insideMAN

The Red Pill Movie: who is the victor in this tale of heroes and villains? 

by 55 Comments

This week I watched the Red Pill movie, the new documentary in which a 29-year-old, feminist filmmaker, Cassie Jaye, explores the world of Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) in North America writes Glen Poole.

It was an interesting experience as I have met and have shared platforms with at least five of the people interviewed in the film including Warren Farrell, author of The Myth of Male Power, who wrote in 1993:

“Feminism articulated the shadow side of men and the light side of women, but neglected the shadow side of women and the light side of men”.

By contrast, it can be argued that MRAs highlight only the light side of anti-feminism and the dark side of feminism. Cathy Young, whose 1999 book, Ceasefire, called for men and women to join forces to achieve true equality, has already made this point in her review of Red Pill, saying:

“MRA critiques of [feminism] are well-deserved: With few exceptions, feminism has not only ignored male disadvantages but openly opposed attempts to rectify biases in such areas as child custody and domestic violence.”

Young goes on to argue that anti-feminism (in the form or Men’s Rights Activism), also has a dark side. “One valid criticism of The Red Pill,” she says “is that it soft-pedals or evades the extreme, even genuinely misogynist rhetoric spouted by some of its subjects”.

Who’s promoting real diversity?  

Here at insideMAN, we receive many comments from MRAs around the world that point to this dark side, such as the following comment on an article written by a pro-feminist who had changed his mind about marking International Men’s Day:

“Feminists have made their filthy, sticky, flea-ridden bed and this time they are going to have to lie in it. Lucky for them, lying is what they do best. It boils down to this, Feminism now has 2 simple options: 1) Get out of our way OR 2) Be utterly destroyed. Choose!”

On the same article, we saw the lighter side of MRAs in this comment from Peter Wright, who works alongside some of the key characters in The Red Pill movie:

“It’s true that feminists are the strongest promoters of diversity on the planet,” said Wright “yet ironically display the most ignorance of real diversity among those supporting men’s issues — which most all feminists lump into the one category of “men’s rights activists” before dismissing that variety of voices and even censoring them. In that notorious ‘feminist’ move a great range of diversity is lost.”

If you want to make sense of where The Red Pill sits in the messy world of gender politics, then you need a map to guide you. A map, as they say, is not the territory but it contains enough truth to help you make sense of the terrain you are navigating.

http://heatst.com/culture-wars/new-film-the-red-pill-asks-whether-mens-rights-activist-have-a-point/

A map of gender politics 

So there are two things to keep in mind when watching The Red Pill.

Firstly, there are a whole load of binary pairings at play: men/women; feminism/anti-feminism; men’s issues/women’s issues; men’s rights/women’s rights. Each component has a light side and a shadow side. If you want the whole picture, you need to see all sides—and if you want to know where someone is standing, simply observe which sides they highlight or exaggerate and which sides they ignore or deny.

Secondly, there is a whole world of conflation at play, both in the male corner (between men’s issues/men’s rights/men’s rights activists/anti-feminism) and in the female corner (between women’s issues/women’s rights/feminism/gender equality).

As the comment by Peter Wright suggests, there is a broad church of people who are concerned about and committed to addressing men’s issues and most of us are not MRAs or anti-feminists.

I wrote recently in The Telegraph about the First National Conference for Men and Boys in 2011, which saw nearly 100 organisations sign a joint letter to the Government, calling for more focus on the specific needs of men and boys and how to address them. Reading the list of signatories provides a useful snapshot of the diversity of people committed to making a difference for men and boys in the UK, most of whom do not identify as either feminist or anti-feminist/MRA.

What about the non-feminist majority? 

A recent poll by the Fawcett Society, for example, found that while the majority of people “believe in equality for women and men”, only 7% of people identify as feminist and 4% as anti-feminists. This means that around 93% of people in the UK are not feminist, we are non-feminist. Further more, the overwhelming majority of all non-feminists do NOT identify as being anti-feminist.

As the libertarian conservative blogger, Anthony Masters, has observed: “It is worth remembering that public debates between a self-described feminist and anti-feminist will only represent about 11% of the adult population.”

So while MRAs and others point out, quite rightly, that feminism is not the same thing as gender equality, by the same token, anti-feminism and men’s rights activism, is not the same thing as men’s issues, as I discuss in the article: Is International Men’s Day About Men’s Rights or Men’s Issues?

It’s not about men’s issues

If you want a map to navigate your way through The Red Pill or know what to expect, here’s what you need to know:

a) It’s not about men’s issues. Yes it highlights some of the key men’s issues that continue to be overlooked, but it doesn’t explore any of those issues in depth. Take suicide as just one example, the movie will give you the American statistics on male suicide but provides no understanding of why the rates are so high or how we can stop it.

b) It’s not about the MRA movement. If you want a 360 degree understanding of MRAs then this isn’t the film for you. In making this film, Cassie Jaye will help you see the lighter side of anti-feminist, men’s rights activism and the darker side of feminism. She does so fairly and without recourse to exaggeration or denial, but she also ignores the darker side of men’s rights activism and the lighter side of feminism.

I offer these observations as way-markers rather than criticism, for anyone who is interested in the whole map of gender issues and wants to know what territory The Red Pill does and doesn’t explore.

Belinda Brown: The Red Pill is a film that could finish off feminism

What is this film actually about? 

So if it isn’t about men’s issues or men’s rights activists, what or who is the film about?

The answer lies in identifying the “hero” in the piece, which is an easy job for anyone who knows anything about the theory of scriptwriting or ise familiar with Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero With A Thousand Faces”.

The “hero” of the film is Cassie Jaye. It is she who takes the archetypal “hero’s journey” that has dominated human storytelling for millennia and returns to where she started, a changed woman who knows that things will never be the same again.

“The truth is somewhere in the middle,” she says. “There are so many perspectives on gender and I believe they are all worth listening to, however, the conversation is being silenced. I don’t know where I’m headed, but I know what I left behind. I no longer call myself a feminist.”

The Red Pill is ultimately a biopic documentary that charts how a woman who identified as feminist (like 7% of the UK population) spent time with some people who identify as anti-feminists (like 4% of the UK population) and ended neither feminist nor anti-feminist (like nearly 90% of the UK population).

Building a better future 

Personally, I ended the film in the same place that I started, convinced that the most effective way to address men’s issues in the UK and beyond is to engage and mobilize more of the 90% (the non-feminists) in tackling the problems that men and boys face and understanding the different ways that the noisiest (and at times most powerful) 10% or so, can both help and hinder our progress.

It is sometimes said that minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open.What The Red Pill reveals is that the world needs more open-minded people, like Cassie Jaye, who are prepared to think about gender issues in a way that considers both the light and dark sides of feminism and anti-feminism; rather than the censorious feminists who have tried to stop the film being shown in Australia or the anti-feminist who stood up to make this comment at the end of a screening in London:

“Feminism cannot be negotiated with, it’s a female supremacy movement driven by the hatred of men and to me the idea that you can negotiate with feminists or that feminists will cede power to men and boys…it’s as fanastic as Jews in the Second World War thinking the Nazis would help them.”

It’s an entirely false victim-narrative that infantilizes men and suggests we have no agency or personal power to address the issues that men and boys face, unless feminists “get out of our way or be utterly destroyed”.

Can feminism be a barrier to addressing men’s issues? Yes it can, as sure as gravity can be barrier to human flight! Is destroying feminism the answer to the problems men and boys face. Of course not. That’s not the way to stop suicide or improve boys’ education or end workplace deaths or tackle homelessness or improve men’s experiences (and rights) as fathers. Those kinds of complex human problems need men and women to apply the same kind of world-changing thought and action to gender issues, that the Wright brothers applied in their successful battle to overcome and work with gravity, to reach for the sky.

Belinda Brown has argued in her review of The Red Pill on the Conservative Woman blog that the answer to gender issues cannot come from feminism as long as “it is a movement that is based on the assumption that women are victims and men are bad”. What is missing from her argument, is an equal and opposite acknowledgment that the answer to gender issues cannot come from an anti-feminist movement that is based on the assumption that men are victims and feminists are bad.

So while as many as 10% of the population seem to think that the answer to all gender issues is to either dismantle patriarchy or destroy feminism, the vast majority of us, like Cassie Jaye, think “the truth is somewhere in the middle” and want to build a better future.

Glen Poole has recently published his latest book, You Can Stop Male Suicide, which is available to buy online from www.StopMaleSuicide.com.

Should feminists celebrate International Men’s Day?

by 5 Comments

Today a former critic of International Men’s Day (IMD), Joseph Gelfer, says it’s time for feminists to cautiously embrace the day. Here our news editor and UK Co-ordinator for IMD, Glen Poole, explores feminism’s evolving relationship with the day.

It’s International Men’s Day next month (Saturday 19th November). Launched in its current format in 1999, the annual day of observance, shines a spotlight on some of the issues facing men and boys around the world.

The binary nature of gender is such, that traditional women’s rights advocates have positioned themselves in rigid opposition to the day, but we are beginning to see a backlash within feminism, from a younger generation of more fluid and inclusive feminists, who see no conflict in expressing concern for both men’s issues and women’s issues.

Is International Men’s Day about Men’s Rights or Men’s Issues?

 

In an article for insideMAN, Joseph Gelfer, a researcher on men and masculinities explains why he has shifted from opposing International Men’s Day (IMD),  to saying he would “rather take the good with the bad than reject IMD in totality”. This marks a break with the position taken by many leading male feminists who have consistently opposed the day’s existence.

http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2016/11/01/i-changed-mind-international-mens-day/

Back in 2004, the feminist scholar Michael Flood, published an “an open letter of rejection” saying that IMD was at best naïve and “at worst hostile anti-feminist” and called for men’s organisations and their allies to boycott the day.

This feminist-led opposition to International Men’s Day has continued for more than a decade now. Last year, the University of York’s Equality and Diversity committee was forced to withdraw plans to mark IMD after academics, students and alumni complained that by saying “gender equality is for everyone” the committee was echoing “misogynistic rhetoric” about women’s rights being given greater priority than men’s issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/19/international-mens-day-what-celebrating

While leading male feminists, such as Michael Kaufman, founder of the global White Ribbon campaign to end men’s violence against women and girls, have acknowledged that that IMD focuses on some of the very real problems that men and boys face, they still oppose the day.

Both Kaufman and his fellow commentator on men and masculinities, Michael Kimmel, have observed that IMD’s support for gender equality has grown over the years, but argue the annual event should be scrapped or replaced, because it isn’t feminist enough.

For Kaufman and his colleague, Gary Barker of Promundo, an NGO dedicated to transforming masculinity,  “the problem with the IMD idea is that men’s vulnerabilties” are not placed within the context of “the ongoing oppression of women”. Kimmel also takes issue with the framing of IMD, wondering if it is “inspired by feminism or opposed to it”, as if there were just two binary choices when it comes to gender politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kaufman-phd/international-mens-day-wh_b_4302641.html

But asking if IMD should support feminism, is like asking if Easter or Fathers’ Day or Wednesdays should support feminism. It’s a date in the global calendar, that long outgrew its founder in Trinidad & Tobago and neither he, nor anyone else, has the power or authority to control how millions of people around the world mark IMD.

Like feminism and masculinity, it is unhelpful to think of International Men’s Day as a singular, homogenous thing. If there are “feminisms” and “masculinities” and “femininities”, then there are also “International Men’s Days”.

So the question of whether IMD should support feminism is an irrelevance, the question for feminists all over the world, is what does your International Men’s Day project look like and how will you “do” your feminism on IMD this year?

Since taking on the role of national co-ordinator for IMD in the UK, with the support of the day’s founder, our aim has been to create the day as an open and inclusive platform, where we can focus on the many different issues that men and boys face.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10456888/Do-we-really-need-an-International-Mens-Day.html

In 2011, we hosted a national conference in the run up to IMD, where our aim was to look beyond the view that “women HAVE problems and men ARE problems” and explore the problems that men and boys have, in addition to, not in opposition to, the problems women and girls have.

After the event, around 100 individuals and organisations who either attended or were supportive, signed a joint letter to Government. The signatories included charities dealing with male victims of intimate violence; organisations helping separated dads; people working with gay, bisexual and transgender men; advocates for black men and boys and a campaigner for equal paternity leave, who now supports the Women’s Equality Party.

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

 

It was a diverse mix of non-feminists, pro-feminists and a few anti-feminists; each with their own unique views on how to address men’s issues, but united in the belief that we can and should do more the help men and boys.

In the UK, this is what International Men’s Day is all about.  It is a piece of inclusive public theatre that invites everyone to take part and create their own unique International Men’s Days.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-international-mens-day-about-as-much-as-a-white-history-month-or-able-body-action-day-a6740646.html

 

As such, anyone is free to take the stage, hide in the wings, sit back and watch or heckle from the sidelines, but whatever choice we make will shine a spotlight on how we “do” our gender politics.

For the MP, Jess Philips, for example,  “doing feminism” on International Men’s Day last year, meant opposing a debate about men’s issues in parliament and engaging in what one commentator described as “politically inept”, “cowardly flipflopping”.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/jess-phillips-is-not-my-hero/17730#.WBfG6OF97Uo

Others decided to do their feminism in more constructive ways. The feminist director, the South Bank Centre, Jude Kelly, moved the “Being a Man” festival to November, to coincide with IMD and said:

“Events like International Men’s Day and Southbank Centre’s Being a Man festival are helping men to investigate what conflicts the modern man faces in a world where everything is changing: work, family, image and gender balance.”

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/international-mens-day-helping-men-talk-about-being-a-man/

 

Then there was the student in York, Ruth Morris, who showed the 200 academics, students and alumni signed an open letter opposing IMD that they weren’t doing feminism in her name. Ruth set up a petition that that garnered over 4,000 signatures by declaring:

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

And for me personally, most heartening of all, was the decision of University of Surrey’s Feminist Society, who invited a male student to research and present a talk on men’s issues. In response a spokesperson for the society said:

http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2016/02/16/4655/

 

“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.”

Yes, there are many different feminisms and yes, there are many different International Men’s Days and what Joseph Gelfer, Jude Kelly, Ruth Morris and the University of Surrey’s Feminist Society show us, is that it is entirely possible to do your feminism in a way that is supportive of International Men’s Day, without compromising your principles or commitment to gender equality.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2015/11/18/why-i-am-done-arguing-about-international-mens-day/

 

Glen Poole has recently published his latest book, You Can Stop Male Suicide, which is available to buy online from www.StopMaleSuicide.com.

 

 

How the local media shamed male readers into fighting in WW1

by 8 Comments

Reporting what happened in World War One won’t make a difference unless we also take time to reflect, writes Glen Poole.

I spotted a fascinating article in my local newspaper this week, revealing how the paper had done it’s bit for the war effort in 1914 by shaming its male readers into signing up.

The article interested me for two reasons. Firstly it added to my understanding of the great web of social pressure that pushed men into the “protect and provide” mode of masculinity a century ago. In particular, it highlighted the role that employers played in pressurising their young male staff to die for king and country, a factor I hadn’t previously considered.

Secondly, it provided evidence of the way local newspapers shamed their male readers into sacrificing their lives and it did so with no sense of guilt, regret or reflection. In a section dedicated to showing today’s readers what the local media was talking about 100 years ago, the paper proudly declared:

“Sussex men were being castigated for any unwillingness to sign up……The Argus reported an appeal for the Sussex battalion of Lord Kitchener’s expeditionary force of 100,000 men was short of soldiers. Our reporter said the response from the county had not been sufficient, that our men were “lagging behind” and were in danger of reflecting badly on the honour of Sussex.”

Taking pride in shaming men

That’s right, the newspaper told its young male readers that they were bringing shame on their county by failing to join the slaughter of the First World War and appealed to all local men under 30 to enlist.

Furthermore, the paper gave its backing to local companies who were openly dismissing young male workers who failed to put themselves in line to kill and be killed, describing the businesses who sacked these young men as “patriotic employers”.

The paper gave the example of a local tailor who responded to the initial article “by questioning why shop assistants and clerks with “no outlook” were hanging around the streets after hours rather than enlisting”. Taking the matter into his own hands, the tailor told the paper that he “approached two assistants in his employment who were under 30 and left them under no illusions that he would have no need for their service unless they attempted to enlist”.

And that was it. No reflection, no regret, no shame (or justification even) for the newspaper’s role in shaming its young male readers into overcoming the most base, individual, human instinct—to survive—and to sacrifice their potential futures to the horrors of industrial warfare in the name of the greater good.

The silence is deafening 

Unwritten, between the casual lines of nostalgia that mark the violent deaths of young men in their millions one hundred years ago, is a huge, collective, silent shrug that whispers “what else could we do?”

It’s understandable. How can any individual make sense of the mass killing of global war? But this little question, the simple, childlike question “Why?” is so overwhelmingly ponderous, there is a danger we will avoid it altogether and simply report the centenary of World War One without reflection.

I don’t pretend to have the answer to this question. When I reflect on World War One, I simply count my blessings that I wasn’t born a man at a time when I would be required to either fight for my country or face the consequences of objection. I don’t have an answer to the question “Why?” but I will keep asking this question throughout the centenary of World War One.

Maybe the conscientious objectors in my local area didn’t dare to go to war, but they did dare to question it and when they asked themselves “Why?” they should enlist for the Sussex Battalion, they could come up with no acceptable answer.

As we look back on 1914 and consider the experiences of the men and boys who faced the fears of fighting (and the men and boys who faced the shame of not fighting), we owe it to each and every one of them to keep asking the question: “Why? Why? Why?”

—Photo credit: Flickr/Jenny Downing

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

Also on insideMAN:

Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission, What About The Men?

by 8 Comments

What About The MenLast week I was proud to be one of the signatories on a joint letter to the Equalities And Human Rights Commission (EHRC) calling for the commission to address men’s issues in its 2016-2019 strategic plan, writes Glen Poole.

It’s a simple letter flagging up issues like male suicide; men’s health; boys’ education; violence against men and boys; the challenges fathers face and negative portrayals of men, boys and fathers.

There are 38 signatories including academics, charity leaders and journalists and while we all have different views—different gender politics—we all agree that these issues deserve more focus and attention.

So I want to be clear from the start of this exploration of men and gender equality in the UK,  that the views expressed in this article are mine and mine alone and outline why I think the EHRC  will continue to fail to address the many issues that men and boys face in the UK.

In this piece I’ll be covering:

  • My own gender politics
  • Some data demonstrating that more people support gender equality than support feminism
  • Some recent history on coalitions and networks supporting men and boys in the UK
  • My thoughts on the EHRC approach to gender equality

And for the context, the EHRC was set up by government and is an independent body. Only two of its 12 senior positions are occupied by men and in relations to men and boys it has a duty to:

  • Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation of men and boys
  • Advance equality of opportunity between ‘men and boys’ and ‘women and girls’
  • Foster good relations between ‘men and boys’ and ‘women and girls’

The personal is political

In my view, the trouble with that EHRC has with men and boys is that all comes down to gender politics, so let me get my personal gender politics out on the table first.

I’m a non-feminist. I’ve been a card-carrying non-feminist since about 2010. I used to be a card-carrying feminist until about 15 years ago. I steadily moved away from a feminist worldview around the turn of the century after experiencing the discrimination faced by separated dads and observing feminism’s response as too often being sexist, anti-equality and deeply lacking in compassion and empathy for the suffering of separated men (and the men, women and children in their lives also affected by the separation).

I didn’t self-identify as a “non-feminist” until it became apparent that the constant attempts of others to label me as “feminist” or “anti-feminist” warranted a response. And so I “came out” as a loud, proud “non-feminist” man.

I’m not the first pro-feminist man to take the journey away from feminism. In the US, the author Warren Farrell left the feminist National Organization For Women (NOW) about forty years ago for the similar reasons as he revealed in 1997:

“Everything went well until the mid-seventies when NOW came out against the presumption of joint custody [of children following divorces]. I couldn’t believe the people I thought were pioneers in equality were saying that women should have the first option to have children or not to have children—that children should not have equal rights to their dad.”

Warren’s experience forty years ago reflects what an untold number of men and women believe:

  • That feminism, in practice, does not mean equality for all
  • That being non-feminist does NOT make you anti-equality (or anti-woman)

Some will disagree and some would want me to add that being feminist or pro-feminist doesn’t make you anti-equality or anti-men either. Such is the nature of gender politics—just like party politics and religion—we all tend to think that our view is the right view and everyone else is wrong.

So here’s my version of what the right view of gender politics is:

“THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG VIEW!”

That’s my radical view. It’s why I personally describe myself as a non-feminist, it allows me to stand in a space where I don’t have to take sides based on a label but am free to meet each issue, each individual and each viewpoint for the perspective of not what’s right or what’s wrong, but from a perspective of whether something works or not.

I recently criticised plans to give every 16-year-old boy in Sweden a book called “We Should All Be Feminists”, for example, not because I think its bad and wrong or because I’m anti-feminist, but because the idea that when it comes to gender politics we “should” all have the same worldview is simply fundamentalist—it doesn’t work!

Some anti-feminists have responded to this article by saying that I should declare myself an anti-feminist, but that’s just more of the same fundamentalist thinking. If you respond to me critiquing someone saying “we should all be feminists” by saying “you should be anti-feminist”, then you’ve missed the entire point of my argument—which doesn’t work!

By the same token, some feminists have responded by accusing me of ‘playing with labels’, telling me that non-feminsm isn’t really a thing and that I should declare myself a pro-feminist—which again misses the point of the argument—and doesn’t work!

All human beings have a gender political viewpoint, whether we are conscious of it or not—and if we want to raise people’s consciousness when it comes to gender politics then we need more than two boxes in which to place ourselves. If we want to ensure that the gender politics of powerful institutions like the EHRC; the Government Equalities Office; the European Institute of Gender Equality and UN Women (to name but a few) are representative of a broad range of gender political viewpoints—then we need more than two labels to help us navigate that challenge.

Why are gender political labels important?

In 2013, a YouGov survey asked Americans about their gender political viewpoints. This is what they found:

  • 20% said they were feminist (including 23% of women and 16% of men)
  • 9% said they were anti-feminist (including 13% of men and 5% of women)
  • 63% said they were neither feminist nor anti-feminist (64% of men and 62%).

What that tells us is that being “not-a-feminist-but-not-anti-feminist-either”—or a non-feminist if you prefer,  is not only the main gender political viewpoint amongst the general public, it’s also the most gender-equal viewpoint too, with around two thirds of men and women holding that view.

There are more than twice as many non-feminists than there are feminists and anti-feminists put together, but our views are too often drowned out in gender political debates and not present where they really count in the institutions set up to deal directly with gender equality issues.

The figures in the UK are very similar with a narrower (and differently worded) poll revealing that:

  • 19% said they were feminist (including 27% of women and 10% of men)
  • 66% said they were not feminist (including 77% of men and 57% of women)
  • 15% said they were not sure (13% of men and 16% of women).

In the US survey, respondents were also asked if they believe that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals”. It’s an imperfect question because it depends what you think the people surveying actually mean by, for example political equality. Do they mean equal right to vote or quotas so that 50% of MPs are women or something else? But despite its limitations the answers are illuminating:

  • 82% of people said they did think that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals”
  • 9% of people said they didn’t think that.

So when while only 20% of people are feminists a whopping 82% of people think “men and women should be equals”. The UK poll had the same finding with 80% of men and 81% of women agreeing that when it comes to rights and treatment and status, “men and women should be equal in every way”.

This explains why the whole “if you’re against feminism you’re against gender equality argument” has no legs whatsoever—because the majority of people who are FOR gender equality are NOT feminists—they could be better described as non-feminists. And yes “non-feminism” is not a homogenous belief system, there are many different non-feminisms, but that’s why we need to name this group and start to define some of the major strands of gender political that could be described as non-feminist.

There are many different definitions of gender equality

One of the reasons for the disparity (between those supporting feminism and those supporting gender equality) is that there is not a single definition of what gender equality means. There are many different “gender equalities” and so two people can be both FOR gender equality and have diametrically opposed views of what gender equality means.

For one person gender equality can mean banning female circumcision/genital mutilation but allowing male circumcision/genital mutilation, for example. For another person gender equality can men banning both. For another person it can mean banning one but taking action to reduce the harm of the other.

So, which view is right and which view is wrong? Which view works?

I have my own view. Your answer will depend on your own personal gender politics, or maybe just your current state of knowledge about the issue, but all views are valid and deserve to be heard and taken into account. And if we exclude certain views from the public discourse about gender equality then we are in danger of creating fundamentalism, both in terms of allowing those with most power to enforce their own views to the exclusion of others—and in terms of the most marginalised and excluded voices becoming more fundamental and exclusionary in the way they respond.

Coalitions and networks for men and boys in the UK

In the world of gender politics, the people with most power are feminists and pro-feminists. This includes the EHRC which was formed through the merger of several different equalities bodies, including the feminist Equal Opportunities Commission in 2007.

In article at Telegraph Men,  Neil Lyndon states that our joint letter represents “the first time, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission will be called upon to recognise formally that men and boys can be in positions of systemic disadvantage and inequality in British life”. This is not entirely accurate.

The fact is that since its inception in 2007 the EHRC has been engaged in men’s issues, most notably providing financial support to the now defunct Coalition on Men and Boys to produce a report on men, masculinities and public policy.

The Coalition aimed “to put issues of concern to men and boys firmly on the public policy agenda” but was staunchly pro-feminist, terrified of upsetting the women’s lobby and had no framework in place for bringing non-feminist individuals, organisations and issues into the Coalition.

I don’t know the full story of how the Coalition came into being and why it fell apart, but one insider tells me that in retrospect “they spent too much time looking over their shoulder, making sure they weren’t upsetting the Fawcett Society”. So calling on the EHRC to engage in men’s issues is nothing new, but there are lessons to be learnt from the past and the biggest lesson of all is this— we have to address the gender politics of advocating for men and boys.

The other coalition for men and boys

In 2010 I produced a three-year strategy for addressing issues facing men and boys in my city, Brighton & Hove. It achieved a great deal as well as falling far short of its ambitions by trying to achieve too much, too quickly with too little resource, infrastructure and support. Yet the process of researching, developing and attempting to implement this strategy taught me a great deal about what works and what doesn’t work when trying to address men’s issues:

The strategy had local, national and international objectives, the most successful of which was the national ambition to:

“Develop a networking strategy to empower men and men’s groups to engage with each other and key local and national decision makers [and] host a National Conference For Men And Boys and help expand participation in International Men’s Day.”

The impact of this particular work is still felt and still evolving today (the joint letter to the EHRC being one example). As one of the signatories, the journalist Ally Fogg recently said in a recent Reddit interview:

“There is something in the UK which I refer to as the men’s sector – a reasonably large number of charities and non-profit orgs (plus a few individual activists, writers, bloggers etc) that work with primarily or exclusively men and boys.

“What I find really interesting is that lots of these orgs now know each other and support each other. In this I have to pay enormous tribute to my friend Glen Poole. What Glen’s work has done really well, IMO, is to highlight how closely connected all the issues are, so you can get a dozen charities working with men in fields of mental health and suicide, alcoholism and drugs, youth exclusion, violence victimisation and perpetration, mentoring, abuse recovery etc etc etc – all those issues that are flagged up as different “men’s issues” – put those people in the same room and THEY ARE ALL SAYING EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS!”

I don’t share this to blow my own trumpet, though is great to get a public slap on the back every now and then, but I share this to highlight what works and what doesn’t work.

What type of men’s alliances make a difference?

The men’s sector in the UK has evolved and matured since 2010 (though it’s still a poor relation of the women’s sector and a fraction of its size) and  it survives and thrives through the hard work and commitment of the many individuals and organisations connected to its complex web.

It’s not an easy sector to engage with. I’ve lost some friends and allies in the past five years; have uncomfortable interactions with many more but have built many more great friendships and resourceful working relationships along the way. More importantly, I have seen new projects supporting men and boys emerge and evolve and go from strength and strength and seen new relationships and alliances being built across the sector.

This is what I’ve learnt about men’s networks/coalitions/movements in the process. There are basically three types of alliance worth being aware of (and they sometimes overlap):

  • There are alliances built around a common gender political viewpoint
  • There are alliances built around a common goal or concern
  • There are formal or informal alliances

And if you don’t define which type of alliance you are part of, it will limit your ability to make any long-term difference. The Coalition for Men and Boys, for example was a formal coalition, it did identify some common areas of concern, but was terrified of being associated with people who’s gender political worldview strayed from the pro-feminist mindset.

The alliances that I have been involved with building in the UK since 2010 still manifest through initiatives such as International Men’s Day and insideMAN’s #100Voices4Men project—and through these alliances I have also been invited to take part in initiatives like Year Of The Male; the joint letter to the CPS and the Male Psychology Conference.

The men’s issues networks I am part of are mostly informal (with some formal initiatives), built on the common interest we could call “men’s issues” and inclusive of a broad range of gender political viewpoints, but often with their own unique gender political bias.

For example, International Men’s Day is platform which is inclusive of all and welcomes anyone who wants to mark the day, whereas insideMAN has a narrower bias towards non-feminist perspectives highlighting “the problems men and boys have” (though we include feminist viewpoints and articles on “the problems men cause” from time to time).

How do you know what your gender politics are?

Anyone who wants to influence institutions like the EHRC needs an understanding of gender politics that takes us beyond the binary viewpoint of ‘women’s rights/feminism’ versus ‘men’s rights/anti-feminism’.

There are lots of different ways of categorising people’s genders politics some of which are used by researchers employed to advise governments on men’s issues. I have several ways of categorising different groups my self, but by the far the simplest is this.

To find out what someone’s gender politics are, ask them three questions:

  • What are the main gender issues you personally are concerned with?
  • What do you think are the main causes of those issues?
  • What do you think are the main solutions to those issues?

Even if you don’t ask these specific questions, if you listen to anyone talking about gender issues for long enough, with an open and curious mind, the answers will begin to reveal themselves.

The strength (and weakness) of the informal ‘men’s movement’ I belong to in the UK is that it is built around a common concern for the issues men and boys have, but not a common view of what causes those issues or what the solutions are. Though I guess we’d agree that if the country was putting more time, money and resource into addressing those issues then that would move us towards solutions.

My own view is that the issues men face are a product of the way gender has evolves throughout time (shaped by biology, psychology, systems and cultures) and the solutions are ultimately to be found in mainstreaming men’s issues and integrating gender politics, at every level of culture and society.

Mainstreaming and integrating men’s issues

By mainstreaming I mean making men’s issues a mainstream concern in all areas of our culture and society (politics, media, culture, religion, public sector, private sector, third sector and so on).

By integrating I mean ensuring that a broad range of gender political viewpoints that are representative of the whole population are integrated into work on gender equality and men’s issues in particular.

Returning to the EHRC, this is why I think it will continue to fail to address the many issues that men and boys face in the UK:

  • Because men’s issues haven’t been mainstreamed in the commission’s work on gender equality
  • Because EHRC has no mechanism for integrating a range of gender political views into its work (or identifying AND addressing its own, unconscious gender political bias)

The willingness to name one’s own unconscious, gender political bias is a habit rarely seen in the world of gender politics (while “calling out” others for their perceived bias is commonplace). In practice, the vast majority of us are unaware of our own unconscious bias when it comes to gender politics, tending to believe that our gender political view is simply the truth and everyone else is just plain wrong.

It never ceases to amaze me, for example, how many well-educated and high profile individuals hold the belief that feminism is synonymous with gender equality. It isn’t and most of the public know it isn’t as the YouGov polls demonstrate.

There are many different feminisms and many different views about what gender equality is (just as there are many different religions and many different views about what God is), so the fallacy that “feminism=gender equality” is a myth that needs to be busted if we are ever going to mainstream and integrate men’s issues.

I am very open and unapologetic about my own gender political bias which can best be described as follows:

  • I focus on men and boys issues, particularly the problems men have
  • I focus on promoting men’s lived experiences and men’s voices
  • I aim to do this in addition to (not in opposition to) the issues women and girls face
  • Where there is conflict and work to help women and girls conflicts with work to support men and boys, I seek to highlight and help address that conflict
  • I am non-feminist (and I’m interested in what feminists, anti-feminists and other non-feminists have to say)

As I wrote in 2010:

“True diversity recognises that people have different values and beliefs and that those differences need to be respected and promoted. All too often in the world of gender work, strategic partners refuse to work with people with different values and beliefs and so end up excluding others in the name of Equality and Diversity.”

Five years on I’d probably say “understood” rather than “promoted” but this observation is still as relevant as ever.

Can the EHRC make a difference for men?

For The EHRC to make progress on men’s issues over the lifetime of its new strategic plan (2016-2019) it will need to address the following:

  • There are many different ways to define and measure gender equality which show us there are many areas of life where men and boys experience inequality—and they all need to be taken into account
  • There are a diverse range of gender political viewpoints which shape how we view the inequalities that men and boys face
  • The EHRC has its own gender political bias, which needs to be named, acknowledged and understood
  • The EHRC will need to integrate a broad range of gender political viewpoints to understand the inequalities that men and boys face and not just rely on a pro-feminist approach with its tendency to exclude other gender political viewpoints

Right now, I am not overly confident that the EHRC will grasp the nettle and address these issues over the next three years. What I am confident about is that the informal networks of individuals and organisations concerned about men’s issues in the UK will continue to grow.

In 2011 around 100 individuals and organisations (including one member of the Coalition on Men and Boys) signed up to the following statement:

“There are now many areas where men and boys are showing up unequally such as health, fatherhood, education, criminal justice and community safety – and we believe that any effort to ensure equality for all in the UK needs to consider the specific needs of men and boys and how to address them. There is now a growing network of individuals and organisations in the UK which is concerned with addressing these issues. We all have our own specific areas of interest and many different ideas about how best we can improve men and boys’ access to and outcomes from public services. What unites us is a commitment to help every boy to reach his full potential as a man and to improve the way the world works for every man, woman, girl and boy in the UK in the process.”

That “growing network” includes people who are feminist/pro-feminist; non-feminist and anti-feminist. In my opinion, it is our inclusivity and diversity that is our strength because we can only create a fairer and more gender equal world by involving a diverse range of gender political perspectives.

If the YouGov poll is right, at least 80% of people support gender equality but only 10% of men and 27% of women say they are feminists. This means that:

  • 81% of women  support gender equality and two out of every three of them are NOT feminist
  • 80% of men support gender equality and nine out of ten them are NOT feminist

So if we want to make a huge leap forward in tackling gender equality in the UK, it’s time for a gender political revolution that is designed to be inclusive of the concerns of non-feminists; feminists/pro-feminists and anti-feminists alike.

That’s my view, you may or may not share it, but at least when it comes to:

a) being a non-feminist

b) being concerned about gender equality

I know that on those two measures at least, I am in step with the vast majority of people in the UK. The question then, is can we persuade the EHRC and other equalities bodies to start taking men’s issues seriously and to become inclusive of a range of gender political viewpoints beyond the narrow confines of feminist/pro-feminist thinking (and its anti-feminist shadow).

—Image:Erik Charlton

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

The three reasons I don’t support feminist equality campaigns

by 45 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does a non-feminist believe?

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

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

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

#HeForShe

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

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

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

MenEngage

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

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

White Ribbon

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

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

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

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

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

“Hahaha, bollocks of the highest order”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Fuck off and leave us the fuck alone!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there’s the European Union.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hierarchy of gender politics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need diversity in gender politics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When feminists are absolutely brilliant 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Photo courtesy of Flickr

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

 

Nine out of ten victims of police-related deaths are male. Who cares?

by 8 Comments

Why does nobody care that it’s mostly men and boys who die during or after contact with the police, asks insideMAN news editor, Glen Poole?

How do we make sexism against men and boys visible? 

One of the challenges we face is that men are the invisible gender—and the problem with invisibility is you can’t see it. Even when you know that the sexism, discrimination and inequality that affects the male of the species exists, it can be fiercely difficult to uncover and present it to others in a way that they can see the sexism with their own eyes.

Being an advocate for men and boys takes constant vigilance and a willingness to chase passing shadows in pursuit of actual evidence that we live in a world that is sexist towards men as well as women.

I caught sight of one such shadow last night. It was cast briefly from my radio by a BBC newsreader who casually announced that more “people” died in police custody in the past year, before moving on to the next news item.

I instinctively knew I’d been exposed to a typical example of everyday sexism against men and boys, but I had to go digging for it. It’s the word “people” that’s the giveaway.

Generally, there are two reasons the media refer to “people” when telling us stories:

  1. Because the “people” they are referring to are a fairly even mix of men and women
  2. Because the majority of the “people” they are talking about are men

In contrast, you will very rarely (if ever) hear of a group of women referred to as “people”.  You can guarantee, for example, that if the majority of “people” who died in police custody were women, the story would no longer be about “people”, it would become a gendered story about women or “women and girls”.

And yet when the majority of people in a story are men, their gender becomes invisible, they aren’t identified as men, they are disguised as “people”. There’s an exception to this rule. If the “people” in question have perpetrated some heinous crime, then they are no longer “people”, they are male actors in a gendered story, and the fact they are “men” is pushed to the fore.

This is the binary, sexist nature of gendered news stories. If the story fits into the accepted gendered narrative of women good, men bad; men are perpetrators, women are victims; women HAVE problems and men ARE problems, then the gender is identified loud and clear.

If, however, it’s a story about a problem that most affects men, then their gender is made invisible. This is pure, unadulterated sexism against men and it is rife in the media, in the public sector and in our general discourse about gender.

So what are the facts of the matter?

This is what the sexist (against men) media didn’t tell us today about the latest annual report from the UK’s Independent Police Complaints Commission. These are the facts I had to go digging for because they weren’t revealed in any of the news reports:

  • 142 people died during or following police contact in 2014/2015:
  • 123 of these people were men and boys (that’s 87%)
  • 17 died while in police custody and 13 of those people were male (82%)
  • 14 died in road accidents involving the police and 13 of those were male (93%)
  • 41 died during or after contact with the police and 34 (83%) were male
  • 69 people killed themselves following police custody and 61 (88%) were male
  • 1 person was shot by the police and he was male (100%)

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, acknowledged that police custody is “a place where all too often vulnerable people, often those with mental health problems, are taken because there is no other place to go.”

There’s that word again—“people”. If nine out of 10 “people” who died during or following police custody were women, we wouldn’t be talking about “vulnerable people”, we’d be talking about “vulnerable women”.

But no politician or newsreader or public servant in his or her right mind would refer to these vulnerable people who die in tragic circumstances as “vulnerable men”.

Firstly, the “what about teh womenz” brigade would be incensed that female victims have been overlooked, and would argue that female victims have it harder than male victims, because death during and after contact with the police is a patriarchal construct designed to meet the needs of men, not women (or some such dogma). You can’t challenge the monopoly that feminism has on gendered issues by pointing at the many inequalities that impact men and boys and expect to get away with it.

Secondly, the “silent”, socially-conservative majority would never approve of labeling big, strong men as “vulnerable”, lest the whole fabric of society came tumbling down around our ears!

And so to spare the upset of liberal “progressives” and “small ‘c’ conservatives”, we must keep men’s gender invisible when shit stuff happens to us.

And our inability to see the gendered nature of this shit stuff that mostly happens to men—like suicide, rough sleeping, murder, workplace death, imprisonment and death following contact with the police—is ultimately what stops us from tackling these issues.

We are all—men and women—collectively more tolerant of the harm that happens to men and boys. We have a “gender empathy gap”.

The traditional view of “women and children” first and the feminist focus on “women and girls” first combine to cast a perfect shadow that make the vulnerabilities of men and boys invisible. It’s how we unconsciously conspire to repeatedly tell all men and boys to “man up” without ever actually having to say the words.

It’s why, when men and boys account for 8 out 10 violent deaths worldwide, we have global campaigns to end violence against women and girls, but no campaigns to end violence against men and boys.

It’s why, when around 95% of the UK prison population is male, we have gendered initiatives to reduce the impact of prison on women, but no gendered initiatives to reduce the impact of prison on men.

It’s why, when ten men every month in the UK are dying during or after contact with the police, we don’t name it as a gendered issue.

Let’s be absolutely clear, if ten women a month in the UK were dying during or after contact with the police, we would name it as a gendered issue.

And there’s the sexism against men. It’s born out of our collective tolerance of the harm that happens against men and boys. It’s born out of the different value men and women place on men’s lives and women’s lives.

We believe women and girls are precious and sensitive and vulnerable and need protecting and men and boys are disposable, strong and don’t need protecting.

So what if vulnerable males are dying during or after contact with the police? They’re just “people”, statistics, they’re not women and girls. They’re only men and boys. Who cares?

I do. I care. It matters to me that our society takes the death of our sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, nephews, grandfathers and male friends less seriously because of our collective sexism against men. I care. Do you?

—Photo Credit: flickr/ms.akr

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

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

 

Manchester Police admit they don’t prosecute women who make false rape allegations

by 15 Comments

Detectives at Greater Manchester Police (GMP) will publicly admit that the force takes a soft approach on women who make false allegation of rape against men, on a BBC documentary to be broadcast this evening, says a report in The Guardian.

According to Detective Superintendant Jon Chadwick, who has been running GMP’s serious sexual offences unit (SSOU) since it opened in 2012, dozens of reports received by GMP turn out to be fabricated, but unlike other forces it has never prosecuted a woman for making a false allegation of rape.

GMP dealt with 1,802 rape cases in the past year and estimates that less than 3% (<54) were thought to be fabricated.

According to DCI Colin Larkin, a new “victim-focussed” approach taken by the SSOU can be “massively frustrating” when officers know that the person making the allegation is lying.

Larkin told the BBC: “We do get people making up allegations because they want to get their own back, for whatever reason. If A and B are courting and A has an affair with C, sometimes B will say that A has raped her … It’s not massively common but it isn’t uncommon either.”

Reported rapes on the rise 

The upside of the “victim-focussed” approach is that GMP has seen a significant increase in the numbers of genuine victims who feel able to come forward. GMP recorded 737 rapes in 2011-2012, a figure that has more than doubled to 1,649 in just three years, with 40% of those reports being “historic”, meaning the alleged incident happened more than a year ago.

It isn’t just female victims who are more likely to come forward either. The number of men reporting rape more than doubled in the past 12 months, from 35 incidents to 84 incidents between April 2014 and April 2015. GMP suspect that a large number of crimes against men go unreported and are working with local charity, Survivors Manchester, to help more male victims to break the silence.

But while a victim-focussed approach which recognises that men and boys are victims of rape too is laudable, taking a soft approach on women who make false allegations of rape sends a very strong message that the law takes a softer line on female perpetrators and a harder line on male victims.

GMP admits that it is actively prosecuting a higher proportion of men accused of rape than other forces in the UK, while at the same time taking a softer approach to women who make false allegations. According to The Guardian, GMP has handed out “the odd fixed-penalty fine for wasting police time” and Chadwick’s view is that it is better not to prosecute because  “those making false reports have some sort of vulnerability”.

A crime against men and boys 

But making a false allegation is not just a crime against the police, it is also a crime against men and boys who are uniquely vulnerable to the impact of false allegations, which in extreme cases can lead to suicide and murder.

False allegations are a uniquely gendered crime with 92% of perpetrators in the UK being female and 98% of victims being male, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.

While conflicting statistics on the scale of the problem are hotly contested on the battleground of gender politics, we should be in no doubt that false allegations happen and are overwhelmingly directed at men by women.

Estimates of the proportion of allegations of rape that are false range from 0.6%, a statistic favoured by some feminists keen to downplay the problem, to the much higher 50% figure favoured by some anti-feminists keen to grab hold of any statistic that puts women in the worst possible light.

More moderate observers agree that a figure of around 10% could be feasible. These include Fogg (2%-10%); Full Fact(8%-11%) and Hawkes (8% to 12%).

GMP deserves credit, but taking a proactive approach to helping more women and men who have been raped to get justice—but this shouldn’t come at the expense of men who have been wrongly accused of rape by women.

How about being tough on rape and tough of false allegations of rape?

—Picture Credit: Stock Monkeys

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

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

Also on insideMAN:

Labour secretly hoping eight million men don’t vote

by 6 Comments

The Labour Party has come up with a brilliant wheeze to win this year’s general election by targeting the 17 million people who didn’t vote last time.

Oh no, hang on a minute, scrub that.

The Labour Party has come up with a brilliant wheeze to win this year’s general election by ignoring eight million of the 17 million people who didn’t vote last time…….because they are men.

Harriet Harman (make up your own joke about her surname), said: “There is a general disaffection with politics. You are even less likely as a woman to see politics as the solution to your problems.”

X marks the spot 

The evidence for this completely made-up statement is overwhelming. At the last general election, for example, a whopping 16.2 million men put an X on a bit of paper knowing full well all their problems would be resolved as a result. Meanwhile, only a teeny, tiny number of women (erm, that’s just 16 million) thought there was any point voting at all.

I know, I know, only 49.7% of the 32.2 million people who voted last time were women, but 50.3% were men—-it’s really, Really, REALLY not fair is it?

No wonder Harriet Harman told Good Morning Britain that “politics is much too important to be left to only men voting”—a great example of “this is what left-wing feminist maths looks like”.

Even worse than this, is the fact that a staggering 53.2% of the 17m people who didn’t vote in 2010 are women and Harriet Harman says “the growing trend for people not to vote is worrying for our democracy”.

Vote Farage 

So worrying, in fact, that Labour is going do nothing about the eight million men who didn’t vote because, well men are less likely to vote Labour than women. There’s really no point encouraging men to have a vote because they’ll only do something stupid with it like drive their white van to the polling booth (harassing women on the way) and vote for Nigel Farage or Al Murray

Instead they’re going to focus on the “missing millions”, not the millions of men who aren’t voting but “the missing millions of women who will be the focus of Labour’s campaign”.

But where will Labour find these millions of women (without accidentally alerting their menfolk that there’s an election brewing)? Well Harriet has a cunning plan.

“We will bring politics to the school gate,” she said, because the only men you find at the school gates are paedophiles and they all vote Conservative.

Shopping for votes 

“We will bring politics to the shopping centre,” she added, because women do love buying things, don’t they? Though heaven knows where they get the money from because, you know, gender pay gap.

“We will bring politics to offices and factories,” she continued, but shhh, don’t tell the male workers.

“This election will be a watershed for women in this country,” she concluded, probably because Ed “One Nation” Milliband will wet himself with tears of joy if he wins the election as the leader of a “One Gender” party. And in case we were in any doubt Harriet Harman told journalists that her pink bus was symbolic of Labour’s “One Gender” vision for the UK. “It is the correct colour.” she said, “this the One Nation Labour colour”.

T0 bring home the message that Labour really doesn’t want to attract any more male voters, it also announced that it will be launching a Manifesto for Women—a kind of WOMANifesto if you like (geddit?).

Labour’s WOMANifesto will include the following promises:

  • More free childcare (because men don’t care about children)
  • Support for grandparents who look after their grandchildren (because only grandmothers love their grandkids)
  • Forcing employers to publish their hourly pay gap figures to create equal pay for women (like that time when Dominc Raab MP did an FOI on the Government Equalities Office and found that female staff were paid 8% more than male staff)
  • Doing more to tackle violence against women (because who gives a fuck about violence against men)?

And just when you thought this story couldn’t get any better, Labour unveiled its #WomanToWoman battle bus and just in case you haven’t heard yet—it’s pink! And we all know that men hate the colour pink (except the gay ones of course), because, oh you know, hegemonic masculinity or something.

Genius! That will stop eight million non-voting men from getting all inspired about democracy and voting for one of the other parties that doesn’t prioritise women over men.

But most surprising of all was the way Labour’s “pink is for girls” van nearly made the socially conservative Daily Mail sound like the Everyday Sexism campaign—if only they hadn’t enjoyed the fact the driver of the bus had stalled quite so much—women drivers eh!?

The Mail’s stroke of genius, however, was digging up a quote from Labour MP Chi Onwura who condemned the marketing of “girls’ stuff'”in pink last year, warning:

‘This aggressive gender segregation is a consequence of big company marketing tactics. It has now got to the point where it is difficult to buy toys for girls in particular which are not pink, princess primed or fairy infused. What may be driving big company profit margins is limiting children’s’ choice – and experiences. And ultimately limiting the UK’s social and economic potential and helping maintain the gender pay gap.”

That’s right, if you follow that logic through, using a pink bus to market to women and tell them how you’re going to tackle the “gender pay gap” will actually help maintain the”gender pay gap”, apparently. Someone should tell Harriet Harman.

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

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

Also on insideMAN:

Shock as new Woman’s Hour poll finds women are brilliant and men are crap

by 10 Comments

The BBC’s Woman’s Hour has finally and scientifically proven what it has been telling the nation for nearly 70 years—women are totally brilliant and men are just a bunch of complete bastards.

NB: This is a gender political sketch and while all of the objective facts are true, all of the subjective feelings expressed here are made up and not real!

SEE ALSO: BBC Woman’s Hour hides the fact that male voters are more supportive of women leaders 

 

After years of being dismissed by sexist men who have insisted that feelings are not the same as facts, Woman’s Hour used science this week to put the patriarchy in its place with conclusive proof that men are shits and women are saints.

And to show us misogynistic men, once and for all, how rubbish we are (and how tough women have it), the BBC took some of the licence fee payers’ money (mostly paid by men because of, erm, sexism) and hired a polling company, that’s run by a woman, to prove that the glass ceiling doesn’t exist.

The glass ceiling is a scientific fact

Oops, no, sorry, that should say…..a polling company run by one of the few women who has managed against all the odds to overcome the oppression and discrimination she has faced (from all those mansplaining, manspreading, catcalling men who dominate every aspect of public life), to become a CEO.

And they kindly asked her to take a day off from being oppressed and enter the safe space of Woman’s Hour to explain how her scientific poll of British men and women could be used to prove something really grown up and important like, you know, how women are great and men smell.

What Dr Michelle Harrison’s TNS poll did reveal was that with less than one hundred days to go to a general election, women are now less likely to vote than at any time since the days when women didn’t have the vote (and most men didn’t either, even though they were dying in the trenches, but ssshhhh, we don’t mention that bit).

Dr Harrison started by explaining that a lot of women don’t feel like voting at this year’s general election:

“I think that the thing that struck me the most is that we’ve only got 55% of women intending to vote at the next election. That would be the largest democratic deficit of women in modern times. If you go back to 1992, there were 78% of eligible women who voted and 77% of men. If you go back to the last election it had dropped to 64% of women and 67% of men. According to the poll that TNS has done for Woman’s Hour, this is looking like 55% of women and 65% of men. That’s a really significant issue.”

Women died for the right to not vote

Significant because 45% of women might not vote, but not significant because 35% of men might not vote either—I mean, it’s not as though men are too scared to go to a polling station because they’ll be harassed on the way; they’re probably too busy perpetuating rape culture or trolling women on twitter or neglecting their kids to even bother voting anyway.

Which is no bad thing, as men only vote for other men and hate all female politicians as the Woman’s Hour poll proved conclusively.

Well actually, it didn’t prove it objectively, because that pesky patriarchal construct—you know, statistics—-showed that 11% of male voters thought Theresa May would perform very well as leader of the Conservative Party, compared with 9% of female voters.

But this is how Woman’s Hour presenter, Jane Garvey, interpreted that particular finding using a highly superior and scientific methodology called feminist logic:

“Theresa May …was more popular amongst women than men, right?”

Fortunately, there was no sexist man in the studio to patronisingly “mansplain” that Jane had got the so-called facts wrong. Instead, at long last, Woman’s Hour had a proper scientist in the studio who would simply overlook the fact that her own company’s survey had found that 44% of men and 44% of women said Theresa May would perform well or very well.

Brilliant! Enough of baffling the public with scientific fact, what about scientific feelings—if women feel that men are sexist towards female politicians then it must be a fact—even when the patriarchy’s emotionally illiterate statistics try to tell us otherwise.

Which is why the so-called fact that more men than women say that the feminist Yvette Cooper would perform well as leader of the Labour Party wasn’t even reported—because it didn’t feel right—and we all know repressing feelings is a function of hyper-masculinity and so needs to be challenged and deconstructed by, erm, giving more scientific value to feelings rather than facts.

Moving quickly on, before any “real” statisticians listening could try and mind-rape the women in the studio with logical tweets about the actual facts of the report, Jane Garvey asked Dr Harrison to explain—using science—how life is really shit for women, while men are as happy as a bunch of chauvinistic pigs in shit, enjoying the privileges of the patriarchy.

The good doctor explained thus:

“You will classically see more of an emphasis on public services from women, so in the Woman’s Hour poll women have got education in their top five, whereas men are more likely to talk about the economy or pensions, as you see in the Woman’s Hour poll, men have put the economy and pensions in their top five.

“That’s a classic difference that we expect to see and I think it’s a good signal on the way in which women still bear the brunt of things that are quite immediate in the family, so, the cost of caring for family, making that budget manage on a week-to-week basis is their burden still.”

Brilliant! We would never have got this kind of hard proof from a male statistician. A male statistician would have told us something sexist like:

  • 31% of men say that the economy (including the deficit and unemployment) is one of their top three political concerns
  • 21% of women say the same
  • 30% of women say the cost of caring for family is one of their top three political concerns
  • 20% of men say the same

Trigger warning!

Then he would have gone on and on and on dominating the conversation, forcefully mansplaining his findings saying offensive, triggering things like:

“This means that if you had twenty people—half of them male and half of them female—then five would say the economy was a concern (three men, two women) and five would say the cost of caring for their family was a concern (three women, two men).”

But this sounds kind of equal, which doesn’t equate with women’s lived experiences, which are more valid than facts—thank heavens we had a proper woman scientist to explain what these findings really meant.

According to Dr Harrison, the fact that three out of five respondents who are concerned about the economy and two out of five respondents who are concerned about the cost of caring for their family are men, is proof that women have it harder than men—-which is a leap of feminist logic that a sexist male statistician would obviously try and suppress.

If only men would LISTEN!

For the sake of male readers, who we know don’t listen to women properly, here’s Dr Harrison’s conclusion a second time:

“It’s a good signal on the way in which women still bear the brunt of things that are quite immediate in the family, so, the cost of caring for family, making that budget manage on a week-to-week basis is their burden still.”

That’s right you stupid men, when two men and three women say they are concerned about the cost of caring for their family—it’s a signal that women bear the brunt and burden of managing the cost of caring for a family.

And what about when three men and two women say they are concerned about the economy and unemployment? It’s obvious isn’t it? Will you pay attention! It’s a signal that women bear the brunt and burden of managing the cost of caring for a family.

Fact is a feminist issue

It’s no wonder that women are so worried—and that’s not a feeling, it’s scientific fact, as presenter Jane Garvey told us with glee:

“What about the FACT that women appear to be SO MUCH MORE worried about the future than men?”

That’s right all women, every single woman, is SO MUCH MORE worried than every man in the country, because men either have nothing to worry about because, you know, the patriarchy is taking care of everything for them or they don’t worry about stuff because they have no feelings—unlike women, who spend all day being brilliantly empathetic, even in the face of daily male oppression and constantly worrying (SO MUCH MORE THAN MEN) about the future.

Fortunately, before any sexist men could try and invalidate Jane’s actual, factual feelings, Dr Harrison was on hand to stroke her prejudices—-I mean back up her entirely objective, perspective with scientific facts.

Stop being sexist

“So 48% of those polled feel worried about the future,” said Dr Harrison, “but a REALLY SIGNIFICANT difference between women and men there—52% of women do as compared to 43% of men.”

Fortunately there were no self-appointed male “experts” on hand to say something deeply sexist like:

“So in our imaginary room of 20 people, that means that about four men and five women would be worried about the future—and six men and five women wouldn’t be worried.”

Because that almost sounds like an equal number of men and women are worried about the future, a “fact” which completely invalidates Jane and Michelle’s feelings that the difference is “REALLY SIGNIFICANT” and women are “SO MUCH MORE WORRIED”, which must be true because Michelle’s got a doctorate and Jane works at the BBC.

Women are the sensible ones

Dr Harrison concluded the interview by explaining how, scientifically, it was “a very sensible thing” for women (but not men) to worry about the future. She said:

“Worry for the future is a very sensible thing…for women who are predominantly responsible for maintaining the wellbeing of their families [and] bear the brunt of trying to look after their household or support their adult children who may not be employed”.

Thank you BBC Woman’s Hour and Dr Michelle Harrison for finally giving us scientific proof that all anyone needs to know about gender in 2015, is that women HAVE problems and men ARE the problem.

Men, eh? When will we ever stop being such bastards and let women have an easy, burden free, worry free life like all men do, because, you know, patriarchy.

–Photo credit: CarbonNYC

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

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

Also on insideMAN:

Women dominate as university gender gap doubles

by 28 Comments

The gap between the number of men and women entering higher education in the UK has doubled in under a decade from around 29,000 to 58,000, according to the latest statistics from UCAS.

The latest figures for 2014 also show that two thirds of university courses are now dominated by women. On some courses, such as teaching, nursing and social work, nine out of ten students are female. Last year Dr Mary Curnock Cook, chief executive of UCAS, raised concern about the growing university gender gap saying:

“There remains a stubborn gap between male and female applicants which, on current trends, could eclipse the gap between rich and poor within a decade. Young men are becoming a disadvantaged group in terms of going to university and this underperformance needs urgent focus across the education sector.”

Key Facts:

  • 512,370 students placed in higher education through UCAS in 2014
  • 44.4% male
  • 55.6% female
  • In 2006, 29,780 more women entered university than men
  • In 2014, 57,790 more women entered university than men
  • Women now 27.7% more likely to enter higher education
  • Women outnumber men in two thirds of university courses

Gender Divide By Subject Area:

  • Nursing 90.9% female students
  • Dance 90.1% female students
  • Education 88% female students
  • Social Work 87.6% female students
  • Engineering 84,7% male students
  • Building 84.7% male students
  • Animal Science 84.3% female students
  • Computer Science 82.3% male students
  • Technology 80.9% male students
  • Psychology 80.6% female students

—Photo: UNE Photos/flickr

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

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