The MENS society has been officially recognised by the University of Manchester Students’ Union, following a change of name as requested by the union.
The acronym, MENS, stands for masculinity, exploration, networking and support. Society founder and chair Ben Wild said: “The agreement reached with the Societies Committee is an amicable and positive one, as the name and goals of the society remain virtually intact, with the slight change [of] making our intentions more lucid to the outsider than they were before. Hopefully now the controversy can die down and the MENS Society can get on with what it is meant for: doing genuine and practical good.”
The controversy regarding the formation of the MENS society has attracted national media attention from both the Guardian and the BBC. As well as being asked to write an article for the Guardian’s ‘Comment Is Free’ web-only comment section, Wild was invited to attend a discussion on the BBC World Service News Hour but was later replaced by the leader of the Oxford University Men’s group. Wild said that, “by silencing and snubbing the original Manchester organisation, the BBC have committed a disreputable act of elitism.”
Critics of the group have claimed that the very existence of the MENS society would be harmful to the work of women’s groups who campaign for equal rights and would merely allow a respectable facade to be granted to a group that otherwise endorse stereotypical macho activities. UMSU Women’s Officer, Hazel Kent said: “The MENS society must stay focussed on addressing the social construct of gender and men’s health rather than a misperceived lack of men’s rights if it is to avoid hindering women’s liberation and women’s rights campaigns.”
November 30th, 2009 at 19:18
This quote from the campus’ Women’s Officer was golden: “The MENS society must stay focussed on addressing the social construct of gender and men’s health rather than a misperceived lack of men’s rights if it is to avoid hindering women’s liberation and women’s rights campaigns.”
That says it all: it seems that female privilege will be threatened by male equality. What’s that you say? Men are privileged, and therefore a heavy dose of female privilege “balances the scales?” Hogwash, I say. When has a woman ever provided a man with the option — the choice — to choose between working a paid job, or being supported as a stay-at-home parent/spouse, or some combination of the two? To have been offered the option indicates privilege, and women are almost exclusively offered this option. Ideologues often deny this reality by portraying one of the options as a form as “oppression” (the domestic life), ignoring the fact that it was a choice (a choice, that is, which is hardly ever provided by full-time working women to their male partners). Who are the privileged ones in this society? The answer is clear: the ones with the most choices. In this context, that would be the women.
November 30th, 2009 at 22:05
John is totally correct. Feminists constantly deny any equality for men, be it in,
“educational, medical, family court decisions, female on male violence”,
all those issues that men face are totally ignored and even attacked
constantly as being threats to women’s rights.
Who is being the bigot and sexist now ?
November 30th, 2009 at 23:32
Allow me to be the first to congratulate Mr Wild at the official recognition of the MENS society by the student union. I fully admire him for carrying this prank through to its logical conclusion and hope that he continues to exploit the Riveter’s knees and their amazing proclivity to jerk at only the smallest stimulus. But it is a congratulations I do offer with certain reservations- does he have to carry on with all this nonsense about men’s health? I for one want less sexual health and more pro-binary gender construct rhetoric.
December 1st, 2009 at 00:59
The most egregious and inexcusable example of gender bias against men occurs in family court. The vast majority of me who experience divorce, especially one involving children, report very strong feelings of being discriminated against. Bear in mind, these are men who at no other time in their lives, for the most part, have they ever suggested that they were subject to gender bias. Even if one ignores the grossly lopsided data on such matters as divorce initiation, child support payments and spousal support payments, the nearly universal subjective reports on the reality of gender bias in family court must be regarded as all but conclusive. Anti-male gender bias exists, is serious and deserves remedy. Feminists who oppose exploring the topic, much less executing possible remedies, reveal themselves as closed-minded ignorant bigots. Should they wish another label, they have only to open their minds, educate themselves and abandon their outdated prejudices.
December 1st, 2009 at 05:53
It’s astonishing how Hazel Kent thinks equal rights for men (in child custody, criminal sentencing, domestic violence policies, etc.) somehow threatens women and the women’s movement. I guess equality only goes one way for her. Talk about total hypocrisy.
December 1st, 2009 at 18:25
“Feminism seeks to challenge sexist stereotyping and socially constructed gender roles” Cath Elliot
“Standing for the welfare of one group does not necessarily mean you reject the rights or welfare of another group. Welfare and human wellbeing do not have to be zero-sum games.” Ben Wild
Perhaps the commenters above can educate themselves as to what feminism is? Ben Wild has. Feminist isn’t a convenient label to give the women you don’t like.
December 1st, 2009 at 20:42
“Standing for the welfare of one group does not necessarily mean you reject the rights or welfare of another group.” Of course but actions speak louder than words. Take a look at articles like this. “Equalities” Minister Harriet Harman
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/08/statistical_gender_bending.html
It shows that the “Equalities” Minister Harriet Harman does not care about the condition of men and only that of women. She is willing to use her political power to make sure needy men are not helped. Only women, even if those women are less needy than the man she is trying to cut out from the help. She is rejecting the welfare of men while she is suppose to be the Equalities Minister. This can only occur if Feminism is not about equality, if it were she would have been worried about men in trouble as much as women in trouble (as “Equalities” minister and self declared feminist).
“Perhaps the commenters above can educate themselves as to what feminism is? Ben Wild has. Feminist isn’t a convenient label to give the women you don’t like.”
I have educated myself about feminism, back in University I was part of the movement. That is why I know that its not about equality in most cases. Too many women hide behind the word Feminism because they know that any sustain opposition to their views will not be made in the media since they will be able to just dismiss those as sexist etc. Feminism as lobbied for today is a joke, especially the brand practiced by the the “Equalities” Minister
p.s. I write “Equalities” in quotes on purpose, because she is really a womens issue minister, and yes, she does not care if men get treated unfairly.