Well, I’ll give the Men’s Rights Activists one thing: they’re certainly catching ’em young these days.
As an example, here’s a recently published interview that 16 year old MRA wannabe Reece Wilkes carried out with Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague.
Particular highlights for me in this report include:
(On being asked why there couldn’t be a minister for equality who could deal with both men’s and women’s issues instead of there just being a minister for women) “Mr Hague looked baffled and did not have an answer to this.”
Ermm. Note to both Reece Wilkes and William Hague: Harriet Harman is currently Minister for Women and Equality and heads up the Government Equalities Office, you know, the department that deals with equalities issues. She doesn’t head up the Government Women’s Office, because, surprise surprise! No such office exists.
“Reece replied to this that he believes that there is a bias/favouritism within the media towards women”
ROFLMAO!
“Mr Hague said he had sent a number of letters to Harriet Harman, and had not received anything back. He actually described Harriet Harman as “incompetent”. Reece agreed in full and added that he thought Harriet Harman was “pathetic”.”
and then they both laughed, slapped each other on the back, and talked about what back-biting bitchez women could be….
Seriously though, young Reece’s questions are so boringly predictable I could have compiled them for him in my sleep:
- Ask about a minister for men: check
- Talk about men’s health issues being ignored: check
- Circumcision v FGM: check
- And whatever you do don’t forget to mention the family Courts and father’s rights: check
There’s only one thing missing from all this, one crucial MRA issue Reece forgot to bring up, one part of the MRA script he’s quite shockingly left out.
He forgot to ask Hague what the Tories are planning to do about all the false rape accusations!
Ah well, maybe off the back of his new found fame as an MRA poster boy he’ll get a second interview, and a chance to rectify this glaring omission.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Hmm… the male/female circumcision thing is definitely an interesting double standard as far as gender issues are concerned. It’s what I find interesting about Men’s Rights Activists – sometimes they almost get close to touching on an interesting issue which someone else could ultimately end up being right on.
I always thought Mens’ Rights already existed because our patriarchal society continues to be male-centered, male-defined and of course not forgetting male-dominant.
I suggest Messrs. Hague, Reece and co. take a look at the media because consistently it is men’s lives, men’s opinions, men’s values, men’s achievements, men’s ambitions blah blah which are consistently represented, analysed etc. NOT women’s experiences, women’s lives or women’s ambitions. Oh but I forget because our patriarchal society is all about men’s lives etc. such representation becomes invisible because it is so routine.
Hence the need for MRA’s because any attempt at giving women representation such as focusing on women’s lives apart from portraying women as men’s dehumanised sexualised commodities, apparently means reducing/negating men’s experiences, lives, ambitions etc.
Reality is – MRA is all about maintaining male power, male domination and male-centered definitions of our human society, because such definitions are being challenged by so-called uppity feminists who have the temerity to claim they like, men, are human too and not men’s dehumanised sexualised commodities.
Regarding men’s health – given the male body is taken to be standard definition of what supposedly comprises human health it is not surprising the medical and scientific establishment have focused on women’s health because women’s bodies are innately faulty, leaky and inferior when compared to the male-defined standpoint of what passes for human (sic) health. Pathologising women’s bodies is common medical practice which is why we still no little or nothing about men’s reproductive systems or health because male bodies are taken to be the standard and hence not in need of research or study. Who made this declaration? Why men of course but that little gem must not be made public, instead MRA’s focus on reclaiming and/or maintaining their pseudo male power and sex right to women and girls.
Re: FGM and male circumcision another attempt at claiming male circumcision is identical to female genital mutilation. Fact: male circumcision is removal of penis foreskin whereas female genital mutilation consists of removal of all or part of clitoris and if infibulation takes place this means sewing the labia together so that only a tiny part of the labia is not sewn up.
Now male circumcision does not involve removal of part or all of the shaft of penis. Female genital mutilation however is not just about removal of ‘foreskin’ but concerns removal of all or part of female sex organ – namely the clitoris. So, the only comparision would be if shaft of penis was totally removed or partially removed not just the foreskin. But again this must not be mentioned because it is vital any gains women make must immediately be rectified by ensuring men too have the same gains which effectively means women’s unequal social and economic status remains the same.
Yeah – Alex, I don’t think the male and female circumcision thing is even remotely comparable. I do think male circumcision is horrible and inexcusable in its own way, but it’s really not the same thing, and this isn’t a double-standard.
Exactly what bits are removed from which kids and how is obviously important, but only in terms of urgency and our emotional reactions to it. They’re still comparable in the sense that it’s the same issue: when do you have the right to chop off bits of your kids for religious reasons?
How people answer that question, why, and with what kind of emotional reaction comes with it is probably going to throw up all kinds of interesting questions about gender and bodies and cultures and all that stuff.
Men’s Rights Activists? Aint that a discrimination against people with a lisp to have that many S’s in your orgs name?
I’m so outraged that I might write an outraged letter as a man with a lisp, what about my rights eh, EH?!?
Excellent. Great stuff.
How long have we been waiting for men to do this? Too long, me thinks.
I believe this new generation are going to achieve what feminism hasn’t been able to do in the past.
To the MRAs who’ve been directed here from Anti-misandry com and other places.
If you’ve got something to add to the discussion your comments will be published. If you just want to hurl abuse, or rant about female supremacists and femnazis, you may as well just fuck off now.
That kid really needs to look up what circumcision and female genital mutilation mean.
He’s right about the fight about male cancers being a long way behind the fight against female cancers, though. Ah well, you can’t be wrong all the time.
Just got reprimanded at work because I nearly punched the screen when I read him compare female genital mutilation with circumcision. Apologies for the language, but how can anyone be so willfully fucking ignorant? I’m going to have to bite my tongue before the swear tin fills up. How does a shadow cabinet minister justify pandering to this bunch of non-issues? The cancer question might have some merit, but why pursue looking at “men’s cancer” over just general cancer reaserch?
Alex: if male circumcision was equivalent to FGM, it would involve removal of the whole penis, not just the foreskin.
Oh and I see I’m not the first to make that point. Never mind, bears repeating.
Bears repeating.
There are differing degrees of female circumsision (and different degrees of male circumsision for that matter). The two are highly comparable in many different ways.
Some key points:
Both are totally unessecary
Both carry risk
Both cause significant pain
Both are carried out without any consent
Both reduce sexual pleasure.
Both are about control
“There’s only one thing missing from all this, one crucial MRA issue Reece forgot to bring up, one part of the MRA script he’s quite shockingly left out.
He forgot to ask Hague what the Tories are planning to do about all the false rape accusations!”
You couldn’t be more wrong, Reece left out countless equality issues in which men face very serious discrimination, and ultimately have serious consequences for both men AND women in the long term. There are so many I presume there wasn’t time to cover them all:
1. The way our feminised education system is failing boys so terribly and the way male teachers are excluded from primary education.
2. Political parties abandoning democracy by banning men as candidates (even Haugue’s own party seems to want to be guilty of such harmful sexism). Not only is this morally wrong, but it really does produce the very lowest quailty of politicians (and that really is saying something given the low standards to compare them with)
3. Female sentencing discount. There is a clear systematic attempt to excuse women and minimse their punishment at every single point of the justice system. Of course a great many female offenders don’t technically get said discount as they don’t even enter the justice system in the first place. We need to treat female offenders as adults not as children.
4. This government’s disgraceful treatment of male victims of domestic violence AND their children.
5. Companies with “all men are paedophiles” corporate policies, most notable a number of airlines etc.
6. Inequalities in retirement ages, forcing men to work five years longer than women even though they die sooner due to poorer healthcare.
7. Ridiculous divorce laws resulting is insane settlements. As a result this country by far the most desirable place on the planet for any golddigger to have their cases heard. Good for anyone who’s a lawyer I suppose.
8.A lack of workplace safety and lack of accountability of senior staff where there is corporate manslaughter. Some 97% of the vicitms of workplace deaths are males (and on top of that you’ve got all the industrial diseases etc)
9. Male unemployment. Despite Harman and co endless going on about “women and the recession” it is very clear that men are the main victims by far and far more have lost their jobs. Again, like most of these such important issues there will be multiple victims of this as they will have families to support.
10. Suicide. Male suicides massively outnumber females and the gap is still growing. I expect a good part of this is a result of points 1 to 9! (not to mention the issues Reece so brillaintly raised).
Polly, is the ‘whole vagina’ removed in FGM? No.. it isn’t – stop lying.
Sorry about the delay in some comments getting published folks. If you’ve not commented here before wordpress holds your comment in moderation until I’m around to ‘release’ it. If you saw my twitter stream on the r-h side of the blog yesterday, you’ll understand that I wasn’t around to moderate comments, I was stuck on a crappy driverless train for what seemed like a sodding lifetime instead.
1. The way our feminised education system is failing boys so terribly and the way male teachers are excluded from primary education.
A very real issue, about which there is very real concern and very real things are already being done to try to solve it (not all of which work).
And also massively over-simplified by you – it’s so much more complex than a simple gender issue – race and class are much more of a factor.
And men are not “excluded” from primary education. There are a whole host of complex reasons why fewer men than women are training to be primary school teachers – and again, there has been initiative after initiative to try to combat this.
2. Political parties abandoning democracy by banning men as candidates (even Haugue’s own party seems to want to be guilty of such harmful sexism). Not only is this morally wrong, but it really does produce the very lowest quailty of politicians (and that really is saying something given the low standards to compare them with)
Parliament should represent the nation – you need people who understand specific issues. Which is why there needs to be more women, and other groups represented properly. If that process needs to be artificially induced, then that’s what needs to happen. Are you arguing against equality here?
As for “producing the lowest quality of politician” it sounds rather like you think female candidates can’t possibly be as good as male ones.
3. Female sentencing discount. There is a clear systematic attempt to excuse women and minimse their punishment at every single point of the justice system. Of course a great many female offenders don’t technically get said discount as they don’t even enter the justice system in the first place. We need to treat female offenders as adults not as children.
Evidence? I’ve never heard this claim before.
4. This government’s disgraceful treatment of male victims of domestic violence AND their children.
Again, evidence? In what way are they being treated? Is it any worse than women are treated?
5. Companies with “all men are paedophiles” corporate policies, most notable a number of airlines etc.
Er, evidence? This would be illegal and solved simply by CRB checks.
6. Inequalities in retirement ages, forcing men to work five years longer than women even though they die sooner due to poorer healthcare.
The women’s retirement age is currently being stepped up gradually – the process was started years ago. You can’t make a sudden change on this when people have planned years in advance for retirement.
7. Ridiculous divorce laws resulting is insane settlements. As a result this country by far the most desirable place on the planet for any golddigger to have their cases heard. Good for anyone who’s a lawyer I suppose.
Which works both ways – if the woman is richer, then it is still split down the middle. Agreed, it’s a bit ridiculous, but then people do agree to share everything forever when they get married.
I have little sympathy for men who marry the small number of golddiggers, to be perfectly honest. And if you’re that rich that you’ve been targetted by one, you’re not exactly going to be poor afterwards.
If you’d argued about custody law, then you might have had more of a point.
8.A lack of workplace safety and lack of accountability of senior staff where there is corporate manslaughter. Some 97% of the vicitms of workplace deaths are males (and on top of that you’ve got all the industrial diseases etc)
That’s a reflection of the types of job with all-male workforces, not any shortcoming in the law that is anti-male. The problem is legislation for that particular industry, not legislation for men. Really, if you want to make a good argument, you really do need to think it through first.
9. Male unemployment. Despite Harman and co endless going on about “women and the recession” it is very clear that men are the main victims by far and far more have lost their jobs. Again, like most of these such important issues there will be multiple victims of this as they will have families to support.
Then surely your argument is to support “main breadwinners” who lose their jobs? This could be husbands, fathers, yes. But also wives, mothers, especially single mothers.
This is not a gender issue – though there are no doubt some aspects and outcomes that affect one gender in a different way to others. Just like it will affect people from different cultures differently. By contributing to this debate in terms of men vs women you miss the point entirely.
10. Suicide. Male suicides massively outnumber females and the gap is still growing. I expect a good part of this is a result of points 1 to 9! (not to mention the issues Reece so brillaintly raised).
“I died on a building site so I killed myself.”
Way to over-simplify suicide and make assumptions.
Agreed, there are crises in male identity in society. There are issues about young boys growing up without decent male role models. There are kooky bits of legislation that are a bit weighted against men and need ironing out.
But there is not a shortage of male representation like there is for women. And a lot of the issues you bring up should not be divided arbitrarily along gender lines, by anyone on either side of the debate. There is a whole host of cultural factors that affect people in different ways – age, race, religion, class, and so on.
However, there is a history of laws and cultural practices that specifically affected women, because they were invented by men (the laws and cultures, not the women). Gradually these are being righted, but there is still some way to go.
Most of the issues that adversely affect men are rather more accidental – things that need correcting but which were not borne out of any inherent sexism.
There is a difference.
I respect feminists hugely, they are right . there is still alot of inequality for womaen. but in solving these issues the spotlight is diverted away from mens issues as well. im a 17 year old lad and i want to be a primary school teacher. working up to this i started to teach children at a local swimming club a few years ago. teachers who teach the younger kids go in the water with them. but here is the good bit. Males arent allowed in the water with the children because of child protection laws. only females. Feminists are right to campaign for womens rights, but if they really want equality they would support men in the area’s that are unequal for men. same for men wanting equal rights. It isnt a competition, but some people have turned it into one. If femenists claim rights for women, and ignore men, all that will happen is that an socioty will STILL be dominated by one gender. just a different one. i respect feminists and the work they do hugely, but i have no patience with those that deny that outright that men have problems. They do,so why arent they allowed to try and solve them like the femenists do? but then im just a 17 year old boy. the femenists on the page have made very clear that young boys opinions dont matter. So, for those who still deny that men have any problems at all, here’s to your new dawn of female domination. Up yours equality!
luke – i don’t think the feminists on this page have made it clear that they don’t respect the opinions of young men. they are saying that the misinformed and lie/hatefilled opinions of the MRA are unpleasant.
the fact yes, men do have problems. but so do women. there is nothing wrong with discussing the issues that women face and how the patriarchy deals a dud hand to the majority of men and women.
when people compare male and female GM feminists rightly get angry. there are issues pertaining to most, but the loss of sexual feeling and the brutality of FGM doesn’t compare to Male circumcision. that’s just an example of where it is clear we should be talking about how an issue affects women.
douglas – you are full of nonsense! i can’t believe for a start that you think women benefit financially from divorce, let alone the other crap you came out with which Phil dealt with eloquently.
karl – no the whole vagina isn’t removed in FGM and you know that isn’t what Polly meant. i think what was being expressed (and Polly, please intervene if i have read you wrong) that FGM results in the loss of sexual feeling and pleasure, which comparitively is the same as if the shaft of the penis is removed.
i am sick to death today of male commenters going on sites and telling feminists that their problems don’t matter and that we should instead focus our energy on how to solve men’s problems.
(Phil H and other sympathetic male commenters on here you are excluded from that statement!)
just so long as feminists dont argue that men do not have problems i dont have a problem with them either. but there are feminists that deny all evidance of male descrimination, and there are a few in this conversation. the reasonable ones i have no argument with.
Luke, I wouldn’t deny that men have problems, and I think Phil H touched on some quite relevant ones there that do warrant further analysis – for example the disproportionate number of male suicides.
I think the problem with MRAs is that they see men’s problems as being the result of feminism, or, at their most extreme, so-called female supremacists plotting to take over the world, and so set themselves up in direct opposition to feminism and in a lot of cases argue against equality for women and against women’s rights.
If we could all just recognise that patriarchy and the way society is structured is what really harms us all, men and women, then maybe we could find a way to work together to combat it.
I live in hope…
FINALLY! some sense.
but:
“Ah well, maybe off the back of his new found fame as an MRA poster boy he’ll get a second interview, and a chance to rectify this glaring omission.”
i belive you said this about Reece. well, i go to school with him and i can tell you now he is no MRA poster boy. he saw what both he and i consider major problems and holes in the law where males are soncerned and had enough courage and conviction to act on them.
You openly insulted him and mocked him. you used personal insults. and worse you were condescending. neither of us see that any of it is the fault of feminsits. most laws brought in have been more than fair. but some things have been missed and will continue to be missed by frminists because they are not related to females. Reece and MRA’s are and femenists are two sides working towards the same goals from different ends.
let me point out one of your links from this page:
Everyone point and laugh at the MRA’s
Hmmmm. sound lovely doesn’t it. Feminists want equal rights. to be equal everyone needs the same. when Femenists try to ridicule and stop men from getting equality, like you have don to Reece, it makes me think of a lovely little word…
HIPOCRITE!
It’s spelt hypocrite
Jeez, what are they teaching you young people these days?
i dont worry too much about spelling on these things. you reconised it and thats all that matters. if it was an official letter then it would have been better.
anyway, i’d love to hear your response to that accusation. you’d make a great politican. you’re avoiding the main issue that puts you on the defensive by pointing out a trivial, inconsiquential error. im not that niave as not to notice
Now, now, Cath.
I did think the tone had generally been a bit mocking and unkind towards a 16 year old boy.
16 year old boys very often have political views that largely reflect the political views of those around him. Very much like religion.
I hope they take the opportunity as they become more exposed to the wider world to question what they were earlier taught to accept as true (on both this and other issues).
Unsurprisingly a 16 year old boy has asked some questions that need challenging because they are based on some falsehoods. You don’t expect 16 year old boys to understand all of the issues yet.
The most foolish looking person is William Hague, who fails at every single opportunity to challenge some of the questions put to him, when he is clearly not entirely comfortable with some of them.
It was Hague who said “I’m sure there will be a Minister for Men when you a in Parliament” after Reece had suggested that a Minister for Equality would be a better solution (though he didn’t know there already is one).
So can we all point and laugh at the politician instead, please, for behaving like an awkward embarrassed dad and not really answering the questions properly?
Luke – for what it’s worth, I’m a guy. While there are certainly issues that affect men, I find myself having very little sympathy for the MRA scene. In fact, my only direct involvement with them has been in receiving a veiled death threat from a fringe group as part of my former employment.
While I don’t agree with everything that gets said here, or on other feminist sites, the one thing I would agree with is that it isn’t up to feminists to solve men’s problems as well as women’s. You can’t campaign for everything, can you? It doesn’t mean you don’t acknowledge them, though. And a lot of the time, these issues are not in direct competition: it’s the same underlying problems affecting both ‘sides’.
Take the issue of child custody in divorce. Most of the time, women get custody, and that’s an MRA issue. But in reality mothers tend to get custody because: a) the child needs a stable home, not to be split 50/50 like a piece of property; and b) the mother is generally the one who has spent the most time caring for the child. That’s because of the way society is stacked up – the father going out to work, the mother spending more time out of work and at home as a carer. Exactly the sort of thing that feminists, to put it very basically, are questioning.
You need to look at things a little more broadly, in my opinion. It isn’t “us against them”.
Damagedoor – i did say in one my earlier comments i didnt agree with the “us and them” mentality.
Luke, you are communicating with people you don’t know.
You should *always* try to use correct spelling and grammar, even in this instance – people will automatically base part of their judgment on how you present your argument.
I do agree Cath was a bit mean there, but in your previous post you agreed with what she had said, and then found any excuse to attack her again.
“everyone point and laugh at the MRAs” is simply a category on this blog – it refers to men who like to complain that they have much more pressing rights issues than women.
I’m quite comfortable with pointing and laughing at those people, and it is not hypocritical for a feminist to think that they’re idiots.
I’m interested to hear about the swimming pool thing, actually, and whether that really is a child protection issue. I suspect that if it is, then the pool is being over-cautious – that’s more the media’s fault for making people more worried about both lawsuits and paedophilia than should actually be the case. In which case, it’s not a rights issue – it’s wrong, but it’s fear of being sued or having complaints.
There could of course equally be an entirely reasonable (or unreasonable) alternative motive, but “child protection” is what most people believe it to be about.
Issues that adversely affect men are rarely anything to do with rights or sexism. Please don’t fall into that trap and become a proper full grown MRA.
If you want to campaign in this area, do it properly and campaign for equality – whether on gender, age, race, religion, or whatever. Get a good understanding of issues from all perspectives.
You shouldn’t campaign on behalf simply of men – the vast majority of things is already stacked in your favour. Pick out an issue, that may or may not be about men, and campaign on that issue, if you want. But it’s almost certainly not a men’s rights issue. It’s a men-seem-to-be-disproportionately-affected issue, or a health issue that happens to afflict men – such as prostate cancer.
There should be no cry of “But they get more funding!” rubbish. Lots of people (mostly women) saw a problem in the number of women getting breast cancer, and they got very organised raised lots of money to sort the issue out. Men should be copying them, not complaining about unfairness.
Wow. This was intended to be a really short comment. I’ll stop here.
i doubt i’ll ever become a fully fledged MRA. i hate extremisim. im what you might call a moderist. belive me, I have plenty of views on everything. most of them involve thinking both sides are right and are stupid not to realise it. i took the MRA side because it was getting completely put down. i also defended my friend
“And men are not “excluded” from primary education. There are a whole host of complex reasons why fewer men than women are training to be primary school teachers – and again, there has been initiative after initiative to try to combat this.”
Every single one of these initiatives will fail until we end to demonisation of men in our society. Similarly any ridiculous “postive” discriminaiton in terms of recruiting lesser male teachers ahead of more able females will be just as much a disaster as all women shortlists and is equally disgraceful.
“As for “producing the lowest quality of politician” it sounds rather like you think female candidates can’t possibly be as good as male ones.”
I didn’t say anything of the sort whatsoever. Women who’ve got into politics legitimately and on merit a generally just as good as any male. It’s like with any job, if you artificially remove 75% of the candidates applying for a given role you’re going to end up with an significantly inferior quality of candidate more often than not.
Again, evidence? In what way are they being treated? Is it any worse than women are treated?
Well we have next to no shelters for men despite 40% of victims being men (the only real exceptions being Northamptonshire and one or two in Wales). Women’s Aid expel male children from most of their shelters on their 13th birthday and publish obscure surveys on their website to somehow prove most male victims are making false allegations of being abused.
5. Companies with “all men are paedophiles” corporate policies, most notable a number of airlines etc.
Er, evidence? This would be illegal and solved simply by CRB checks.
I was tlakign about them treating the male customers as paedophiles in terms of seating policies etc, not the staff – as you say there are laws against pretending your staff are sex offenders but nothing to protect consumers.
“I have little sympathy for men who marry the small number of golddiggers, to be perfectly honest. And if you’re that rich that you’ve been targetted by one, you’re not exactly going to be poor afterwards.”
Sorry this is nonsense. There are different scales of goldigging – should a woman really be able to take people’s houses by jsut being married to them for a short while?
“If you’d argued about custody law, then you might have had more of a point.”
Umm no need – remember I was only covering all the many points Reece missed. He covered that oen pretty well.
“That’s a reflection of the types of job with all-male workforces, not any shortcoming in the law that is anti-male. The problem is legislation for that particular industry, not legislation for men.”
Well I can guarantee that if women died in anything like the same numbers it would be headline news and would have stopped by now. That proves it is a gender issue more than anything.
“By contributing to this debate in terms of men vs women you miss the point entirely.”
Well I’d argue that men’s career’s are usually more important to theand their self esteem than women’s, and the issue is even more serious than I’d suggested. The main reason it has become an MRA issue more than anything is becasue of gender feminists in governments seeking to pretend the recession impacts more on women than on ment when the opposite is true. It was gender feminists who tried to make this into a gender issue for women – they didn’t miss the point entirely, they totally turned reality on it’s head! (and worryingly they’re in power!)
“I died on a building site so I killed myself.”
I was tlaking about the countless men injured at work and with indstrial diseases. Plenty of men with serious disabilites and illnesses end up depressed and or in so much poain they kill themselves..
“But there is not a shortage of male representation like there is for women. ”
This isn’t true in the slightest. There are plenty of male POLITICIANS but politicians aren’t necessarily representing people of their own gender.
On one side you’ve got the big problem of gender feminists males, totally hostile to any rights for men etc and who don’t’ beleive men can ever be the victims of anything. They are self-loathing men.
This is then compounded by all the many chivalrous politicians who will bend over backwards to do anything for women. They regard women as very special, perhaps weaker but utlimately very much deserving of special treatment and protection all the time, (whereas men just need to man-up).
Thus although there are so many men in Parliament, the majority on both sides don’t really represent most men at all. On top of that women’s isssues are vote winners whereas MRA issues are not fashionable at all and even children like Reece who raise them are open to ridicule by influential people writing for the Guardian. Also there are significantly more female voters out there anyway, thus politicians have to show favoritism to females.
I personally couldn’t care less what gender any politician is. I just want them to be non-corrupt, honest, fair and sane. If you look at the people protecting democracy and men’s rights to be elected, then in both the Lib Dem’s and Consevatives the main people standing up to be counted are females. Gender is irrelevant when it comes to representing others, it’s whether or not they’re decent people that matters.
“Most of the issues that adversely affect men are rather more accidental – things that need correcting but which were not borne out of any inherent sexism.”
Not they aren’t – our society has always regarded children as possessions of the women and has always sought to demonise men whilst at the same time promoting females as perfect and innocent. Men have always historically been used, killed and overworked and abused to make money for business and to fight wars. They are the most expendable members of society and always have been.
What has occurred has been increased rights and successes for women such as in the workplace, wealth, politics and education etc, yet virtually no corresponding changes for men in all the areas where they are excluded or are subject to suffering
Men’s Rights are a good 40 years behind those of women’s, and with this government in charge things are going backwards if anything.
Gender feminists?
Is there any other kind?
You lost me at your first argument. The fact that you have no idea that initiatives designed to attract men to teaching have nothing to do with employing “lesser teachers” betrays your ignorance.
Your assertion that men’s careers are more important than women’s shows you for the clown you are. You are incapable of seeing a difference between “men” and “main breadwinners”. The latter are the real vulnerable group, and it is not an exclusively male club. Gender should be and is irrelevant.
The rest of your argument is not worth my precious time.
Oh, actually, I can’t resist quoting this. It’s a genius piece of non-logic:
“Well I can guarantee that if women died in anything like the same numbers it would be headline news and would have stopped by now. That proves it is a gender issue more than anything.”
Spot the difference:
Well I can guarantee that if tall people died in anything like the same numbers it would be headline news and would have stopped by now. This proves that it is a height issue more than anything.
Phil H – It was very gentle mocking though (well for me anyway), precisely because I was conscious he’s only 16.
But anyway, back to Luke
I’m really glad to hear you and Reece don’t regard men’s problems as being the fault of feminists, that’s a really positive thing to hear.
The problem I had with this piece though is exactly what I said in the main article. Reece has taken his questions straight from the MRA script, and imho hasn’t done enough analysis into why these issues might exist.
So for example, the stuff about men’s health. Reece is assuming that more men die of cancer because men’s health problems are being ignored. I agree that more attention needs to be paid to health issues (men’s and women’s), but I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that men are dying because more money is put into women’s health than men’s. It may be as simple as the fact that the type of cancers men are more susceptible to are cancers that are more aggressive and more likely to kill, like prostate cancer for example. Whereas the higher spending on women’s health is down to a number of reasons, including the fact that women are the ones who get pregnant and have babies and have all the associated health issues that can arise from that, and that while women’s cancers may not kill them to the extent that men’s do, when they do survive they often need long-term medical intervention to keep them alive and to prevent recurrence, all of which costs money.
Now I honestly don’t know if that is the case, but it’s a plausible explanation that I suspect Reece hasn’t considered.
I see Phil’s covered most of the other points I was going to make, although I would question where you think I’ve been personally insulting here. Seriously, if you think there’s any personal abuse here, pop over to anti-misandry com and look at the discussion there about this blog post, then come back and talk to me about abuse…
And on a more positive note, and this is genuinely not meant in a patronising or condescending way: I think it’s great to see young people like both you and Reece taking an interest in political issues. I may think you’re both wrong, and I may disagree with the ‘side’ Reece appears to have aligned himself with, but kudos to him for caring, for making the effort, and for getting an interview with Hague in the first place.
No Karl, the whole vagina isn’t usually removed in FGM. The whole clitoris is.
Sorry to break it to you Karl, but the vagina is not the primary female sexual organ.
Definition of female genital mutilition from the WHO:
Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types:
1.Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well.
2.Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).
3.Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
4.Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
Definition of circumcision from NHS choices.
Male circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin. The foreskin is a retractable fold of skin that covers the end of the penis. Sometimes, there may be a medical reason for performing a circumcision – for example, to prevent the foreskin from becoming infected (balanoposthitis) in individuals who do not respond to antibiotics.
So called ‘female circumcision’, or to use a more accurate term, ‘female genital mutilation’, has no medical benefits and is illegal under British law.
Emphasis added. And remember Google is your friend.
Linky for NHS choices (to avoid the dreaded spamulator).
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx
Clear now chaps?
argh i lost my comment! i have to start again.
it was in reply to douglas q.
first up – education. yes there are problems attracting men into education but did it occur to you that this is because education is seen as “woman’s work” – low status and low paid? perhaps if we changed the way we looked at the caring and education industries men would be more attracted to it.
there are problems with boys education but firstly, did you worry when it was the other way round? do you worry that boys outperform girls later on in education? or does that ruin your argument?
studies find that teachers tend to pay more attention to boys than girls in the classroom. in fact, examples have suggested that when boys are paid the same amount of attention as girls, they feel they are missing out.
politics – in an ideal world we wouldn’t need women shortlists. but women deserve to be represented in parlimant and currently the parliamentary system does not represent the population. perhaps this is something you can’t understand as parliament represents your population – ie male. imagine how it feels from the other side. you say the woman vote is a winner because more women vote than men. well, why don’t you go and campaign to get men voting? it really is not women’s fault if men don’t vote. men died to win all men the vote you know, use it.
divorce – please check the real stats. women on average are left poorer by divorce, one because they often win custody of the chidlren, 2 because of the pay gap means they are already poorer. do you have any idea how many men leave without paying child supprt, and how many mothers are therefore left to bring up their children on their own? these stories don’t make the news, expensive divorce settlements do. the former doesn’t make the news because it happens ALL THE TIME, the latter does because it is so rare.
to say that men take their careers more seriously is insulting, ignorant and plain nasty. to say that women are winners in the workplace betrays such ignorance as to leave me dizzy. try working somewhere where you are a “bird” and told that “you’ve probably seen a lot of cock in your time” whilst earning 17% less than male counterparts. then tell me who the winners are.
in terms of violence, yes there is a problem with male DV, esp male on male DV, which most mae DV survivors are victims of. womens aid do a wonderful job protecting and helping women. why not take a leaf out of their book and start setting up shelters for male survivors, why not learn from what feminists are doing and reach out and help the men in need?
or does actually doing something, rather than complain that feminists aren’t helping men enough, not fit your tidy complaining agenda?
Polly – A point not mentioned in the NHS video was that male circumcision also reduces susceptibilty to some STDs, and to the HIV/AIDS virus by about 60%.
Circumcision, penile subincision, female genital mutilation of all types – if it was up to me it would all stop today.
But after reading Jennifer Drew’s fifth paragraph and then polly’s and Gulfstream’s comments, I’m wondering whether we should put this fiction about the inviolate and perfect male body to bed now?
Circumcision as practised by some religious groups involves circumcising baby boys without anaesthetic and you won’t find much argument from me that that’s barbaric and insupportable actually.
There are sometimes medical reasons for circumcision, and it does definitely reduce transmission of human papilloma virus. I wasn’t aware of the HIV thing I must say, but I still think routine circumcision of male infants isn’t a good thing, it should be a matter of choice.
Probably a subject for another thread, but are you including penile subincision when it’s done by adult men as an (albeit extreme) form of voluntary body modification cousinJasper?
What about female piercings down there?
Cath,
No. I’m making no comparisons there. When it’s done by adult men.
I’m only making the obvious point about Jennifer Drew’s post (and your point, in fact: … “Whereas the higher spending on women’s health is down to a number of reasons…) and the reality.
Jennifer Drew’s statement: “Regarding men’s health – given the male body is taken to be standard definition….”
It’s just not true, is it? It’s an old trope. Let’s finally lay it to rest.
“Men have always historically been used, killed and overworked and abused to make money for business and to fight wars. They are the most expendable members of society and always have been.”
So when the RAF were incinderating Hamburg, they aimed for what?…or Hiroshima, what did the Red Army do when it entered Berlin, East Prussia etc?
Did the Soviets feed the women and kids during the battle for Leningrad?
Who went to the Nazi gas chambers first?
Sepian
. Male unemployment. Despite Harman and co endless going on about “women and the recession” it is very clear that men are the main victims by far and far more have lost their jobs. Again, like most of these such important issues there will be multiple victims of this as they will have families to support
Whoops sorry I fell into a light coma and missed that one. Can I take it that young Reece will be paying all my bills if I get made redundant then?
I am astounded at the immaturity of the individual who produced this article, and if you would like to know what I mean just look at the tags.
My name is not “Reece Young” and is Reece Wilkes and therefore please amend this.
I already know that Harriet Harman is Minister for Equality (as well as Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal) and this is self-evident by myself stating to Mr Hague “Why could there not just be a Minister for Equality”. Note the “just”.
Polly, stop being ridiculous. What I ask for is that Male Genital Mutilation (circumcision) be banned on the grounds of religious, cultural and wishes of parents (everything other than medical issues). Medical implications opens a whole new ground which I did not bother to state is it is common sense and pretty much a red herring. If circumcision is NEEDED because of serious medical implications then therefore it may be appropriate. However, if there are NO medical implications and the parents/guardian or whoever just want the operation carried out on their male baby/child because or their particular religion, culture or because the father had the operation preformed on him then I immediately say that it should be prohibited on all of those grounds because the baby/child does not fully understand/nor is aware/nor has his consent been given – for a fully functioning part of his anatomy, comprised of sensitive nerve endings, to be removed. It is the babies/child’s body and therefore ultimately what ever happens to his body in regards to any operation and surgery should be preformed on a medical basis only – a necessity.
Cath, you state, ” I’m really glad to hear you and Reece don’t regard men’s problems as being the fault of feminists”. I would not necessarily commit myself to that statement as the feminists themselves are hypocrites and are know the world over for this exactly.
The very agenda of the common feminist is summed up in the name itself “feminist”. I thought that they were “fighting” for equality; well if they were they would be called “Equalityists”. It seems far to clear that they are not fighting for equality but have a myopic view, which sadly distorts their own perception of the very fabric of reality and that of the 21st century.
The pendulum has swung far enough towards women and I guess it is only a matter of time before it comes back to the middle. When true equality exists for men.
I would have loved to have asked Mr Hague many more questions but unfortunately did not have enough time (that’s why I allocated 5 questions to the specified time allowed).
Regards,
Reece
Genuine apologies for the Reece Young typo – it wasn’t deliberate. Now amended.
Oh and Reece
Then you thought wrong. As Timothy Leary once famously said:
The predominant reason why allot of the public assume feminists want equality is because of how they indoctrinate the media and politicians with constant nattering about equality. This is so everyone is disabled from arguing with them, as they know that any rational argument cannot be produced against an individual who argues for equality, but they leave out their true agenda, which is in actual fact INEQUALITY, and this does not have any place in our modern society.
Regards,
Reece
Dear Reece
The reason why there is a minister for women AND equality is because, whether you can see it or not, on the whole it is women who are on the receiving end of the vast majority of gender inequality. This reason is the same reason why feminists are called feminists and not equalityists. Because the imbalance in the status quo is overwhelmingly to the harm and disadvantage of women relative to men.
Polly can be ridiculous, I grant you, but the question of male circumcision vs FGM is not a fair comparison. I take your point in your argument against male circumcision, but there are *additional* arguments applying to FGM, which must also be addressed. I’d refer you to the many very clear descriptions in the comments here of what FGM entails. This information should hopefully convince you that the two procedures are by no means equivalent.
The reason FGM should stop is not just because of the reasons you cite against male circumcision, but because of the dangerous and debilitating effects of FGM upon the individual, that go far beyond those of male circumcision, and because FGM is a very brutal procedure, done on children and young women, not babies, and largely without anaesthetic.
I don’t see teenage boys having their cocks cut off under cultural pretences and being attacked for complaining about it. If this was happening, what do you think it would say about society’s attitude to men and their bodies?
It’s really good that you’re interested in this stuff, and I hope that you continue to think about these issues in more depth.
FGM and male circumsision both involve unneccesary mutilation of body parts. you say that it is done to women and children without the aid of anasthetic, this is probably true. but the same applies for male circumsision in some circumstances too. they might not be a direct comparison but they both have similarities. the Biggest inequality is that one has a law protecting it and another doesn’t.
oh and this doesnt make sense
and i quote dan: “he reason FGM should stop is not just because of the reasons you cite against male circumcision”
What is this? we are saying that male circumsision should be stopped. it has no bearing on FGM. may i stress this… FGM IS ALREADY ILLEGAL!
just because male circumsision is not EXACTLY the same (the basis for nearly all of your arguments) doesnt mean that it shouldn’t be banned.
Luke,
Reece compared FGM with circumcision in his interview.
The point is that they are not equivalent, and so you can’t use the argument “FGM is banned, so circumcision should be too.” Nobody is arguing that circumcision shouldn’t be banned.
Which is clearly a point you agree with.
Hi Luke
I thought I’d made it clear that I agreed with Reece’s arguments about male circumcision.
I don’t agree with you however that the biggest inequality is that FGM has a law against it (in some places) while male circumcision doesn’t.
The biggest inequality is in the scale and scope of what the two procedures involve. If male circumcision involved removing most of the penis, there’d no doubt already be a law against that too, and if there wasn’t, you’d be quite right to say that that situation was grossly inequitable. But it doesn’t.
I’m not saying at all that male circumcision shouldn’t be banned, just that any argument which likens it to FGM is understandably quite offensive to women (and to men), because the two procedures are really really not equivalent.
This isn’t just a petty pedantic quibble because of minor differences between the two procedures. It’s because FGM is a radically more extensive and debilitating procedure.
You can imagine, I take it, what having your penis cut off and stitched up would be like? And what the impact of that on your bodily functions would be, for the rest of your life? And how that would be different from a circumcision? Then can you imagine how you would feel if someone said it was not materially any different from male circumcision?
To consider it unfair that male circumcision is legal while FGM for the most part isn’t, is just a non-argument, because it doesn’t take into account that FGM is a far more harmful and invasive practice. It would be like saying that common assault and murder should receive equal sentencing under the law.
I take it you’re familiar with what FGM actually involves, so I don’t see how you can still be equating the procedures, unless for some reason you are choosing to discount the massive inequality in the effects of the two procedures upon those who have had them, and in particular giving more weight to the effect of a minor procedure on males than you are to a major procedure on females. Why would someone do that?
Perhaps you’re not very clear about the nature and function of the female anatomy involved? It’s hard to see how you can justify having an opinion on FGM in relation to male circumcision if you don’t know (or care, as the case may be) what the effects of FGM actually are. Obviously I’m just speculating here as to why you might hold the view that you do, because I’m having trouble understanding how someone who is obviously a good and intelligent person could have come to the conclusions you have, with the facts that are at their disposal.
To Reece and the other MRAs on this thread:
Use your imagination for a second and think about how you would feel if the following were the case:
1. Over 80% of MPs were women.
2. Women were, on average, paid 17% more than their male colleagues.
3. Men performed two thirds of housework and women only a third, even when men had full-time jobs.
4. Men were assumed by society to be responsible for childcare, to the extent that paternity leave was 52 weeks and maternity leave only a perfunctory 2 weeks.
5. Sexual violence against men resulted in a dissection of the victims’ dress sense and alcohol intake, and a conviction rate of just 5%.
6. Two men were killed every week by their female partner or ex partner.
7. The minute boys started to get good grades at school, people complained about a ‘masculinised’ education system.
8. Pictures of men featuring sexual body parts were on display in national daily newspapers, for women’s entertainment.
9. Women owned over 99% of the world’s property and received 90% of the world’s income.
How would the MRA movement look then, do you think? A bit different, perhaps?
And then maybe you could think about how you’d feel if women started saying that the ‘pendulum had swung far enough towards men’.
Amy – you have some good points there and i wont argue with most of them. just no. 4
4. Men were assumed by society to be responsible for childcare, to the extent that paternity leave was 52 weeks and maternity leave only a perfunctory 2 weeks.
personlly i plan on having children,i want to be able to spend time with them. but at the moment i belive paternity leave is only 2 weeks. i belive that women having 52 weeks maternity leave is a brilliant thing. if i men had 52 weeks paternity leave then i’d be ecstatic. complaining that it is descrimination is the equivalent of saying you’d rather spend your time going back to work than with your kids. i know which i’d like better.
Oh, and following this pages theme id just like to say
“Sticking to the femenist script” Amy
Luke, if you’d object to having your choice over whether to work outside the home or do child-care limited, then why is it wrong for women to object? The present set-up is equally discriminatory towards both genders.
Some women with children may very well prefer to go back to work (just as some men do). By implying there is something wrong with that, you are only proving Amy’s point.
Oh, and I’d just like to say, despite accepting the rest of Amy’s points, you haven’t answered the question as to where that leaves the MRA?
luke reece et al – i can’t really add anything except to beg you to reconsider your believes on the equivalence of FGM and male circumcision. i personally disagree with male circumcision as i don’t think it is right to do something like that for religious reasons without the child’s consent.
but FGM and circumcision are not equivalent. imagine if you had no sexual feeling, imagine what dan says, imagine the infection and the brutality and what that would do to your sense of self. the reason FGM is illegal in this country is because it is not equivalent to circumcision. it is ok to say you disagree with both, but that one is worse than the other.
i think aimee has pretty well summed up why the “pendulum has swung the other way” statement is, frankly, a lie. i don’t understand how, in what is clearly an unequal society, men feel this is ok to say. i accept that there is a problem with male self esteem in some ways, but just try to imagine how much more powerless you would feel if, as aimee said, all those points related to men rather than women. imagine if every day you saw bodies that look like yours on display for public consumption, if every day you remembered that parliament doesn’t really represent you, if every day you are sexually harrassed on the street, if every day you are told to not walk home alone coz if you do, anything that happens to you is your own fault, if every day you realised that no matter how hard you work the pay gap won’t go away. imagine that!
luke – i think you will find most feminists are arguing for equity in paternity and maternity pay and leave. i know i certainly am.
because we’re not hypocrites you see.
amy – apologies i spelled your name wrong! long day…
Cath – I would like to bring to your attention the fact that a pro-feminist blogger named Julian Real has added your blog to his blogroll and republished one of your recent articles.
Julian Real is a psychopath who just yesterday lent his support to the idea of exterminating 90% of the world’s male population.
An anonymous commenter on his blog wrote:
Step one, shut them up, step two, teach the girls to fight back hard, step three execute all rapists, step four reduce the male worldwide population to say 10%. Maybe then we’d have peace in the world.
To which, Julian responded:
I’m all for it, as long as that 90% isn’t comprised of people who are facing genocide by whites, unless agreed upon by the women of that community, society, or nation.
Luke, the problem with the maternity/paternity leave issue is not that women are complaining that they’re allowed to stay at home to look after their child. It’s the assumption in the law that it is the mother who will want to stay at home, and that the father will want to return to work.
The maternity/paternity leave issue is completely unfair to everyone. That makes it a feminist issue because it affects women, as well as also one of the few genuine men’s rights issues. And it’s child rights too, of course.
You make a good point that it’s bad for men as well as women, but remember that some things are bad for everyone.
Why they can’t just give the parents a combined parental leave that they can divide between them as they see fit, I don’t know.
Also, please stop with the digs (“sticking to the feminist script” etc). Yes, a lot of feminists are quite aggressive in their arguments, and can be rude. And can also fairly often fail to see another person’s point of view. Because overall women do have more rights issues, some won’t accept that any men’s problems are an issue.
That’s because they’re people.
You shouldn’t be rude to anyone just because you feel they’ve been rude to you. And you certainly shouldn’t be rude to anyone who has only just joined the debate, because someone else has been rude to you.
It’s really starting to annoy me, and makes me and others much less likely to recognise any good points you make.
Chris, I’ve seen that argument used before. My understanding is that it doesn’t refer to exterminating men per se, but to reducing the male population through the use of sex selective abortions and selecting female embryos only for implantation etc.
But whatever, it’s not something I’d ever endorse.
And Luke/Phil, I’m also fully in support of combined parental leave. It looked recently as though the Government were heading in that direction, but they appear to have backtracked somewhat since (no surprises there then!).
Polly, stop being ridiculous. What I ask for is that Male Genital Mutilation (circumcision) be banned on the grounds of religious, cultural and wishes of parents (everything other than medical issues).
Which I never disagreed with Reece (in fact I agreed if you bother reading what I wrote). I said it wasn’t equivalent to female genital mutilation in response to Alex.
Oh and re men’s health issues being ignored, a relative of mine currently has prostate cancer. He will not tell his wife (a cancer counsellor, previously a cancer nurse) his test results because he is ‘protecting her’. Do you think sometimes men are their own worst enemies where health is concerned?
I’d like to add on the subject of parental leave, that it’s not merely the assumption that women will want to stay at home that is the problem.
It is also the knock-on effects for women in the workplace, namely, those employers who see women of childbearing age as a bad investment because of all the time they will spend off work if they choose to reproduce (the selfish harridans!). This contributes to the pay gap, as women are passed over for promotion, find their responsibilities limited etc. It also negatively impacts career trajectories – spending large amounts of time off work with your babies is detrimental to reaching the top of the tree in any profession.
If equal parental leave existed, and both sexes actually took it, employers would not be able to discriminate against women as much, because they would not be able to know which of their employees would be taking time off when they had kids. They couldn’t discriminate against everyone of childbearing age (especially given men can father a child at any age upward of about 12) so they would have to deal with it.
Oh and I have to just agree with everyone who is saying FGM is not equivalent to male circumcision. The clitoris and inner labia are the most sexually sensitive parts of a woman’s body. Is the foreskin the most sexually sensitive part of a man’s body? No, it isn’t.
Dan would you like to cite an instance of me being ‘ridiculous’? One I actually said?
Also what Amy said.
when health is concerned i completely agree with Polly. my dad is practically deaf, but won’t admit it even to himself. its driving me completely nut, and its not the only horror story around.
Sometimes I read a bit of Sci-Fi. Terrible, I know. I occasionally wonder whether our alien overlords would need to use the equivalent of chicken-sexers to tell us apart.
99% of the world’s wealth is owned by men. Well, if you believe what economists say. Personally, I don’t. I’ve seen who they describe as wealth creators. And they don’t look like me. But I’ve only the two eyes.
And now, as these threads always seem to, we have arrived at the mutilation competition. It started with the MRAs, and then led to the old and trustworthy “medical profession is male” theme. As an encore, Amy Clare asks us what men’s most sensitive parts are before getting the answer in quick. Oh my stars Amy, you really need to be right on that one. Oh man, I’m gonna have to take sides now. Why did you even say it?
And the Holocaust. I’m not setting my face against humanity there. No one won that one. Heave those numbers Sepian, make them work for you.
From above, I’d bet penny-to-a-pound that wealth was easy to spot. I’d guess that it was geographical. I’d guess that it was political. I’d wonder how the political and corporate class represented fewer and fewer (sianushka, that one’s for you) and got away with it.
As a final note, I have two grand theories: the first I shan’t bore you with, and I call it “The Star Trek Fallacy”. The second I call “The Equivocation Stop”. Cath, your comment about why more money was spent on Women’s healthcare was a bloody fine equivocation stop. A principle equivocated away to nothing. Mind you, I think that you are right. But it’s the person ‘front the stop that I feel sorry for: bereft and twisting a fact around in their hands like a greasy hat.
🙂 Oh polly. Where do I begin?
im hearing that david cameron has introduced an all female shortlist of conservative candidates. i might not know all the facts (so fill me in if i get something wrong) but doesn’t that seem incredably sexist. so female politicians are under-represenataed. bannaing male’s from going in is just wrong.
take another field with a gender inbalance in the other direction. primary school teaching. if Mr high and mighty cameron decided to ban females from joing as primary schools for a year, to boost male percentages, there’d be an uproar. i expect you femenists would calling for his blood. and rightly so. don’t get me wrong its not a dig at femenists, its a dig a cameron and his policy. there should be other ways to boost female politicain numbers.
by the way if anyone does know about this then please fill me in. im awere i might not know all the facts.
Luke, politics is dominated by men. It is largely men who make the decisions of who will be the parliamentary candidates. They will usually choose men. Also, it would not be appealing for many women to enter a male-dominated environment.
The current scenario was created by sexual discrimination, and is maintained by sexual discrimination. I see nothing wrong with deliberately correcting that.
Same goes for choosing more ethnic minorities.
A couple of years ago, one of the lads in my class told me, “I’d really like to be knighted, but Asians don’t get knighted.”
How do you expect people to take an interest in politics and power and want to start participating if they have a perception that “their kind” doesn’t get any say in it?
If you stop actively marginalising people, it doesn’t mean they aren’t marginalised any more – you merely leave behind a culture that passively discriminates instead.
Everyone needs representation, and everyone needs to feel represented.
cousinJasper said:
“As an encore, Amy Clare asks us what men’s most sensitive parts are before getting the answer in quick. Oh my stars Amy, you really need to be right on that one. Oh man, I’m gonna have to take sides now. Why did you even say it?”
Sorry, I don’t really understand what you’re getting at here!
Why did I say that, well, possibly because it’s true? How much sexual feeling is actually *in the foreskin itself*, rather than in the head of the penis (which is usually still intact after a circumcision, correct me if I’m wrong)? Does the lack of a foreskin prevent men from experiencing sexual pleasure and orgasms, as a general rule?
Sure, a circumcision probably hurts *at the time* but if anyone is going to imply that it has a profound negative effect on mens’ sexual feeling after it has healed, then they better be able to back that up with some evidence.
That doesn’t mean I’m in favour of it – I’m not – but it’s not the same as FGM.
Amy there is some evidence that circumcision results over time in reduced sensitivity and that it can cause sexual problems, though to be fair, there are also findings that conflict with this view. But in any case, reduced sensitivity is not the same as completely removing the clitoris.
Another issue that luke and reece might want to consider in relation to FGM is childbirth. Male circumcision does not compromise foetal or maternal health in childbirth, and I’d say that’s another pretty big difference between the procedures.
Luke, if women were banned from selection to primary school teaching, the result would be a massive shortfall in teachers, because men just don’t want to join the profession in sufficient numbers.
I think Phil has it about right – the reasons for the gender imbalance in politics are not the same as in teaching, and the impacts of these gender imbalances are different too.
you say that the reason are not the same? i disagree. the fact is that both are dominated by one gender which tends to put the other gender off. both jobs require a degree of dtermination and vocation to get there.
forcably prohibiting men from entering politics is wrong. encourage women to join the party and run as candidates by all means. give the support and guidance yes. but outright removal of men from the party shortlist is blatantly sexist descrimination and tecnically against the law, though no-one is persuing it. you may belive that if it is what it takes to get more women into power then it is right. but if the ends justify the means then shouldn’t the same apply to all other fields and professions? and don’t dnay it. there would be an uproar if in any female dominated profession the jobs vacancies were given an all male shortlist for the job
“the fact is that both are dominated by one gender which tends to put the other gender off”
luke, that is simply not true. Please go back to the beginning of this thread and slowly read every word again. It has been patiently explained to you why your views are remedial. I couldn’t have been that patient.
Harsh, but true. It’s like he didn’t read what Phil said at all.
No-one is suggesting “forcibly prohibiting men from entering politics”, luke. We’re just suggesting reducing the forcible prohibition of women, which is what the current state of affairs amounts to.
It doesn’t mean you won’t be able to enter politics if you want to, it just means you won’t have quite the unfair advantage men have enjoyed in the past. I’m sure you’re not one of those hypocrites who’s quite happy with unfair advantage, as long as it advantages *them*. Are you?
Politics is about representation in the government of the country – as a profession, it’s slightly different from teaching primary children. I’m sure you can understand that. Politics *needs* to equally balanced, in a way that other professions don’t.
Don’t you *want* a level playing field in government? Don’t you *want* there to be fair representation for everyone? Don’t you *want* there to be a proper democracy? Because you seem to be arguing for the retention of male domination. Can you see why that’s not nice or defensible?
Amy Clare,
You just give them ammunition. A point to cling to. Muddying the waters with what you think a penis feels like simply gives MRAs a justifiable sense of outrage. And now they can ask you what you know about it, and you have no reply. Like a Victorian doctor hypothesising with nothing more than the nods from his fellows as his guide.
Anybody who has thought about it can sense that the grosser types of FGM are a horror. Not just the initial pain, but the life-time of stitched-up misery. Shudder.
But the point that the MRAs will latch onto is that much of the male and female anatomies are homologues of each other. Dismiss the foreskin as intactile leather, and they’ll hurl this back at you. And you will have lost the argument.
The hideousness of infibulation is far worse than prepuce removal. You can divert these attacks by stressing this, but without dismissing the wound that ritual circumcision is. Let these men know that you recognise the hurt and the shame (and yes, I do mean that. Read the comments on circumcision in CiF, Broadsheet, whatever – there’s a lot disgust of the foreskin), but that’s not the fight.
I’ve followed debates on this subject, and have often been dismayed at these tactical errors. Only an idiot would turn this into a men/women argument. You didn’t start this, I know.
Look, I’m a very stupid man. I can find it difficult to make points directly – because I’m not sure *what* I mean – so the oblique angle is easier. Somebody less stupid might get what I’m trying to say, if it’s worth saying.
So long, and good luck with the fight.
Amy Clare,
Me again. Sorry to go on after my last post.
Here, this is what I mean:
“Why did I say that, well, possibly because it’s true? How much sexual feeling is actually *in the foreskin itself*, rather than in the head of the penis (which is usually still intact after a circumcision, correct me if I’m wrong)? Does the lack of a foreskin prevent men from experiencing sexual pleasure and orgasms, as a general rule?”
Well, you know that the clitoris is a largely *internal* organ, don’t you? I’ve read that women who have had the glans removed can still feel orgasms. Wiki it.
See? Now you’ve opened it up to debate and equivocation?
Stick to the facts, and you’ll close this avenue off. If the facts mean that you have to recognise the foreskin as an organ, then your argument isn’t diminished at all. You have made it stronger. *The argument is about The Disgrace*.
I know you probably didn’t mean your comment about ‘tactical errors’ to come across as patronising, cousinJasper, but boy was it.
I haven’t ever referred to the foreskin as being completely without sensation, I just asked whether it was the most sexually sensitive part of a man’s body. It clearly isn’t, so its removal can not be compared to FGM.
I personally do not have a penis but take it on the authority of my boyfriend that the foreskin is not the most important part of the male anatomy when it comes to sex (or indeed anything).
I also said that I was not in favour of male circumcision. That point I think is *very* clear. If the MRAs on this thread choose to ignore that then that’s up to them, frankly.
With respect, please don’t tell me how to respond to men/MRAs/anyone in this discussion (or indeed anywhere)! I’ll decide that for myself.
Luke. When the Equality Bill, that’s currently going through Parliament, finally gets enacted some time next year, it will be possible for primary schools, or any other workplaces where men are under-represented, to take positive action enabling them to recruit more.
So for example, if they have 2 candidates, a male and a female, both equally qualified and both equally suitable for the job, they will be able to positively discriminate in favour of the man, and they’ll be able to justify it legally on the grounds of seeking greater diversity and wider representation in their workforce.
The equality bill has been slammed by some MRAs, because they see it as yet another government initiative aimed at getting more women into top jobs, but in fact it can also be used in men’s favour. Employers in traditionally female-dominated professions such as primary teaching, nursing, and others, will be able to use it to help even out any gender imbalances.
Of course, equal representation of men and women in these professions also relies on men applying for the jobs. And the reality is that as many of the more ‘female’ jobs are also traditionally those that are less well paid, men tend not to apply for them in the first place…..
Amy Clare –
I’m in total agreement with you about FGM not being comparable to male circumcision, but I think you’re obviously wrong here. Without wanting to be too graphic, as an uncircumcised male, if I walked round with my foreskin pulled back, you would – shall we say – notice it in my gait. There is very obviously some effect on sexual feeling. Profound is up for debate.
More importantly, and in fairness to Luke, I don’t think he’s being remedial about women-only shortlists for political positions as opposed to men-only ones for primary school teaching. I actually agree with Phil and Dan … but I’d assume the legal basis for such lists is purely the gender discrepancy in the particular field? Rather than being based on the idea that the interview panel would be inherently sexist if left to their own devices?
Perhaps, if enough men aren’t applying for primary school positions, it should still be a case of “if a man does apply, he might be appointed over equally qualified female candidates simply on the basis that he is a man”? That was the ‘defence’ offered by various people, (Cath included?), against accusations by some of the CiF crowd over sexism within the recent legislation.
Amy Clare,
Oh God. I didn’t tell you how to do anything. I warned you of some pitfalls.
Did “tactical errors” come across as patronising? It wasn’t sent across that way.
Look. Earlier you asked for evidence. And now you provide me some in the shape of your boyfriend. I could equivocate that fracture into a crevasse. I won’t because I know what The Disgrace is.
I want no fight here. This is text. I can’t communicate what I mean. I tried to make that clear. I am on your side. I give up.
Cath – sorry. You said what I was trying to far better. Which is no surprise.
Cath:
“So for example, if they have 2 candidates, a male and a female, both equally qualified and both equally suitable for the job, they will be able to positively discriminate in favour of the man, and they’ll be able to justify it legally on the grounds of seeking greater diversity and wider representation in their workforce.”
Er, Cath, I’m pretty sure this is already legal, isn’t it? If two candidates are equally qualified in all other ways, but there is a shortage of male role models in the school, then the man has an extra qualification that makes him more suitable.
I presume the law means that they can now go further than this, and appoint someone who is slightly less qualified? I don’t actually know anything about it…
No, they have to be equally qualified Phil, or else the person who didn’t get the job would be able to sue on the grounds of discrimination.
Here’s what it says:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/085/voli/09085i.234-240.html
Ah, okey dokey.
Thanks.
I’m sure that happens anyway though. Perfectly sensible.
Yes to clarify: you shouldn’t believe what the Male/Express/Torygraph says on this subject (which is usually ‘white men to be barred from getting a job’ or similar). The legislation applies to ANY underrepresented group. And that includes white males, in those very few places where they are under represented.
Cath – thanks for the mention of antimisandry com. I am currently bottle feeding a tiny kitten and it is keeping me most amused during feeds. This thread is ace: What are women good at? http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/what-women-good-22503.html Haven’t laughed so much for a long time 🙂
Cath – Reece appeared on a radio programme yesterday.
You might like to have a listen: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TUL6VROT
Three minutes in, and he’s competing with a music record. Can’t hear a word he’s saying.
That George McCauley from the “UK Men’s Movement” at the end of the show sounds a right charmer doesn’t he?
Damn those brazen man-hating lesbian feminists with hairy armpits and gruff voices in rape crisis centres…
If I’d known he was going to be on it I would have prepared us all a round of rape-denialist bingo cards.
I loved the way he claimed that in his “experience” women in Rape Crisis centres were all man-hating lesbian feminists yada yada yada
Being as Rape Crisis is a by women for women organisation, and George McCauley has about as much chance getting through the doors of a RC Centre as I have of being elected chair of the UK Men’s Movement, I can’t help wondering what his “experience” consists of exactly. Sitting outside in his car with a pair of binoculars trained on the doors perhaps……
…although they’d have to be bloody good ones if he’s able to see the hair in people’s armpits!
Anti Misandry turned up on my blog the other day. they were pretty angry about the lies i told about male DV.
the lies were:
it is very important for men and women to work together to tackle the problem of male DV. However it is ok to look the issue of DV from a female perspective as well as a male perspective, particularly when DV is mainly perpetrated by men.
not exactly vicious lies are they?
i wonder what they would have said if i actually had told lies…through the looking glass and all…
MsWoman,
Sarka’s post on this thread (the last one). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/barbara-ellen-madeleine-martin-comment?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:dcc87972-e1c1-4120-9b9b-36b1e35e8dde
Now that’s equivocation!
It’s…Masterful. It’s so reasonably worded. It’s difficult to see the trick. It’s pseudo-mathematical and pseudo-intellectual. It’s a candlestick. No! It’s two faces.
Hope you weren’t offended by my post to you on that thread. It was…patronising. I was three sheets, as I am now. Lord. Don’t count grains of sand with that tosser.
Lol. No I wasn’t offended at all cJ, in fact I think you’re right, so rest easy, I won’t be counting grains of sand with him.
Audio problems meant that Reece’s interview on “Men’s Matters” could not be properly heard during the original broadcast back in November.
However, the interview (without the audio problems) is now available to listen to on YouTube:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3AwAceIV5U
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwpojrJoSk