insideMAN

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

by 78 Comments

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

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

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

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

‘Culture of silence’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by 51 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ed Mumby

You can read the article Mike wrote about his talk here

Why men and women should unite against the patriarchy

by 37 Comments

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

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

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

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

Just do it

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

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

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

‘An unholy alliance’

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

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

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

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

‘Torpedoed by the maternal lobby’

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

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

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

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

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

Really changing things requires partnership and strategy, not righteousness.

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

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

Photo: Batega

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

Also on insideMAN:

Struggling to make a difference for male victims in Wales

by 2 Comments

What’s it like being a man fighting for male victims of domestic violence in a world dominated by people whose primary concern is keeping the spotlight on female victims? Glen Poole of insideMAN speaks to Tony Stott of Healing Men, who has been campaigning on the issue in Wales for several years.

I’ve been watching men trying to influence public policy on gender issues for 20 years. I’ve seen fathers fighting for dads to have an equal right to be part of their children’s lives when parents separate. I’ve seen men who say their genitals were mutilated without their consent as children, fighting to protect boys from medically unnecessary circumcision. And I’ve seen men fighting for male victims of domestic violence to have equal protection and support.

The gender political war around domestic violence, in particular,  is one the most difficult gender battles to stomach as it puts anyone who attempts to advocate on behalf of male victims in direct conflict with those who work to help female victims—and nobody in their right mind would ordinarily choose to place them self in opposition to people speaking out for female victims.

Feminism has a problem with male victims

I have written elsewhere on the way the emergence of male victims and female perpetrators threatens the very existence of feminism and feminists who are the primary advocates of female victims. So it is a brave (or foolish) campaigner who attempts to tackle the status quo in a domestic violence sector that is dominated by feminists running services and programmes for female victims and male perpetrators.

One such man is Tony Stott of Healing Men who has been campaigning for male victims of domestic violence for many years, most recently in Wales, where he has been fighting the passage of a new Violence Against Women Bill—not because he supports violence against women, but because he believes it excludes male victims.

Last week Tony was at the Welsh Assembly watching the Bill being debated. He told me:

“I have been campaigning, pointlessly so far, against deeply sexist and unequal legislation being debated within the Welsh Assembly and wanted to see this at first hand in the Assembly chamber.”

Tony believes the Bill demonstrates that Wales has become a “Feminist One Party State”. He says the architects of The Bill have a gender political approach to domestic violence which can be characterised by the following passage from the book “Perceptions of Female Offenders” which describes the feminist view of the issue as:

“A result of patriarchal social systems where men are exclusively the batterers and females are exclusively the victims….This Neo-Marxian model posits the masculine (bourgeoisie) as occupying the upper rungs of privilege, authority, and power over the feminine (proletariat). Thus, domestic violence is the physical manifestation of his social dominance as it is forcibly imposed on her submissive feminine body. Conversely, female violence is initiated reactively, purely as a form of self-defence.”

Masculinity is seen as the problem 

Tony is particularly incensed by a passage in the “Task And Finish Group Report” which informed The Bill:

“Masculinity is associated with violence in most cultures and Wales is no exception; thus, all preventative work and interventions must be designed to address men’s violent behaviour, while at the same time recognizing that both men and women may be the victims of violence that is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men.”

Tony believes this viewpoint is nothing short of discrimination against men. “Would such a gross and wholly stupid statement be tolerated against black or Muslim peoples?” he asks. “No! But this statement against men and boys is supported and uncritically welcomed by the Welsh Government. “

Tony is genuinely concerned that all victims of violence get the help and support they need. He has followed and engaged with every complex stage of The Bill since its inception in 2012 and even launched a epetition that gathered support from campaigners around the world.

Radical gender warriors

He feels that the entire process has been “hijacked by the radicalised gender warriors” in Wales and transformed from a project which could recognise the complexity of intimate human relationships (and the necessity of including mutual and female abuse and violence for the sake of children) to the Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Bill.”

After spending 90 minutes listening intently to the Welsh Assembly debating the Bill last week, Tony told be he was in “despair for men in Wales and fearful for the boys and girls in Wales who will be left to learn violent and abusive behaviour at the hands of violent and abusive parents”.

“The main discussion,” he says “was around the question of how quickly the Welsh Government could get organised to teach seven year boys the “masculinity is associated with violence .. and all interventions must address men’s violent behaviour” theme.”

“Some wanted this ‘education’ to be put in the Bill”, he said, “but the Minister, rather chillingly I thought, sought to appease by stating that the charity Women’s Aid have volunteered to send in staff to teach ‘Healthy Relationships’ in schools.”

Tony is deeply frustrated at what he sees as the refusal of the Welsh Government to give consideration to the needs of male victims, despite his constant hard work to bring the issue to the table.  But he isn’t giving up and he has one message for those who share his concerns—do not be silent!

—Photo credit: Flickr/ky_olsen

See Also:

 

 

How feminism and patriarchy hurt men and boys

by 60 Comments

The problems that men and boys face (and our re collective unwillingness to address those problems) started with Patriarchy not Feminism—-but feminism isn’t helping, argues Darren Ball.

I was recently criticised for giving the impression that I blamed feminism for the problems faced by men, which reminded me about my early interest in gender politics. What first attracted me to gender politics was not associated with feminism at all, but rather because I noticed a general societal ambivalence towards men and boys – from feminists and non-feminists alike. I have formed the view that most of the gendered problems faced by males are primarily due to our prevailing culture, and the culture that prevails is a derivative of old-fashioned patriarchy.

Our culture is mostly inherited from Christianity, which is one of the major Abrahamic religions: you don’t get more patriarchal than that. God, Abraham, Moses, Noah – they’re all father figures. Brides are given to the groom by their father. Men have traditionally competed for supremacy over each other, and women have married into that hierarchy as high as they could, but women were not equal, they were property: even the word “husband” is a farming term.

Patriarchies are hierarchies of men, and you can’t be at the top unless there are other men below you: every top needs a bottom. The patriarchy does not incentivise powerful men to look out for the interests of other men with whom they’re competing. Those men making decisions in our society are, by definition, those men who have done well and they cannot be relied upon to help other males (their competitors), other than their own offspring. Males who can’t make the grade go under – this entirely explains society’s general ambivalence towards them.

The root cause of men’s problems

Ambivalence towards males is not the preserve of feminists – the political right are the worst of all. Traditionally it’s the right-wing which imprisons the most men, closes homeless shelters, expels boys from school, sends troops to war, etc. The whole stiff upper-lip, men should be men, women first, etc., is drawn from our patriarchal past and remains today in the minds of socially conservative men and women. Since these attitudes that harm men are held equally by non-feminists, and are inherited from a pre-feminist era, we can conclude that feminism is not the root cause: it’s patriarchy.

Feminism has removed those parts of our dominant culture where women were disadvantaged. Note that I differentiate between dominant culture and popular culture. I’m defining dominant culture as the State, legislation, the judiciary and generally what is acceptable to say, do or believe if you hold public office and other large public-facing institutions. Although women remain under-represented in positions of hard power, women have all the rights of men plus some. Whereas popular culture is anything commonly said, done or believed by the general public – here feminism has much more work to do.

The result of feminist success in transforming the dominant culture is to leave a version of patriarchy that retains all those elements that feminists did not campaign to removed – those parts that didn’t negatively impact upon women.

Man still expected to “man up”

We are left with a pruned-down version of patriarchy that still allows men to sink or swim, still expects men to “man-up” and “grow a pair”, is intolerant of those men who fail to measure-up: the rough-sleepers, the mentally ill, the addicts, and so on. This version of patriarchy has also retained its paternal instinct towards women, which is evidenced in the criminal justice system, education, physical and mental health, family courts, and so on.

The literal definition of patriarchy is rule by the father. In a true patriarchy fathers would rule everything, from the home to the state; nobody could seriously claim that we live in a true patriarchy. Family legislation has made most fathers of dependent children de facto guests in their own homes and removable, with virtually no notice, by the State at the behest of their partner. Women also run for, and obtain, high public office (although not often enough).

A patriarchy is not defined as “rule by men”; that’s an androcracy, A patriarchy requires a paternal element.

In my definition, the dominant culture is the “father” and women are the “daughters”. A father can be oppressive and dictatorial to his daughters, or he can be doting – giving his daughters all that he can. It seems to me that feminism has had the effect of changing the type of father from the former towards the latter, but it’s still patriarchal. In my analogy, men are not the fathers but the sons, who are expected to forge their own way without assistance. Because the “father” is not a real person or persons, but a system of laws, beliefs and attitudes, the patriarchy can be administrated just as well by women.

Feminism isn’t helping men

To take this full circle and answer the question: do I blame feminism for the problems faced by men? The ultimate answer has to be no, but it’s not helping either. The feminist movement should be challenging any gendered disadvantage caused by our patriarchal structure, whomever it affects; both because feminism is a movement for gender equality, and because the movement is committed to end patriarchy.

However, as a movement, feminism does nothing to challenge patriarchy where the disadvantage is experienced predominantly by males, unless there is a vicarious benefit for women (i.e. encouraging men to share work and home responsibilities), and sometimes the movement actually uses patriarchal attitudes to press for female advantages to the detriment of males (such as issues around domestic violence and prison reform).

The huge contradiction is that feminists are very often pushing against a door that’s opened for them by socially-conservative, gallant, traditionalist patriarchs.

If feminism wants to be the go-to movement for gender equality, it needs to include male issues in its radius of concern, and give those issues proportionate concern. I’m not talking here about individual feminists who can be individually wonderful; I’m talking about feminism as a movement – what does it campaign for? When men’s issues are also feminist issues, they can sign me up.

Darren Ball is a regular reader of The Guardian and insideMAN magazine, he is not affiliated to any particular organisation.

—Picture credit: Flickr/Khalid Albaih

Also by Darren Ball:

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

The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of the insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to to join the conversation about men, masculinity and manhood. Our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

Feminism in crisis as male supporter expresses view of his own

by 39 Comments

Feminism went into global meltdown today after one of its male supporters defied feminist logic and revealed he was a man with a mind of his own.

Tanveer Ahmed, a psychiatrist and comedian, is one of 2,000 male celebrities and community leaders who have been selected by the feminist White Ribbon campaign to tackle violence against women in Australia.

Now operating in 70 countries worldwide, the White Ribbon movement is committed to “the advancement of gender equality and the dismantling of patriarchy”—and they would have got away with if it wasn’t for that pesky psychiatrist!

When we said never remain silent….

Ahmed has been involved in the White Ribbon campaign since at least 2008 and appears to have been obeying the White Ribbon oath to never “remain silent about violence against women and girls” ever since.

In November 2014, he told guests at the Blacktown White Ribbon Day meeting in Sydney that it takes courage to speak out, but the more you do it, the easier it gets.

But then Ahmed got a little too courageous for feminism’s liking and dared to tell the world what he really thinks about the feminist approach to tackling violence in an article for The Australian newspaper entitled “men forgotten in violence debates”—whoops!

Did nobody tell Ahmed that when the feminists behind the White Ribbon campaign asked him to take an oath to “never remain silent about violence against women and girls” that what they actually meant was they wanted him to ALWAYS remain silent about any views he has that might contradict mainstream feminist thinking—and that rule number one is that in the name of gender equality you never, Never, NEVER ask “what about the men?”

Obviously not!

Feminism was so mightily displeased with Ahmed that it supplied spokeswoman, Clementine Ford, with a pram full of toys to chuck everywhere in one of her self-styled “man-hating screeds” for Daily Life , a news, opinion and lifestyle website for women.

Ford’s primary complaint about Ahmed was that he didn’t present himself like an “aggressively delusional…men’s rights activists” but used one of the most devious and oppressive tools of the patriarchy, “reason”—-what a sneaky, privileged bastard! If only he sounded like one of those evil anti-feminists that the charitable and peace loving White Ribbon campaign describes as “nasty woman-haters”, it would have so much easier to discredit him.

Not that this stopped feminism ripping into Ahmed, a man who having campaigned to end violence against women and girls for at least six years, dared to formulate a view of his own on how best to tackle the issue, like the entitled patriarch he obviously is!

He said, she said

Here are some of the highlights of Ahmed’s comment piece in The Australian and Ford’s reply, on behalf of feminists everywhere, from Daily Life:

Ahmed said: “Men are forgotten in the violence debate.”

Ford said: “I don’t have time for men’s woe-betide-me feelings

Ahmed said: “Women are now more likely than ever…. to commit family violence against partners, children or relatives

Ford said: “It does significant harm to have one of [White Ribbon’s] ambassadors touting a message which prioritises men’s power over women’s safety.

Ahmed said: “Discussions about family violence are stuck in the mindset of 1970s radical feminism.”

Ford said: “Radical feminists didn’t endure the wrath and measurably violent pushback of people opposed to women’s liberation so that their activism could be scoffed at by a man.”

Ahmed said: “There is too little acknowledgment of the importance of male disempowerment in debates surrounding domestic violence The focus on female disempowerment alone will not achieve an improved existence, since they are often surrounded by disempowered men.”

Ford said: “The question isn’t how we can accommodate men’s feelings of disempowerment.”

Ahmed said: “Despite the cries of domestic violence being an epidemic, we should also consider that fatherlessness could fit such a category, with 40 per cent of Australian teenagers living without their biological fathers…. we are downplaying the notion that fathers are even desirable.”

Ford said: “Not all arguments positing men’s disenfranchisement are presented in the aggressively delusional manner. Some come with a veneer of reason that belies the falsehoods presented within. These are the ones we need to be especially wary of.”

Ahmed said: “It is true one woman a week dies at the hands of a partner, current or former. As part of a broadbased strategy, it is critical that improving arrest and prosecution rates, establishing shelters and abuse hotlines, pushing for state provisions against stalking, and creating protections for immigrants all have the goal of getting victims out of abusive ­relationships.”

Ford said: “Ahmed insults the expertise of service workers by making their work invisible just so he can execute a boring and passe critique of the kind of feminism that makes him and numerous other men uncomfortable.”

Ahmed said: “The broader movement that has long fought against violence towards women remains stuck in a view of gender relations from decades past, which will limit its effectiveness in stemming the problem in an inclusive way.”

Ford said: “The ‘inclusivity’ he speaks of is already in action.”

And then to prove just how inclusive feminism is, feminists all over twitter began bombarding the @WhiteRibbonAust campaign with social media requests to remove Ahmed as one of their ambassadors.

I guess the moral of the story is this, be careful what you wish for and if you’re going to ask men to speak out on gender issues, be prepared for them to have a view of the world that’s different from yours. Radical huh?

 —Photo: White Ribbon Day

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:

Is the law becoming increasingly feminine and is this bad news for men?

by 10 Comments

There were two pieces of news yesterday that me made consider the gendered nature of our legal system.

The first was the news that Justice Minister, Simon Hughes, wants to halve the number of women in prison because they are a ‘special case’ who should be treated differently to men.

The second was the news that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, has issued new guidance to police forces which place a greater burden on men accused of rape to prove they are not guilty (as distinct from being assumed innocent until such time as the prosecution proves them to be guilty).

Together, these two items of news are symptomatic of an ongoing trend that is seeing the increasing feminisation of our legal system in the UK. And by feminisation I mean it’s:

  • Increasingly dominated by women
  • Increasing dominated by women’s concerns
  • Increasing dominated by feminine values
  • Increasingly dominated by feminist thinking
  • Increasingly dominated post-modern (a worldview that tends to be more feminine and feminist)

This evolving, feminised approach, which puts “women and girls’ first, is being built on top of a paternalistic system that already treated women as a “weaker sex” and in need of men’s protection (and protection from men). Together these two worldviews are combining to create a legal system that increasingly seeks to favour women and discriminate against men.

 How girls and boys play

In thinking about this article, I was reminded of an observation about the way that children create rules when they play. I think it was the linguist Deborah Tannen who made this point. She said that girls will tend to break the rules to protect each other’s feelings; whereas boys are prepared to hurt each other’s feelings to protect the rules of whatever game they are playing.

When I first heard this idea, it instantly reminded me of a game of boys’ football I arranged with a friend who was a Guardian journalist. We both took a side and not long into the game his son (who was on my team) fell over as the result of a good, clean tackle. We all knew it wasn’t a foul but because his boy turned on the waterworks, dad gave him a penalty and we scored an undeserved goal.

This, to me, was a gross miscarriage of justice, particularly to the boys on the other team who had been disadvantaged to save anther child’s feelings. So I took the law into my own hands and the next time I had the ball, I kicked it into my own goal to even things own.

So who was right? Was it my masculine concern for the rules, or Guardian dad’s more feminine concern for his son’s feelings?

Making up the rules as we go along

The truth is, we hadn’t agreed what the rules of engagement were between us so we ended up just making it up as we went along and trying to enforce our own rules on each other. And that’s how our legal system evolves, we simply make it up as we go along, which each new generation inventing and enforcing new rules on everyone else.

So it’s not surprising that as more women enter the legal system, the more feminine the law becomes. The rise of the female lawyer in the past 40 years has been phenomenal. In the late 1960s, fewer than three per cent of lawyers were women. As of July 2013, 51.4% of qualified solicitors are women and 65% of students entering university to study law in 2014 are female.

This gradual feminisation of the legal system is manifesting itself in unusual ways. A recent US study by linguists and lawyers found that male lawyers who sound very masculine are less likely to win a US Supreme Court case than their more gentle-sounding peers. The more feminine the presentation, the more likely the lawyer is to win.

The rise of postmodern law

And it’s not just at the personal level than feminine qualities seem to be gaining precedence in legal proceedings, the rise of the post-modern worldview also contributes to the creeping feminisation of the law.

According to David Noebel, author of Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Competing Worldviews:

“Postmodernists insist that Western law, which grew out of Christianity and the Enlightenment, reflects white male bias. They attack ‘the concepts of reason and objective truth, condemning them as components of white male domination. They prefer the more subjective ‘ways of knowing’ supposedly favored by women and minorities, such as storytelling. As to the rule of law, it is an article of [Postmodern] faith that legal rules are indeterminate and serve only to disguise the law’s white male bias’.”

In a sense, all legal systems are subjective. Concepts like “beyond reasonable doubt” and the “balance of probabilities” are ultimately subjective judgments based on objective facts.

The shift towards feminine laws

But the feminine shift towards greater subjectivity in the legal system much goes further. Concepts like “fear of crime”, “feeling harassed” and “emotional cruelty” are postmodern constructs that have risen to prominence in the past 20 years.

So the fact that more women on average say they are subjectively scared of crime becomes more important than the fact that more men are objectively victims of crime. Worse still, you can become legally responsible for someone else’s emotional response. So if someone subjectively feels distressed by your actions, even if it wasn’t your intention to distress them, you can be charged with harassment.

This shift towards feminine, subjective laws is particularly notable in family proceedings when parents split up. Having been to court with many fathers as a McKenzie Friend, I’ve seen how family law operates at first hand—and in my experience (and we’re all about feelings now) it’s cruel.

The cruelty of family law

Dads generally expect the law to be fair an equal and rational and objective. They expect court to be about their rights and they tend to believe that if they simply sit down with the judge and explain everything logically then justice will prevail.

Family law, however, operates on a subjective, feelings-based principle called “the best interests of the child”. It sounds wonderful, until you realise that there is no presumption that the interests of the child are best served by ensuring mums and dads have equal rights.

In fact, the “best interests of the child” is such a fluid construct that in a famous case a good father was denied contact with his child because it upset mum too much—and so the decision was taken that because mum being upset was felt to be bad for the child, it was deemed to be in the child’s best interest to be denied contact with her father.

Feelings-based justice

Masculine, rights-based justice would contend that every parent should be automatically allowed to be part of his or her child’s life unless there was tried and tested evidence that he or she was a risk to that child—innocent until proven guilty.

Feminine, feelings-based justice says that if mum doesn’t feel like letting dad be involved, then those feelings should be honoured—and any dad asserting his right to be involved in his child’s life is an example of a man seeking to dominate a woman and exercise his social privilege.

The same principle is applied by social workers who have unfettered freedom to gradually remove a child from a parent’s life because they “feel” the parent is a risk. I have watched in horror in the past 12 months as I have observed social workers supporting the removal of a dad I was working with from his child’s life, without any consideration for the child’s or the father’s rights and without any need to go to court.

Male and female logic

The way that feminine, postmodern, subjective law operates seems unnatural and illogical to many men. It’s an approach that says you don’t just award penalties to boys playing football because the rules are broken, you award a penalty to save the boy’s feelings from being hurt.

It’s an approach that says you don’t treat male and female prisoners equally, you treat women more favourably because you feel more empathy for them than male prisoner.

It’s an approach that says a female witness whose story is inconsistent and has a poor memory of events, is not an unreliable witness but a victim whose inconsistency and poor memory is evidence of trauma.

Of course, evolving and improving the way the law operates so more victims are protected and more perpetrators are brought to justice is a good intention that most right-thinking people would support. However, the way the feminised legal system is shaping up seems to be creating more injustice (particularly against men) in the process of trying to make the system fairer.

—Photo: Flickr/Tori Rector

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

VIDEO: ‘It’s almost as if you have to explain yourself for not being a feminist, as if you are somehow inherently bigoted’

by Leave a Comment

One of the most powerful and disturbing articles in our #100Voices4Men and boys series was taken from a conversation with teenage boys about the way they feel intimidated and silenced if they try to talk about gender from a non-feminist perspective.

Here atheist YouTube broadcaster, KTBlackadder, in his first video of the year, comes to very similar conclusions — that he can’t be part of a movement that shares the tendency for dogma that he rejects in religion.

He’s calm, reasoned and respectful, have a watch and tell us what you think.

He says: “It’s extremely PC at the moment, in media, politics, polite society, in civil conversation, to profess you are a feminist.

“Indeed, whether it’s Buzzfeed’s constant campaigning in the entertainment-slash-media sphere, whether it’s the political parties all lining up to say ‘this is what a feminist looks like’.

“Or people like Emma Watson giving her speeches at international institutions at the UN and so forth, all of those things make it a very popular thing to be a feminist at the moment.

“Now, I understand, there a lot of people who will say ‘oh my God, have you ever tried to be a feminist on the internet? Have you ever seen what happens to people in comments to feminists or people who make feminist videos?

“Yes I have, but equally you’ve got to understand what happens to people in other situations and other scenarios who profess not to be feminists, it’s almost you have to explain yourself for not being a feminist, as if you are somehow inherently bigoted.”

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

To watch more of KTBlackadder’s videos, visit his YouTube channel here

Also on insideMAN:

Why feminism has a problem with male victims

by 15 Comments

Our post about The Guardian’s censorship of male victims of genital mutilation has sparked some lively debate and brought the feminist campaigner Hilary Burrell to insideMAN. Hilary directed us to a quote by Dale Spender suggesting that people who aren’t feminists have a problem. Here our news editor, Glen Poole, responds to Hilary with an open letter outlining why male victims of various gendered crimes often find themselves at odds with feminism.

Dear Hilary

Thanks for your detailed comment on my article about The Guardian’s censorship of discussions on genital autonomy, which restricts the involvement of those who campaign for male genital autonomy in favour of those campaigning for female genital autonomy.

Let me be clear from the outset. We are seeing the world through a different lens. You are a feminist, I am not.

I am an integralist, which means I seek to integrate “what works” from many different word views and perspectives into my thinking. My theoretical framework for understanding gender issues is “integral gender theory”.

Not being a feminist, means I neither feel the need to attack it nor defend it. I can simply look at different feminist perspectives and ask myself—does this perspective work or not?

The Wisdom of Feminism

There are, as you say, some feminists who promote genital autonomy for everyone—male, female and intersex. One such campaigner is Travis L C Wisdom who is a feminist, an intactivist (ie a campaigner for genital autonomy) and a survivor of genital mutilation. I am a great admirer of his feminist approach to promoting genital autonomy—and I’m still not a feminist.

You say “feminism is about equality, people” which is a well meaning but ultimately meaningless statement which echoes (albeit more politely) the recent words of the feminist campaigner Kate Smurthwaite:

“Feminism is the same thing as gender equality, those who say it is not are lying assholes….please let them know they are misogynist dickwads.”

Kate’s tirade demonstrates why the  fundamental belief that “feminism = equality” is problematic. Just as beliefs  like “my religion=God” or “my religion=good” are also problematic.

More than one way to understand the world

There are many religions, many feminisms, many views of God, many views of equality and many views of what is good. People all over the world deny boys and girls the right to genital autonomy because they fundamentally believe the practice is good.

Some people campaign for genital autonomy for girls (but not boys) in the name of equality. Many of those people are feminists. They aren’t campaigning for equality for all, they are campaigning for better rights for women and girls, sometimes inspite of men and boys and sometimes in direct opposition to better rights for men and boys.

I pass no moral judgment on this. That it happens in an equal rights movements is not surprising.

It happened in the campaign for universal suffrage where some of those who campaigned for all adults to have the vote, realised they’d make progress a lot quicker if they campaigned separately for the male vote.

Not all equality campaigners are equal

People campaigning for the female vote were furious. They smashed things. They killed themselves. They planted bombs.

Today those people—the Suffragettes—are celebrated as heroic campaigners for equality. Many of those Suffragettes were wealthy, privileged women and in terms of voting rights they were under privileged.

Privilege literally means a “private law”, a law which applies only to one group or individual—like the right to vote or not. Like the right to genital autonomy or not.

It is true some feminists support genital autonomy for men and boys and yet campaigners against FGM worldwide have fought for laws that privilege women and girls and leave men and boys underprivileged. Just like some campaigners for voting reform  favoured an approach that privileged men in the first instance.

Suffragettes weren’t against giving men the vote, they were against an approach that privileged men and under-privileged women. Intactivists aren’t against ending FGM, but they are often against an approach that privileges women and girls and under-privileges men and boys.

And all over the world, feminists are campaigning for laws, policies and strategies that privilege women over men—most notably when it comes to “Violence Against Women” initiatives which focus on issues like domestic violence, sexual violence and FGM.

How men are underprivileged 

Feminists don’t, as a rule, set up campaigns to end domestic violence against everyone, to end sexual violence against everyone or to promote genital autonomy for all.

Feminism in practice is rarely about equality for all—there’s a reason it’s not called “equalism” or “genderism” or “humanism”. If anyone needs to know what feminism is predominantly about, the clue is in the name—it’s about female concerns and interests.

Feminism is rarely about equality for men and boys. Feminists can’t even agree whether men should have an equal right to be feminists, hence the ever recurring discussions about “can men be feminists” and the debates about how men should or shouldn’t be allowed to engage in gender equality work.

This is why male victims often have problems with feminism—and feminism has problems with male victims. Some male victims who were denied the right to genital autonomy, like Travis L C Wisdom, take on the struggle of work within feminism. Here’s what he has to say on the matter:

“I think that a current limitation of feminism is that it doesn’t incorporate male circumcision or the concept of a genital autonomy as an inalienable right across the gender continuum, it only focuses on Genital Autonomy as it relates to females and at times I will feel a bit betrayed.”

Feminism betrays male victims

How did the Suffragettes feel when campaigners for the universal vote focused on getting the male vote first? Betrayed!

How do male victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and genital mutilation often feel about feminism? Betrayed!

There are those who say that men can’t be feminists because they can never understand what it’s like to experience life as a woman. By the same token, it is rare to find a feminist who has experienced life as a male victim.

Too often feminism seeks to pull off the confidence trick of presenting itself as having the solution to all gender problems, while simultaneously ignoring and excluding those who seek to resolve the gender problems that men and boys experience—and excluding those who aren’t feminists.

I’m delighted that you consider the genital mutilation of females and males to be a human rights issue. However, you have never experienced life as a non-feminist campaigning for gender equality for men and boys Hilary.

Oppressive, controlling and dominating

You can have no living idea of how oppressive and controlling and dominating and dictatorial and fundamentalist and anti-male feminism can be until you’ve experienced feminism through the lived experience of a male victim of gender discrimination, campaigning for gender equality for everyone—men and boys included.

As some feminists say Hilary, you can be an ally, but you can never be one of us because you will never experience life through our eyes. And if you truly want to be an ally—rather than convert us to your belief that “feminism is about equality”—you will need to acknowledge and validate the fact that many male victims (including many intactivists) have the experience of being betrayed by feminism.

And when a group of people feel betrayed by a movement, unless that betrayal is acknowledged and addressed, there is no way forward. The only way for feminism to prove that it is really about equality and address the betrayal that many male victims of genital mutilation feel, is for feminists to campaign with equal urgency for all boys and girls all over the world to be granted the basic human right of genital autonomy.

If the pro-feminist Guardian was ready to do this, if it was ready to campaign for genital autonomy for all, with equal passion and commitment, there would be no need to censor passionate campaigners for men and boys’ right to genital autonomy.

Thanks for all you do campaigning to end FGM and for providing a page about male circumcisions on your website.

Best Regards

Glen Poole

—Photo Credit: flickr/fibonacci blue

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:

Guardian newspaper tries to silence victims of genital mutilation, because they are men

by 41 Comments

The Guardian newspaper has publicly confirmed its policy of banning discussions about genital mutilation in the comment section under articles about genital mutilation.

To be more precise it is trying to ban commentators from sharing views about male genital mutilation that contradict its left-wing, pro-feminist, editorial views on female genital mutilation (FGM).

Many of the people impacted by the ban are committed campaigners against all forms of genital mutilation and men who were victims of genital mutilation themselves.

Campaigners told insideMAN last night that the practice of “moderating” male victims of genital mutilation (and their supporters) who call for all forms on non-consensual, medically unnecessary genital cutting to be banned has been going on for several years at The Guardian.

This week, apparently for the first time, the media group decided to openly “pre-moderate” comments on an article about FGM warning readers that “to keep circumcision of boys out of this particular conversation… comments specifically about male circumcision will be removed by mods as ‘Off Topic’.”

Debating the ban is banned! 

The reason The Guardian gave for banning discussion of male circumcision was that “the effects and cultural practices/significance are very, very different, and essentially they’re two separate debates”.

One campaigner accused the newspaper of issuing a “fiat” that censored fair and reasoned debate and banned commentators from even discussing whether the two practices are linked or not.

To prove the point, another campaigner from New Zealand posted a comment explaining the historical links between FGM and male circumcision in the US and the UK and his comment was removed.

Boys have human rights too! 

The same campaigner, who claimed on a separate forum that The Guardian allows posts supporting male circumcision, told insideMAN:

“It is legitimate for a site like the Guardian to not want every thread on FGC (female genital cutting) to be dominated by MGC (male genital cutting). What is less legitimate is to suppress every mention of MGC, and what is completely disgustingly illegitimate is to allow praise of MGC but not refutation of that praise, which seems to be what they are doing.”

“You could argue that to discuss FGC in isolation from other GC allows you to conflate harm with human rights violation…all GC is a human rights violation regardless of the degree of physical damage.”

Marilyn Milos, a US campaigner who began advocating for genital autonomy after observing the circumcision of baby boys as a nurse, agreed that the focus should be on human rights for everyone. She said:

“I’ve said many times before, genital cutting is not an issue of competitive suffering. The screams of infants and children undergoing genital cutting are genderless and both genders die from these harmful traditional practices. Both are human rights violations and should be dealt with as such.”

Men Do Complain

One man who has been making the case to the UK government that both practices violate human rights, Richard Duncker of Men Do Complain, explained his thinking to us. He said:

“It is difficult to see how a child’s human rights are not breached by non-therapeutic genital modification. The European Court of Human Rights has set a very low threshold for a breach of article 3 – that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment  – for example the application to the court No. 9078/06 Tarhan v Turkey (17/07/2012) found that the applicant’s Article 3 right had been breached by the forced shaving of his head and beard.”

“Children are equally entitled to the protection of their human rights. There is a misuse of Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 when adults state that it is their right to manifest their beliefs by modifying their children’s genitals. Article 9 is a qualified right in that a person cannot infringe the rights of another, even if that other is his or her child.”

Sadly, such considered comments from committed campaigners like Richard Duncker are not welcome at The Guardian.

What debate is allowed? 

To its credit, The Guardian probably generates more debate about male circumcision AND female circumcision than any other mainstream media operation. The coverage is heavily weighted towards FGM, which has been the subject of five articles this month alone, compared with male circumcision, which has generated 5 articles all year.

Furthermore, while The Guardian’s coverage of FGM is unequivocally opposed to the practice and strongly rooted in discussion about the UK’s role in ending the practice at home and abroad; The Guardian’s articles about male circumcision offer a mix of pro-circumcision; anti-circumcision and neutral viewpoints and are often presented as “world news” and not connected to the need for the UK to end the practice at home and abroad.

The Guardian claims that while “the two issues are superficially related, the … cultural practices/significance are very, very different, and essentially they’re two separate debates”.

What appears to be happening is that The Guardian has mistaken its editorial, gender political, worldview of genital with the absolute truth and is now insisting that any victims of genital mutilation (and their supporters) who think differently are quite simply wrong.

We can only solve this problem together 

I’ll give the final word to Georganne Chapin of Intact America, who told insideMAN:

“I think it’s rather curious. The Guardian is preaching to the choir if it does a piece deploring the evils of FGM. I do not minimize the problem of FGM in the cultures where it is still practiced, and we cannot deny that western countries with large Muslim populations will have to address the practice from a legal standpoint.

“However, as journalism, the topic isn’t even all that interesting on its own; the party’s over. The Guardian’s readership is universally going to condemn FGM.  What IS interesting is that The Guardian and the mainstream western press, in general, are not willing to even entertain the possibility that in order to solve the FGM problem, we might need to address MGM.”

—Photo Credit: flickr/erix

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: