insideMAN

One of BBC’s top 100 Women in foul-mouthed attack on insideMAN

by 26 Comments

A high profile feminist campaigner has launched a foul-mouthed attack on insideMAN magazine. If you don’t want to read an article full of swearing, please stop reading now!

This week, on International Men’s Day (Wednesday 19th November) we received an email from feminist comedian and activist, Kate Smurthwaite, which opened as follows:

“Would you please tell whoever wrote this utter shit to go fuck themselves?”

If you don’t know who Kate Smurthwaite is, in 2013 she was chosen by the BBC as one of its list of “100 Women” from around the world who “campaign for their causes and strive for a better world”, alongside the former New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark; the winner of 11 paralympian gold medals, Tanni Grey-Thompson and the barrister and philanthropist, Cherie Blair.

As a comedian and political commentator, she makes regular appearances on TV and radio (including Question Time) and has links with a broad range of organisations such as the NUT (National Union of Teachers); Abortion Rights UK and the London Feminist Network.

Smurthwaite was emailing us in response to a press release we sent to journalists and commentators,  promoting some of the  articles from our #100Voices4Men an Boys series.

Four reasons feminism is alienating men and boys 

In particular, we highlighted an article by Duncan Fisher, a former commissioner at the Equal Opportunities Commission who ran a small focus group with teenage boys and then wrote about the experience here: “Four reasons feminism is alienating teenage boys”. He said:

“We will never end sexism and gender inequality without the help of boys and men – this has always been the case and will always be. Wagging the finger at all young men and saying “repent!” is an incredibly ineffective recruitment strategy and alienates the men and boys equality work most needs”.

Fisher is not a lone voice expressing such concerns about the current hostility found in the feminist discourse on gender issues. On the day before International Men’s Day, the feminist campaigner and journalist, Julie Bindel, wrote an article in The Guardian saying that “feminism is in danger of becoming toxic”.

Abusive feminists deny women decent male allies 

The previous week, Jake Wallis Simons at Telegraph Men, made a similar point in his comment piece “the internet hates men and no-one’s a winner“:

“Misogynist trolling by horrid little men is a huge concern, but the answer is not to alienate the rest of us…In the current climate of febrile abusiveness…the more the anti-men trend gains traction, the more women will be deprived of decent male allies.”

Fisher’s thoughtful article listing four key reasons why feminism is alienating young men did not impress Smurthwaite.

Feminism wants you to fuck off 

Here’s Kate Smurthwaite’s email to insideMAN in full:

“Would you please tell whoever wrote this utter shit to go fuck themselves?

“It is not the job of women to make men feel welcome in feminism. Men shouldn’t be in favour of female equality because women were nice to them and/or made them feel at ease and comfortable and not too threatened.

“Feminism is about women’s rights. RIGHTS. Rights are things we should just get. Not have to fight for, not have to “play nice” for, not have to decide carefully on how best to ask for. We should just get them cos they’re rights.

“And 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.”

Free speech doesn’t mean telling people to fuck off

As Fisher wrote in his article for insideMAN: “Social media spreads outrageous views far faster than reasoned arguments and the social media these boys see every day is awash with fundamentalist views that brook no contradiction. The answer: keep a low profile. If you are targeted on-line, everyone can see. The same goes for large numbers of thoughtful teenage girls who would get fired at just as quickly.”

Smurthwaite is an advocate of a certain kind of “free speech”. In 2012 she told the One Law for All London Rally for Free Expression:

“If there is one thing more frightening to fundamentalists than someone with a well-formed opinion, it is someone with a well-formed opinion and a vagina.”

Freedom of speech is not simply about rights, it’s also about culture, psychology and behaviour. One of the reasons we launched the #100Voices4Men is that men and boys (and non-feminists generally) don’t experience a culture of free speech when it comes to gender issues.

Conversations about men and masculinity are being oppressed 

One of our writers described what he sees as a “pervasive drive to limit the discussion of men and masculinity to a single, poisonous, narrative: men don’t have problems, they cause them.” We took the considered step of allowing him to post under a pen name, because he was psychologically afraid of what might happen at his public sector workplace if colleagues read the article.

Of course he has the right to say what he wants—anyone has the right to put up a blog or post their views on social media, as long as they’re not libeling people, threatening people or inciting hatred.

But having a right to free speech, but being scared to speak up because your viewpoint is culturally unacceptable to certain controlling interests, who are prepared to behave in a hostile and abusive way towards you if you speak out—is not free speech in action.

Being heard is a two-way process 

A culture of free speech requires free listening—that’s listening free from judgment, anger, hatred, blame and an oppressive desire to close down anyone who thinks differently to you to “go an fuck themselves”. Listening without judgment doesn’t mean agreeing with everything other people say, it means setting aside your own prejudices and judgments for long enough to actually hear what other people have to say.

As I wrote in the article that launched the #100Voices4Men series on 1st October:

“Being heard is a two-way process, it involves speaking and listening—and for too long men and boys have either not spoken up about their experiences of being male, or have not been listened to when they do speak out.

“Our #100Voices4Men and Boys project is a small but significant step towards giving men and boys in the UK a bigger voice in conversations about gender. We can’t promise to agree with everything you say, but we do promise we’ll listen.”

As promised, I’ve listened to what Kate Smurthwaite, one of the BBC’s 100 Women of 2013, had to say to us here at insideMAN magazine and have come  to the conclusion that she is right about one thing, there is nothing more frightening to a fundamentalist than someone with a well-formed opinion.

The world needs fewer fundamentalists and more men and women with well formed opinions who are prepared to support free speech with free listening—and it’s hard to listen to anyone or anything when you’re telling them they are a “misogynist dickwad” who should go and “fuck themselves”.

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:

Men and gender equality: a report from Helsinki

by 6 Comments

Martin Robb reports from a European Commission seminar on engaging men in gender equality work.

—This is article #87 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

Engaging men in the struggle for gender equality appears to be an idea whose time has come. In September Harry Potter star Emma Watson made a widely-reported speech at the United Nations, promoting the HeForShe campaign, and among a number of forthcoming events on this theme, next year’s conference of the American Men’s Studies Association, to be held in New York City, will be a joint event with MenEngage on ‘Engaging men and boys for gender equality’.

Back in June, Sandy Ruxton and I took part in a seminar on a similar theme at the Government Equalities Office in London, at which I talked about the ‘Beyond Male Role Models’ project and our research on gender identities and work with young men. One outcome of that event was an invitation to take part in a European Commission ‘exchange of good practice’ seminar in Helsinki, on the role of men in gender equality, which took place last week. The event was attended by representatives from 15 European countries – from Italy to Ireland, and Luxembourg to Latvia – and I had the privilege of being invited to represent the United Kingdom as an independent expert, alongside Barbara-Ann Collins from the Government Equalities Office.

Strong emphasis on paternity leave

During the seminar three countries – Finland, Iceland and Austria – presented examples of their policy and practice, and representatives from other countries discussed the issues raised by these initiatives and their transferability to their respective national contexts. When I first read the discussion papers, I had some reservations. There seemed to be a strong emphasis on structural change, specifically on policy relating to paternity leave, but less emphasis on changing attitudes and behaviour. Despite one or two notable exceptions, there was also very little focus on ‘hard’ topics such as men’s violence against women. I was also concerned about proposals for a ‘ministry of men’, or similar structures to represent men’s interests, and the risk of giving comfort to the ‘me-too-ism’ of the men’s rights lobby.

However, the actual seminar went a long way towards dispelling these anxieties. Despite the enormous variety of policies and practices across Europe – from the egalitarian welfarism of the Nordic nations, through the ‘familism’ of Italy and other southern European states, to the young democracies of the Baltic ‘accession’ countries – there was a reassuring degree of common ground, among the academics, activists and civil servants present, on many key issues.

Developing caring masculinities 

For example, there was a definite consensus in favour of the model of dedicated, non-transferable and preferably paid paternity leave, pioneered by countries like Iceland. However, it was heartening that participants concurred that the aim of encouraging fathers to take paternity leave was not simply to support women’s re-entry into the labour market, but to encourage the development of caring masculinities. There was also a shared sense that equal parental leave was as much about the rights of children to care from both of their parents, as it was about the employment rights of adults. And there were some interesting discussions on the need to influence culture as well as structure, and the complex interplay between the two.

Another key topic at the seminar was gender segregation in the workplace and the absence, which seemed to be common across the continent, of men working with children, whether in education or in welfare services. However, it was refreshing that a number of participants echoed the critical perspective on this issue that we’ve tried to articulate as part of the ‘Beyond Male Role Models’ project, cautioning that the ‘problem’ of boys can’t simply be attributed to the absence of men from the family or school, and that simply employing more men won’t necessarily improve outcomes. At the same time,  claims that men contribute something distinctive that women are unable to provide risk falling back on outworn stereotypes, and undermining the positive work of women teachers and welfare workers.

I left Helsinki feeling pleased and privileged 

There was also a great deal of agreement about ways of engaging men, and about the problems involved in doing so. There was a shared nervousness about simply focusing on ‘men’s issues’ in a way that might set them up in a competition for resources with women, or encourage a belief that men were victims of gender inequality to the same degree as women. Instead, there was agreement that the process of engaging men must happen in the context of supporting and promoting gender equality. But how to convince men that these processes were of interest and relevance to them? One way forward appeared to be persuading men that current gender relations were bad for them, too, imposing on men a limiting model of masculinity, and that more equal relationships could be good for the wellbeing both genders – for example, by giving men the opportunity to be more fully involved in the care and welfare of their children.

I left Helsinki feeling pleased and privileged to have met so many interesting and committed people doing important and innovative work, often in very challenging contexts, and also feeling cautiously optimistic about a developing consensus around the importance of engaging men, if campaigns for gender equality are to be successful. Closer to home, I also came away reassured that the issues thrown up by our work on the ‘Beyond Male Role Models’ project were finding an echo with other researchers, activists and policy-makers and that our research could make a timely contribution to this important debate.

—Picture credit: Craftivist Collective 

Martin Robb is a Senior Lecturer in the Open University’s Faculty of Health and Social Care and Principal Investigator for the ESRC-funded research project ‘Beyond Male Role Models: Gender Identities and Practices in Work with Young Men’, a collaboration between The Open University and Action for Children. He has published articles and book chapters on a wide range of topics, with a specific focus on issues of fatherhood, young masculinity and men working in childcare.

You can find him on twitter @MartinRobbOU.

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

How does a Christian man engage with a feminist campaign on male violence?

by 2 Comments

I am writing this in Delhi as the Second Global Symposium for engaging men and boys in gender justice is drawing to a close.  It has not been an easy place to be a Christian.

The church is most-often spoken of in the context of fundamentalism, patriarchy and oppression – an apparent enemy of women’s rights and unconcerned with the struggles of a movement seeking justice in a world where so many are subject to violence and oppression as a result of their gender or sexuality.

— This is article #80 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

The brutal Delhi rape of December 2012 raised the profile of sexual violence around the world. Being in India also brings into perspective the cradle to grave nature of violence against women. This ranges from sex selective abortion which has left a huge deficit of girl children in India, through forced and early marriage, domestic abuse (reckoned to affect 35% of women here), rape, sexual abuse and routine sexual harassment through to abuse of widows.  This is the local Indian manifestation of the global epidemic of violence against women which takes different forms in different countries, but is truly universal.

This group of committed activists seeking to address gender justice, including violence against women, has little time for the church.  They are critical of the way in which society in general, and religion in particular, is active or complicit in gender-based violence, and persecutes those who do not conform to its social norms.  There are tensions here between different groups around the role of men and the feminist responses to men’s engagement in this work, but overall there is an impressive consensus about the task to be addressed and the importance of men and women working together.  A good place for us to start is reading the “Delhi Call to Action”  and reflecting on how we might respond.

Gender, caste and identity

Several of the discussions have been about moving beyond the “gender binary” of male and female. In India, transgender women have a prominent public role at social events and on the streets.  I listened for the first time to a transgender man speak about the personal nature of his struggle for identity, and about the extent to which prevailing social norms and debates left him excluded and marginalised.  His convincing analysis, combined with his personal story of experiencing violence, stands alongside other abuse such as the “corrective rape” of lesbians in South Africa and the multiple sufferings of women, poor and lower class/caste communities and sexual minorities.  Where does the church stand on these issues?  For the most part we are silent and distant.

A second overarching theme was the need to recognise the multiple dimensions of power and oppression.  Being in India, this inevitably focused heavily on caste and the appalling sufferings of Dalit women and men. Gender is only one, albeit important, dimension of this.  Privilege is generally invisible to those that enjoy it.  What do we see when we look in the mirror?

Michael Kimmel, an American academic, who is also white, male, middle class and heterosexual, said, half-jokingly, that in the mirror he sees a human being.  He was acknowledging that gender, class, sexuality and race all risk being invisible to him and other men, such as me, in the same situation.  Others would answer the question of what they see in the mirror very differently.  What do you see and how aware are you of the different dimensions of privilege that you enjoy?

A Christian presence

There was a small but positive Christian presence here. Restored members SALT, Tearfund and UMN were all represented. Prabu Deepan highlighted Tearfund’s great work with church leaders addressing masculinities in the Great Lakes region of Africa.   Veena O’Sullivan, also from Tearfund, has helped to pioneer work with survivors in South Africa. Through the We Will Speak Out  coalition  of which Restored is a member, she has forged close links with Sonke Gender Justice, one of the leaders of the MenEngage alliance that organised the conference.  Sonke has over 200 staff with a large contingent here in Delhi.  Many of the staff are Christians and the organisation is developing its work across ten African countries and developing its “One Man Can” campaign to have more explicitly Christian content for use in church communities.

At two satellite meetings and one session in the main programme there was a chance to talk about the positive dimensions of faith and working with faith leaders.  I was able to speak about First Man Standing at the We Will Speak Out session.   There was recognition of the influence of faith and positive stories from Sonke, Tearfund and Norwegian Church Aid who have had an interesting project working primarily with Muslim leaders in Pakistan to address issues of female inheritance and forced marriage.

And Jesus is here.  The example of Jesus, unlike that of the church, is generally held in high esteem for his love and commitment to the poor and marginalised, and his respect for both women and men.  I continue to believe that the love, positive relationships and the giving up of power that lie at the heart of the gospel are very much part of the answer.  What is needed is for each of us, and for the church as a whole, to live this out.  For most of this dialogue the church is not at the table. My overwhelming sense is of the distance that we have to travel to be engaged in these debates and to stand alongside those who are both suffering and standing for justice.  Our language and our attitudes need to change.  We need to repent of so much, and we need to be willing to listen in humility before we speak.

Peter Grant is Co-Director of Restored and this article first appeared at the Restored website. You can follow the charity on Twitter @Rest0red

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

Seven things blokes can do to make the world a better place for everyone

by 1 Comment

“There are essentially just two things that need to change to make this a better world for men and boys,” says David Wilkins of the Men’s Health Forum. “The first is The World. And the second is er . . . men and boys”.

—This is article #76 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

I’m often asked to write about how the world (well, the UK) might change, especially in relation to men’s mental and physical health, and the organisation for which I work has been campaigning on the issues for many years. It’s crucial that the UK should change culturally and politically in some of its attitudes and policies towards men.

This though, is my list for blokes – including myself. It’s subjectively espressed but it is pretty much based on evidence, not on personal whim. It reflects the large number of debates and discussions I’ve been in over the years and the range of opinion that I’ve often heard expressed by men and women. Not everything applies to everyone and it’s not perfect or complete – but here it is.

Let’s us blokes:

1. Look after our health. It’s our responsibility and it’s not just for reasons of self preservation. There are people out there who love us and depend on us. They don’t want us dead before we even draw our pensions for God’s sake.

2. Allow ourselves to be vulnerable. Get help when we need it. Give up trying just to escape our problems – it doesn’t work.

3. Look out for our male friends. Allow them to be vulnerable. Stop taking the piss. Refuse to collude with their escape plans.

4. Value education. Encourage our sons to learn, and engage with them in their learning. Demand better for boys at school. The UK is not doing anywhere near well enough with our boys – and it’s not just the fault of schools.

5. Avoid getting sucked into working long hours for no extra pay. Our grandads and great grandads and all the generations since the Industrial Revolution fought like billy-o for our rights at work. Giving half our lives away for nothing is letting them down. Long hours stop us looking after ourselves and being with those we love.

6. Prioritise spending time with our kids. Be the one who takes them to the doctor or picks them up from school. Allow our sons to be vulnerable, as well as helping them to be strong. Both sexes – but boys especially – do better where fathers are actively involved in nurture and care.

7. Avoid buying into the bollocks that says that “feminism” is to blame for everything that’s a problem for men. It is absolutely right that we should support women to make a better and more equal world. We can work for solutions to problems that disadvantage men without negating women’s rights. It’s not Man United v Liverpool.

—Picture credit: RCB

David Wilkins is policy officer at the charity the Men’s Health Forum.

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

Gender equality. Man you lose, woman… You lose too! (But the state wins.)

by 4 Comments

Andrew Johnson is a retired father with six grown-up children and personal experience of the family court system.  This is his anti-statist, libertarian perspective, on why the search for equality between men and women is doomed to fail.

— This is article #71 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

I have heard that the goal of the men’s movement is, “finishing off what feminists started when they campaigned for gender equality – TRUE equality!”

It is not a good idea.  Apart from the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE anyway, it is not even wise to try and achieve something that goes against the real, observable nature of humanity.

Men and women are not “fungible”.  Meaning,  we cannot treat men and women as if they are easily interchangeable, have the same properties and characteristics, etc..

We are not dealing with, for example, haddock and cod. We are dealing with entities that are, by natural evolution, meant to complement each other when taken together, and have greatly different properties when considered separately. Meat and spuds. Plaice and lemon.

The “contentious” issues of sexual politics do have a habit of being based on “inconvenient” realities that the “equality” obsessives have absolutely no way of squaring off. We are a not a hermaphrodite species. “Ye can-nae change the laws of biology captain” as Scotty famously did not say in “Star Trek”.

Did you note I used the term “sexual” politics?  It is my personal policy not to use terms that are often associated with feminist writers. Not merely to distance myself from an ideology I do not care much for, but because I regard “sex” as more explanatory than “gender”. The reasons why “the sexes” can’t often be treated as if they are the same, is because sexual reproduction depends on them behaving differently and having different properties. “Gender politics” really comes down to SEX. Let’s not be coy now.

REALITY 1:

Women bear children. They carry a child for nine months. They provide that growing body with all it needs. It is a major thing in the life of any woman who experiences it. It is not without risks and is often a difficult time for the woman. Mentally and physiologically.

Reproduction has a hugely significant impact on females. Solely the female. Not the male. He does not carry a child. He does not bear the risk, the pain.

He is not even necessarily aware that his genes are being used to create a child — few men are “required” to fulfil the reproductive abilities of all fertile women.

So, it is natural in society that when it comes to children – babies especially — it is all about THE MOTHER. It is and pretty much always will be, geared around HER needs and comfort.

Of course, that leads us on to…

REALITY 2:

Men are required to fertilise female eggs.

Without even getting into the immense task involved in convincing a woman to bear a child for a man. (Suffice it to say, women are CHOOSY and can afford to be, indeed HAVE to be, if they want the best chance for their offspring to be strong and cared for.)

That is pretty much all a chosen man needs to do, to ensure the species continues.

Hang on, no, not quite.

Raising kids, is hard work. It is time consuming. It demands a lot of resources. Who has to provide these resources?

The mother, is the PRIMARY parent, so she is needed for that role.

Don’t like that thought? Tough. Get used to it. Times have NOT changed much matey. Nor are they likely to this century.

Perhaps a DNA test can determine who “the other parent” is. If the mother wishes that. But he is not going to be breastfeeding the child, and certainly not carrying the child for nine months.

‘Human nature does not seek equality’

So what can his role be?

I think we know that. He provides. He cares for the mother, he engages with the world of work and labour, and brings back resources. Hey, he can even change nappies and play with the child.

There are of course others who can do this.

The state will even do it. The state can (and does) take over much of the “child raising” and resource provision so that both the mother and the father can then be “free” to… Support the state!

This is why the statists like the idea of “equalising” the sexes.

But it doesn’t really work does it? Mothers remain “sacred”. Men are still expected to work to provide for mothers, either directly, or indirectly via taxation.

A fools errand…

There are other reasons I can give why the quest for equality is at best pointless and even counterproductive.

Men will usually choose to provide women with MORE than what is “equal” and indeed women (and fathers of the bride) will always be willing to rate men on how they provide for her. (Capitulation?)

Human nature does not seek “equality” it seeks MORE than an equal share of resources when it can get it.

The most obvious inequalities are FINANCIAL differentials between SOCIAL CLASSES, vast and overwhelming compared to sexual inequalities in many regards.

Perhaps consider this:

Two equal parties, are more likely to argue, less likely to be able to settle their disagreements and make a decision, and ultimately will need a third party that is ‘MORE EQUAL’ than both to decide for them and there we come back to her ‘mate’ the STATE.

So, what is the way forward for men, women, children and the family life so many of us  cherish?

Aim not for unrealistic and mutually power reducing “equality” between men and women. But for a system that encourages COMPATIBLE treatment of men and women. A system that frees men to be  the best of manliness and allows women to be the best of womanliness.

And the beauty of it is, we know how to do that. Our cultural instincts showed us, a long time ago, and it doesn’t need any state help to “engineer” it along.

Gender equality? It was never the solution, and all attempts at making  it so worsened the problems between the sexes. It was, and still is… A fool’s errand.

Feature image: Flickr/winnifredxoxo

Andrew Johnson is retired father with six grown-up children and personal experience of the family court system. He considers himself to be an anti-statist libertarian.

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

 

Four reasons feminism is alienating teenage boys

by 36 Comments

Duncan Fisher  wanted to know what teenage boys feel about feminism, so he invited four of his daughter’s male friends to tell him what they think.

—This is article #65 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

When I was asked to write one of the articles for the #100Voices4Men series I was chuffed. Then followed two months of absolute mental blankness. I watched with increasing panic as articles were published, reaching closer and closer to the 100 mark!

And then my daughter saved me. She reported that there had been a heated argument in an A-level English class at her school about feminism. A week later, I had four 17 year old boys from the English class sitting round our dining room table at home, and this article is about that conversation.

I wanted to know their perceptions of gender inequality and the debate about feminism.

This is a group of young men keenly aware of the concerns of feminism, with a clear view of how the inequalities of concern to feminism are different in different environments. For example take the case of overt sexism in public places: there is none in the streets of our own small community where anonymity is no option, but in cities it is a different story. Idescribed the harassment my youngest daughter has experienced while out running training in Cardiff and everyone in social media is currently debating the story from New York.

And then there is the internet, where sexualisation of women and girls and sexist trolling are rampant. We discussed their perceptions of equality in education. They see a very high level of equality in UK, but see a very different story in other countries and admire the campaigning of Malala Yousafzi.

They do not arrive at the same conclusion as the young man, Josh O’Brien, in article #27 of this series, who takes an anti-feminist view of gender politics. But despite this keen awareness, interest and concern, they don’t engage in the debate on-line: “we never put our point of view across because there is too much hate”.

So what’s the story?

Four things cause real difficulty for these boys:

1. When men who respect women are held responsible for the activities of men who behave horribly towards women

One of the young men said: “The story is that all men are dicks. We are being asked to sort these men out, but we are not responsible.”

It called to my mind the recent complaint by British Muslims about being held to account for the actions of ISIS, leading to a great joke T-shirt: “I’m a Muslim and I am sorry for everything – in the past, present and future”!

Wagging the finger at all young men and saying “repent!” is an incredibly ineffective recruitment strategy and alienates the men and boys equality work most needs.

2. When there is a lack of empathy for men who suffer

The young men are aware of those areas where men fare worse on average than women – relationships with their children after parental separation, access to mental health services, rates of suicide, death in war. A lack of empathy for these issues sends a dark signal. And in areas where the gender balance goes the other way, such as domestic violence or single parenting, why not open up our support equally to all according to need?

3. When statistics are abused

These young men (and, I am sure, countless young women) know that many of the statistics banded about in social media are false – for example the one that says women earn 23% less than men, presented as if women are paid substantially less than men for the same work in a wide range of jobs. They know it cannot be true, because teachers in their school are paid equally irrespective of gender. But they have no doubt there are pay inequalities, though they don’t have the resources to find out the truth of the matter, which is a painstaking and expert task.

They also know that if they do make any attempt at a contradiction, they will draw fire. So, even if they had all the figures, they have no real appetite for pointless rows. So the only option is to shut up. And so stupid statistics fly around in social media, giving people who want a fight a sense of justification for doing so; they are observed from the sidelines by a large silent majority. Actual solutions, which depend on meticulous analysis of what is actually happening, get pushed into the background.

4. Fundamentalism on the internet

Social media spreads outrageous views far faster than reasoned arguments and the social media these boys see every day is awash with fundamentalist views that brook no contradiction. As the boys pointed out, the video of little girls swearing and spouting ridiculous statistics (we all really hate this video) has gone hugely viral.

One boy said: “it keeps on appearing in my feed as the girls I am friends with share it”, fuelling division between teenage boys and girls. The answer: keep a low profile. If you are targeted on-line, everyone can see. The same goes for large numbers of thoughtful teenage girls who would get fired at just as quickly.

What do young men want? 

And so the cause of gender inequality is deprived of its most valuable potential supporters on a grand scale. So I asked the boys, what conditions would have to apply to allow them to feel able to contribute to the debate about equality in the way they would like to?

They said they would need a safe place where they could feel confident they would not be shouted at and publicly humiliated; where their motives were not under immediate suspicion simply on account of their gender. They want protecting against fundamentalism by prominent and leading figures in the campaign for gender equality – people who can defend the sincerity of their interest and allow real discussion. They want to participate with girls and women of like mind.

Let us imagine for one instant what we could do if we could cultivate a strong and confident group of young women and men across the world committed to defending equality and having the tools to do so? A group of people ready to listen to the concerns of the other gender and to campaign together, modelling the kind of partnership between women and men that is predicated by equality?

You can’t have gender equality if you don’t include boys

 

What if all those watching the row about gender on the internet could also glimpse a place where an active, respectful and sincere campaign for equality was being conducted by women and men together?

This may be a pipe-dream. But let us remember: we will never end sexism and gender inequality without the help of boys and men – this has always been the case and will always be. And the first step is to listen to them without judgement, particularly those who are genuinely concerned and wish to participate.

As the boys left our house, they said how great it was to be able to have a sensible conversation about these things. I was struck that this was the first opportunity they had ever had to discuss gender equality without having to self-censor. That’s a big problem.

—Picture credit: David Shankbone

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

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

One young man on how he came to support the men’s rights movement

by 4 Comments

If it’s unusual for men to think about their place in the world through the lens of gender politics — and I think it’s fair to say that it is — then it’s even rarer among young men who are still in their teens.

But YouTube vlogger and insideMAN contributor Josh O’Brien is one of them. So as part of our #100Voices4Men and boys series we asked him to make a video explaining, well, why he makes these videos.

Here it is. And as he explains, it’s complicated.

Take a look at the video below, what do you think of Josh’s journey? Does it resonate with your own experiences? Or do you disagree with his analysis and conclusions? Please let us know in a comment or a tweet.

— This is article #27 of our series of #100Voices4Men and boys

Josh vlogs independently, writes for US-based men’s rights’ website A Voice For Men and contributes to insideMAN in the UK. The two sites are not affiliated.

To watch more of Josh’s videos, check out his YouTube channel here and on insideMAN below:

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles 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 take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

Feature image: flickr/floeschie

Is the problem with men’s health gender politics?

by 7 Comments

Improving the health of men and boys is a surprisingly complicated task involving problems, paradigms and gender politics, according to men’s health specialist Paul Hopkins.

—This is article #21 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

Consideration of a combination of the sciences of human biology – neuroscience, psychology, endocrinology, and socio-biology, alongside social determinants of health, plus recognition of the influence on health of overlying cultural factors appears a reasonable premise for academic study and action on health concerns, with different disciplines working together to achieve a common good. However, add the words ‘gender’ and ‘male’ and academe enters a place of paradigms, politics and problems.

Welcome to men’s health: it’s complicated.

People who consider health to be a generic subject may ask why a focus on men? Why – because there is a sound rationale for action on men’s health. A cursory run through the evidence reveals that:

  • men die on average four years younger than women – and the gap has remained consistent throughout previous decades
  • cardiovascular disease is the largest cause of death of men in the UK, occurs at an earlier age in men and is a cause of premature male death
  • excluding breast cancer, men have a greater probability of cancer than women of most of the common cancers that befall both sexes
  • men are more likely to work in blue-collar jobs involving industrial processes that have an adverse affect on health
  • men are more likely to drink alcohol, smoke and use substances than women, more likely to be homeless or in prison
  • a disproportionate number of young males are killed in transport accidents and young men are consistently the group most at risk of suicide. The burden of suicide is three times greater in men
  • men tend to use health services less often than women and present themselves to health services at a later stage, often when their illness has advanced
  • services aren’t constructed so that they’re accessible to men; men may want to access preventative health services but they can’t

So what are we doing about it?

Given the weight of evidence it could be argued that a substantial national male health policy such as those introduced in the Republic of Ireland or Australia should have been put into place, and gendered, preventative health work embedded as part of health work infrastructure. Australia also has a ‘National Women’s Health Policy’ to act on the differential needs of females. However, whilst gendered health work may seem a sensible step to health strategists in Ireland and Australia, Western countries with similar evidence of the burden of male health, the UK has a Gender Equality Act via which inequalities in health are supposed to be addressed.

This may work in terms of ensuring single sex hospital wards, but it does not provide dedicated, gender-based preventative health policies and the actions required to implement them. In the meantime, preventative health work is driven by single-silo strategies that pay passing heed to male health concerns; the national male health policy that would provide a driver for real preventative health work does not appear to be part of the mindset of the architects and bureaucracies of UK health PLC.

The advent of commissioning of preventative health services, allied to the dispersal of health promotion departments and the loss of skilled staff in this area is also problematic. Public health and health promotion are allied but different disciplines. Whilst some public health commissioners may have a background in health promotion work, the current strategic concentration on the fiscal aspect of value for money services and a bean-counter mentality does not sit easily with gendered health work. An understanding of male health, what works, how to engage with men and attract men to services is vital to the provision of preventative services.

Given the single silo nature of public health work, with commissioners concentrating on one health topic – mental health, sexual health, obesity et al, it is likely that few commissioners have an understanding of men’s health, and even more unlikely to have undertaken serious study in the subject. Training, workshops or conferences would be a useful start, as might a discussion of the financial benefits of gendered work. But there’s another issue – and this one also has an antipodean twist to it.

Is feminism a barrier to improving men’s health? 

Any truly objective training on male health, or any national policy would come up against a paradigm issue, an academic debate at the heart of work on male health that has encumbered the disciplines involved and has resonance for practitioners involved in implementing preventative work. Male Studies is a recent academic discipline that has a largely Australian and American basis and seeks to explain men’s health outcomes based upon the biological sciences, social determinants and cultural factors mentioned at the beginning of this article.

Male Studies acknowledges that research into male health is not confined to any one discipline but covers a range of academic and professional disciplines and theories. The rationale appears straightforward, but for academics and practitioners wishing to establish Male Studies courses and undertake practical health work with men a politicised barrier is encountered; another humanities grounded academic discipline got there first.

There are two perspectives on male health. On one side is the Male Studies perspective already mentioned; on the other is a sociology-based camp that holds that masculinity is largely a social construct, that a traditional Western form of masculinity is damaging to health and thus work should be undertaken that challenges men on aspects of their masculinity, with an aim of decreasing risk-taking behaviours and improving health outcomes. A limited biological basis for men’s health outcomes is acknowledged.

The genitor of this work is an Australian sociologist, Raewyn Connell. This perspective has its roots in gender studies and feminist critiques of men; Connell’s 1995 work Masculinities is the formative text for this body of work. Men’s Studies or Critical Studies on Men are terms used to describe the sociology-based camp, which has a global presence, with established courses in academic institutions in many countries. Sociologists argue that Male Studies perspectives are overly deterministic and fail to take into account men’s hierarchical social practices as the key driver of men’s health outcomes; that Male Studies perspectives of working with some men ‘as they are’ may reinforce what is perceived as a harmful form of ‘masculinity’.

Are men behaving badly or are we helping men badly?  

Male Studies advocates consider that health work should acknowledge male psychology and biology and the societal expectations, realities, and demands of men’s lives. That the narrative of ‘men behaving badly’ expressed by sociologists is a negative one, a deficiency approach of blaming males for health outcomes. Male Studies academics contend that male health work should concentrate on addressing the social determinants of health and consider the positive things that can be done to improve health, such as building social connections, promoting lifelong education, developing male friendly services and providing secure employment.

In a UK context, academic work and work that seeks to influence policy on male health is heavily weighted towards a sociology perspective. For example, the recent (2013) Men’s Health Forum, Haringey Man MOT Project. A review of the literature: men’s health-seeking behaviour and use of the internet, states that “there is a clear need for further studies to examine the influence of masculinities on how men behave.” It has been said elsewhere that the sociology-based work on ‘masculinities’ and men’s health holds a place of privilege in academia – primarily due to work being rooted in long-standing feminist and gender studies work.

The Male Studies biological, psychological, social determinants perspective is a more recent academic phenomenon. However, there is no university in the UK that has implemented work from this perspective – a Male Studies course. Indeed there is no university anywhere on the globe that is currently running such a course.

 What became of the world’s first Male Studies course? 

A world first Male Studies course at an Australian university was the subject of a furore in the Australian press earlier in 2014. This emanated from an article by a journalist suggesting that the course was ‘antifeminist’ and that those involved were ‘male rights’ people. The intervention of the journalist occurred just prior to the launch of the course and whatever the official reasons were, it was cancelled. The first part of the course was a Male Health and Male Health Promotion component aimed at doctors, nurses and other health professionals; it was to be run by university staff and health professionals. Feminist academics rallied around the media article stating that there was no need for a Male Studies course and that feminism held the answers to men’s health. You pays your money you takes your choice – except there was no choice of course.

A concern is, is the debate about improving male health, or about the imposition of ideology? That adherence to an ideology based on equality is actually detrimental to one gender? That work that may enhance the health of men is stifled by an academic camp that purports that it has the answers based on an ideology, and that other perspectives are suppressed? Questions are asked but there has not been a meeting of academic minds; both camps are entrenched in their positions and there is a lack of dialogue between them other than to take pot shots and sling mud at each other. Don’t expect this to be resolved any time soon

So where now? There is consensus on both sides of the argument on the evidence base for work with men and the need to do something about it. In terms of strategic thinking, the Australian National Male Health Policy took a pragmatic view. It considered the different perspectives and research on male health; it acknowledged in part the social construction perspective, but also stated that men do value and are interested in their health – that services are not male friendly in terms of access, branding of services and timing of service opening hours. Provision of male friendly services to improve access for men is part of a policy that those of us working in the UK can only hope and lobby for.

That any future UK policy would consider both sides of the argument is a concern given the historical dominance of ‘masculinities’ in academia. In Australia and elsewhere, questions can be asked as to the motives for publication of an article sensationalising Male Studies work on the eve of the first Male Studies programme. In a global context the Male Health and Male Health Promotion course should have gone ahead. Not because of any tit-for-tat ideological argument, but because it allowed for consideration and application of other approaches to male health through the combination of different sciences and theories; approaches that may be beneficial to men’s health, not only in Australia but in other countries that share a similar burden of male health concerns.

—Picture credit: Flickr/speedoglyn1

Paul Hopkins is a Men’s Health Promotion Specialist and practitioner; his work includes clinical practice, public health, not-for-profit work and more recently work as a Research Associate for the University of South Australia. He is currently involved in developing the Mengage (UK) initiative.

 

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

 

Lads, its time for some meninism

by 8 Comments

If women have got feminism what have men got? George Gillett says that men could do with some kind of “menimism” to liberate us from the narrow expectations of masculine stereotypes.

—This is article #18 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

Feminist movements are thriving, reacting to an increasingly misogynistic society in which gender stereotyping is commonplace. And rightly so; individuals shouldn’t be limited by presumptions and attitudes towards their gender, and many men have realised this, now becoming an important part of the feminist movement. Yet male concerns about gender stereotyping shouldn’t stop at liberation for women – strict gender norms can affect men in equally damaging ways. Perhaps a new movement is needed to confront the oppression men face, to coin a term; ‘meninism’.

Society is inflicting gender roles on both men and women. Routinely, women face critique of their appearance, pressure to start family life and expectations to occupy a generally subordinate role to men. Fortunately, feminism’s great work is confronting these sexist attitudes. Men face similar narrow conceptions on how they should behave; an expectation to be ambitious, to provide for a family financially but not affectionately and to hide their emotions. The difference is that men still lack a voice.W

Is it any wonder than more men kill themselves?

Consider mental illness, and how we deal with emotion. While women are encouraged to ‘open up’ and discuss issues with friends, men are told to ‘man up,’ and to hide their emotions. According to the mental health charity Mind, the consequence of this is that men ‘are often discouraged from expressing ‘softer’ emotions’ leading to ‘barriers to good mental health’. Mind also suggests that the public are ‘more prejudiced against men with mental health problems than women.’ Considering the difficulties that gender stereotyping presents to men, the statistic that men are 3-4 times more likely to commit suicide than women no longer seems so surprising.

Men also face social pressure in attitudes towards their career and family. To be fully male is to act as the breadwinner of the family and so to be anything other than financially ambitious is scorned. This burden leads to disparities in the attitudes of men and women towards their career, with men all too often feeling inadequate or worthless if they are not traditionally earning enough to ‘provide’ for their family. Indeed,reports show that men are disproportionately more affected psychologically as a result of unemployment in comparison with women.

And it goes beyond losing a job. A recent survey revealed that 82% of fathers want to spend more time with their families than their job allows, highlighting how society’s gendered expectations are failing both men and women. Thankfully the situation is changing – a growing number of men are staying at home to look after children, but fathers still make up only 10% of stay-at-home parents. It is clear that more needs to be done if men are to be free to choose a lifestyle which is best for them.

Body image – often understood as the preserve of women – also plays an integral role in how men identify with their gender. We are told men should be fit and strong – a sentiment that tries to label some men as less ‘masculine’ than others. This attitude has real consequences – one survey revealed that 63% of men expressed worries that ‘they were not muscular enough’. These fears arise from the absurd belief that ‘real men’ are strong and have a particular body shape, another sign that gender stereotypes in media and advertising are causing men harm.

Warped perceptions of masculinity don’t help anyone

Gender stereotypes even encroach on our most intimate relationships. A warped perception of masculinity has led to bizarre attitudes towards sexual orientation and the widespread belief that there is something ‘unmanly’ about being gay. Being a real, fully-functioning man is synonymous with being in a sexual relationship with a woman for no reason other than prejudice. The result of this is that male members of the LGBTQ community are perceived as unmanly or effeminate. Perhaps the most obvious consequence of this is the discrimination shown towards the LGBTQ community; 99% of school students regularly hear homophobic language being used and 41% of gay people have considered committing suicide as a result of bullying. Is this really a surprise considering the societal attitudes that rip away someone’s whole gender identity as soon as they identify as anything that isn’t heterosexual?

Likewise, for heterosexual men, our society’s lad culture dictates how individuals must act in order to be ‘real men’ – just read the routine misogynistic banter from websites such as Uni Lad. Men are seen as abnormal if they refuse to ‘rate’ girls out of ten, and face accusations of ‘being whipped’ if they become too caring or considerate. There is apparently something weird about not laughing along to a joke about sexual assault, or not gawping at girls in the street.

However, lad culture is not the sole culprit of these damaging perceptions. Too many women blissfully propagate gender stereotypes in their day to day lives with seemingly harmless dating games such as playing hard to get reinforcing the idea that men must strive, chase and earn the ‘prize’ of a girlfriend. Not only do these gender roles aid the objectification of women but they lead to unhappiness for men who find themselves not fitting into the narrow conceptions of stereotypical gendered behaviour.

Patriarchy hurts men too

All of these issues have a common cause; the idea of masculinity and how we have defined what being a man is. Just as feminists point to the limitations of an effeminate personality, we must highlight the injustices of the inflexible masculine mould that we are expected to fill. It is not about granting men the freedom to adopt an effeminate personality if they wish, it’s about having the sense to realise that a gender can’t have a personality. That to tie someone’s physical sex to a personality trait is no less ridiculous than associating a personality trait to an ethnicity, sexual orientation or nationality.

You may think that ‘meninism’ is a ridiculous concept, especially when considering history. Women have suffered, and continue to suffer, from a patriarchal society which disproportionately grants privilege and power to men. But it seems clear that men suffer too. You may also argue that feminism already campaigns for men’s issues, yet groups regularly focus exclusively on the oppression of women. Visit the website for campaign group UK Feminista for instance, where every statistic exclusively highlights oppression against women. Of course, ideally, people of all sexes could unite in campaigns to end gender stereotyping. However, as long as feminists (very reasonably) exclusively focus on how gender stereotypes affect women, men shouldn’t be intimidated to discuss how gender stereotypes cause harm to us all.

We must remember what liberation means – it is not just equal opportunity to be financially independent or to hold positions of authority. Liberation is about much more – it’s the freedom to be yourself regardless of ethnicity, sexual orientation, class or gender. As soon as we assign stereotypes to any identity we create expectations of how individuals should behave, guidelines of what people should want, and most importantly, limitations on who we can be. This is as true for men as anyone else.

So let’s reclaim the words ‘man,’ ‘masculine’ and ‘lad’. Let’s dissociate them from misogyny, banter and an inability to discuss emotional problems. Let’s remember what these words should be used for – to describe the sex of a person. And only their sex.

This article was originally published on George Gillett’s blog, which can be found here. You can also follow him on Twitter @george_gillett.

—Picture credit: Flickr/Renato Ganoza

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

 

When I talk about men’s issues, my wife says I sound like a “C*@%”!

by 14 Comments

Meet insideMAN reader Darren Ball, a jolly nice, North London, liberal sort of chap who has a bad habit of bringing up men’s issues at dinner parties.

—This is article #16 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

After sharing a glass or few of chardonnay with my wife, she once told me something that surprised me; she said: “When you talk about gender issues you sound like a c**t”.

She then said something that surprised me even more: “I told you that because I love you”.

Okay, a little bit of work required on her bedside manner perhaps, but I sympathise with her. There exists online, a grotesque “manosphere” of angry individuals, claiming to talk for men and boys, but is really a cover for deeply held misogyny. As a Guardian-reading Stoke Newingtonite, I have a bit of an image problem.

I’m a socially-liberal atheist humanist, which is not at all contrary to feminism. I would be very happy to throw my weight behind feminism if only it campaigned on all gender issues in proportion to their relative significance: including problems faced by males. This is not like asking the Cat Protection League to rescue dogs: feminism is billed as being either, a movement for gender equality, or a movement to end the patriarchy. Operating under either remit it should care for a raft of male issues that currently, as a movement, it ignores.

If the genders were reversed there’d be a feminist shitstorm

Males have especially poor outcomes across a range of areas that affect their physical, mental and spatial wellbeing; education; and their role, status and place in the home (especially by family courts). We know there would be a feminist shitstorm if the genders were reversed on any of the issues that disadvantage males. We know this partly because, for some issues in the past, the genders were reversed and there was a shitstorm (e.g. education attainment gap), and partly because some societal ills have become women’s issues despite the fact that they predominantly disadvantage men (i.e. the Corston Report on vulnerable female inmates and a national strategy for women’s mental health – men would equally benefit from similar strategies directed at them but none exist despite men being the more affected gender).

Male’s inferior outcomes in these areas, and others, are due to some combination of unequal concern and the patriarchal hierarchy requiring a top and a bottom amongst men. Either way, true feminism should include these problems within its radius of concern. You’d have thought that somewhere on their spectrum between honour killings and female-targeted advertising, feminists would find a place for at least some issues where gender inequality/patriarchy negatively impacts upon males, but they would rather talk about being patronised by washing powder commercials and miss-sold probiotic yoghurt than the disproportionately high male suicide rate and their sons’ failed education.

If feminism won’t campaign for gender inequalities delivering poor outcomes for males, then surely they won’t mind if men form groups to help themselves? Wrong. If ambivalence towards males wasn’t bad enough, some feminist activism directly briefs against vulnerable males:

1)    Leveraging off men to promote women’s interests.

When leveraging off men to promote women’s interests, Newton’s third law applies – that of equal and opposite forces. Women are pushed up by pushing down on men.

As before with the Corston Report for vulnerable female prisoners (as an example), Corston uses traditional notions of male stoicism to argue that conditions that are too degrading for women are acceptable for men. Rather than dismantling the patriarchy, Corston (a feminist BTW) is cynically using it to advance the interests of the five per cent of prisoners who are female while justifying atrocious conditions for 80,000 men. She even suggests taking women out of prison to make room to incarcerate even more men despite the fact we already imprison more men than any other country in Western Europe (absolute numbers and per capita), 70 per cent of whom have at least two diagnosed mental illnesses.

2)    Actively denying that a vulnerable male group exists at all

Feminists have resisted male equivalents of female university groups, even though men are the minority and are living in a very changed world to their fathers. With the most serious forms and consequences of mental health problems disproportionately affecting young men, feminists should be encouraging space for young men to reflect upon what it is to be a young man in a modern western society. However they resist attempts by men to help themselves, often dismissing their concerns as “What about teh menz” and mislabelling them as misogynist.

Much worse however has been the feminist reaction to male victims of Domestic Violence (DV). Since the 1970s they have argued that DV is one of the ways in which men enforce the patriarchy, so it’s a bit inconvenient if they have to acknowledge female perpetrators.

Feminist groups have gone to great lengths to convince us all that men who claim they’ve been abused by women either deserved it or are exaggerating. Again the patriarchy, that feminists are avowed to dismantle, is used to advance their cause (we protect her and insist that he mans-up). This particularly virulent strain of feminist activism is actively vilifying an abused group with the full support of the liberal left and the conservative right.

I have also come to understand much more about the issues that affect women and girls. They do have a different path through life than men, meaning that they will face different challenges for which society should adjust. I don’t understand people, especially young women, who argue that feminism has run its course and women now have full equality. What about:

  • The full spectrum of sexual harassment (from Page 3 onwards)
  • Under-representation of women in our supposedly representative parliamentary democracy and judiciary
  • Women in public life judged by their looks regardless of their profession
  • Discrimination against women in certain careers(usually those where competitive men want to joust with each other, from fields as diverse as investment banking to comedy
  • Online abuse of women by internet trolls – seemingly regardless of the subject

The reality is that sexism and patriarchy hurts males and females, just differently.

If I have succeeded in convincing both sides of the debate that my wife’s tipsy description of me required no further explanation: good.  I haven’t a side, I’m a humanist.

Regular insideMAN reader Darren Ball, is as an individual with a keen interest in gender equality, who’s trying to find balance and make sense of it all. He considers himself neither a feminists nor a men’s rights activist.


—Picture credit: Flickr/AdronicusMax

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com.