then 67% more likely to die from cancer
  • One man in five dies before the age of 65
  • Men are four times as likely to kill themselves
  • Men are more likely to be addicted to drugs and alcohol

The CMO is the most senior advisor on health matters in a Government, with a particular remit to focus on the health needs of communities as opposed to individuals.

To specifically produce a report highlighting concern for women’s health, but then to refuse to produce any equivalent report on the many urgent health issues experienced primarily by men, is totally unacceptable.

But more than this, it raises worrying questions about the attitudes towards the well being of men and boys’ that are embedded at the very heart of Government.

One of the most common explanations for men’s worse health outcomes is that men are bad at looking after themselves – in other words, it’s essentially men’s own fault that they get treatment later and die younger than women.

But the fact that one of the Government’s key individual’s tasked with focusing awareness on public health, appears to openly treat men’s health as less important than women’s, suggests that it’s not just men who are to blame for their own poor health.

You can read the letter and list of signatories in full here

What happened when a male student gave a talk on men’s issues to his university’s Feminist Society?

by 78 Comments

At times it seems as if the debate around gender on university campuses has rarely been more volatile and polarised. On the one hand, there are frequent reports of intolerance on campus towards non-feminist views, with student men’s societies being blocked by feminist campaigners and last year’s plans to mark International Men’s Day at the University of York vetoed by a joint letter from students and professors. On the other, the NUS and feminist campaigners claim sexist “Lad Culture” is rife on university campuses.

So in light of all this, you might think it would be a brave man indeed who would offer to give a talk on men’s issues to his university’s Feminist Society. But that is exactly what third-year Surrey University psychology student Mike Parker did to mark International Men’s Day in November last year.

Here he describes what happened — it may both surprise you and give you reason for hope that the gender war may not be as intractable as at times it may appear.

Up until November last year, all my discussions around the contemporary issues facing men had been online. A very small corner of a particular website where, for the most part, I could expect most people to agree with me. Not exactly the most productive past time, I know. So when my University’s Feminist Society, of which I am an occasional member, invited me to give a talk on men’s issues I leapt at the opportunity. I asked my subscribers on YouTube and great organisations like the Mankind Initiative, SurvivorsUK and insideMAN what I should cover, before devoting time probably better spent on my degree researching and structuring a talk.

‘Culture of silence’

So, with the muffled sound of a jazz band playing below us, giving an inappropriately chirpy air to a talk about domestic violence, sexual assault, suicide and depression, I presented my case to a surprisingly full room of feminists as to why they should care about men’s issues. I titled my talk “Silent Sufferers” because, as far as I can tell in both politics and general life, men and their issues are systematically ignored. There is quite simply a culture of silence when it comes to men’s issues. Perhaps after that night, though, they’ll be a few more voices speaking out for them.

To be sure, I did not pull any punches. I opened by talking about domestic violence, and laid out the rather damning critique of the feminist theory in domestic violence research that researchers like Prof. Murray Straus have presented. I explained the suppression of data and the harassment of researchers whose findings acknowledge female perpetrators and male victims, by people calling themselves feminists, and in the name of feminism. And to the credit of the society, they simply took this on board. No heckles, no complaints, no “how dare you!”s. Just an acceptance of “this happened”. Later, during the discussion, I asked if anyone had any disagreements. When they said no, I was surprised. “No-one found any of this controversial?” I asked. “Well it was all controversial”, someone replied “But you presented us with good evidence so we can’t really disagree with you.”

Buy our book of 40 groundbreaking perspectives on men and masculinity here!

I couldn’t have asked for a better result, to be honest. To have people admit to simply being convinced by sheer weight of evidence is rare in any situation, and many of my online comrades in men’s issues think it is impossible when it comes to feminists. In fairness, the odds were perhaps stacked in my favour. I’m a regular member of the society, and my particular “studenty”, pro-feminist and leftist brand of men’s liberation might be a bit more palatable to them than the political opinions of many online men’s issues advocates. But then I would argue that for anyone to have any effect they need to integrate into other groups and make bridges, so perhaps the ease of convincing them was just a sign of this particular approach working.

In reality I realise that this will change little. As well intentioned as the people in the room were, and no matter how convinced they were that action was needed, none of them are in any position of power. They do have a few projects which, either on the initiative of someone else or by my insistence, have been broadened to include men’s issues. It’s a start, but it’s unlikely to change the culture of silence overnight. But though they cannot change anything directly, they can start to change the narrative. Perhaps the next time someone talks about rape or domestic violence only as a woman’s issue, or say that men need no help at all, one of them will perk up with a “well actually” and be able to use the evidence I gave them for a good cause. Perhaps, even if it’s only at one small pocket of one small, distinctly south England university, the culture of silence has been broken.

Mike Parker is currently a third year psychology student at the University of Surrey. He is also a walking online cliche, covering men’s issues and his Humanist beliefs on YouTube when he should really be studying. Visit his YouTube channel here

A member of the Surrey University Feminist Society gave their response to hearing Mike’s talk, you can read it here

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

by 51 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ed Mumby

You can read the article Mike wrote about his talk here

Is this Virgin Active ad an example of #EveryDaySexism against men?

by 2 Comments

Here’s a quick thought experiment, what would you think of a man who did the following?

He meets a woman for a first date then ditches her because she isn’t good looking enough by climbing out of a toilet window, leaving her sitting on her own at the restaurant.

He dodges a kiss from another woman by imagining her as an opponent in a boxing match.

He mocks a woman because he doesn’t like the present she gave him.

He spots an attractive woman running in the park, then turns around and chases after her.

He goes to the gym and gets sexually aroused by the vibrations of one of the gym machines.

You’d probably think he was a sexist, shallow, creepy and selfish arsehole, right?

Except that’s exactly what a woman does to a series of men in the Virgin Active advert below.

So why, when we would feel so differently about it if she were a man, does this advert present her behaviour as charming, sexy, and even something to aspire to?

Sure, the advert is harmless enough, but it’s an example of how so often when it comes to calling out #EveryDaySexism, sauce for the gander is rarely also sauce for the goose.