This is the official blog of the Feminism Society of Royal Holloway University of London.To join our mailing list or submit an article, feel free to email rhulfeminism@gmail.com. To pay your society membership please visit www.su.rhul.ac.uk
Showing posts with label Men. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Men. Show all posts

Saturday, 29 December 2012

The Nice Guy

By Yasin Mudey
Recently, in my random bored internet scrolling, I've noticed a strange phenomenon across the webosphere. Yes, I know I made up that word, but I like to do that. The strange occurrence that mention is the idea of the 'friendzone' and the offshoot of this idea that 'nice guys' finish last.

The thing that strikes me is that there is an immediate, obvious part of me that scoffs at the idea. This mythical 'friendzone' strikes me as a fantastical idea. Why? Simply because it doesn't exist. There is a growing and worrying trend across the internet that simply being a 'nice guy' warrants some kind of sexual gratification from the person of your choice, because you deem yourself as 'nice'. Huh. I didn't know that. So a person is supposed to show some sort of attraction to me because I've shown that, as a person I'm capable of being compassionate? Or that I managed to somewhat portray myself as being nice?

My mama always told me, down in ole south (which admittedly I did not grow up in) that seemingly a random act of kindness, or observing the niceties, is simply just that. Being nice. Wow. How radical. Being nice and not wanting something back? How ludicrous that such an idea is possible. My fellow human beings, you must realise that being 'nice' solely so someone will exhibit an attraction to you surely bastardises the word nice? It's almost as if this word has taken a whole new meaning because the 'nice' guys wanna hit back at society from their respective computers. Uh oh.

A couple of visits to the blog niceguysofokc.tumblr.com have reaffirmed the worldwide misinterpretation of the word. Guys, is it being 'nice' to demand sex in certain situations? Or that the 'man' has to be the head of the house? And that it is a females 'duty' to shave for you? If you really believe that, grab the closest dictionary. Look up this supposed idea of being 'nice'. Look up the word 'friendzone'. You won't find it, because, like my love for the fantastically magic world of the hobbit, it is not real. Simply put, it doesn't exist.

Perhaps if these 'nice' guys were more forthcoming with their feelings towards people, they would have better luck. Rather than labouring under the 'label' of being a 'nice' guy. So, my fellow men (oh wait, yes I am a man) I bid you, take off you fedoras and be nice for its sake. Maybe you will have a bit more luck.




Friday, 27 July 2012

Alcohol <- This is not an invitation for rape

TW: Discussion of Rape/Sexual assault
A response to: Vagenda - ""Don't get Raped" - An important message?" by Oli Rushby
I came across this Vagenda blogpost on the society’s Facebook page and it angered me to the extent of writing a response. It’s not often I’ll disagree with content published by Vagenda and of course everyone’s opinion is going to differ however I was baffled at the sheer ignorance this writer had displayed. The blog was written to defend a campaign run by West Mercia Police, “Safe night out”, which had come under fire by the F-word and many feminists on Twitter for victim blaming.

 
Vagenda make a fair point when stating that whilst campaigns should focus on stopping morons from raping people, whilst we live in a society in which these idiots do go around raping - it’s a good idea to give women “tips” on how to avoid finding themselves in a situation where they are at more of a risk. Although of course the massive problem with this is that if it was that easy to avoid getting raped, nobody would get raped! The bottom line is (and the argument that the F-word and those on twitter fronted) if the Police spent more time targeting and convicting those committing sexual offences then the rates of sexual assault crimes would decrease, we all know the current conviction rate of rape in this country is dire. Women should be able to go out with their friends and have a drink without having to take precautionary measures to avoid tosspots who seem to think because a woman is drunk it’s OK to rape her.
My biggest issue with the Vagenda article is that it claims West Mercia Police can’t be accused of simply victim blaming because whilst it seems the tagline puts “the onus of responsibility on the woman who has been raped” it actually doesn’t, because there is also a poster aimed at men... The poster aimed at men is absolutely appalling. It pictures a group of men having a drink together at the top and at the bottom it pictures a man in a police cell with his head in his hands, with the tagline “Don’t let a night full of promise, turn into a morning full of regret”. Yes, in a very loose sense this poster is saying “Don’t rape” - which is what I’d like to see from an anti-rape campaign however the way in which this poster is designed and the way in which the campaign focuses on sensible drinking, to me is suggesting that if a man goes out and gets really drunk, he’s putting himself in a position in which he may commit a sexual assault... Is this not blaming alcohol for the crime? Using intoxication as an excuse? I’m a 21 year old man and in my time I’ve had nights where I’ve been pretty drunk yet never have I felt whilst being so drunk that it’d be a fab idea to rape someone and I’m sure there are many men out there who will echo that.
“Don’t Rape” campaigns should stick quite simply to that message - “Don’t Rape”, because there are absolutely no excuses for committing a sexual assault. Our Students’ Union and Society ran a campaign last year in which stickers reading “This is not an invitation to rape me” were attached to the cups in which drinks are served in the Students’ Union. The campaign was really successful with positive feedback and I believe it’s creative but simple ideas like this that will really help to tackle the problem of men thinking it’s OK to sexually assault someone who’s drunk.  Even more recently the society passed a motion within the Students’ Union General Meeting to apply for accreditation to become a Zero-Tolerance Union, a campaign initiated by NUS Women’s Campaign to show that Students’ Unions will not tolerate any form of sexual harassment within their establishments after a survey conducted in 2010 revealed a shocking 68% of women were subjected to sexual harassment during their time at university or college. Are these not better steps towards preventing sexual assaults than the seemingly thoughtless campaign by West Mercia Police?
It would seem the issue with the article posted on Vagenda was a knee-jerk reaction to feminist criticism of the “Safe Night Out” campaign. A reaction which does not seem to consider that the campaign run by West Mercia Police seems to be suggesting alcohol is an excuse for a man to sexually assault a woman. Vagenda seem to be jumping the gun a little, almost “Oh, it can’t be victim blaming, there’s a poster aimed at men too” without even considering the actual message the male-aimed poster conveys, which is basically “Don’t get too drunk on a night out, you might rape someone”. If I want to get really drunk on a night out, I will. Will I rape someone? No, because I’m not a dickhead.

Wednesday, 2 May 2012

Let me mansplain this to you slowly...

By George Nichols.


An interesting paper appeared on arXiv (a repository of science and maths preprints) last week studying the significance of various historical figures via the links on biographical Wikipedia pages (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.3799v1.pdf ). By ranking biographical pages by the number of pages linking to them and the rank of those pages (in much the same way Google prioritises search results) a table can be drawn up of people's inferred significance and mapped as a 'social network'. The thrust of the paper is the difference in these rankings between the 15 different language Wikipedias and the way these languages are linked. For example, Adolf Hitler tops the ranking in German and French wikis, while George W. Bush takes number one in English with Hitler a lowly third. On a lighter note, Elvis leads the Dutch charts and Pope John Paul II globally outranks Jesus.

All very interesting, but reading the paper one cannot fail to notice a certain something missing from these lists. Of the 25 most significant people on the English Wikipedia there are only two women – Elizabeth II comes in at 23rd and Hillary Clinton is 25th. Look at the top five in the 15 languages studied and you will see Elizabeth II ranked 3rd amongst the Swedes and Marilyn Monroe taking top spot in Norway, but that's it. 75 names and two women.

The authors recognise this startling imbalance and cite the small number of female Wikipedia editors as the cause. This is surprising: women do more volunteer work than men (http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/40/6/1092.full.pdf+html, for example) and the gender gap in internet use has essentially vanished (http://www.pewinternet.org/Trend-Data/Whos-Online.aspx), and yet in 2009 women comprised only 16% of Wikipedia editors, and each was on average half as active as the average male editor (http://grouplens.org/system/files/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf). Perhaps more surprising is that this gender gap is not closing over time. As the internet approaches gender parity and its awareness and sensitivity to gender issues has vastly improved Wikipedia remains a huge and hugely influential boy's club.

Lam et al (seriously, go and read that GroupLens paper) find that some articles can be identified as attracting significantly more female (typically people and arts) and male (chiefly science and geography) editors, while other topics are more gender neutral (in that they only reflect the global editor bias and so are still vastly disproportionately male). It turns out that 'female' biased articles are edited more than 'male' ones, and that female editors are significantly more likely to have their early edits reverted - 7% vs 5% for first edits, 6% vs 4% for 2nd and 3rd edits, reaching parity between users who have made more than 15 edits (after correcting for vandalism). Since Wikipedia editors whose early edits are reverted are very likely to leave (with no gender bias) women are being driven out of wikipedia by men mansplaining to them that their content is unwelcome.

This situation is really worrying – Wikipedia is rapidly becoming people's first port of call on researching almost any topic. The effect is subtle – few articles actually read as though they are written by a misogynist, but Aragon et al make it clear that when studied as a whole Wikipedia is gender biased to such an extent that only men may rank as important within it's pages, and Lam et al show that female voices are being drowned out. This leads us to the alarming conclusion that the worlds largest and most used reference text and a beacon of free, democratised information contains a remarkably strong and resilient gender bias that is virtually invisible to most users.
Be wary when you Wiki...

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

Femininity, Masculinity, and Why Men’s Rights Issues are Feminist Issues.

By Jasmine Wyeth, founder and President 2011-2012.

Please be aware that this post will focus almost exclusively on binary genders. If you would like to submit blog posts about non-binary genders, feel free to email them to rhulfeminism@gmail.com. There will also be elements of heteronormativity.


Trigger warning for discussion of suicide.


Why would an Upper-Sixth student give up his Wednesday afternoons, which he would otherwise have free, to talk about human rights with Lower-Sixth students who chose Amnesty International as their compulsory enrichment activity? This was the question that someone asked James, one such Upper-Sixth student, running the Amnesty group when I was in it for my enrichment. “It’s good for your UCAS,” James replied. This was in the Autumn term, and he was thinking ahead to when he would be going to university in a few months- something which is a huge, exciting adventure for many young people.

Fast forward a few weeks. First day back at college after the Christmas holidays. Friends re-united after the break, pleased to see each other again, excitedly talking about what they got up to over the holidays. But the mood becomes subdued when our form tutor informs us that a student in the Upper-Sixth killed himself over the holidays.

I can’t remember when this part happened exactly- it was definitely within the same week, but it may not have been on the first day back. I was in a class, and a friend turned to me and said: “You know that boy who killed himself- it was James.”

James was just 18 years old when he died. I had only met him maybe 3 or 4 times - we weren’t close - but his death has always really affected me. I have no idea why he did it.  What I do know is that it never mattered how good his UCAS was.

Rest in peace, James.

***

Feminism is defined as a movement that fights for social, political and economic equality for all genders, and thus, by definition, feminists are people who fight for social, political and economic equality for all genders. Of course, this leads to some people questioning why the movement is called “feminism” rather than “equalism”, and leads to some people going even further and identifying as an “equalist” rather than as a “feminist”; after all, these people claim, the word “feminism” implies fighting for women’s superiority over men.

This isn’t true, of course - the movement is called “feminism” because it fights to liberate women in order to raise them up to an equal level with men in society. It does this by focusing on issues which primarily or solely affect women, such as abortion, rape, the representation of women in advertising etc. For many feminists, feminism is a movement which has historically focused exclusively on liberating women, and should remain so. I must admit that when I first came to feminism (around the time I turned 16 - I’m 20 now), I must have thought of the movement purely in terms of fighting for women’s rights, unaware of any gender-based struggles that men may face. However, I can see now that viewing feminism as a movement that focuses solely on women is naïve, and I hope I can illustrate why in this post.

In recent times, feminists have had opposition from “men’s rights activists” (MRAs). Of course, there have always been men who have opposed the fight for women’s rights, but in previous times, these men have recognised that women were restricted on the grounds of their gender, believed that these restrictions were justified and should continue to exist. MRAs view feminism differently – they believe that women achieved full equality with men long ago, and thus that feminism is no longer needed. In their view, today’s feminists are indeed just misandrists who are fighting for women’s superiority over men. They believe that feminism has gone too far and we live in a “feminised” society, where men are now the ones who are the victims of gender oppression.

MRAs often attack feminists, and feminists often criticise the men’s rights movement. Both groups have a tendency to view the other as being in direct opposition to themselves, and there appears to be very little/ no attempt at working together. I believe that this direct opposition and lack of constructive discussion is counter-productive to fighting for equal rights. Feminists fight to liberate women from gender oppression, men’s rights activists fight to liberate men from gender oppression – there is a correlation here, and I’m going to make the (perhaps controversial) statement that feminists and men’s rights activists should work together. Both groups are essentially working towards the same goal, that is, to liberate people from gender-based oppression - they are just working towards this goal from different perspectives. So, combining the two groups would strengthen each movement.

A lot of the gender-based oppression that women face arises from gender stereotypes. Such stereotypes include the notion that women are maternal and must thus want children, and the notion that women are very emotional and are good at talking about their feelings. These stereotypes promote a narrow ideal of femininity. However, for gender stereotypes about women to exist, there must also be gender stereotypes about men. Such stereotypes include the notion that men are the breadwinners who should be able to provide for their families, and the notion that men are tough, macho and unemotional and shouldn’t talk about their feelings. These stereotypes promote a narrow ideal of masculinity. Such stereotypes for women and men are often opposites and are complementary to each other, and they lead to complementary gender roles. So, both women and men are subjected to restrictive, limiting gender roles and stereotypes about what it means to be a woman or a man, and thus, it is logical to conclude that women cannot be liberated if men are also not liberated. It is therefore necessary to include discussion of masculinity and men’s rights in the feminist struggle.

I’m going to talk about a couple of issues that the men’s rights movement focuses on to illustrate my point. Firstly, one of the major issues is that of fatherhood and childcare. The men’s rights movement calls for a greater balance in the rewarding of custody of children. Many men perceive the family justice system as favouring mothers. In 90% of disputes over contact with children that are settled through the courts, the children go on to live mainly with one parent, and only in 12% of those do the children live with the father (although it is worth noting that only 10% of disputes are settled through the courts) (1).  Currently, there is also no presumption of shared parenting, although in response to many calls for such a presumption from fathers and grandparents, the government are looking at changing this, as long as any change in the law is framed in terms of what is best for children rather than in terms of parents having a right to custody of their children. There is a clear bias towards mothers and against fathers here. Men’s rights activists might claim that this is a clear example of systematic discrimination against men, and perhaps it is, but it will take more than legislative change to really address this imbalance – we need to change the ingrained attitudes that society has about the roles of women and men.

As mentioned before, women are restricted by the gender stereotype that they are maternal and that their primary role is that of a mother. Whilst women have made large gains in education and the workplace, this stereotype is still obvious when women who have had children want to continue with their careers, something which remains notoriously difficult. Feminists fight to make this easier, but in order for this to become easier, we need to break down this restrictive gender role of a woman as a mother. If we placed less emphasis on women being the primary care-givers to children, we could increase the balance of parenting between mothers and fathers, and the role of men as fathers could be promoted. With increased emphasis on the role of men as fathers, it should then become easier for men to gain shared/ sole custody of children after separating from their partners. Thus, in the context of family roles, by breaking down stereotypical notions of femininity and masculinity, both women and men would gain, and both feminists and MRAs would achieve some of their aims.

Another issue that men’s rights activists use as an example of the oppression of men in society is the fact that the suicide rate for men is so much higher than for women. I started this post by writing about James to show that I have a real, personal desire to address this issue. In 2010 in the UK, 5,608 people over the age of 15 killed themselves, and of these, 4,231 were men and 1,377 were women (2). This is despite the fact that more women than men are diagnosed with mental health problems. It is very possible that this disparity is at least partially due to men not feeling able to get help for their problems. Expressing one’s emotions and talking about one’s problems are seen as feminine traits, associated with the stereotype of the emotional woman. Such stereotypically feminine traits are generally seen as “weak”. Men cannot express such traits without also being seen as “weak” and unmanly, and any man who was to express feminine traits would likely be told to “man up”. Men are faced with the restrictive gender stereotype that they must be tough and unemotional, and this stereotype can stop men from getting the help that they need. This is a clear example of double-sexism: sexism against women because stereotypically feminine traits are seen as weak and negative, and sexism against men because they can’t get help if they need it.

In order to address this issue, we again need to break down gender stereotypes. We need to end the polarisation of femininity and masculinity. Expressing one’s emotions shouldn’t be seen as weak- it is a basic human thing to do, and should be something that all people feel free to do, regardless of their gender identity. Instead of stereotyping traits as being feminine or masculine, we need to neutralise them for the benefit of all. Men need to be able to talk about their feelings too, especially when faced with serious problems that could affect their mental health. If we neutralise the trait of being emotional, then it should become easier for men to get help when they need it, and then that would hopefully reduce the number of suicides. Feminists need to fight for this neutralisation so that women are no longer stereotyped as weak, and men need to fight for this neutralisation so that they can feel free to express their emotions and no long feel they have to live up to the stereotype of the macho man. Thus, in the context of emotions and mental health, by breaking down stereotypical notions of femininity and masculinity, both women and men would gain, and both feminists and MRAs would achieve some of their aims.  

I believe that both feminists and MRAs have to look at how the discrimination that women face relates to the discrimination that men face, and vice versa. Both sides have to understand that the gender-based discrimination that men face is inextricably linked to the gender-based discrimination that women face. Women cannot be liberated if men are also not liberated, as so long as one gender is boxed into a restrictive gender role, so will the other. Thus men’s rights issues are feminist issues, and the feminist movement needs to include more discussion of how men are affected by stereotypical notions of masculinity and what it means to be a man. Conversely, the men’s rights movement needs to recognise that women are far from achieving equality, and that men will face gender-based discrimination for as long as women face gender-based discrimination. By working together, feminists and MRAs could break down restrictive gender stereotypes together, and thus achieve their aims of liberating people from gender-based oppression much quicker and much more effectively. 


References:

1) Peacey, V, & Hunt, J. (2008) Problematic contact after separation and divorce. In Family Justice Review  Interim Report (2011), by Norgrove, D. et al., page 180.
2) Suicide rates in the United Kingdom, 2006-2010. Published by the Office for National Statistics. 

Monday, 9 January 2012

A feminist man speaks!

By Yasin Mudey


Oh hi there. I’m a guy, writing for a feminist blog. Yes, this is probably the coolest thing I’ve done in a while. Why am I writing here? Because I’m interested to learn more about feminism, as my current knowledge of it is paramount to my knowledge of physics, which, in case you’re wondering is next to nothing. My main chunk of feminist know-how comes from GCSE History in which I learned about the suffragette movement, and again I can’t say I paid much attention.

I’ve had brushes with feminism in the past. My older sister is a pretty big feminist in her own words, and contrary to the popular belief that feminists hate men......well, she does hate men. It makes family meals quite fun, because she usually comes up with something about her hatred of men and then look directly at me and say ‘but you’re too cute to be a man’, to which my general response is ‘I’m a 20 year old man, Woman!’ Jokes aside, you’d think I would know quite a lot about feminism, however the knowledge my sister imparts on me are titbits like ‘Men are pigs’, and ‘Men lie’, to which I casually nod my head and smile in agreement.
Talking to a few of the feminists here has made me realise that feminism is much more than that. Feminists need men, but I believe, more importantly, that men need Feminists. That, in a nutshell, is why I’m a feminist. Also, for the possibility of learning witchcraft, because who wouldn’t want to learn it? Just sayin’.