insideMAN

  • Who we are
  • Men’s Insights
  • Men’s Issues
  • Men’s Interests
  • About Men

Why British Medical Journal’s “men are idiots” research joke isn’t funny

December 15, 2014 by Inside MAN 9 Comments

There’s a very British Christmas cracker joke that goes: “What do you call a train full of professors?” The answer is tube of Smarties. Having a laugh with friends and family is all part of the festive fun, but when academics think its funny to label men as idiots, the joke has gone too far says Glen Poole.

 

It’s official. Men are idiots. If you don’t believe me check out the following headlines:

  • Men really are more stupid than women, research shows (UK)
  • Proof that men are bigger idiots than women (Australia)
  • Science says men are idiots (USA)

The news has been generated by a “joke” research paper published in the British Medical Journal which has a tradition of publishing humorous research in the run up to Christmas. Previous subjects have included:

  • Calculating how much booze James Bond drinks
  • Researching why Rudolph’s nose is red
  • Studying why teaspoons go missing

Applying serious academic language and research methodology to trivial topics and publishing the results in an esteemed journal is wonderfully eccentric—like an upmarket Christmas cracker joke. But proving that “men are idiots” in the name of humour to mark the season of good will to all men! Seriously?

Women are from Venus, men are idiots

The joke paper, which references the real book “women are from Venus, men are idiots”, uses the Darwin Awards as the basis for its research.

If you don’t know the Darwin Awards, they are an extreme version of “You’ve Been Framed” that highlight examples of people dying of their own stupidity.

The running “joke” that the Darwin Awards sells the public is that these people are doing us all a favour by removing themselves from the gene pool.

These are real people, with real friends and families, whose tragic deaths are presented for our collective entertainment and amusement—people like Scott McKimmie who was crushed to death by his own camper van in Corby, earlier this year. He was nominated for a Darwin Award because he was under the bonnet trying to start his  van when the van lurched forward (as a result of modifications he’d made) and crushed him to death.

Those close to Scott will be approaching their first Christmas without him and the British Medical Journal has seen fit to publish research labeling men like Scott “idiots”—as a jolly Christmas joke.

The basis of this conclusion is that researchers at Newcastle University “discovered” that nine out of ten people named in the Darwin Awards are male. “This finding,” they quip, “is entirely consistent with male idiot theory (MIT) and supports the hypothesis that men are idiots and idiots do stupid things”

Let me pause a moment to take in those three supposedly hilarious words:

“MEN ARE IDIOTS”.

Yes the joke’s on us—us men—all of us, because we’re all too stupid to have feelings. Why is that? Because “real men” are tough and manly and any man who doesn’t think this “joke” is funny needs to “man up”, get a sense of humour and “take it like a man”.

But can you imagine the outcry if such “humour” was applied to any other group in society? Would it be acceptable for scientists to “prove”  that:

  • Women are idiots?
  • Blacks are idiots?
  • Gays are idiots?
  • People with disabilities are idiots?
  • Working class people are idiots?

Of course not, so why is labelling half the population “idiots” for a “joke” ok? For one reason and one reason only—because the joke’s on men.

In writing this article I’ve had to ask myself whether I’m suffering from a sense of humour bypass? This is an important question because I do love to laugh and I’m not a fan of finger-wagging censorship. But when we make jokes about men that would cause outrage if they were directed at women—I feel I have duty to speak out.

More men die of avoidable deaths

It’s true that men account for a high proportion of avoidable deaths and consistently make up the majority of workplace fatalities; accidental deaths and suicides.

There may be many factors that account for this that are psychological, biological and social—and it is the cultural causes that interest me in this case. Why? Because it is clear to me that we are collectively more tolerant of harm that happens to men and boys and that this tolerance could be contributing to both the high rate of avoidable deaths amongst men and our greater tolerance of sexist humour targeted at men.

In writing their “men are idiots” research paper for comic effect, the Newcastle University team are both reflecting and perpetuating a culture of misandry that at best tolerates and at worst contributes to hatred of men and boys as a group.

Sadly the “joke” has been created by three adult men (in partnership with a young male student) who are highly intelligent academically, but apparently lacking in the ability to empathise with their fellow man.

The men listed in the Darwin Awards that they have deemed to be idiots include:

  • A mentally ill Indian teenager who climbed into a zoo cage with a tiger and was mauled to death. Oh how they must have sniggered at the death of that “stupid” mentally ill young man, proof, if ever we needed it, that all men are idiots.
  • A man who died at work while installing reinforcement bars to a communication tower in Texas. Two colleagues watched in horror as he fell 225 feet to his death after mistakenly loosening the bolts on the bar he was attached to.    “Oh my, that’s so funny,” the researchers must have squealed. “Over a hundred men a year in the UK alone die in workplace fatalities, oh my, men are such stupid idiots, men dying tragically is soooooooooooo funny!”
  • And most disturbingly of all, the list of men the Newcastle University researchers drew upon to conclude that “men are stupid” included a young man who died in tragic circumstances in their own city.

Last year, 26-year-old film-maker, Lee Halpin, set out to sleep rough on the streets of his native Newcastle for a week to investigate the rise of homelessness in the city. Three days later he was found dead. An inquest found he had died of sudden adult death syndrome.

Four men a week die homeless and men account for 90% of all homeless deaths in the UK.

Lee Halpin was temporarily homeless through choice. He died trying to highlight a serious social issue that predominantly affects men. He may well have been foolhardy, but to label him “stupid” and cite him as evidence that “men are idiots” is heartless.

The fact that intelligent, educated men working in the same city where Halpin lived and died have made this “joke” is deeply saddening to me.

The most insightful sentence in the “joke” research paper is this:

“There may be some kind of reporting bias. Idiotic male candidates may be more newsworthy than idiotic female Darwin Award candidates”,

This certainly rings true and the flipside of this statement is that the higher proportion of avoidable deaths that impact men and boys—the accidents, the suicides, the murders, the war deaths and the workplace fatalities—are also less newsworthy.

As men we have a choice—we can ignore this issue, we can challenge the status quo or we can make a joke about it and dismiss all men as idiots. I’ve made my choice, what’s yours?

You can post a response to the BMJ article at their website.

—Photo Credit: flickr/JDHancock

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:
  • Is it acceptable for the BBC to say this about men?
  • Why does Sky comedy think it’s funny to humiliate men?
  • Seriously, why do people think setting men on fire is a joke?

 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Insights Tagged With: articles by Glen Poole, BMJ, British Medical Journal, Darwin Awards, Newcastle University, reverse sexism, sexism against men, sexist jokes about men

Is this homeless charity appeal perpetuating the objectification of women and the invisibility of male victims?

December 12, 2014 by Inside MAN 6 Comments

A Christmas campaign for a youth homeless charity ignores male rough sleepers and glamourises homeless women writes Glen Poole.

A strange thing happened to me this week. The charity Centrepoint started pushing what I can only describe as “rough sleeper porn” at me via facebook.

It began quite abruptly with this image of a dead woman bearing her sole, presumably designed to attract any necrophiliacs who also happen to have a foot fetish.

ImageGen.ashx

Next up was the lovely Gemma with her big Disney-esque eyes and luscious lips, looking more like a grunge glamour shoot than a realistic portrayal of a young homeless woman.

Picture 27

All that was missing a Sun-style caption saying “how’d you like to take this tramp home for a spot of rough sleeping fellas?”

http://youtu.be/WCT47ZUQMIQ?t=21s

Next up was the very sexy Sally who spent last Christmas without a roof over her head and to prove that a girl can look both hot AND homeless, Centrepoint shared a sultry picture showing Sally begging for it on the streets of London:

This year Centrepoint is pleased to show us that Sally scrubs up well and will be spending Christmas at their place. You can almost hear them gloating “I bet you’d love to pull this cracker wouldn’t you lads”?

And just when I was about to complain about the lack of men in the Christmas campaign, up  popped a new image to prove me wrong. First there was Emma rolling her “come and give me a bed for the night” eyes at me:

Secondly there was a man hanging out with Emma. This shouldn’t be surprising as around nine out of ten rough sleepers are male. But this wasn’t a homeless man, no this was a graffiti version of a man who seemed to personify pure evil—everything that horny homeless girls like Emma, Gemma, Lucy and Sally need protecing from.

Next up in this sidewalk cat walk was the teenager Lianne whose step dad made her do things she didn’t want to do.

ImageGen.ashx

Her step dad appeared to be the same evil figure who was haunting Emma—why are men such bastards? Why can’t we leave sexy homeless girls alone?

Picture 26

Poor Lianne told me that she was homeless at 17 and there were lots of scary people about.

Picture 25

Look closely at the images on the video and you’ll be left in no doubt that all of these scary people were men:

http://youtu.be/97mf2-5olMo

If you look in more detail at the Centrepoint website you’ll find they do actually help young homeless people who are both female AND male—and no doubt they do some great work for their clients.

But why are they using such sexy, sexist advertising to try and get people to give them money at Christmas—does pushing rough sleeper porn raise more pounds than telling the truth?

The truth is nine out of ten rough sleepers are male and men are nine times more likely to die homeless than women. So why are homeless men so invisible in Centrepoint’s Christmas campaign?

It seems like a ruthless way to treat the roofless.

Is it because we’re collectively more tolerant of men being harmed?

Is it because we’re all more likely to help and protect women?

Is the reason Centrepoint are raising money by objectifying homeless women and making homeless men invisible, the same reason more men are homeless in the first place?

Men are invisible, disposable, unworthy of our help. There’s no point putting men at the front of your fundraising appeal because men make terrible victims.

Much better to use female victims to promote your cause, even if they represent a tiny minority of the problem you’re trying to solve. And if your female victims look fit, well that’s great news because you can pimp them in your advertising campaign and watch the charitable donations roll in like tips at a Vegas titty bar.

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:

  • Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Issues Tagged With: articles by Glen Poole, Centrepoint, charities favour women and girls, gender empathy gap, homelessness, male homelessness, male rough sleepers, men and boys ignored, men in the media, reverse sexism, sexism against men

Is it acceptable for the BBC to say this about men?

September 3, 2014 by Inside MAN

Is the BBC guilty of sexist double standards in the way its presenters speak about men, asks Glen Poole?

Can you imagine if Mary Berry turned to an Asian contestant on the Great British Bake Off who was licking freshly whipped meringue mixture off the end of her finger and quipped: “I know, Pakistanis have a lot of perverted desires but yours is the sickest”?

The BBC switchboard would light up with disgruntled calls from unamused cake fans quicker than you could say “my spotted dick has got a soggy bottom”.

How about Bruce Forsyth turning to Bruno Tonioli, the gay Italian judge on Strictly Come Dancing, and responded to a comment about “loving a nice tight rumba” with the words: “Darling, I know homosexuals have a lot of perverted desires but yours is possibly the sickest”?

The liberal media would be calling be for his toupéed scalp long before he’d grabbed Tess Daly to close the show with the words “keep dancing”.

Has political correctness gone mad?

So what about if The Fixer, Alexi Polizzi, said to one of the struggling business owners she was trying to rescue, after he had showed her his shiny new plant machinery: “I know, darling, I mean, men have a lot of perverted desires but yours is possibly the sickest”.

What would happen then? Well this is exactly what Polizzi said to the male owner of a Devon microbrewery this week and nothing happened. The BBC broadcast this comment on 1st September 2014, during the opening episode of the latest series of The Fixer and I have yet to spot a single raised eyebrow amongst the nation’s self-appointed guardians of moral correctness.

Let me pin my colours to the mast here. I’m not an anti-liberal traditionalist who thinks that political correctness has gone mad and needs to be chucked in a straightjacket and locked in a padded cell for its own safety. I happen to have great respect for the good intentions (you know, those things the road to hell is paved with) behind attempts to promote worthy concepts like equality, diversity and tolerance.

What I can’t tolerate is hypocrisy.

I’m not a fan of UKIP, for example, but if Godfrey Bloom had said to a female acquaintance “women have a lot of perverted desires but yours is possibly the sickest” it would have been front page news. Yet when a woman says it about men, nobody bats their hypocritical little eyelashes.

I’m not a regular Top Gear view, but if Jeremy Clarkson had travelled to Mexico to meet a collector of  Triumph Dolomites and told him: “Mexicans have a lot of perverted desires but yours is possibly the sickest”, there’d have been complaints from the Mexican embassy, opinion pieces in the liberal press and left-wing comics would be performing acerbic satire about the issue. Yet there are no ambassadors, columnists or comedians talking about the woman who labelled men as perverts.

I’m no apologist for sexist sports commentators like Andy Gray and Richard Keys, but if they interviewed a gay couple from Fulham who supported Fleetwood Town and concluded: “lesbians have a lot of perverted desires but yours is possibly the sickest”, they’d be in for the high jump, the sack an the firing squad all in the same day. Yet when a woman says it about a man, she’s not even subject to a gentle verbal warning.

Does equality mean treating people equally?

If you believe in people being treated equally then one of two things is happening here, either we’re being oversensitive about what we can say about women, black people, gay people and so on, or we’re being under-sensitive about what we can say about men.

Taking the view that it’s the latter, let’s consider why it wouldn’t be appropriate for a BBC presenter to say that women  or blacks or gays “have a lot of perverted desires”. The reason, quite simply, is that while “some women”, “some blacks” and “some gays” may well “have a lot of perverted desires”, it clearly isn’t the fact that “all women”, “all blacks” or “all gays” are perverts and to say so is not only inaccurate, it’s also offensive.

So why is it okay for the BBC to suggest that all men are perverts? It can only be for one of two reasons. Either the BBC believes it is factually accurate to say “men have a lot of perverted desires” or they simply don’t think it’s offensive because men and boys, unlike women, gay people, black people and every other “special interest” group you can imagine, are not worthy of protection or concern.

Under the Equality Act, the category “sex” (and that includes men as well as women) is a “protected characteristic” and the BBC has a duty to protect men from being treated unfairly because of their sex and to foster good relations between people of different characteristics, eg men and women, different ethnic groups and people of all sexualities.

It may never be possible or desirable to treat all people equally, but we should expect the BBC to treat all people equitably. By tolerating the inequitable treatment of a group as large as men and boys (which includes males of all ages, ethnicities, sexualities, religions and disabilities), the BBC is fundamentally failing in its duty to foster good relations between men and women (both those who have perverted desires and those who do not).

Have your say:

Readers who have access to BBC iplayer, can view the comment here (it’s at the nine minute mark) and decide if you want to notify BBC complaints. If you see examples of casual sexism against men in public life or popular culture that you think we should write about please let us know at insideMANeditor@gmail.com.

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

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

Also on insideMAN:
  • Early Learning Centre apologises for sexist tweet ridiculing dads
  • Why does Sky’s comedy series ‘Chickens’ think it’s funny to humiliate men who didn’t fight in WW1?
  • Finally a British advert to make us proud of dads, if you’ve got a heart you’ll love this

 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Interests Tagged With: Alexi Polizzi, all men are perverts, articles by Glen Poole, BBC, reverse sexism, sexism against men, sexist double standards, The Fixer

InsideMAN is committed to pioneering conversations about men, manhood and masculinity that make a difference. We aim to create spaces where the voices of men, from many different backgrounds, can be heard. It’s time to have a new conversation about men. We'd love you to be a part of it.

insideNAN cover image  

Buy the insideMAN book here

Be first to get the latest posts from insideMAN

To have new articles delivered direct to your inbox, add your name and email address below.

Latest Tweets

  • Why Abused By My Girlfriend was a watershed moment for male victims of domestic abuse and society @ManKindInit… https://t.co/YyOkTSiWih

    3 weeks ago
  • Thanks

    5 months ago
  • @LKMco @MBCoalition @KantarPublic Really interesting.

    5 months ago

Latest Facebook Posts

Unable to display Facebook posts.
Show error

Error: Error validating application. Application has been deleted.
Type: OAuthException
Code: 190
Please refer to our Error Message Reference.

Copyright © 2019 · Metro Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.