NO- Caitriona Rylance
Most of the world’s women are overworked, underpaid and under-represented in just about every sphere of life. Sexism permeates our society, from lad’s mags
Battle of the sexes?
to cleaning adverts, the pay gap to prostitution. Ask any of the multitude of women who each waking hour suffer discrimination and persecution simply because of their sex, the question ‘what is the Men’s Society?’ and I’m sure they would have an answer.
The Men’s Society is the world in which we live. The other Men’s Society, however, is a student society, which is attempting to form in the University of Manchester Students’ Union. Ostensibly devoted to ‘self-betterment’, the original aims of the Men’s Society were as follows: Top Gear shows, gadget fairs, beer drinking marathons and Iron Man competitions. If you’re wondering where the self-betterment comes in to it, you’re not alone. The proposed Men’s Society met with substantial opposition – from men and women alike – and began to talk more about men’s welfare, about prostate cancer and testicular cancer, and promoting men’s health. All very worthy aims, but hardly ones that require a Men’s Society. A Men’s Health society, perhaps.
All that talk about welfare mysteriously disappeared at this year’s Freshers’ Fair. The Men’s Society stall was staffed (when I walked past) by men in Conservative Future T-shirts, handing out a leaflet reaffirming a commitment to ‘über manly’ pursuits, including beard growing, DIY and sponsored entry into Tough Guy competitions. There was no mention of welfare activities, and no indication that the Men’s Society grasps that its endorsement of macho activities as the defining characteristic of manliness, is ultimately harmful.
The most common argument made in favour of a Men’s Society is one of ‘equality’. Women in the union have a women’s society? So why can’t men have one too? This argument is completely misinformed. The Riveters, the group which proponents of the Men’s Society cite as an example of the campus inequality between men and women, is a Women’s Rights Collective that campaigns solely for women’s liberation. Men are not an oppressed group (despite what some people in the Men’s Society have argued: “I could argue that this [the pay gap] is an inequality for men?” Men do not require an equivalent to the Riveters.
If the Riveters was a Women’s Society, for women to get together and celebrate interests deemed specific to their gender (makeup, shopping, clothes?) I would oppose it in just the same way I oppose the Men’s Society, which clearly outlines itself as a group for men to develop their interests according to their gender, celebrate them as a gender and therefore, in practice, be exclusive of other genders. A Men’s Society organising Tough Guy competitions is about as progressive as the Riveters organising a Beauty Pageant.
If they wanted to set up a society to practice sport, talk politics or drink beer there would be no legitimate grounds for opposition, but roping these stereotypically male activities together in one society – a ‘Men’s Society’ – sends out an unambiguous message: here is what it means to be a man, here is what men do because they are men, and if you don’t agree, then you’re not a real man.
Those who support the Men’s Society talk no end about how inclusive the society will be, but they ignore completely the fact that the society is exclusive by its very name, let alone the practice and language of its members. Women still fight incredibly hard to be accepted in sports like football or rugby, to be taken seriously and respected in politics, and to still be viewed as women when we are strong, competitive and like to drink beer. The Men’s Society is telling us now exactly what the media and the education system has told us since birth; certain activities and ways of acting are for men only and if you insist on pursuing them you are less of a woman.
Sadly, this Union has a history of misogyny. In fact, it was the last Students’ Union in the country to allow women to enter. Women fought a long and difficult struggle to enter into higher education in the first place, to enter into Students’ Unions, and to have the right to ensure women’s representation in the Union’s democratic structures. And now, our long and historic struggle is being made a mockery of.
If you remain unconvinced, here are some inspired contributions from supporters of the Men’s Society taken from their Facebook group:
“We should start a campaign to have a men’s officer on the union exec. I feel very discriminated against that there’s a women’s officer, but nobody looking out for me.”
“Straight pride march is an idea”
“A Men’s society would exist to help lads become men”
“I’m sorry to inform of this but stereotypes exist for a reason”
“I would be disgusted to find out that you were denied the opportunity to set up a group that a lot of people seem interested in based on feminist bullshit that is accusing you of making them some kind of ‘minority’ and segregating them.”
There is no way this Union would ratify anything called the Straight Society. There is no way this Union would permit a group of students calling themselves the White Society to organise, let alone gift them with society funds. But when it comes to women’s liberation – and to a group openly threatening it – many people seem to have a double standard. And I, for one, would be interested to know why.
YES- Ben Wild
Alas! AS founder and Chair of the Men’s Society, I have a dark and shameful confession to make; I am… not sexist. I thought that I would have given myself away by allowing all genders to join the Men’s Society and its committee, by stating openly that the Men’s Society would be working closely with both the Riveters and LGBT on any issues they please, and by fully supporting the position of Women’s Officer and never making any demand for a Men’s Officer. But this, it seems, was not obvious enough.
‘Sir!’ you cry, ‘What about all your misogynistic activities?! Isn’t it sexist to watch Top Gear? To arm wrestle? To enter the Tough Guy Challenge?’ No reader, all of these events are open to anyone, and you will find (if you do a quick Google search instead of just reacting to the name) that the Tough Guy Challenge is open to all and is a sponsored 10km race. While these are traditionally male activities, it was, shamefully, my aim to open them up to everyone, defying their gender exclusivity. And try as I might, I simply cannot become a sexist pig by watching Top Gear. Sadly, I would have to say and do derogatory things about and towards women, something I cannot bring myself to do.
Ok, so sponsored beard growing isn’t really open to everyone (some men will be unable to compete, and some women will), but even this, and other sponsored events, will have the true motive of raising money for prostate and testicular cancer, not enforcing male dominance.
Unfortunately, not even campaigning for the under-reported issues that men face (male domestic abuse, male rape, the chronic under-funding of male health research, the stigma many men face when applying for any job that involves small children) makes me a sexist.
Worse still, I plan to encourage traditionally feminine skills to be taught to our members, such as cookery and stitching (two skills many men yearn for but will put up with diarrhoea and torn trouser crotches, ironically, so as not to appear ridiculous). I even plan to take up Nightline on their generous offer to teach our members counselling skills, as well as sober pub crawls, and lectures on the history and perceptions of masculinity, to illustrate the element of social construction inherent in gender identity. Oh the shame!
So there you have it reader, I am a fraud. I must therefore apologise to my sadly misguided critics for not being what they so wanted to fight against. Your only consolation is that, should I have committed so much time and effort towards the Men’s Society as you have, it would surely have double the 306 members it has already.
The reasons for a Men’s Society are numerous. First, as highlighted above, despite men’s dominant social position, there are still issues that need to be campaigned on. Second, there will always be a place for raising money and awareness for male health issues. Third, we can counter the shortage in male volunteers (especially outside the university), by being a volunteer resource for RAG and other organisations. Fourth, there is also a place for educating men on the history of masculinity, thus seeing gender as a largely social construct, and aiming to construct our gender identities in a way that is beneficial to everyone. The wealth of issues here to address forms part of the reason why to change our name to the Male Health Society, or something similar, would be inaccurate.
I understand the slippery slope argument; while the Men’s Society is clearly a benign force now, it may evolve into something more malignant. This is why the society will have a code of conduct.
But there is a final and, for me, most important reason why I will oppose any attempt to abolish the Men’s Society. I will always stand up to bullies; people who, upon seeing something that is different to their way, choose not to contemplate, nor to investigate, nor to negotiate, but to agitate and eradicate. The Men’s Society has never demanded the ending of any other society or position within the Union and yet it has been objected to and attacked.
While the vitriolic nature of some attacks has been amusing on the surface, they point at deeper issues; issues regarding freedom of speech (for everyone, not just the ones you happen to like), freedom of congress and the ability to tolerate pluralism. The Men’s Society’s existence then, is an example of the power of the human mind to realise that simply understanding a movement does not mean you agree with it. It just means you can see why other people like it and should be allowed to partake in it, even if you do not wish to. So, to our opponents and our supporters I say; live… and let live.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:44
“While the vitriolic nature of some attacks has been amusing on the surface, they point at deeper issues; issues regarding freedom of speech (for everyone, not just the ones you happen to like)”
If Ben Wild was actually interested in freedom of speech, he would not have sent private messages to myself and other people opposing the Men’s Society, asking us to keep our criticisms quiet and only discuss them privately with himself.
Sadly, Ben does not believe in freedom of speech as he is so keen to attest.
November 24th, 2009 at 15:31
Reading those 2 parts was such an eye opening. What a bunch a evil fascist harpies would have a problem with a men’s society?
Goog luck to you – Mr Ben Wild! In the face of such man-hating door knobs you will certainly need it!
November 24th, 2009 at 15:50
I would like to add a little note to the first section by Caitriona Rylance. It would be: [Citation Needed]
I think it is important to remember that, when talking about issues that are not personal opinions, evidence is needed to support conclusions. Sadly, none is provided.
November 25th, 2009 at 08:04
How can anybody, at least anyone not brainwashed by the gynocracy, read vile misandryst drivel such asthis and then not understand why boys commit suicide at a rate nearly 4 times that of girls? Or why they are lagging behind girls at school and most decidedly now ‘under-represented’ at universities (University of manchester has 53:47 female to male over-representation).
Men need their own political groups because we are being raped by your gynocracy and we are seeing that every week. For example with sex trafficking being exposed as a myth recently by a massive Government enquiry – a myth invented solely to serve the sexual needs of ordinary women by banning ALL prostitution (with the co-lateral damage of leading to laws that will imprison thousands of men as sex offenders to be raped and beaten in prison).
But carry on printing hate-filled articles such as this. Men are waking up. Young men are getting angry. Changes are afoot. And you won’t be able to stop us, no matter how many fascist laws you introduce.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:43
Mysandry? Sex trafficking is a myth?
Wow, could the above comment provide any more evidence of exactly why we don’t need Men’s Groups in the Union?
November 25th, 2009 at 17:25
‘Mysandry? Sex trafficking is a myth?
Wow, could the above comment provide any more evidence of exactly why we don’t need Men’s Groups in the Union?’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/10/25/after-big-hype-huge-uk-investigation-cant-find-1-person-who-forced-anybody-into-prostitution/
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2850/
This is why we need a revolution to stop rapists like you.
November 25th, 2009 at 20:38
The idea that one subset of society be restricted from peacefully assembling and through meaningfull discussion make it’s issues clear, to me follows a dangerous line of thinking. Doubt not when I say the Jews of Austria were once silenced in the night, their voices cut by a group using the same ideaology. Those who fail to know their past aredoomed to repeat it.
November 25th, 2009 at 23:48
‘Mysandry? Sex trafficking is a myth?
Wow, could the above comment provide any more evidence of exactly why we don’t need Men’s Groups in the Union?’
The Guardian Oct 20th 2009
‘The UK’s biggest ever investigation of sex trafficking failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into prostitution in spite of hundreds of raids on sex workers in a six-month campaign by government departments, specialist agencies and every police force in the country.
The failure has been disclosed by a Guardian investigation which also suggests that the scale of and nature of sex trafficking into the UK has been exaggerated by politicians and media.
Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.
‘
And this is why we need a revolution to stop rapists like you,Vicky
November 28th, 2009 at 13:08
All I needed to do to make up my mind about this issue is ask “What if?”. Caitriona’s argument largely leans on the activities these people take part in, using them to discredit the group. However, what if a feminist group had DIY(note:DIY in the Men’s Society included stitchery and cooking), sober pub crawls and tough guy/girl competitions? Nothing.
If this person wants any credibility in fighting sexism she probably should be calling these activities “macho”, since that’s supposed to be what feminists and MRAs are collectively fighting against.
November 29th, 2009 at 11:08
*shouldn’t be
November 30th, 2009 at 19:57
The MENS Society would do well to point out the pain that men suffer when they are abused via partner violence. Government stats indicate that men who are injured by partner violence comprise 38 percent of the total, which is a significant amount. And that’s just injuries, not attacks. 35 years of sociological and empirical data show that men are attacked by women with equal frequency as when women attack men. This research was conducted by experts in the field of partner violence; the research was subject to peer review and published in respected academic journals, and its validity and reliability are beyond reproach. The only counter to the decades of evidence on the gender parity of partner violence perpetration is pure ideology, i.e. the weighting of female victimization from partner violence as being “more serious” than male victimization, just because. That is a subjective decision, but it does not negate the evidence.
To verify the evidence, check out DVStats.org, where you can read the published and peer-reviewed studies from this mountain of evidence for yourself. Women perpetrate attacks against their intimate partners just as often as men, but women get injured in the resulting back-and-forth that they have caused at a 2:1 ratio. If you really want to reduce the frequency of partner violence (or even if you only care about reducing the rate of injuries suffered by female victims), then challenge female perpetrators. Challenge them as perpetrators and not as victims. Challenging women who perpetrate relationship violence will not only benefit their victims, but also the female perpetrators themselves. Violent women are ideologically portrayed as victims, and therefore they never get the mental health services and counseling that they need in order to have healthy relationships and preserve their families intact. Instead, they bring their violent behavior into every relationship they have, and because the violent woman is treated as a victim (even when she aggresses, initiating the violence), she simply can’t learn better conflict resolution skills or work out her problems on an emotional level. Our society’s attitude toward combating partner violence only recognizes men as the cause of all relationship violence — even when women unilaterally perpetrate! Such an approach is devastating to the continuity of families and the health of relationships, and not only that but it leaves male victims out in the cold and ignores the mental health needs of both female and male perpetrators. We have got to stop looking at partner violence as a problem exclusively and solely caused by men who seek to dominate and intimidate women. As long as society embraces such a skewed, ideological view (which discards the evidence on who exactly are perpetrators and victims), partner violence will continue unabated.
Challenge female perpetrators and you’ll make a significant dent in partner violence. The MENS Society would do well to look into these matters.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:48
Doesn’t really matter to be honest guys, it’s a uni society. There is a society for juggling and another for paintballing. It’s completely unimportant. Just chill out and have a nice day.
January 4th, 2010 at 21:44
Having been at Man Uni in the lively times of the 70s, when feminism was exiting and about opening new possibilities for women and men, how sad the debate is so distorted by the likes of Caitriona. Leading feminists from that time now note the difficulies men have in entering women’s work, in divorce law,in education,health and stereotypical expectations to take on responsibilities. No Catriona liberation never was about “rights” that somehow trump others but about allowing men and women to take full part in society according to the benefit of all. The key was democracy and debate. Surely the fall of the Berlin wall showed us all that enforced utopias end up oppressing all as they seek to end all possiblity of debate. Perhps youth will always tend to the simplistic and easy. Catriona you are a beneficiary of a stable,safe and remarkably free society do grow up.
February 12th, 2010 at 13:33
In a utopian world there would be a mens group and a women’s group and over time these would meld into a human group. whilst i am fully aware that women still face considerable in-equality in life it would be enormously naive to think that this in-equality could be dealt with by women’s groups alone, a more humanistic approach might just see us there. It seems to me that it is equally naive to deny the differences between first the sexes and secondly between each other. there is nothing wrong with being masculine, feminine or any of the in-between’s. The only solution is to work together. yes women had to fight for recognition and rights and in many areas still do but surely the time is soon coming for a truce. fighting will get us no where, and anyway most modern free thinking men are enormously sympathetic to women’s causes. compromise and a positive embracment of our differences can only move things forward. If this group is genuine and can cross some of these boundaries then i believe it could only be a good thing. Caitriona there is a delicate art in any argument of knowing when to stop shouting. you stand for some important issues and perhaps with a bit of humility you could see the creation of this group as a positive action and not a threat to your beliefs. so what if it all started out as a bit of a ladish group, I’m sure a lot of women’s groups started as knitting circles and look what they have achieved. Its nice to have your cake and eat it but in the end you just get fat and smug. Perhaps its better to share.