insideMAN

The three reasons I don’t support feminist equality campaigns

by 45 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does a non-feminist believe?

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

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

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

#HeForShe

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

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

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

MenEngage

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

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

White Ribbon

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

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

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

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

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

“Hahaha, bollocks of the highest order”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Fuck off and leave us the fuck alone!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then there’s the European Union.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hierarchy of gender politics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need diversity in gender politics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When feminists are absolutely brilliant 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Photo courtesy of Flickr

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

 

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.