This article was first published in Counselling Matters, the magazine of the National Counselling and Psychotherapy Society (NCPS).

Click here to read the article.

March 2026.

The post Article: The falsely accused men; The forgotten abuse victims and how to help them appeared first on Home.

© This article was first published in Therapy Today, the journal of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP).

Click here to read the article.

March 2026.

The post Article: Masculinity: don’t demonise it, use it appeared first on Home.

An interview with the National Counselling and Psychotherapy Society’s ‘Counselling Matters’ magazine about my book The Sexual Abuse of Boys and Men: Creating an Approach for Neglect Victims. article about the acronyms – some helpful, others less so – that have been applied to men’s mental health in recent years.

Click here to read the article.

February 2026.

The post Article: Interview with author Phil Mitchell appeared first on Home.

Blog: 2024 – Another Year of Men’s Issues, Misandry and Double Standards

As we enter 2025 it is perhaps a useful time to look back on the previous 12 months, as I did at the start of 2024, and reflect on the year’s events associated with men’s issues, misandry and the double standards boys and men are often expected to tolerate.

January

The first month of 2025 was jam-packed with misandry and double standards. Comedian Katherine Ryan suggested women are being “like men” because “someone f**king has to”; writer Mieko Kawakami told us how men can make the world better for women, saying it wouldn’t occur to them to take on unpaid care work for the family; and actress Chelsea Handler hosted the Critics’ Choice Award where she thanked Saltburn actor Barry Keoghan for not using a prosthetic penis in his nude scenes, saying “…thank you, Barry, for keeping it real, and please thank your penis for its service.” One wonders how these incidents may have been perceived if men had made similar comments about women.

Men Feel Discriminated Against

In January we also heard how some men feel that they are being discriminated against. The Telegraph told us that nearly half of all Spanish men feel discriminated against, and that feminism had gone too far, with nearly a third of women agreeing. The Business Insider informed us that close to half of young men believe they face at least some discrimination, stating that a growing number of men perceive feminism as having less to do with gender equality, and more to do with attacking men. The article states that less than half of Gen Z men identified as feminists, with feminism being referred to by 46% of Democratic men under 50 as doing more harm than good. Referencing a 2020 survey the article said that half of men agreed with the statement: “These days society seems to punish men just for acting like men.”

Male Victims of Extreme Harm by Female Perpetrators

Early January saw Alice Wood being found guilty of killing her fiancé after using her car as a weapon to murder him. Alice was later sentenced to life in prison and told by a judge that she will find prison hard. Appearing live on LBC Radio, I briefly discussed this case with Nick Ferrari. Thanks to Twitter account @mensrightsbunny the discussion was recorded. Nick asks why I think male victims are less likely to come forward. My answer included the statement that we live in a society that glorifies and promotes the hatred of men. Nick asks me to elaborate, and I respond by saying that society cares a lot less about male victims, and promotes the oversimplified narrative that men are perpetrators and women are victims. I go on to say that the oversimplification of this narrative is evidenced by the hatred of men. It sounds like I was then cut off but then again, we were coming towards the end of the segment. Interestingly, Nick responded with “Good grief!” when I referenced a UN report showing that whilst 133 women are killed a day by a partner/family member globally, this figure is 117 for men. The disparity is not as large as some of us have been led to believe.

Alice Wood was not the only female preparator featuring in the media during January. Lauren Marie Talbot was sentenced to six years in prison after she firebombed her ex-boyfriend’s flat. Bryn Spejcher, however, was not imprisoned for her crime, and was instead sentenced to 100 hours community service after being found guilty of stabbing her male-partner 108 times. The judge said Bryn “had no control over her actions’ after cannabis caused ‘psychotic break.” The victims’ father spoke to the Daily Mail saying; “Would it have been the same if it was a young man, perhaps of a different background? Absolutely not.” Finally, Kimberley Blyth, who stabbed her boyfriend twice during a row after a night out, was spared jail. According to the Mail Online she received a 21-month suspended sentence, 150 hours of unpaid work, and a five-year restraining order, so she didn’t have to give birth in prison.

Feed Women; Not Men

Male train staff in Poland were faced with disadvantage when they were informed that they will not be receiving free meals because on average they burn off less than 2,000 calories at work. However, it was announced that female staff would be receiving free meals because on average they burn off more than 1,100 calories at work. These are averages. If a female staff member does not burn off 1,100, she will still receive a free meal, whereas a male staff member who does burn off 2,000 will not receive a free meal. Wouldn’t a fairer method be to give free meals to those who burn off the required number of calories regardless of their gender? Once again, one is left wondering how this may be perceived if all men were getting free meals because most/other men were burning off the required number of calories, but all women were getting no free meals because most/other women were not burning off the required number of calories.

Send Male Prisoners Abroad; Not Female Prisoners

Men being expected to tolerate further unfairness was highlighted when Labour MP Jess Phillips  suggested plans to send UK prisoners to overseas jails should only apply to men, not women. Jess called on the Government to amend the Criminal Justice Bill to exclude female prisoners from the possibly of being detained abroad. Jess stated: “Data shows that women prisoners are predominantly victims of domestic and sexual violence, which is often a pathway to their offending. Would it not be better to put on the face of the Bill that women are carved out?” Justice Minister Laura Farris applied some much-needed logic, saying that powers should be granted for both male and female prisoners to be sent abroad. Considering how previous abuse may influence women’s offending, but then remaining silent on how previous abuse may influence men’s offending shows severe bias, a serious lack of consider, or both.

“Just Hit Him”

January also saw TV presenter Stephen Mulhern falling to the floor when he was punched in the arm by former boxer Ricky Hatton after Stephen’s co-host Holly Willoughby told the former boxer to hit him. Stephen appeared to be joking with Ricky, insisting he hold a microphone in place for him. Seemingly confused and annoyed, Ricky punched Stephen in the arm after Holly said “Just hit him, please Ricky.” Stephen fell to the floor leaving Holly and some of the audience gasping but also laughing. Whilst GB News said fans instantly flocked to social media to share their surprise and hilarity at the scene, it is worth wondering if such hilarity would be expressed if a male TV presenter told a former boxer to hit a female TV presenter. Perhaps this is another example of how we minimise and mock violence against men whilst showing a lot more concern when it is perpetrated against women?

Cyclists, Musicians and Newsreaders: Assumed Misogyny

The year 2024 contained numerous examples of misogyny being assumed, many of which came with an implication that men are the problem. January boasts not one, not two, but three examples. A report by London Cycling Campaign shared findings from a survey asking women about their experiences of cycling. Based on more than 1,000 respondents, the survey revealed that 93% said they experienced verbal abuse and aggression from other road users with “Get off the road” being the most common abuse shouted. The report states that this comment is “attacking women’s right to cycle,” and made “as if a woman on a bike is not a legitimate road user.” There appears to be no clear evidence provided in the report to support these assumptions.

A second example of assumed misogyny related to the Women and Equalities Committee report entitled ‘Misogyny in Music.’ In addition to the document talking of the need to educate boys and men on misogyny and consent, and on how to respect and better support women (once again peddling the narrative that boys and men aren’t good enough), it contains numerous scenarios where misogyny is assumed to be a motivating factor. Female professionals highlight how they have been mocked, dismissed and adversely treated, with the report implying this is due to misogyny. Again, in regards to many of the scenarios, there appears to be no clear evidence provided in the report to support these assumptions.

Whilst these reports contain some horrific examples that without doubt need attention, the implication seems to be that when women are verbally abused, disrespected or in an uncomfortable situation, it is often (perhaps always) influenced by men. I am not saying that such situations are never motivated by misogyny, but we certainly cannot say they definitely are motivated by misogyny when no robust evidence clearly shows that to be the case.

Finally, January saw TalkTV host, Julia Hartley-Brewer interviewing Palestinian MP, Dr Mustafa Barghouti after a senior Hamas leader was assassinated in Lebanon. The discussion became rather heated with the pair talking over each other, leading to Julia loudly saying “For the love of God, let me finish a sentence man. Maybe you’re not used to women talking? I don’t know.” She went on to say “Sorry, to have been a woman speaking to you.” Is Julia suggesting that Dr Barghouti would have conducted himself differently if he had been interviewed by a man? Perhaps Dr Barghouti would have responded in exactly the same way regardless of the newsreader’s gender, because maybe he was responding to Julia’s words and not to her gender? Perhaps the person who was making this more about gender was Julia and not Dr Barghouti? In addition to Julia assuming that Dr Barghouti’s perception of her gender influenced his responses, it is worth wondering what response a male newsreader would have received if he had have loudly said to a female MP, “For the love of God, let me finish a sentence woman.” The interview prompted more than 17,000 complaints, and in April Ofcom issued “strong guidance” to TalkTV on the matter.

Sexualise Men, Not Women: Calvin Klein Controversy

A Calvin Klein advert featuring singer FKA twigs was banned after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that it was “likely to cause serious offence by objectifying women.” The parallel Calvin Klein campaign featuring Jeremy Allen White in a similar state of undress, wearing underwear that he is pulling down on his right side received comparatively little criticism. FKA twigs called out the double standards saying “In light of reviewing other campaigns past and current of this nature, I can’t help but feel there are some double standards here.” Even Janet Street-Porter had something to say, stating: “Banning FKA twigs’ “classy Calvin Klein ad while salivating over a male actor posing in his pants as exposes the woke brigade’s pathetic double standards.” The ASA told the BBC that it had received three complaints about adverts featuring Jeremy Allen White, and it was currently reviewing, but not yet investigating, claims that the ads “sexually objectify the model.” Regarding the FKA twigs ad, the ASA said its ruling was clear. However, approximately two months later the BBC informed us that the ban on FKA twigs’ ad was partially lifted by the ASA who said it was aware of “significant strength of public feeling, including views expressed by FKA twigs” and that the decision to review the ban was driven by their concern that their rationale for banning the ad was “substantially flawed.” Perhaps a ruling that was not so clear? The latter article mentioned nothing of the Jeremy Alen White ad. Perhaps such silence contributes to the overall narrative that sexualising women causes a lot more concern than sexualising men.

We Date. You Pay

A man with the username @thewaterboy attracted attention after going on a first date with a woman and asking her to split the bill. According to the Daily Mail, a number of commentators, and the woman herself believed that the man should have paid for the entirety of the bill, because he was the one who asked her out. However, at the time of writing this blog, the Daily Mail poll of 1,719 votes shows 59% believe both people should pay? Whilst some believe he should have paid the bill in full because he asked her out, others believe that she should not assume he will be paying simply because he asked her out. How does such an expectation align with rigid gender roles that many are trying to eradicate? Perhaps some of us want to maintain certain gender roles if we are to benefit from them?

Ministry of Defence Domestic Abuse Action Plan. Where Are the Male Victims?

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) released their ‘No Defence for Abuse – Domestic Abuse Action Plan 2024-2029’ highlighting how they aim to tackle domestic abuse over the next five years. Most of those in the MOD are men, so it is confusing and disappointing to see ‘violence against women’ mentioned about five or six times, whilst nothing is specifically mentioned about violence against men and boys. The action plan says:

“While there is recognition and evidence that the most effective way to tackle domestic abuse is by preventing violence towards women and girls (which includes male victims affected by these crimes) we also accept that there is no typical victim-survivor”

I am not sure what evidence the report refers to, and the document doesn’t provide a specific reference after this comment, but surely, it’s logical to say that such an approach prevents – or aims to prevent – violence towards women and girls, not men and boys? This comment overlooks many issues such as the fact that some perpetrators will harm men but never women. The document goes on to state that while the term ‘violence against women and girls’ is used, all victims are referred to regardless of gender. This is clearly incorrect. The regular use of ‘violence against women and girls’ accompanied with the absence of the term ‘violence against men and boys’ poorly and inappropriately includes male victims at best, and excludes male victims at worst. As I have said previously: Imagine the outrage if homicide, street violence, paternity fraud, false allegations, general violence & non-reciprocal intimate partner violence (all of which – according to data and research – is perpetrated more against men) was referred to as ‘violence against men and boys’ but accompanying commentary stated all victims are referred o regardless of gender.

February

Like January, the second month of the year saw men coming under fire. Olivia Petter of The Independent asked why Johnny Depp (a man whose ex was unanimously found to have maliciously defamed him) was still in an advert on Channel 4; The Flemish Film Awards came under fire after most winners in prestigious gender-neutral categories were men; and Journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told us that not every father (not parent) should have the right to see their child.

An article addressing abuse allegations stated that it is ingrained in us to see men as the problem and women as the answer, “no doubt because so often that is how it pans out,” and whilst Celtic boss Brendan Rodgers came under fire for calling female reporter Jane Lewis a ‘good girl,’ one wonders if a woman in the public eye would come under an equal amount of criticism for making a patronising gendered comment to a male journalist.

The Nation told us that men in government (stating “and it is mostly men”) never seem to understand that having a child changes a woman’s entire life; the Advertiser printed an article entitled ‘Why I won’t be seeing any pale, stale, straight males at the Adelaide Fringe’; and an adult content creator posted a video expressing her frustration after her day was interrupted when her son’s school called and asked her to pick him up because he had been sick. Speaking to the camera she asks why she had to “pick this kid up?” and says “Because he’s a man. He’s a little man and he’s got a weak-ass stomach like most men do.”

Further disrespect was directed at men when an article in the Leicester Mercury addressed how women stormed the stage after watching a male-strip show. The article focused more on how the show was perhaps not advertised appropriately, and less on the women storming the stage. Whilst the men seemed happy to dance with the women who unexpectedly stormed the stage, one wonders how this would may have been perceived if men had unexpectedly stormed a stage containing female strippers?

There was also misplaced focus when the Oxford Mail addressed the murder of a 30-year-old man printing a headline focusing more on how the female perpetrator dissected a cat, and less on how she murdered the victim.

There was no focus on men whatsoever when the names of London’s new train lines were revealed. Whilst the new lines were not named after any historical men, one of the lines was named the Suffragette line. It’s worth wondering what the public response would be to a train line being named after a men’s activist organisation that engaged in bombing and arson campaigns.

Rough Sleepers, Slavery and Education: New Data

Data was also released in February showing some of the adversities facing boys and men. Government data showed us that 82% of rough sleepers were male; British boys were highlighted as being at risk of modern slavery more than any other group in the UK; and a report addressing equality in education showed that although young men in all four areas of the UK had a lower entry rate into higher education age at 18 than young women, it seemingly made no specific recommendations for boys and young men.

Male Train Drivers: Rotten to the Core or An Exaggerated Narrative?

According to The Sun, a “secret report” was leaked to them revealing that a quarter of female members of ASLEF (the trade union representing train drivers in the UK) reported experiencing sexual harassment. The article with the headline starting ‘ROTTEN TO THE CORE, Female drivers raped, groped & shown porn by predatory male colleagues…’ says the union approached 1,483 women and received 467 responses with 106 (a quarter) reporting sex harassment claims. Whilst these claims should of course be taken seriously and investigated, do they justify the use of the wording “rotten to the core”? Whilst some of the behaviours highlighted are without doubt concerning, other behaviours, such as placing a hand on someone’s back, may not necessarily or reasonably come under the heading of predatory behaviour. Inappropriate? Unwise? Maybe. But predatory?

Did the union approach men or only women? The article dos not elaborate, but it certainly would not be the first time male colleagues are excluded from an issue that affects them. It would not be the first time during the month of February! According to a study by the University of Manchester, 498 women who regularly run in Greater Manchester and Merseyside were asked about their experiences. It appears men were not asked, but the reporting around issues such as these seem to come with the oversimplified narrative that girls and women are the victims, and boys and men are either the perpetrators or not doing enough.

Andrew Tate, Abandoning Feminism, and the Wrong Masculinity: Boys Need to Be Better

An article by Ellie Muir in the Independent started with “So much for the open-mindedness of youth” in relation to a survey finding that boys and men from Generation Z were more likely than older baby boomers to believe that feminism has done more harm than good. The article also suggests that one in four men believing it is harder to be a man than a woman, and a fifth of survey respondents viewing Andrew Tate, favourably, is distressing. The Conversation also published an article suggesting that young men being more likely than older men to think that feminism has done more harm than good is a backward step in attitudes to gender equality.

Implying that Gen Z boys and men believing that feminism has done more harm than good shows a lack of open minded is perhaps in itself what shows a lack of open mindedness. There are sadly many examples of certain practices and definitions of feminism being associated with misandry, and boys and men are seeing this. As for seeing this as backwards step, perhaps this falsely suggests that all practices of feminism are healthy for boys and men. One person’s definition and practice of feminism may not be the same as another’s. The Conversation article refers to boys and girls being “disinclined to endorse feminism” but believing in equality between genders. As for finding it distressing that Gen Z boys and men believe it is harder to be a man than a woman, I would encourage the author to think about why this is perceived as distressing. There is no factually correct answer to this question. There are just different answers.

Finally, Andrew Tate being viewed favourably requires more context. A 2023 YouGov poll shows us that Tate’s views on women are less appealing to boys than his views on work, success, and masculinity. The figures show us that 12% of boys aged 6-15 say they agree with his views on women, compared to 17% agreeing with of his views on masculinity and what it means to be a man, and 20% agreeing with his views on work and success. However, the author not only positively suggests we could make a difference by talking to boys and men, she also and refers to Henry Mance of The Financial Times stating that Tate’s message has perhaps resonated with some boys because they feel society has frowned on masculinity, and by extension, themselves.

The spotlight remained on men’s behaviour when Scotland’s First Minister Humza Yousaf said that with the advent of social media we have seen more and more toxic behaviours from men. He did not mention toxic behaviours by women. He talked about women being at the receiving end of violence from men, completely ignoring that statistically violent men are more likely to harm other men that women. He goes on to say that boys and men need to talk about these issues without being judged or denigrated, but when statements are made shining a constant spotlight only female victims and male perpetrators, isn’t this going to look like judgement and denigration to many boys and men? The article states that Humza refers to Andrew Tate promoting wrong type of masculinity, but the problem is that many of those who make such statements struggle to define what masculinity is implying, as Richard Reeves said, it is either toxic or feminine. Those adjectives are not the only two options available to us.

The focus switched briefly from men to boys with The Guardian asking UK parents, teachers and community workers about boys’ attitudes towards girls. Nothing here about girls’ attitudes towards boys, and it was not the only time it happened this month. Vodafone released a campaign with findings highlighting how boys are exposed to harmful misogyny, and are engaging with content from influencers with ties to the manosphere. No only is this yet another effort that focuses on how boys treat girls and women, and excludes how girls treat boys and men, it does not elaborate on what is meant by “engaged.” If I am looking online at articles addressing how female perpetrators abuse men, does this mean I am engaging with harmful content? Is it perhaps more helpful to focus on how and why I am engaging with such content, and what my reaction may be? Perhaps seeing something online and engaging with it online are two different things, and it is important to remember that engaging with something is not always the always the same as agreeing with it. The findings show that 66% of boys felt worried, sad or scared as a result of seeing the content online, perhaps acting as further evidence that engagement does not equate to endorsement for most boys.

You Are a Woman; The Law Did Not Apply to You

February saw a former Sydney boys’ school teacher have her historical sex abuse charges quashed because the relevant 1970s laws did not apply to women abusing boys. An article in PerthNow stated that the decision was made solely on the basis that the law in force at the time related to male homosexual conduct, and did not apply to conduct perpetrated by a female upon a male. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the students, now all adult men, labelled a comment made by one of the judges as “obscene” after he said most of them were “willing participants” in their alleged abuse. An apology was later issued. The accused, Helga Lam always denied the allegations and was never convicted. After Helga’s charges were quashed, a former female teacher who admitted to sexually abusing a 10-year-old male student in the 1970s had her conviction overturned for the same reasons Helga’s charges were dropped.

Suicidal Men or Dangerous Men?

The Samaritans launched a campaign with the hashtag #SmallTalkSavesLives. The campaign contained a video showing how members of the public can potentially save a life by approaching those who appear distressed. A response from the European Network of Migrant Women accused the Samaritans of “guilt tripping women of colour for being cautious around oddly behaving men.” The response went on to say that men statistically present the greatest threat to women’s safety. Even when a man is in distress and potentially on the brink of suicide, this comment not only shows how some will sadly view men as oddly behaving individuals or potential perpetrators way before they consider them to be a fellow human being in need of support, it also shows that some will do all they can to push men out of the victim spotlight ensuring it is firmly fixed on women whist the only spotlight put on men is the perpetrator one. The world sees more helpful and lifesaving actions tan harmful and life-taking actions coming from men.

Some Good News

However, it wasn’t all doom and gloom in February. A dad was awarded nearly £140,000 in damages after his ex-wife abducted their son to Brazil. This resulted in the permanent separation of the claimant and his son, proving, that despite what some claim, parental alienation is real.

March

March was certainly no stranger to highlighting adversities affecting boys and men. An article by The Telegraph stated that if you are born male today, you are increasingly likely to struggle in school, the workplace and the home; Channel 5 showed ‘My Wife My Abuser, The Secret Footage’ which addressed the abuse perpetrated against Richard Spencer by his wife Shree; and hundreds of furious Brooklyn residents took to the streets to protest a planned homeless shelter for men. Would we have seen such protests if the shelter was for women? We also saw a woman being placed on a curfew for seven months and under social work supervision for 18 months after she stabbed her partner when he refused to say he loved her. Would a man be as likely to receive this sentence if he had done this to a woman?

We also saw misandry being normalised in March. After contacting StyleCaster and asking for advice about romantic relationships, one woman admitted that she hated men and felt ashamed about it. A senior lifestyle & astrology editor’s response included saying that, as a woman, it’s fair to feel hatred for men “considering the patriarchal influences that negatively affect our lives.” Via the Guardian, Katy Hessel informed us of an audio guide project entitled ‘Museums Without Men’ created in an attempt to address “gender imbalance” in museums. One wonders how a project aiming to address a gender imbalance adversely affecting men would be perceived if its title ended with ‘Without Women.’

False Allegations: Eleanor Williams – Unreliable Witness Podcast

March saw Sky News release a series of podcasts addressing the false allegations of abuse made by Eleanor Williams. Whilst it seems clear Eleanor, like many offenders, had previous distress in her life, the podcasts seem to focus more on Eleanor’s vulnerability and less on the damage her false allegations caused. More focus on Eleanor as a victim and less on the men she falsely accused. One wonders if this would have been the case if a young man falsely accused a number of women of perpetrating abuse.

The impact Eleanor’s lies had on the men she falsely accused has clearly been severely traumatic and whilst this is touched on by the podcasts, it is not given the acknowledgement I believe it deserves. The podcasts also seem to make some problematic implications, such as a man may be falsely accused once but not twice, and previous abuse is a defence for perpetrators abusing others. The latter may be an explanation to soe degree, but I am not sure it is a defence. Other contextual factors need to be considered. The question; why would people lie? is asked which I think shows naivety. There are numerous reasons why someone might lie about being abused, one of which is to utilise the specific sort of power that comes from weaponising & manipulating the concept of victimhood.

I recommend watching the documentary ‘Liar: The Fake Grooming Scandal.’

Male Young Offenders Ignored in Reporting

A BBC article referred to a report criticising Wetherby Young Offenders Institute. The article focused on how a teenage girl was restrained and stripped twice by male prison staff to stop her from harming herself. Whilst the matter certainly requires attention, the BBC did not refer to other key incidents in the report, many of which referred to and affected mainly boys. The 59-page document states that, at the time of the inspection, three girls made up 2% of the institutes’ population, and that 24 children had been strip-searched in the last 12 months with 12 of those occurring under restraint. The report says: “During the previous year, 1,126 incidents of use of force had been recorded with 940 occurring on the main site and 186 on Keppel, including 155 involving the very small number of girls.” Finally, the report states: “Both boys and girls spoke of unfair treatment due to their gender, for example girls were allowed to wear their own clothes while boys were not.” It is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that the BBC chose to focus on the treatment of girls whilst remaining silent on the treatment of boys.

Tackle Misogyny, Ignore Misandry, Make Assumptions, and Promote Double Standard

An ITV article highlighting misogyny stated that “Women and girls have a right to be afforded safety, security and respect at all times,” whilst another article in the Guardian addressing misogyny stated how boys would be taught to question online harms under new Labour plans. Again, we see no mention of men and boys being afforded the right to be safe, secure and respected; no mention of girls being taught about questioning online harms; and no mention of misandry, in these or any other articles.

Another article by the New Stateman said we are living through a sharp rise in toxic masculinity, and suggested that the evidence for this was 52% of Gen Z thinking the world had gone too far in promoting gender equality; Gen Z boys and men being more likely than men over 60 to see feminism as harmful; and previous surveys finding that half of Gen Z males believing feminism has made it harder for men to succeed. These findings arguably have little to do with masculinity – toxic or otherwise. The articles provide no clear elaboration and makes huge assumptions based on basic information without considering context.

Misogyny also remained the main focus in Germany where, according to Fox News, police were conducting “raids across Germany against people suspected of posting misogynistic hate speech on the internet.” Fox News stated this was part of a coordinated push to shine the spotlight on online violence against women. None of the 45 suspects interrogated were detained, and whilst authorities scoured the internet for posts that “potentially broke anti-misogyny laws” the article provides no clear specific examples of what the alleged misogynistic hate speech looked like. The article states that posts in which women are slandered and insulted in a sexualised manner are considered illegal, and that posts advocating rape or sexual assault will also be flagged. Whilst there are certainly attitudes and behaviours here that need addressing, I am left wondering if the police will “raid” the homes of those who post comment online slandering men, insulting them in a sexualised way, and advocating for them to be sexually or physically harmed? There are plenty of “Kill all men” posts online. I suspect the police would have the hands full if they responded to every single one with a “raid.”

Following on from January, there was another focus on women (but not men) and alleged misogyny in music. Whilst the BBC said a new report found misogyny, sexual discrimination and harassment are still everyday problems for female musicians in the UK, the term ‘sexual discrimination’ and the word ‘harassment’ are featured nowhere in the report. The word ‘discrimination’ is only mentioned once, and this is in relation to parenting and caring responsibilities. The report states that 697 of 955 men earn less than £7000 from music. The BBC chose not to share this information or a link to the actual report.

Finally, a man in his 40s who admitted to rubbing his hand on a female stranger’s bottom was given a caution and told that in addition to writing a letter of apology to his victim he must also complete a misogyny course. One is left wondering if a misandry course even exists for those who rub their hands on a male stranger’s bottom?

Perhaps these are yet more examples showing the disparity between how we tackle threats and disrespect towards women, and threats and disrespect towards men?

Have You Met the Hate Monster?

Originally released in 2023, the campaign by Police Scotland aims to raise awareness of harm caused by hate and prejudice. According to The Herald, the campaign was criticised due to a comment made about male entitlement. The campaign website page (which at the time of writing was not available or did not exist) said:

“We know that young men aged 18-30 are most likely to commit hate crime, particularly those from socially excluded communities who are heavily influenced by their peers. They may have deep-rooted feelings of being socially and economically disadvantaged, combined with ideas about white-male entitlement.”

Members of the Scottish Parliament also criticised the campaign as puerile, insulting and grossly offensive, although disappointingly most of this criticism was aimed at the comments made about people from deprived areas, not at the comments about men and white-male entitlement. The disappointment at the lack of such criticism is only overshadowed by the irony of a campaign using hateful generalisations about men to tackle hate.

What Police Scotland are perhaps failing to acknowledge is that hate crimes are less likely to be reported by men when they are perpetrated by women. Perhaps Police Scotland should ask themselves what they plan to do to help more men disclose, and then ask themselves if this campaign encourages or discourages such reporting.

“There Are a Lot of Men Who Are Threat to Women and Children”

This statement was told to us by Metropolitan Police Commissioner who went on to say that efforts are being made to react better to the crimes that are reported to protect women and children.

The Commissioner made four points:

1. That in one year in London the number of men who have an allegation made against them relating to a ‘violence against women and girls’ crime such as rape, domestic violence and child abuse is 34,000
2. That according to the British Crime Survey the number of women across the country who say they have been sexually assaulted in a year is around 800,000
3. The National Crime Agency estimates that three quarters of a million men in the UK have a sexual interest in children
4. That when you start to add these numbers together, there are a lot of men who are a threat to women and children

My responses to each point are below:

Point 1:

An allegation is not proof of guilt. Yes, all allegations should of course be taken seriously, and at the same time we cannot assume that every single one is genuine. In addition to this fact, it is important to remember two other key points:

1. Many of the crimes under the heading of ‘violence against women and girls’ involve absolutely no violence at all. See my thread on Twitter
2. 34,000 is about 0.0079% of the number of men living in London

The distortion of words and removal of import context is perhaps contributing to an inaccurate narrative that promotes unhelpful hysteria rather than any sort of helpful support.

Point 2:

The constant focus on the male-perpetrator, female-victim narrative, and the constant dismissal of the female-perpetrator, male-victim narrative, contributes towards female victims disclosing more and male victims disclosing less. The Crime Survey for England and Wales estimated 1.1 million adults were victims of sexual assaults in the year ending March 2022. As the Commissioner states, around 800,000 of these (or more specifically, 798,000) were women, but what he does not say is that 275,000 of these (26%) were men. The Crime Survey focuses more on the gender of victims and does not focus on the gender of the perpetrator. It would be a mistake to assume every single one of the perpetrators was a man.

Point 3:

If three quarters of a million men in the UK are estimated to have a sexual interest in children, this without doubt needs addressing, although based on how important context is often removed from these discussions (as highlighted above), I view this claim with suspicion. A relevant article from 2015 says that three quarters of a million men in Britain may have a sexual interest in children, and that that two thirds of those attracted to children would never act on their urges directly. Important points not to omit.

Point 4:

The Commissioner says that when you start to add these numbers together, there are a lot of men who are a threat to women and children. Each individual number is unlikely to be a separate individual perpetrator. As 2013 research shows us, the majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by a small number of persistent violent offenders who have experienced previous adversity. However, there are indeed a lot of men who are a danger to women and children, but we must address this issue accurately without removing important context, and without avoiding the fact that there are also a lot of women who are a danger to men and children. Many of these women perpetrate the same/similar harms as men, and many others perpetrate harm that men are less likely to perpetrate such as false allegations, forced penetration, paternity fraud and non-reciprocal intimate partner violence, but sadly we focus a lot less on these issues and their effects on men. Violent men are also more likely to physically harm and kill other men than women, and many of them would never harm a woman meaning men are not just at particular risk of harm from violent men; they are at more at risk of experiencing the worst outcome from violence; death. It is also important to note that the number of abusive and violent men are heavily overshadowed by men who wish to perpetrate absolutely no harm against women and children, and in fact have more protective than abusive instincts.

Some Good News

The Executive Director of a project tacking violence against women in Nigeria highlighted an increase in the reporting of sexual abuse against male children and stated they were talking with the Lagos State Government to expand the definition of rape, making it more incuse of male victims.

Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Martin Seager appeared on BBC’s Sunday Morning Live, sharing concerns about boys being taught about ‘toxic masculinity’ in schools. You can watch the segment here from 34 minutes and 40 seconds. Martin did a great job of clearly highlighting how the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ is not a scientific concept and is not tested or proven. Martin highlights how most men are protective of women and children. Dr Emily Setty shared how she has found the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ can alienate boys, and Martin asked what other group in society would we allow the adjective ‘toxic’ to be used and have a debate on the BBC. Whilst teacher and author Matt Pinkett said he wanted to address Martin’s implication that the term suggests all masculinity is toxic, Martin asked why not refer to toxic behaviour, and went on to say that many studies show that large amounts of toxic behaviours displayed by men ae also displayed by women.

Finally, following study findings showing that a total of 27% of domestic abuse crimes recorded by Essex Police had male victims (which is above the UK national average) the first refuge for male victims of domestic abuse opened its doors in Essex.

April

April was crammed full of dismissive, hateful and patronising comments about at men. Via the Independent, Olivia Petter declared that women are probably going to have to teach their men how to be a good boyfriend; Humza Yousaf vowed to finally pass laws tackling hatred of women whilst saying nothing about the hatred of men; Author Ruth Whippman suggested we need to save boys from masculinity; actress Jane Fonda blamed the climate issue on a manifestation of racism, misogyny and patriarchy; and research told us (incorrectly) that the term ‘misandry’ is used almost exclusively as a misogynistic rhetorical device for attributing unjust anger, hatred or other similar emotions to a speaker.

The Telegraph told us that the suicide rate in England was at a 25-year high, with male veterans at greater risk; the Telegraph and Argus informed us that more than 16,000 men across West Yorkshire reported domestic abuse to police in one year; and The Daily Mail highlighted that 25 female teachers had been arrested in 16 states in the last 12 months in relation to raping boys. The headline they chose was ‘Cougars in the classroom: The alarming rate of teachers charged with raping young boys in America.’ We also heard via The Independent that a man who reported being raped was told by police: “But you’re a bloke,” and 39-year-old Joanne Dodd who glassed a man in the face in response to him suggesting she looked 43, received a suspended sentence. Judge Elizabeth Nicholls said she could see Dodd was a hard-working woman, loving mother, and no risk to the public. One wonders if a hard-working, loving father would have been as likely to receive a suspended sentence if he glassed a woman in the face for suggesting he looked four years older?

In April, I also posted a thread on X (formerly Twitter) highlighting the adversities facing boys and men. At the time of writing, it was viewed over 83,000 times. Whilst many responses were supportive, some were abusive and others related to the common tactics used when male adversity is highlighted; Blame men or divert to women.

A Spotlight on “Harmful Masculinities”

Commentary and criticism surrounded masculinity in April, starting with the Barbie movie. Whilst Shakira criticised the film saying it is emasculating, according to BuzzFeed News, some people responded by begging parents to raise more secure men. Perhaps we need to encourage people to be more secure with masculinity?

Masculinity received further attention when Neil Mackay of The Herald told us that the state of masculinity has always troubled him. He said: “If we want boys and young men to be better human beings, we won’t achieve anything if we tell them they’re trash.” True, but I doubt starting from a place that implies boys and young men need to be better human beings is much of an improvement.

The World Health Organisation also stated that more research is needed to address the impact of “harmful masculinities.” Whilst harmful expressions of masculine traits should of course be addressed, they should be addressed when they are expressed by boys and girls, and of course we should not avoid, as we often do, how feminine traits can also be expressed harmfully. Perhaps we should also research why we are so keen and quick to prefix the word ‘masculinity’ (not femininity, or in fact any other demographic or aspect of a demographic’s identity) with a negative adjective rather than a positive adjective.

You’re An Anti-Feminist? You Could Be in Trouble

In April, a tribunal judge dismissed a manager’s claim that he was forced out of his job because he resisted an ‘agenda to promote women.’ According to The Telegraph, Kevin Legge claimed that he lost his job after “resisting what he claimed was his female boss’s agenda to promote women rather than men.” He stated that his manager treated him unfairly before sacking him because he did not adhere to the “belief system” of feminism. The judge said: “It would appear to the tribunal a feminist is simply about all genders having equal rights and opportunities to men.” If Kevins’ claim of being expected to favour men over women in recruitment or promotion is true, surely this would mean all genders do not have equal rights and opportunities to men, but preferential ones promoting privilege, not equality.

The tribunal decided that Kevins dismissal had nothing to do with his non-feminist beliefs, and referred to a lack of evidential basis linked to his sex or non-belief. However, the tribunal “felt” that Kevin’s maintenance of his non-feminist views was discriminatory in itself, with the judge suggesting that holding such views could be in breach of equality laws. According to The Telegraph, the judge also said that not agreeing with equality and diversity in the workplace was a questionable belief that conflicted with the rights of his colleagues.

Should the tribunal’s feelings be used to make important decisions? Would it be more appropriate for such decisions to be made using sound logic and reasonable evidence? Perhaps what is questionable is the assumption that non-feminist views are equated to discrimination. In today’s world there are so many differing interpretations and practices of feminism, and if a person believes women should be given preferential treatment because they are women, and this is done under the heading of feminism, it is this version that is discriminatory and possibly in breach of equality laws. I see nothing in the article clearly showing that Kevin disagreed with equality and diversity in the workplace. What I see is a man suggesting that candidates should not be given preferential treatment based on gender, and a judge who has made assumptions that appear to come from rigidly believing there is only one interpretations and practice of feminism. Let’s not assume that anti-feminism always equates to anti-women. Like feminism, anti-feminism may be interpreted and practiced in different ways by different people.

Schools, Boys and Andrew Tate… Again

Once again, we saw attention being given to the influence of Andrew Tate on boys. Saying that the problem goes well beyond just Andrew Tate, Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union featured in The Guardian and called for “an independent inquiry into the rise of sexism and misogyny among boys and young men.” A subsequent Guardian article highlighted how there are still boys orientating towards more masculine behaviours and that the way these behaviours are labelled has left boys feeling demonised and inadequate and seek out influencers like Andrew Tate. The article also talks of “positive masculinity” but does not elaborate. In his Telegraph article, entitled ‘Half of Gen Z is being radicalised – but boys aren’t the problem’, Michael Deacon suggests that “instead of vowing to combat the influence Andrew Tate has on boys, Labour should be looking at the effect The Guardian is having on girls.” He also states: “Politicians must spend less time obsessing over the radicalisation of young men, and start paying attention to the radicalisation of young women, instead.” Michael says that politicians and commentators “fret endlessly about how young men today are being ‘radicalised’ by nasty Right-wing YouTubers such as Andrew Tate.” He goes on to question why politicians and commentators never apply the word “radicalised” to young women, and states that they blame young men entirely for “failing to emulate young women’s lurch to the left.” Whilst it is positive to see someone addressing an aspect of the issue that is often ignored, this appears to be a comparatively quiet vocalisation in a room full of loud opposing voices.

There are certainly issues and attitudes relating to misogyny that need attention. It is just disappointing that with the exception to Michael Deacon’s article, we once again hear nothing being done to address hateful and harmful attitudes and behaviours directed at boys and men. If a person is starving, they will take any sort of food they can get, even if it comes from a questionable source. If a boy is starved of acceptance, perhaps he will take any sort of acceptance he can get, even if that comes from a questionable source.

Danny Dyer: How to Be a Man Documentary

Exploring masculinity, addressing men’s mental health and examining male identity, this programme was a much welcome tonic to the toxic prevailing narrative that masculinity and men need fixing.

One of my favourite highlights included Danny visiting a school to talk to teenage boys. The discussion took an interesting, possibly unexpected turn where boys expressed that toxic feminism also exists, with one boy describing it as probably a hate towards men and believing that they are all violet creatures. Another boy referred to all men being labelled in a certain way and that this is silly, rubbish and should not be done. One boy said it was unjust. He referred to the media classing all men as this “terrible thing,” saying people need to understand that it is a very small portion of people. Perhaps we need to do more to capture the views of boys?

A good review of the two-part documentary by John Barry, Psychologist, researcher, clinical hypnotherapist and co-founder of the Male Psychology Network can be found here. However, not everyone praised the documentary. Lucy Mangan of The Guardian referred to the documentary as a waste because it did not take toxic men to task. With such a comment, Lucy has (perhaps without knowing it) succinctly highlighted why such a documentary is needed. Whenever there is a focus on men and masculinity, there is a quick and often loud assumption that it must hone in on the problems with men and masculinity, and that if it does not, this is quickly labelled as a problem. It is also worth wondering what response a male journalist would receive after writing about women and femininity in such a way. We are unlikely to find out as it appears to be severely unacceptable to say anything critical about femininity, but completely acceptable to say anything critical about masculinity, to the point that is perhaps seen as some sort of trend.

Lucy says: “29% of Domestic violence sufferers are men, we are told. But there is no time to ask whether – as I suspect it does – this figure includes those who are abused by male partners, and we are left with the impression that they are all victims of women.” Whilst some more accuracy would have been helpful, Lucy is doing what many people do when they see the victim spotlight being put on men and the perpetrator spotlight being put on women; focus on the suffering of men being caused by men. Lucy goes on to ask: “Can it be a war on men if men are mostly warring with other men?” The answer is yes. We have civil wars where people are from the same country. Why would we suggest that we cannot have wars if people are from the same gender? Whether the enemy (for want of a better word) is man, woman, or both, it is less about their gender, and more about the attitudes they hold, and how such attitudes influence their treatment of boys and men.

As I’ve highlighted in this blog, we regularly see headlines referring to “toxic masculinity,” and articles implying, and in some cases clearly stating, that boys, men and masculinity are the problem. Is it really too much to ask the media to shine a more favourable and supportive spotlight on boys and men, rather than constantly shining the spotlight on boys and men that makes them look like inherent abusers? It looks like Lucy’s answer to that question is yes. The bottom line appears to be clear: We should not address the adversities of men or show them in a positive light without focusing on the problems they and their masculinity cause. Would we apply such a belief to other demographics or do we reserve it for just men? Lucy asks: “Is there really a war on men?” Whilst ‘war’ may be an exaggeration, perhaps Lucy’s response shows that the answer to that question could be a definite yes.

Westfield Bondi Mall Attacks Used to Justify Misandry

April saw five women and one man lose their lives after being attacked in a Sydney shopping centre. The New South Wales police commissioner said it was obvious the perpetrator focused on women. Former New Scotland Yard Criminal Behavioural Analyst, Laura Richards referred to the incident asking “What the hell is going on with men?” Zoe Daniel, Member of the Australian House of Representatives also shared her views. On her website Zoe said Australia has a problem, naming it “A men’s problem, with women,” going on to say “We need to do more to change the culture among men and boys.” The website also says: “Boys need to be taught the difference between healthy masculinity and toxic masculinity.”

If you boil down this issue to one of only/mainly of gender, and struggle to differentiate between the everyday man and the extremely violent man, perhaps you should take some time to reflect on why you think like this. There is nothing at all wrong with the culture of men and boys. What is arguably wrong, is the rigid belief that there is something wrong with the culture of men and boys. Perhaps the culture that really needs to change is one that ignores male victims, and is quick to generalise men based on the severely harmful actions of the minority.

Whilst Zoe states that not all disrespect towards women results in violence, all violence against women starts with disrespectful behaviour. She may be correct, but surely this also applies to violence against men, but sadly this aspect generally receives little to no attention. It would appear that Zoe is generalising men based on the violent actions of the male perpetrator rather than the protective actions of the men who tried to protect their loved ones, and the men like shopping centre security guard, Faraz Tahir, who was killed while trying to save shoppers from the perpetrator.

Whist the incident at the Westfield Bondi mall is without doubt a horrific, with the perpetrators actions rightly being labelled as abhorrent, it does not justify the subsequent misandry. Making certain suggestions that boys and men must engage in some sort of reparative initiative because a fraction of a percentage of them perpetrate such extreme behaviour is not only unhelpful and irrational; it is hateful.

What if Women Killed Men?

Via The i Paper, columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown asked: “If more than a hundred men a year were killed by women, how would the country react? Would the police, criminal justice system and government carry on with business as usual? I think we know the answer.” Yasmin clearly implies that these services continue their daily operations without any sense of urgency when men murder women, and that if women were killing men as often as men kill women, these services would be quicker to leap into action. A wealth of evidence contradicts this implication. First of all, there are numerous studies showing a pro-woman, anti-man bias, and that there is generally more concern when women are harmed rather than men (Graso and Reynolds, 2024; Stewart-Williams et al., 2024; Graso et al., 2023; Connor et al., 2022). Secondly, as this blog has evidenced there is a constant effort that focuses on misogyny and ignores misandry; holds a magnifying glass up to male perpetrators whilst comparatively turning a blind eye to female perpetrators; and constantly shines a spotlight on female victims, whilst comparatively keeping male victim in the dark. Third, we simply have to look at the number social media posts, radio phone ins, media headlines, TV appearances, public statements and awareness campaigns related to tackling male perpetrated violence against women and girls; and fourth, we can refer to not one, not two, not three, but four social experiments, all of which show members of the pubic being more likely to run to help a woman in need, rather than a man.

Football: Emma Hayes Shoves Jonas Eidevall

In April, the BBC announced that the Football Association would be taking no action against Chelsea manager Emma Hayes after she shoved Arsenal manager Jonas Eidevall. Emma said she was “not down for male aggression on the touchline,” implying he “fronted up” to player Erin Cuthbert. According to Jonas, Chelsea wanted a one-ball system but when the ball was kicked away and Chelsea went to take a new ball for a quick throw-in, he said “You guys wanted to play with one ball, now you need to get that ball.” Footage shows Jonas with his arms extended appearing frustrated but it is not he who “fronts up” to Erin, it appears that Erin is the one who physically fronts up to him.

After the match, Jonas goes to shake Emma’s hand, but she responds by angrily shoving him and walking away. The @WestHamPlace Twitter page commented on the incident saying: “Emma Hayes getting way too big for her boots. Imagine this was the other way around.”

The following media coverage showed a truly staggering level of bias with a significant focus given to Emma’s allegations to “male aggression” and little focus given to the fact Emma shoved Jonas. The Guardian, Sky Sports, ESPN, The Independent, and Fox News ran headiness focusing not on Emma shoving Jonas, but on Emma’s allegation of “male aggression.” However, subsequent reporting appeared to take a slightly different tone: The Daily Mail stated that Emma’s accusation of male aggression was lazy stereotyping; The Times published an article entitled ‘Why Chelsea’s Emma Hayes was wrong to make male aggression jibe’; and the Telegraph said ‘Emma Hayes’ male aggression jibe was wrong – imagine if Jonas Eidevall had cited female emotion.’ Quite. According to The Metro, ex-Arsenal striker Ian Wright said Emma could have “finished” Jonas if the altercation between the pad had not been filmed. A scary thought. Ian goes on to say that Emma’s choice of words was irresponsible.

The irony of criticising a person for “fronting up” to someone and calling this aggression after you have just shoved them when they went to offer you a handshake not only shows some incredible irony but also a deep lack of awareness. Emma later said you can’t meet aggression with aggression. This is exactly what she did, but her aggression was arguably worse. It was certainly more physically violent than Jonas’s.

If the Arsenal manager had been a fellow female manager who expressed frustration in an animated way and “fronted up” to a Chelsea player who was going against a previous agreement, would Emma have felt as angry? Would she have shoved the fellow female manager? Would she have said she is not down for aggression? Would she have mentioned female aggression? How can a male manager in women’s football express frustration without being accused of male aggression”? Is there an implication that men in women’s football should not express frustration or aggression, or that they should express it in a certain way? If so – how? It seems more than reasonable for a manager to feel and express frustration if an agreement is not being adhered to. Perhaps Emma’s use of the term “male aggression” implies that aggressive behaviour needs to be condemned more harshly when it is displayed by a male rather than when it is displayed unacceptably by someone regardless of their gender. There certainly seems to be just as much focus, if not more, on Jona’s gender rather than his expression of frustration.

What we do know is that if he had shoved Emma like Emma shoved him, we wouldd have probably seen a very different story. Perhaps this is yet another one of many examples proving that when men criticise women, some people unnecessarily focus on gender, when gender often has nothing to do with it.

Man or Bear?

Would you rather be stuck in the forest with a man or bear? This question went viral in May prompting all manner of discussions on and offline. Thousands of women on social media explained why they would rather be stuck in a forest with a bear than a strange man saying the fury animals would not ask what they were wearing, or suggest that maybe they wanted to be attacked.

I was asked to appear on BBC’s Antisocial podcast to discuss the issue. Due to a busy workload, I was unable to attend but George from @thetinmenblog took part in the discussion and addressed the issue.

Many online comments stated that the question was being asked to highlight how women are afraid of men. The question then becomes; why do they want men to know this? Two common answers were provided: to stop abusive men perpetrating harm, and to encourage non-abusive men to provide support. I doubt comparing men to bears will result in many abusive men thinking “I’d better change my behaviour,” as equally as I doubt comparing men to bears will result in many non-abusive men thinking “Maybe, there’s more I could do to help.” If you want the help of certain group of people, comparing them to wild animals does not seem the best way to achieve such an outcome. Expecting a group of people to tolerate insults and derogatory comparisons is irrational and leans towards prejudice – and yes, that does include men. As Joe Hildebrand once said: “Good men don’t need to be told, and bad men won’t listen.”

Some of the discussions led to claims that men do not do enough to help. This prompted me to post a thread where I shared many examples of men risking, and in some cases losing their lives to help others. The question then becomes; why is there a focus on “men” doing or not doing enough, and not on people or services doing or not doing enough. The answer? Because whilst we generally condemn non-abusive members of a demographic being told to take responsibility for the actions of abusive members of the demographic, we seem to have no problem telling this to men.

It has been further suggested that because women “don’t know who the good guys are,” men can help reduce women’s fear by crossing the road and avoiding a woman who is out alone. Whilst this may help reduce the fear of some women in the short term, it maintains women’s fear in the long run by fuelling the oversimplified belief that men are dangerous and that this is why they need to avoid women. If we really want to help women feel safe, surely the most sensible way of achieving this is not by encourage men to avoid them, but by encourage men to walk past them, say good morning, or pay them no attention, proving that the vast majority of men are the good guys, and certainly not the bad guys.

Some have said that men complaining about being compared to bears makes them a misogynist. No, it does not, but hatefully and judgementally comparing men to bears makes you a misandrist, and for some people this is what it is all about; not fearing men, but hating men.

Some Good News

Andrew Malkinson, whose conviction for rape was quashed after DNA evidence proved he was not the attacker, received an “unreserved apology” over his wrongful conviction, and in partnership with Three, Samaritans promoted their #TalkMoreThanFootball campaign to encourage football fans to talk about their mental health.

May

The fifth month of the year also saw more digs being taken at men. The Daily Mail told us that “men can’t wipe their butts properly”; the Metro stated: ‘Sorry straight white men, Doctor Who was never made for you’ (later changed to ‘just for you’ after Metro deleted their Twitter page); and in efforts to “make Victoria a safer place for women and children,” and “end the tragedy of deaths of Victorian women at the hands of men,” the Premier announced that MP, Tim Richardson will become Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behaviour Change.

May also saw Labour announcing that they would be launching a campaign “urging parents to learn about the harmful misogyny children see online,” whilst once again remaining silent about misandry, and whilst the Boy Scouts dropped gender from its name, rebranding as ‘Scouting America’ as part of an inclusivity drive, the Girl Scouts maintain that they “will remain a separate organization solely dedicated to girls and their healthy development.”

The issue of female perpetrated abuse against male victims was explored in May. A storyline on BBC drama, Casualty addressed paramedic Teddy being sexually assaulted by a woman on hen night. The male character later told the female perpetrator: “If I was a girl, and you’d done that…” to which she replied: “But you’re not a girl. You’re a bloke, and you are stronger than me, and you definitely enjoyed it.”

Men: Drive Like Women

As a French government launched a campaign telling men to ‘drive like a woman’, the Telegraph published an article entitled ‘Why women really are better drivers than men.’ The article states that in the past decade, over three quarters of the 5,284 deaths of car drivers have been male, and that men are responsible for 84% of France’s road deaths. It was also highlighted that in England and Wales more men than women break motoring laws. Whilst it is acknowledged that men appear to be better drivers at the beginning of the process, one wonders how an article encouraging women to conduct themselves like men would be received if data showed women were not as effective as men at completely certain tasks.

Female Murderer Interviewed: We Are Both to Blame

In January (see above) Bryn Spejcher was sentenced to 100 hours of community service for killing her male-partner by stabbing him 108 times. In addition to the judge saying that Bryn “had no control over her actions after cannabis caused a psychotic break,” about four months later the perpetrator took part in an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail.

Bryn accused the man she murdered of being aggressive during sex, and claimed he had a wicked temper. She said that both she and the deceased were “accountable” but that there had been more focus on her part than her partner’s part.

Such comments certainly prompt some thought-provoking questions: Would the media be as likely to give an exclusive interview to a man who killed his female partner after taking cannabis, experiencing a psychotic episode, and stabbing her 108 times? What would the reaction be to a male perpetrator who killed his female partner under these circumstances saying that they are both accountable? How would the public respond to a man saying that the woman he killed pressured him to take drugs, attempted non-consensual aggressive sex, intimidated him, and had a short fuse? Instructions to man-up? Claims of misogyny? Perhaps? But one thing is for sure, misandry (which may or may not be relevant here) would be less likely to be considered as a relevant factor compared to misogyny. Of course, if reasonable evidence shows that Bryn’s partner was abusive, this information must be considered in conjunction with other relevant information. However, Bryn can put her side across; her victim cannot.

Get Consent and Do Not Compliment Girls: Being a Boy in 2024

Boys and the difficulties they face in 2024 were the subject of an article written for the Guardian by Catherine Carr. The first example was how a 13-year-old boy was criticised for making what he thought was a compliment on the haircut of a girl he fancied. After being told: “Oh my God, you can’t say that about someone’s appearance. That’s so bad. You can’t talk about a girl like that!” the first boy never wanted to “go there” again. The second example consisted of a 16-year-old boy saying it was “quite common” to record their partners giving verbal consent to sex. It was highlighted that consent is recorded prior to the commencement of sex, and also midway through to prove that the girl is happy to do something different. The teen said that the phone would sometimes be left recording “to make sure.” Catherine highlights how a level of fear seems to surround sex and relationships and that some hold ideas about boys “being bad” with some fearful of initiating relationships.

These examples not only show how some boys have an unhealthy level of fear when it comes to sex, consent and relationships, but also how some boys, and perhaps even some of the adults around them, harbour certain beliefs that boys are simply bad. Sadly, as this blog argues, very little effort goes into tackling these difficulties facing boys which may affect their future development and mental health.

Some Good News

In May, there were two pieces of good news: one stopped men from being unfairly labelled as perpetrators, and the other took a step closer to tackling men’s health. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) made changes after the Men and Boys Coalition and the Mankind Initiative raised concerns about a statement contained within CPS domestic abuse guidelines. The statement in question incorrectly claimed that “Male victims of domestic abuse most often experience this abuse from male family members and partners.” The CPS revised and deleted the claim.

Finally, in an attempt to tackle men’s health, MP, Steve Brine wrote to the Secretary of State highlighting the need for a men’s heath strategy.

June

The arrival of hot, albeit brief, weather didn’t stop the usual anti-male comments being made. The Guardian told us that men offering to walk with female hill-walkers to keep them safe would ring major alarm bells; we heard how white men have the least chance of getting on BBC trainee scheme; and the Senior Vice President at Disney said: “There’s no way we’re hiring a white male.”

After ‘Man or Bear?’ the Daily Mail highlighted a new viral trend that helps us understand men by comparing them to animals; an OnlyFans model received criticism after filming herself in line at a grocery store claiming that a man who was glancing in her direction was looking at her; and Gogo dancer, Darren Shoneye told the Metro that he has seen a spike in people (particularly drunk straight women) touching him.

The New York Post declared that men are just bad texters, and that NYC women have had enough of their excuses; The Telegraph told us that working-from-home husbands don’t do their fair share of chores; and in the run up to the election, the BBC highlighted what the parties were saying about women’s rights, highlighting how Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the SNP all said they would make misogyny a hate crime. Nothing was mentioned about misandry.

A Guardian article addressing male perpetrated violence against women spoke of men’s behavioural change programs; a patriarchal value system being one of the fundamental drivers of male violence; and a belief that whilst some men describe their acts of physical violence as going from zero to 100, that their normal baseline is likely closer to 80. The article ends with: ‘On Sunday: what can be done to change men’s behaviour?’ One wonders how such generalisations would be received if they were made about any other demographic?

Whilst the Guardian focused on changing men’s behaviour, another article written by Andrew Reiner for The Hill stated how our culture’s trashing of boys and men is having toxic consequences. Andrew referred to one American study that showed adoptive parents were 30% more likely to prefer girls than boys, and were willing to pay an additional $16,000 to ensure they got a girl. One woman who works in human resources said, “When I think about having a child that’s a boy, it’s almost a repulsion, like, Oh my God, no.”

Issues related to men’s health were addressed in June when it was highlighted that men at high risk of prostate cancer can only get a test if they request one, and that GPs are told not to raise the issue with men unless they have symptoms. However, according to Prostate Cancer UK most men with early prostate cancer – when it is easiest to treat – do not have any signs or symptoms.

Following on from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s comment in in March where he said that there are a lot of men who are a threat to women and children, June saw the senior police officer make a similar comment. “You’ve got millions of men in the country who pose a risk to women and children at some level,” he said. According to the Guardian, the Commissioner was relying on an upcoming study that states there are up to 4 million perpetrators of violence against women and children, who are mainly men. However, as we will see when we arrive at July, this figure is perhaps not an accurate reflection of reality.

Misandry on Father’s Day

Rather than celebrating Father’s Day on 16^th June, Zoe Williams of the Guardian asked why Father’s Day always meant more work for mothers, and Séamas O’Reilly, also of the Guardian, stated that his son is suspicious of the idea of Father’s Day, asking would he want to celebrate the lesser of his two parents?

Séamas responded to critics by calling them weirdos; implying they had lost their mind like a total f**king freak; and referring to them as hypersensitive freaks wo feel moved to project their own desperate neuroses. He accused them of flying off into a rage; claimed they were being hypersensitive about their masculinity; and told them to kindly simmer down and take off their tinfoil hat.

Responses from numerous critics followed: X user @twitfizzp suggested that if mothers were referred to as the lesser parent on Mother’s Day, a glorious cancellation would follow; similarly @alxsgt1 wondered how many “weirdos” on the other side would “cancel the sh*t out of Séamas if the article referred to his wife a lesser parent; and @munkqiking challenged Séamas to “do the same to mothers on Mother’s Day,” saying “I bet you wouldn’t be as condescending or disparaging towards mothers as you are towards fathers.” X user @spaboygolddream stated that “lesser” was a value judgement; @protenpinner said Séamas had missed the point or didn’t care; @samgosling92 said it didn’t read particularly like a joke and that “the lesser of two parents” was consistent with the Guardian’s views on men and fatherhood; and @lee_azevado suggested that trying to understand other people’s perspectives rather than calling them names would be better.

Séamas said that people had misunderstood the headline, stating that the article made it clear that it was a joke about his son preferring his mother to him. The article does appear to provide this clarity but this certainly does not forgive, at best, a poorly worded headline, and at worst, a statement that fathers are the lesser parent. The fact that this headline was published in the Guardian also makes it more difficult to see that the poorly worded headline was intended a joke. There was a 2006 Guardian article entitled ‘Why I Hate Men’; a 2013 Guardian article told us “If you don’t know what misandry is, where have you been? The fun you’ve been missing!’; a 2015 Guardian headline said ‘Feminists don’t hate men. But it wouldn’t matter if we did’; a 2018 Guardian article expressed surprise at the Law Commission being asked to consider making misandry a crime; and a 2020 Guardian headline related to author of ‘I Hate Men,’ Pauline Harmange and stated ‘We should have the right not to like men.’ Hardly a shining endorsement supporting the claim that the headline is clearly a joke.

Whilst some told critics to lighten up and get a sense of humour, Séamas decided to publish yet another article in response to the criticism, calling his challengers freaks and ghouls. Insisting the headline was clearly a joke, Séamas referred to his critics as “weird men in the darker corner of the internet,” who were “frothing over” his “act of unforgivable treason, and needing to be angry.” Criticising the expression of such anger rather than reflecting on what might have caused it, and prompted the author to write a second article, is disappointing to say the least.

The second article also accused one critic of weaponising a wilful misreading of words, so they could maintain their anger related to what was assumed to be their true grievance: women. Séamas appears to make this assumption because the critic originally assumed he was a woman. The critic’s assumption about the author’s gender does not reasonably justify the author’s assumption about the critic’s intention or “true grievance,” especially as the critic’s views were maintained after discovering the author’s gender. As for the misreading of words, you can misinterpret words, but not misread them, and in in this case the words in the headline may have been misinterpreted because of the authors poor choice of wording.

Séamas states that whilst he has been able to make these parenting observations “without much comment at all,” he has occasionally seen female colleagues receiving “abuse” for doing so. He labels this as misogyny but the very fact that he is now facing criticism suggests this has nothing to do with misogyny. Criticism of such “observations,” or more accurately the interpretation and wording of these observations are directed at anyone making them, not just women, as Séamas discovered. It is less about the gender of those seeing no problem with fathers being referred to as the lesser parent, and more about the attitude itself.

If you cannot see why fathers would feel angry at a headline referring to them as the lesser parent – on Father’s Day – I think it’s worth asking yourself a few questions. Would we be as likely to see a female journalist printing a headline on Mother’s Day saying ‘My son is suspicious of the idea of Mother’s Day. Why would he want to celebrate the lesser of his two parents?’? Would female critics be as likely to be referred to as being weirdos, freaks and hypersensitive about their femininity? Would it be reasonable to expect them to view the headline as a joke? Would we see greater, louder and quicker claims of misogyny? Perhaps we would be a lot less likely to see headlines of this nature because (as highlighted above) the pro-woman, anti-man bias means we are not only less likely to be concerned when men are harmed, but also when men are mocked and minimised. Perhaps many authors and journalists know this?

Whilst I certainly do not expect the gap between how fathers and mothers are treated to be completely non-existent, it would be nice if the gap was not so huge that it made the Grand Canyon look like a little pothole. When ‘Man or Bear’ was trending online (see above), men were encouraged by some to try and understand the level of feeling behind the question. It is a shame that others cannot understand the level of feeling some men have at seeing headlines – on Father’s Day – referring to them as the lesser parent.

Schools, Boys and Andrew Tate… Yes, Again

Once again, we saw more media attention being given to the issue of boys being taught to treat girls with respect. London Mayor, Sadiq Khan stated that as a proud feminist he believes we need to teach boys about respect early and stamp out misogyny in schools. He went on to say that the influence of Andrew Tate appears to extend deep into the classroom. Victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman shared Sadiq’s article on X, highlighting the importance of reducing violence against women and girls. The Daily Mail later told us that the Labour Party vowed to tackle the “rising tide of sexism in classrooms – caused by internet personalities like Andrew Tate – to prevent a ‘generation of misogynists’.” Labour’s Bridget Phillipson stated that without urgent action there would be a generation of misogynists, perhaps implying that boys are not good enough and have some sort of inherent instinct to display misogyny.

Whilst tackling hateful attitudes and reducing violence is of course an important issue, efforts to do so must not (as they sadly often do) focus almost exclusively on boys and men hating and harming girls and women, whilst in comparison ignoring girls and women hating and harming boys and men

Military and Misandry?

June saw young men being expected to protect and serve their county. According to the Telegraph, Germany planned to reintroduce national service by sending out letters to those who turned 18, asking them about their fitness and willingness to serve. Whilst filling out the questionnaire for women would be optional, men would face “punishment,” or “possibly a fine” if they did not provide the requested information.

Over in the US, a Bill was passed which included a provision that would automatically enrol young men for Selective Service, making it harder for them to refuse or avoid doing so. Whilst an article in Reason Magazine stated that supporters of the legislation viewed the proposals as a more efficient and cost-effective method, it declared that Selective Service “should be abolished, not made more equitable and efficient.” It also highlighted how young men are currently “required under threat of criminal penalties to register for the Selective Service.” These penalties can include a fine and a five-year prison sentence, according to the Selective Service System website. The article says that the 100,00 young men a year who refuse to meet the requirement are “typically barred from working government jobs, receiving student loans, and (in around 40 states) obtaining a driver’s license.”

Whilst some seem to have no problem forcing young men to sign up, others are outraged at the idea of applying this expectation on young women. Senator, Josh Hawley said: “There shouldn’t be women in the draft. They shouldn’t be forced to serve if they don’t want to.” Senator Tom Cottom said: “​It’s one thing to allow American women to choose this service, but it’s quite another to force it upon our daughters, sisters, and wives. Missourians feel strongly that compelling women to fight our wars is wrong and so do I.” However, Senator Jack Reed believes that if a situation required a draft, all able-bodied citizens 18 and above will be required stating: “We need cyber experts, we need intelligence analysts, linguists, etc. Wait a second, there are a lot of women out there that can do this better than men.” No mention of women fighting on the frontline, which is something many women will be in a better position to do than some men.

Why not simply give everyone the choice to register, rather than using gender to justify who does and who does not get to keep their choice? Opponents to this view say that choice is not important when we are at war. Really? Is a man who is forced to fight on the frontline – because he is a man – who does not want to do it, feels fear and anxiety, and knows he is not a good fighter, really the best person to be fighting in war?

Whilst US women have been able to serve in combat roles since 2013, they make up just 16% percent of the total military, representing only one of every six Americans in uniform when averaged across the four major Department of Defence services. Currently, around 3,800 women are serving in frontline Army combat roles. Whilst Congress has debated the issue of registering women for the draft, lawmakers have refused to support such plans each and every time they were proposed.

Whilst some have argued that forcing women to serve is misogyny, there seems to be little focus on how forcing men to serve is misandry, which it clearly is. The lives of women are protected whilst the lives of men are threatened, and in perhaps in many cases, sacrificed. Should the combination of war and being male be enough to take choice away from men and force them to join military? Some clearly think yes, but would a combination of a severely reducing birth rate and being female be enough to take choice away from women and force them into pregnancy? I suspect those who say yes to the former would say no to the latter.

Sextortion: Boys Frequently Targeted

Sextortion is the threat of distributing a person’s nude, intimate or sexually explicit images if they do not comply with the perpetrators demands. A study examining financial sextortion reports that included data around age and gender revealed that 90% of the victims were boys between the ages of 14 and 17. Victims were catfished, lied to, blackmailed, and in some cases, threatened with deepfakes. Another article highlighted how a 17-year-old boy took his own life after falling victim to sextortion. The teenager said he was going to kill himself to which the perpetrator replied with “Good. Do that fast.” According to the FBI and Homeland Security. Between October 2021 and March 2023, the FBI and Homeland Security received over 13,000 reports of online financial sextortion of minors. They involved at least 12,600 victims (mostly boys) and led to at least 20 suicides.

Whilst arguably more research is needed to explore the crime of sextortion, one of the reasons that may explain why boys make up most of the victims could relate to how they are currently treated by society. With so much focus on teaching boys about toxic versions of their masculinity, which often come with an implication that they are inherent perpetrators before possible victims, is it any wonder some – perhaps many – boys will turn to the internet to search for acceptance and explore their sexuality?

July

July was full of implications that men are the problem. IndiGo became the first airline where women can request not to sit next to men; one article highlighted that only men in India can be prosecuted under the gender-specific law of sexual harassment; and writing about violence against women being a national emergency, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told men to get off the sidelines.

In another attempt to address violence against women, the Guardian/Observer said that the government must address the way that boys are brought up and the way men are formed; speaking to GB News about the plot to murder Holly Willoughby, Peter Bleksley stated that men are the problem, saying boys are being born and monsters are being created; and journalist, Emily Maitlis asked MP and Reform Party leader, Nigel Farage if he got a sense that Donald Trump was having a tough time right now, shortly after he survived an assassination attempt. I wonder how much criticism a male journalist might have received asking someone if they got a sense that a female politician, who had just survived an assassination attempt, was having a tough time.
Men were also told in July that they are the lucky ones. Singer, Katy Perry declared: “It’s a woman’s world and you’re lucky to be living in it,” and via the Daily Mail, Sam Baker said: “The truth is, heterosexual marriage works better for men than for women.”

Men Admiring Women? It Is Sexism and Misogyny

After conducting an experiment on the influence of Facebook and Instagram’s algorithms on the news feeds of phones of young men, Guardian Australia shared their findings. A number of profiles were created as generic 24-year-old males on blank smart phones linked to new unused email addresses. According to the Guardian, three months later, without any input, the news feeds were “riddled with sexist and misogynistic content.” So, what was this sexist and misogynistic content? Predominantly, images of scantily-clad women, all of whom (according to images provided) appeared to be posing for photos. The article does share one image showing that the Japanese word for ‘woman’ is a kanji symbol, and that the Japanese word for ‘noisy’ is three kanji symbols. Underneath is a picture of Leonardo DiCaprio clapping, with the caption ‘Well played Japan.’

The implied message from the Guardian seems rather clear: It is unacceptable for boys and men to enjoy looking at attractive women online, and that doing so is an act of misogyny, or behaviour motivated by misogyny. If the boys and men viewing these images are motivated mainly or purely by an attitude that sees the demographic of women as nothing more than sexual objects, then yes, I would say they are misogynists, but to imply that this is the only attitude at play while ignoring all the other possible influencing attitudes (perhaps including one of love and desire) views the issue through a very narrow lens. Is it misandry if women enjoy looking at attractive scantily-clad men online? Is it sexism if women are viewing memes implying how annoying men are? Questions many want to avoid rather than answer.

Forget Dishy Rishi; Leer at Kier

Whilst the Guardian strongly implied that it’s unacceptable for boys and men to enjoy looking to attractive women (see above), other branches of the media seem to have no problem with women enjoying looking at men they find attractive. The man in question was new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. The Metro referred to him as ‘fit’ and the ‘new Downing Street Daddy.’ On their Twitter feed, they even said: “Come on, admit it, you find Daddy Downing Street Keir Starmer smoking hot.” Writing for the Times, Caitlin Moran said: ‘Keir Starmer has turbocharged my arousal levels. I feel fruity,” and similarly in the Spectator, Zoe Strimpel shared that Starmer is the first prime minister since Tony Blair with whom she “would happily consider a saucy affair.” You know what I am going to say don’t you? Swap the genders. What would the reaction be to male journalists commenting on the looks and attractiveness of a female politician? Men writing for newspapers referring to female cabinet ministers as fit and smoking hot? In combination with the prior story, perhaps this is another one of many examples highlighting the double standard that suggest it is acceptable to enjoy looking at attractive men, but a lot less acceptable to enjoy looking at attractive women.

Violence Against Women and Manipulated Data?

After the Metropolitan Police Commissioner told us that there are a lot of men who are threat to women and children” in March (see above), and that there are up to four million perpetrators of violence against women and children, who are mainly men, in June, the report associated with these claims was released. Highlighting findings from the report, the Guardian stated that two million women are estimated to be victims of violence perpetrated by men each year. However, the use and perhaps manipulation of language around this claim is concerning.

Page seven of the report by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) says:

“An overall estimate of the number of VAWG victims each year doesn’t exist, so we have identified a lower estimate. This is a lower estimate of female VAWG victims based on sexual harassment data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales.” Sexual harassment data. Not domestic abuse data, or violent crime data, or sexual offences data. Sexual harassment data.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) provides further information on the data around harassment. Table 1 of their ‘Experiences of harassment prevalence and nature tables’ for year ending March 2023 in England and Wales says 2.1% of men and 7% of women in England and Wales experience sexual harassment. According to the 2021 Census this equates to around 613,200 men and 2,128,000 women.

Is it reasonable to claim that each year, two million women are estimated to be victims of violence perpetrated by men using data related to behaviours that often include no physical violence whatsoever? In fact, according to the ONS sexual harassment can range from inappropriate jokes to unwanted touching, and they state that inappropriate sexual jokes, comments or gestures were the highest reported experience of sexual harassment. Is it reasonable to use the number of women who report sexual harassment (most of which is inappropriate jokes) to say violence against women is a “national emergency”? It is certainly not reasonable to use this distorted representation to justify using the narrative to demonise boys and men, as it sadly often is.

August

August was no stranger to boys and men being neglected and ignored. The World Health Organisation published key statistics on suicide but mentioned nothing about men being most of the victims; it was announced that short jail sentences could be scrapped for women who commit crimes but not men; and the Guardian once again acknowledged female murder victims, but not male murder victims.

Whilst it was announced that extreme misogyny would be treated as a form of terrorism under new government plans, nothing was mentioned about extreme misandry; and whilst a report from the Children’s Commissioner highlighted that 95% of strip searches on children are carried out on boys, the media, and even the Children’s Commissioner’s website mention nothing of the fact that most of those affected are boys.

“Male Violence”: Not Just the Case of a Few Bad Apples?

The Guardian continued to address the above issue by telling us that women being killed by men is common. They stated that “male violence” is not a “case of a few bad apples” but something that is systemic and associated with men being taught to hate women. Such comments not only promote hysteria but they also oversimplify a complex issue. As I have said before; whilst violence against women (against any demographic in fact) is worthy of attention, the fact that nearly all men on the planet do not kill women proves that it is not common. Similarly, the fact that the vast majority of men do not perpetrate violence against women, clearly shows that it is indeed a few bad apples rather than a bad apple tree. As for men being taught to hate women, there are indeed some men who do hate, and who are taught to hate women, but this is the minority of men, not the majority. I think the abundance of headlines, articles and TV reports that regularly address violence against women shows that the last thing men are generally being taught is to hate women, as does the pro-woman, anti-man bias mentioned above.

Sexualising Male Athletes

August might have seen the Olympics come to an end but it certainly did not stop some rather sexualised attention being given to the male athletes. Writing for the Daily Mail, Sally Jones told us: “It’s our right as women to ogle Olympic hunks: We’ve been reduced to sex symbols for decades, men can’t complain now.” Once again, we see the men of today being expected to pay for the crimes perpetrated by the men of yesterday. Collective guilt based on demographic is never a good thing, but when it comes to men, perhaps Sally disagrees.

Referring to sprinter Linford ­Christie objecting to discussions of his “Lunchbox,” Sally acknowledges that not everyone feels comfortable with such sexualised comments being made about their bodies, but this does not stop her minimising their discomfort. Recalling a time when former decathlete Daley Thompson felt loathed that there was a focus on his looks, Sally responds with: “Aw diddums” saying that she thought “most ordinary guys would kill for a fraction of the adulation” Daley received. So, you are not an ordinary guy if you prefer less attention on your looks and perhaps more attention on your abilities as an athlete? Sally goes on to say that the Olympics now makes it possible for male athletes to “endure the kind of sexually-charged physical assessments” that women in sport have endured for years, and that after years of women “bearing the burden of sex symbol status, it’s time for the pendulum to swing the other way.”

It is not a zero-sum game. Not wanting the pendulum to remain firmly fixed in your direction is fine, but this does not mean the answer is to ensure it is fixed firmly in the other direction. That is not a solution. That is retribution, and is based more on demographic identity, and less on individual actions. There are men and women who have no problem with attention being given to their looks. There are men and women who do have a problem with attention being given to their looks, and we should not use the gender of these people to dismiss their discomfort. If you think women have a right to ogle male Olympic athletes but men do not have a right to ogle female Olympic athletes, you are not promoting equality you are promoting privilege. As for telling us that men cannot complain now, and attempting to justify this statement by referring to other men ogling women, men absolutely can complain now.

The sexualised comments made above however, are nothing compared to the attention given to Olympic pole vaulter Anthony Ammirati. The athlete was eliminated after his penis go in the way, made contact with the bar and prevented him from clearing the height. Freeze frames and close ups of Anthony’s crotch flooded social media, leaving some people in fits of hysterics, and others wondering what the response would be if social media was flooded with freeze frames and close ups of a female athlete’s breasts after they hindered her victory? The hypocrisy does not stop there. Shortly after his loss, porn website CamSoda offered Anthony up to $250,000 in exchange for a 60-minute webcam show, in which he “showed off his goods.” In a now deleted TikTok video, Anthony appeared to joke about the incident, posting the caption “You make more buzz for your package than for your performances.” You know what I am going to ask: Would we be as likely to see a 21-year-old female athlete being offered a $250,000 porn deal after the world saw her breasts hinder her attempt at a pole vault? I doubt it. I suspect we would see claims of misogyny and accusations that women are seen only a sex objects. The response to this double standard is usually something like “Yes, but men don’t mind being seen as sex objects.” Some do not, but as we have seen from the examples above; some do. Perhaps there is a difference between being ogled and being seen only as a sexual object?

Men: Keep Your Tops On

The sun might have been shining but this didn’t stop the public expressing how they want men to behave in the heat. A poll revealed that 75% of people believe men should not take off their shirt unless they are at the pool, on the beach or (according to Trisha Goddard who said she was quoting from the findings) buff. Discussing the issue on Good Morning Britain, Richard Madely said there was something crude about seeing a shirtless man walking down the street to which a panellist responded: “With his man boobs.” Richard went on to say that there was something threatening about it to which Trisha agreed. One wonders how many complaints may have been made if TV presenters talked about wanting women to cover up, and not wanting to see saggy parts of their body?

Violence on Trains: More Manipulated Data

August saw the media informing us that “violent attacks” on women and girls on trains had risen by more than 50% in two years. They stated that “violent crimes” had increased from 7,561 in 2021 to 11,357 in 2023, and that over the same time period the amount of sexual offences had increased to 2,475 from 2,235 (an increase of 10%) whilst sexual harassment claims doubled to 1,908. The media also shared findings from a British Transport Police (BTP) survey revealing that around a third of women have been sexually harassed or subjected to other sexual offences while commuting on the train or Tube.

However, all is not as it seems. The claim of a 50% increase relates to offences of which many involve no physical violence. A response to a freedom of information request (FOIR) I submitted highlights that of the 11,502 offences against women and girls (145 more than reported in the media) 31% related to ‘Causing Intentional Harassment Alarm or Distress.’ Other offences relate to harassment, stalking and inappropriate communication. All issues that of course need attention, but is it accurate to refer to them to claim that “violent attacks” on women and girls have risen by 50%?

The response to my FOIR also provided further details around the BTP data. The BTP report for the year ending March 2024 highlights that there had been an increase of violence with injury from 3,336 in 2022/2023 to 3,883 in 2023/2024. The report does not clarify who makes up most of the victims of the 3,883. The response from the FOIR concludes that of the number of assaults occasioning actual bodily harm where gender was known, 68% of victims were male. The report also prioritises tackling violence against women and girls but mentions nothing of violence against men and boys.

Regarding the BTP survey around sexual harassment, it appears that a FOIR was submitted asking for further information. The survey was conducted by Onepoll who surveyed 2,000 British adults who usually commuted to work by rail, tube or tram between 2^nd and 14^th August 2023. Of the 2,000 survey participants 474 adults (about 23%) reported experiencing sexual harassment; 135 of 924 males (15%) and 338 of 1072 females (32%). It must also be acknowledged that the increase highlighted may be influenced by travel restrictions related to Covid being lifted.

We are not only once again seeing non-violent crimes being used to inaccurately make claims about violence, and zero attention being given to data around male victims; we’re also seeing the data being ignored by the media even when it does exist. Abuse (violent and non-violent) must be tackled, but not in a way that intensely hold a magnifying glass up to female victims whilst turning a blind eye to male ones – especially when they are most of the victims of physical violence

The BTP report for the year ending March 2024 states that sexual harassment crimes are down 6% and that the risk of the most serious crimes remained low, with 1.2 serious violence offences per million passengers. However, when little attention is given to these facts, and more focus goes into promoting an inaccurate narrative based on cherry picked data, excluded information and manipulated language, we are arguably doing more harm than good.

Some Good News

The Government was called upon to create a national men’s health strategy, with supporting evidence provided by the Local Government Association and the Centre for Male Psychology. See November for an update.

September

From mild to major, September saw all manner of adversity affecting boys and men being highlighted. Men arriving alone at a concert were treated as potential perpetrators, and the New York Post told us that women were using the 6-6-6 rule to find a partner, which consists of finding a man who has a six pack, earns a six-figures salary and is six feet tall. One wonders what the reaction may be to an article addressing men’s expectations of women.

The Australian Government released 2022/2023 data showing that whilst 46 of the 84 domestic homicide victims were female, 38 were male; a report exploring the potential scale of historical sexual abuse in Ireland’s religious schools estimated that 15,300 men and 26,000 women have been victims; and from “penis splitting” to frog poison injections, the Daily Mail addressed some of the most gruesome initiations inflicted upon boys around the world.

Send Men to Prison; Not Women

Interestingly, two days after the Home Office released data showing that the number of females being arrested was increasing faster than the number of males being arrested (12% compared to 7%), Shabana Mahmood revealed proposals to “slash the number of women in jail.” Insisting that “prison isn’t working’ for female offenders,” the Justice Secretary said: “It is high time we stopped sending so many women to prison.” Whilst no elaboration is provided as to why Shabana thinks prison is not working for female offenders, I wonder why considerations on how to make prisons work for female offenders was not proposed, but suggestions such as residential centres were? This question is even more pertinent considering the Home Office cites the increase in female arrests being driven by violent and sexual crimes. If the implication that more women being arrested, and more than double the number of women being in prison now compared to three decades ago means prison is not working for female offenders, does this mean that prison is not working for male offenders? Should we consider residential centres for me who commit crimes? Perhaps we should be making decisions around sentencing based more on severity of crime and less on the gender of the perpetrator?

More Focus on Toxic Masculinity and Boys in Schools – But It Is Not All Bad

A report addressing the teaching of masculinity to boys in schools was released in September by the Family Education Trust. The organisation sent out 303 Freedom of Information requests to schools in England to assess the prevalence of schools teaching ‘toxic masculinity.’ Two schools refused, and 104 schools did not respond, leaving 197 schools that did respond. Of the 197 schools, 106 said they did not teach on the concept of ‘toxic masculinity,’ 29 provided insufficient information, and 62 (3 in 10 schools) said they did teach about ‘toxic masculinity.’ In addition, 10 schools admitted to teaching that men and boys possess traits that are inherently toxic and negative for society, and seven schools disclosed that they are teaching that young men as a category are in some way problematic. The report includes examples of teaching resources such as the ‘pyramid of sexual violence’ which presents the idea that a man displaying ‘traditional gender roles within the family’ might go on to commit rape. The report also acknowledges how misandry “creeps into the mainstream,” and reveals that of the schools who are teaching the concept of ‘toxic masculinity,’ 7% are not informing parents.

Whilst this all sounds concerning, the report highlights what is wrong with the term ‘toxic masculinity,’ and makes numerous recommendations including not subscribing to the concept and teaching about sexual violence in a way that does not pathologise either sex as inherently good or bad.

In other news; in an attempt to tackle sexism and misogyny in the classroom, FE Week told us that an estimated 10% of all violence against women and girls occurs online. Whilst abuse of course needs to be tackled, here we are seeing not only another example of boys affected by abuse being excluded from the narrative, but also another manipulation of language. Violence, by the general definition of the word, cannot occur online.

Some Good News

The Department for Education released new guidance around keeping children safe in education which talked not only about creating a culture of zero tolerance for misogyny but also a culture of zero tolerance for misandry. Justice and health ministers launched a domestic and sexual abuse strategy for Northern Ireland that included tackling violence against men. One male victim of domestic abuse stated that the challenges for male victims are “compounded by a severe lack of resources and support,” and Rhonda Lusty from the Men’s Advisory Project highlighted that there were “huge discrepancies in how male victim support services are funded” saying that support “fundamental is not currently equal.”

October

During the tenth month of the year we saw the Daily Mail asking if men were to blame for the UK fertility crisis, and informing us that one in three men feared being accused of “inappropriate touching” when giving women CPR. Whilst Billie Piper expressed that misogyny and violence against women won’t end by telling boys they’re awful, new research gathering the views of 6,204 US adults (2,710 men and 3,446 women) about their views on men and masculinity was published. The findings revealed that 25% say people in the US have mostly negative views of men who are “manly or masculine,” 43% have mostly positive views, and 31% have neither positive nor negative views. Of those saying people have mostly negative views of masculine men, about three-quarters of them (73%) say this is a bad thing.”

Male Victims

October saw a bit of a spotlight being shone on male victims. We heard how Ukrainian men are facing “systemic sexual torture in Russian detention Centres,” and the UK Government released domestic abuse data revealing that between April 2023 and March 2024 of the 63,950 individuals supported, 3% (1,830) were men. Whilst a domestic homicide review was unable to determine if gender bias played a part in how police responded to assault allegations made by a man who was later murdered by his wife, it concluded that he was never considered as a domestic abuse victim by police. We also heard how a 23-year-old Argentinian man was stabbed to death by his girlfriend for greeting a female former schoolmate on the street.

Attention was also given to the sexual abuse of boys when the United Nations (UN) were called upon to ensure that boys are protected as much as girls from sexual abuse and violence. Citing data from the 2015 National Baseline Study on Violence Against Children in the Philippines, executive director of the Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Sexual Abuse highlighted how attention must also be given to the sexual abuse of boys. Findings from the study showed that while 78.4% of girls were subjected to abuse and violence in schools, 81.5% of boys were affected. Of those who suffered “psychological violence,” 60.4% were girls, and 65.2% were boys, and of those who were sexually abused, 18.2% were girls, and 24.7% were boys.

Male Victims Ignored – Again

Whilst we see male victims being acknowledged above, we also saw male victims yet again being ignored. Interpol asked for the public’s help in addressing the cold cases of murdered women – not murdered men; the 25 women killed over four years in Northern Ireland were acknowledged – men killed were not mentioned; and we were informed that four in 10 deaths in warzones were women with the UN Women’s executive director saying: “Women continue to pay the price of the wars of men.” Wars of men! There is a significant difference between the small number of powerful men who start wars compared to the much larger number of men who are adversely affected by wars. One can only imagine the outrage that would follow if the director of a men’s organisation stated how men pay the price for the atrocities committed by the minority of women.

More Assumed Misogyny?

Whilst misogyny wasn’t explicitly stated, it was perhaps implied when Asda were accused of unfairly paying warehouse staff (mostly men) higher wages than those working on the shopfloor (mostly women) for equal work. The Telegraph article highlights that shopfloor staff believe they are being paid unfairly in comparison to warehouse staff for equal work. A lawyer involved in the case says this is sexist discrimination. Referring to how an expert scores jobs based in qualifications and heavy lifting, the lawyer states that “women’s jobs in the supermarkets and the men’s jobs in the depots” conclude with the same score. Whilst this certainly sounds like it needs attention, perhaps some questions should be asked about the scoring system? What sort/level of qualifications? What sort of heavy lifting? How heavy? How dangerous? How frequent? Aspects of work done by women on the shopfloor such as dealing with the public and having to interact with people are referred to as being undervalued. Whether or not this is true, does it prove the shopfloor staff are doing “equal work” to warehouse staff who may be carrying out work involving forklifts and other machinery? Perhaps this highlights the differences rather than the similarities between the jobs men on average choose, and women on average choose, and maybe it is these differences, rather that gender, that justify the difference in pay.

Paying shopfloor staff (who happen to be mostly women) less than warehouse staff (who happen to be mostly men) is not unequivocal proof of sex discrimination, and nothing in the article clearly proves this to be the case. Average sex differences exist; males are more likely than females to prefer jobs involving things, and females are more likely than males to prefer jobs involving people. There may be similarities between the work of shopfloor staff and warehouse staff but it is the differences that often justify a difference in salary, not gender. Whilst Asda strongly reject the claim that their pay rates are influenced by gender, if reasonable evidence clearly proves that work carried out by warehouse staff is not significantly different enough to work carried out by shopfloor staff, Asda may be required to take action.

Whilst misogyny was not explicitly mentioned in allegations put to Asda; it was certainly brought up during the Australian Capital Territory elections. Elizabeth Lee, apologised after sticking up her middle finger to reporter Ian Bushnell after the pair engaged in a heated exchange where they interrupted each other. Whilst Elizabeth stated that some people told her that they believe there is an “underlying misogyny” to Ian’s actions, the only information provided in an attempt to support this claim is the observation that Ian does not treat Australian politician, Andrew Barr in such a way. This is once again an assumption that because a man is being challenging (and perhaps disrespectful) towards someone who happens to be a woman, his actions are motivated by the person’s gender and not her own behaviour. It is also interesting to see misogyny being highlighted by Elizabeth who displayed misandristic language by accusing Ian of “mansplaining.”

Toolkits, Terrorism and “Toxic Masculinity”

Misogyny – but not misandry – received yet again more attention in October. The Daily Mail told us that teenage boys could face investigation by anti-terrorism officers if they make sexist remarks in the classroom, and as the mayor’s office launched a one million pound toolkit as part of efforts to reduce violence against women and girls, London Mayor, Sadiq Kahn wrote to every London primary school in London urging them to tackle online misogyny. We also heard how young offenders were attending workshops addressing misogyny and “toxic masculinity.” Once again, we see no mention of misandry or violence against men and boys, and no word of young female offenders attending classes addressing misandry or toxic behaviours – feminine or masculine. There was also another focus on the term ‘toxic masculinity’ when writer Jill Stark told us that men’s “mental toughness” is just “toxic masculinity” rebranded, and when an article in ABC News claimed that the term is often misheard as saying there’s something intrinsically unhealthy or toxic about being a man. When the word ‘toxic’ is frequently placed before the word ‘masculinity,’ but not frequently placed before an aspect of any other demographic’s identity, it is perhaps no wonder that many perceive the term comes with such an implication.

That Guy Campaign

With the heading ‘Better Ways to be a Man,’ Police Scotland released a video as part of their ‘That Guy’ campaign, encouraging men to speak up about the abuse and harassment of women, and step in to stop a mate from going too far. Whilst the campaign aims to protect women from sexual violence, and prevent men from getting into trouble, the methods used are short sighted at best; discriminatory at worst.

The campaign not only implies that most men have a mate who takes it too far; it explicitly states that most men have been “that guy” who said and did things around women that they regretted. The latter is not only a generalisation that would never be tolerated if it was made about any other demographic, it is a huge claim that is made here without any supporting data. As for the first point, the old saying “like attracts like” comes to mind. Not only are men who have no problem refusing to take no for an answer likely to have friends who also have no problem refusing to take no for an answer, but they are probably unlikely to listen to other men who do have a problem with men refusing to take no for an answer. Whilst some men who refuse to take no for answer may be influenced by other men, many of them will likely ignore what these other men have to say and stop hanging around with them, just like the men who do take no for an answer will likely stop hanging around with the men who do not take no for an answer. Without hard outcome data, perhaps we are left with the suggestion that it is better to try and not know, than not try at all. Perhaps, but we must think about the way we do this and the language we use.

We rarely see such care given to men; no declarations that men should be able to go about their daily lives without worrying about being harassed, assaulted, or abused; no focus on women being encouraged to have a word with their female friends who hit their husbands or harass men in bars. Why? Maybe it is the pro-women anti-men bias highlighted earlier?

The campaign encourages men to “look in the mirror”; states that most men have been “that guy”; uses wording like “Better Ways to be a Man”; and tells men it’s important to be a better man. Whilst we are told it is not about shaming mates, perhaps it is reasonably to see why many believe it is about shaming men.

November

In November we were informed that assisted dying is sexist, and in the run up to the US elections, we were told that men are hopeless, but that we shouldn’t worry because women will save America, as usual. Research highlighted how women are trapped in relationships due to economic abuse, but neglected to address men affected by such abuse, and in an attempt to stand up to violence against women and girls, the British Transport Police tweeted an image from the White Ribbon campaign stating ‘It Starts With Men.’

November also saw some new research addressing masculinity being published. A new study released in the Journal of Behavioral Sciences referred to ‘toxic masculinity’ as a “visible construct in the psychology of men,” whilst another report published by Dublin City University addressing the impact of “masculinity influencers” on teenage boys said there was a “widespread misunderstanding of the term ‘toxic masculinity’ as equating men with toxicity.” Given how often the media talks about men, but not women, displaying ‘toxic masculinity,’ it is perhaps no wonder many are left with such a view.

Mankeeping

In addition to words such as mansplaining, manspreading and manterrupting, a new derogatory word prefixed with ‘man’ was invented. Researchers at Stanford University in California created the word; ‘mankeeping.’ Defined as men unburdening and entirely relying only on their female partners for all of their emotional needs, researchers suggest that ‘mankeeping’ could be a form of invisible emotional labour where women suffer an “additional burden on their time and wellbeing – without any support offered in return.” Any support? Does this sound reasonable? The support offered in return may not always take the same form as the original support provided but to simply say no support is offered in return seems like an unfair and gross exaggeration.

The author of the article goes on to describe a scenario where a woman left a date “feeling like a soundboard” after her male companion allegedly failed to ask her a single question but messaged her the next day saying he would like to see her again, presumably for more “free therapy” the author posits. Whilst there are similarities, there are significant differences between active emotional listening, and therapy. If this scenario is accurate, it is certainly disappointing that the man did not ask his date one single question, but it is also disappointing that men are often expected to pay for the entirety of the date. Believing it is unacceptable for only women to be a soundboard on date but that it is acceptable for only men to pay on date shows a staggering level of bias.

According to experts the solution to the issue for most men is to “start speaking to each other like women do.” A part from the fact that such a comment ignores the wealth of research highlighting the different communication styles between men and women, one can only imagine the outrage that would ensue if women were criticised for not behaving like their male partners, and told to be more like men in response to men being burdened by women’s actions. The creation of the term ‘womankeeping’ would likely be met with quicker and stronger condemnation. The Daily Mail article contained an image of a man and a woman where the man was saying “I’m so glad I can confide in you, darling,” but where the woman was thinking “Oh no, here we again…” If the captions were switched with the woman saying what the man is saying, and with the man thinking what the woman is thinking, I suspect claims of misogyny would be made thick and fast. I doubt misandry was even considered here.

The Daily Mail headline addressing the issue asks why must women become their husbands’ unpaid therapists. I wonder how likely we would be to see a headline about men being women’s unpaid gardeners, chauffeurs, binmen, decorators, handymen, bodyguards, mechanics, plumbers, electricians or removal men? Surely a relationship is a partnership which includes give and take, and whilst one person may give something, it does not mean the other person is giving nothing just because they are giving something different in return.

Yet again, we see a new term created by prefixing the word ‘keeping’ with the word ‘man’ all with the aim of once again shaming, demonising, and generalising men. Just another one of the many messages to men, telling them that they are not good enough and need to improve.

For Saturday Night Live’s satirical attempt to address this issue that has been dubbed humorous by some, but patronising and offensive by others, please click here.

What It Is Like for Women. Even The Good Men Don’t Get It?

November saw the Daily Mail addressing violence against women by stating that “even the good men seem unable to grasp what it’s like for us women.” The writer of the article, Ellie Flynn, states that “this was illustrated perfectly” after a comment made on the Graham Norton show by actress, Saoirse Ronan. Whilst on the show, actors Eddie Redmayne and Paul Mescal joked about the practicalities around being taught to retaliate to an attack using a mobile phone. The tone suddenly changed when actress and fellow guest Saoirse Ronan replied with “That’s what girls have to think about all the time.” Eddie and Paul looked visibly uncomfortable. Watching Eddie and Paul’s reaction, Ellie said “I was struck by the fact that even nice, educated men – men you’d expect to understand and empathise with the female experience – still don’t get it.” Their reaction is being interpreted as evidence that good men do not understand what it is like for women. Such a rigid focus on this being the only meaning behind their response ignores the numerous other possible explanations – one of which could quite simply be awkwardness. One minute these men are having a light-hearted and humorous discussion and the next there is a sudden serious focus on violence against women and girls. To not even consider this as a potential explanation for their reaction is astounding.

Perhaps Saoirse’s comment implies that threats to safety are something men do not really have to think about? When data constantly shows that men experience more physical violence than women, perhaps it is more reasonable to say that men are the ones that need to worry about it a lot more. Men not feeling fear on the street when they are statistically most of the victims of street-based violence is not a privilege; it is a disadvantage.

A Double Standard in Police Disciplinaries?

A male police officer was jailed after having sex with a vulnerable domestic abuse victim. According to the BBC, Declan Middleton had consensual sex with a woman a week or so after obtaining a statement from her regarding an alleged sexual assault. Whilst Declan denied having sex with the woman, claiming that she is lying, he was found guilty of two counts of misconduct in public office and sentenced to two years in prison. In contrast, female police officer, Andrea Griffiths received no jail time after she admitted to having sex whilst on duty with a male victim of sexual abuse who she was tasked with being liaison officer.

International Men’s Day Commentary: Improvements Required?

Whilst International Men’s Day saw a spotlight being shone on men in relation to the adversities they suffer and the successes they achieve, some decided they could not mark the day without encouraging men to be better. An article in the Big Issue stated that International Men’s Day is an occasion to reflect not only on the adversities men face, but also on “how young men are navigating a new and troubling dynamic: the rise of online misogyny.” The article refers to “toxic masculinity,” encouraging men to speak out against misogyny, and states that International Men’s Day offers a chance to redefine masculinity, perhaps implying it needs re-defining. I doubt that we would be as likely to see an article on International Women’s Day referring to “toxic femininity,” and encouraging women to speak out against misandry.

International Men’s Day also received attention in the House of Commons, and whilst it was certainly positive to see boys and men, and the issues they face being addressed, there were some comments that left some feeling uncomfortable. The discussion started with highlighting what efforts have been taken to tackle violence and discrimination against women. I could not help but think we would be unlikely to start discussions about women’s issues on International Women’s Day by highlighting what efforts have been taken to tackle adversities against men. MP Sam Rushworth referred to Andrew Tate, a version of masculinity that is harmful to both boys and girls, and a need to guard against boys perpetrating misogynistic behaviours online. MP Calvin Bailey said that many boys and men have no need for masculinity, and that worries about equality is a “another problem that men do not have.” MP Alex Sobel mentioned “male privilege” and “patriarchy” being bad for men. MP Peter Swallow stated it was really important that we acknowledge men as victims of domestic violence too, but not before referring to White Ribbon Day’s theme of ‘It Starts With Men’ and stating that violence against women often being rooted in harmful masculine norms. Declaring that women are not the enemy, and referring to how often women are killed by men, MP Dawn Butler stated that men need to be louder than the “toxic men on social media who have huge platforms.” Whilst Dawn highlights how the House was not full (perhaps indicating a lack of interest in men’s issues compared to women’s issues), she also refers to enquiries from people asking why we don’t have an International Men’s Day as “misogynistic abuse.” Does such a question alone prove misogyny?

I very much doubt we would see MPs on International Women’s Day mentioning online personalities spreading misandry, harmful versions of femininity and the online prevalence of misandry. I cannot imagine hearing MPs in the House of Commons saying many girls and women have no need for femininity, that they have no need to worry about equality, and that “female privilege” and “matriarchy” is bad for women. I do not think we wouldd be as likely to see MPs on International Women’s Day shining a light on abuse perpetrated by women against men and asking women to be louder than “toxic women” on social media who have huge platforms.

The discussion acknowledged that gender inequality harms men and boys, and adversities such as men being more likely to die prematurely, develop alcohol addiction, be homeless, take their own life, be sent to prison, and be victims of violent crime were also highlighted.

Whilst it was positive to see adversities affecting boys and men being addressed, there is certainly some room for improvement. The comments above prove a glaring disparity between how we mark International Men’s Day compared to how we mark International Women’s Day. The latter celebrates women and acknowledges their adversities whilst the former seemingly cannot be discussed without shining a light on problems with masculinity and the harm perpetrated by men. “Misogyny/misogynistic” is mentioned eight times. Misandry is not mentioned once – in a discussion about International Men’s Day. Astonishing.

Gender and the US Election

There was no escaping the issue of gender in the US elections. A campaign encouraging men to vote for Kamala Harris received criticism, being referred to as patronising to men, and labelled the “cringiest ever created.” The campaign in question; ‘Man Enough’ contains men saying they are not afraid of women, and are man enough to support women, with one man saying he is sick of so-called men domineering, belittling and controlling and women just so they can feel more powerful. Perhaps not surprisingly, this campaign did not do enough to help Kamala Harris win the election which was won by Donald Trump. Championing Trump, journalist, and host of SiriusXM Megyn Kelly declared that Trump will  look out for our forgotten boys and men and not look at them like they’re second-class citizens. Perhaps this is partly what contributed to Trump’s win?

While The Firstpost explored why Harris lost to Trump, let’s take a look at how gender played a role in the US elections. Trump’s win prompted various media coverage. The Firstpost asked whether it was misogyny or something else that sealed Kamala Harris’s fate, and the Guardian bitterly told us that Trump spoke to the resentment and anxiety of enraged and increasingly lonely men who felt that their social and financial status was threatened by something real or imagined. Speaking to the Guardian, President of the American Institute for Boys and Men, Richard Reeves says he can understand why so many men chose to vote Republican, stating: “What men heard from the right was: you’ve got problems, we don’t have solutions. What they heard from the left is: you do not have problems; you are the problem. And between those two choices, it is not really surprising to me that more men chose the Republican one.” Conversely, Richard suggests that the Democrats tried to shame or guilt men into voting for them by implying that maybe the reason men are not voting for them is because they are secretly a bit sexist. Hardly a winning formula to secure votes from men.

Male Victims: Stabbed, Shot, Exploited, Falsely Accused and Neglected

November saw more men experiencing various forms of violence and abuse. The Daily Mail informed us that 18-year-old Zoe Cooper stabbed and killed her boyfriend, 19-year-old Tadarius Massey after he refused to let her look at his phone, and they also reported on how 16-year-old Murray Dowey took his own life after falling victim to a sextortion scam.

Over in the states, a 43-year-old man was shot and killed by Las Vegas police after he called 911 and reported an intruder. Upon arriving at the property, police saw Brandon Durham “wrestling over a knife” with a woman, and fired a shot that hit him. Police subsequently fired five more shots at Brandon who was pronounced dead at the scene. The woman was arrested and charged with home invasion with a deadly weapon. Perhaps it is worth wondering if the officer’s perception of gender affected his assessment of the situation?

The National Post also highlighted that of the nearly 600 domestic abuse shelters across Canada only 4% are mandated to serve men, whilst virtually all of them are mandated to serve women too, despite the ratio of female to male victims being closer to a 50-50 split according to Elizabeth Batesfrom the University of Cumbria. The National Post included a quote where I address prevalence:

“I have this conversation so many times: ‘Oh, it’s happening more by men to women.’ But no, that’s not accurate. What is accurate is that more women are reporting than men, and more women are reporting when the perpetrator is a man compared to when the man is abused by a woman,” said Phil Mitchell, a British counsellor specializing in male abuse victims.”

In the month that heard MP Jess Phillips addressing the risk of women being spiked in bars, and encouraging people to approach women when safe to do so and ask if everything’s alright, a 31-year-old man was stabbed and killed after confronting a man who was harassing a woman on the phone. According to drinkaware there are two men for every three women who report ever being spiked in 2022. In 2023, this changed to an almost equal split with 2.3% females and 2.1% males looking at the 12 months leading up to the survey.

False allegations and lies affecting men were also highlighted in November. A mum was jailed after she faked a DNA test to prevent the biological father from seeing their child, and male teacher was decapitated after a schoolgirl accused him of being Islamophobic in response to her being suspended. The girl later admitted to lying.

Destroy Football Pitches to End Gender Discrimination

Strasbourg Council in France received media attention after it was revealed that in an attempt to end gender discrimination, they were fitting primary school children with GPS devices to prove boys dominate playgrounds. According to the Daily Mail, the council wants to “rip out the football spaces used by the boys and replace them with greenery, cabins and other games.” The article suggests that the aim of the scheme is to prove that boy’s domination in certain areas comes at the expense of girls, but the only evidence provided appears to relate to boys being more active than girls in the playground. Revealing that the GPS devices show 80% of space at break time is used by mostly boys, the Deputy Mayor of Strasbourg, who is also in charge of sex equality at the council says there is “gender discrimination.” Whilst the scheme aims to help make playgrounds “more inclusive and make young boys more tolerant and respectful” critic stated that such schemes are not helpful and will make boys feel “permanently guilty.”

Boys may be more physically active than girls in the playground and they may even take up more of the space, but does this equate to girls being disadvantaged? Has there been any consideration that girls might be quite happy being less active and taking up less space? Boys may dominate the playground, but is it harmful dominance? Perhaps there is a false assumption that boys experiencing domination equates to girls experiencing discrimination. Gender discrimination is explicitly mentioned but is it really gender discrimination, or could it just be average sex differences at play?

Would we be as likely to see a council fit girls with GP devices to track their behaviour in areas in which they dominate with the aim of helping boys? I doubt it, but what I do not doubt is the lack of awareness at the level of irony that is present; namely that a council aims to end gender discrimination and make playgrounds more inclusive by taking something positive away from boys and replacing it with something that appeals more to girls, thereby displaying gender inequality and making playgrounds less inclusive for boys. Perhaps the irony is lost on them

Some Good News

Finally, we had some good new when the Secretary of State committed to first ever men’s health strategy. Further details here.

December

The last month of the year was no stranger to digs being taken at men. Referring to the Gregg Wallace scandal, the Independent stated that this was the “latest example of a much bigger problem with men”; the First Minister of Scotland said the behaviour of men and boys in Scotland is chilling; and the Daily Mail informed us about the women who will only date men who have had therapy, stating that they’re “fed up of dealing with overgrown man-babies who can’t handle their own emotions.” James Bond contender James Norton declared that men should atone for “patriarchal crimes of the past”; an associate professor of political science at Virginia Tech University coined the term ‘petro-masculinity’ defining it as climate denialism and misogyny intersecting; and a man was accused of being a sexual predator by a female colleague for saying she had a handbag like his wife’s and that he had spent a lot of money on buying her handbags.

Help Girls and Women, Ignore Boys and Men

We once again saw more focus on tackling misogyny and helping girls and women. We heard about the women killed by men in Wales since 2020; we were informed that misogynistic attitudes must be tackled before they can “infect” the minds of the young; and whilst addressing misogyny in schools, Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson said: “Just as I want to protect our girls from violence, I want to protect our boys from these vicious influences.” Once again – nothing on men killed by women or men, nothing addressing the impotence of tackling misandry, and nothing on protecting boys from violence and girls from misandristic influences.

The BBC stated that every girls should learn self-defence at school, with one assistant headteacher saying: “We want to help create a society where women feel safe, where women are empowered There was no mention of boys (who statistically experience more physical violence) needing to learn self-defence, and no mention of creating safety in men, or empowering men but there was mention of wanting men to take responsibility in ensuring that women are safe in a public space.

Sadiq Khan once again attempted to “stamp out misogyny in schools,” this time, according to the Daily Mail, by launching a project aiming to teach “schoolboys” abut healthy relationships. Surely a more helpful and inclusive initiative would be one which teaches schoolboys and schoolgirls about healthy relationships. Sadiq insists he wants a “whole society approach” but it is rather difficult to take this claim seriously when there is a focus on teaching boys rather than boys and girls. Do girls not need to know about healthy relationships? Government guidance around relationships and sex education (RSE) states:

“It is, however, essential that assumptions are not made about the behaviour of boys and young men and that they are not made to feel that this behaviour is an inevitable part of being male; most young men are respectful of young women and each other.”

The more recent draft RSE guidance states:

“It is essential that generalisations are not made, and pupils should have the opportunity to identify positive male role models and understand that most boys and young men are respectful to girls and young women and each other.”

Whilst the ‘Keeping children safe in education’ guidance encourages a whole-school approach, it also refers to creating a culture of zero tolerance for misogyny and misandry. Do Sadiq Khan’s initiatives align with this government guidance? A spokesperson for the Mayor of London stated that women and girls have the right to be safe, “whatever time of day and wherever they are in the capital.” Whilst someone’s feelings around safety should be acknowledged and explored, there is a difference between being unsafe and feeling unsafe. How safe should anyone be/feel? Should we all expect to be and feel 100% safe, 100% of the time, wherever we are? Is this reasonable? The Daily Mail article also shared data revealing a fifth of all recorded offences (excluding fraud) related to crimes against women and girls. There was no mention of the remaining four fifths, which presumably related to crimes against men and boys.

In a separate article, the Daily Mail stated that a new report warned us of conspiracy theories and extreme misogyny being in danger of becoming mainstream in the UK. The finding that 45% of young men say they had a positve view of Andrew Tate appears to be used as proof that Britain is seeing the “normalisation of extreme misogyny.” As highlighted above – a 2023 YouGov poll shows us that Tate’s views on women are less appealing to boys than his views on work, success, and masculinity. The figures show us that 12% of boys aged 6-15 say they agree with his views on women, compared to 17% agreeing with of his views on masculinity and what it means to be a man, and 20% agreeing with his views on work and success. Once again, we are seeing assumption at play. A positive view of Andrew Tate does not necessarily equate to a positive view of his misogynist views, and it does not prove the normalisation of “extreme misogyny.

Whilst announcing that stricter laws were urgently needed to protect women and girls, Scottish Green Party MP, Maggie Chapman repeated a similar claim that women teachers experiencing more violence in schools is leading to the normalisation of violence against women and girls. It is rather difficult to give credibility to claims that extreme misogyny and violence against women and girls are becoming normalised when there is not a week – sometimes a day –  that goes by without some sort of attention given to highlighting and condemning misogyny. Perhaps ignoring and dismissing misandry has become normalised? Whilst I agree with Maggie’s comment that misogynistic threats can become misogynistic actions, it is disappointing, to put it mildly, that there is rarely such consideration of how misandristic threats may become misandristic actions.

How Do Boys and Girls Experience Violence? New Report from The Youth Endowment Fund

A new report by The Youth Endowment Fund revealed findings that some found surprising. Over 10,000 children aged 13-17 in England and Wales were surveyed about their experiences of abuse. Findings revealed that found boys in relationships are more likely to say they experience violent or controlling behaviours (57%) compared to girls (41%).

The report highlights that boys are more likely than girls to have been victims of physical assault (12% vs 7%), robbery (8% vs 4%), weapons violence (7% vs 3%), violence in public spaces, and victims of violence in the previous 12 months (24% vs 16%). Boys aged 13-15 reported being hit, kicked or shoved by a partner more than girls (35% vs 17%) and boys aged 13-15 reported experiencing sexual coercion more than girls (34% vs 20%). The report reveals that 13% of boys and 16% of girls experience violence in their home, and that 6% of boys and 7% of girls experienced sexual assault.

Interestingly the report makes a specific point of noting that the figures do not take into account the “frequency, context or impact of incidents” stating that while teenage boys may be more likely to report some forms of abuse, girls may experience more severe effects. Can such an assumption be made when girls and boys were not asked about the effects?

Homelessness: Gender Ignored

December saw London Mayor, Sadiq Khan launching his annual rough sleeping fundraising campaign where Londoners are asked to make donations that will contribute towards supporting rough sleepers. Reporting on the campaign, Southwark News revealed that a total of 4,780 people were recorded as sleeping rough in London between July and September 2024. This was a rise of 18% compared with the same period last year, and 2,343 of those were sleeping rough for the first time. What is not included in the article, and seemingly not acknowledged by Sadiq Khan is the fact that 82.8% of the 4,780 rough sleepers were men. The mayor focuses heavily on gender when certain data shows that most of those adversely affected by domestic abuse and sexual harassment are women but he does not appear to mention gender when data reveals most of those adversely affected by homelessness are men. Would he highlight gender if most rough sleepers were women?

Objectifying Men?

There were two cases in December of men arguably being objectified. The first came when the findings from a survey of 1,387 women confirmed the stereotype that when it comes to penises, bigger is better. Results showed that more than two-thirds of survey participants said they would not be fully satisfied if their partner’s penis was less than four inches erect, and over half of the participants thought a man reaching orgasm too quickly was sexually selfish. Shockingly, four in 10 participants said they would consider cheating on their partner if they felt their penis was too small. While some saw no objectification here, it is worth wondering if they would see objectification in men being similarly surveyed about their views on women’s genitalia and admitting to considering cheating if they were unsatisfied with their female partner’s genitalia.

The second example of male objectification referred to Luigi Mangione; a 26-year-old Ivy-League educated male, who Clara Gaspar of the Daily Mail described as being handsome, from a well-heeled family, and with a “rippling six pack.” What is missing so far from this tale of objectification is the fact that Luigi has been charged with murder and terrorism charges related to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. Referring to him as a smouldering Italian American and a hot assassin, Clara states that Luigi is the sort of man any sane young woman might dream of and that many women, including her, are captivated by him. Would we be as likely to see female journalists admiring the physique of an attractive young man who was accused of murdering a woman? Cosmopolitan highlighted that the internet is lusting after the “hot assassin,” Yahoo News referred to “The Week We All Were Horny for Luigi Mangione,” and Medium told us to forget the bear and that Luiggi was hot. Piers Morgan challenged the behaviour, by asking: would women drooling over this deranged murderer feel so ‘captivated by the hot assassin’ if he’d executed a female executive?

Lily Phillips and 100 Men

Ony Fans content creator Lily Phillips hit the headlines in December after setting herself the challenge of having sex with 100 men in a day, subsequently having sex with 101. Many described Lily as a victim but no available evidence suggests force, pressure, or coercion. The sexual activity may have been extreme, but it was legal and consensual. Lily herself has said that she was not forced, that this is fun to her and that she is simply trying to enjoy herself. In the short clip where Lily addresses the backlash she received, she states: “I feel like we’re going back in time to where women are getting shamed.” In response to a derogatory comment on Twitter, Lily said “Just let me f**k in peace.”

Whilst many comments online described Lily as a victim, many also referred to the men as perpetrators. From a legal perspective this is simply not true, so what are these men alleged perpetrators of? Writing for the Spectator, Julie Bindel states that the men exploited Lily. Was it exploitation or was it exchange? Transaction perhaps? These men used Lily for sex and Lily used the men for her Only Fans content. All parties were comfortable with this arrangement. Referring to the horrific effects that being penetrated numerous times in a short space of time can have on a woman’s body, Julie states: “Our bodies are not made for this type of punishment.” Punishment? It is clear that Lily did not share this view, and that such “punishment” has not stopped her from proceeding with her next venture – planning to have sex with 1,000 men in a day. Julie says that when women like Lily talk about sexual desire, it is all part of the “fantasy constructed for men.” Lily stating that this is fun for her, clearly contradict this belief.

Some think that the men should have confirmed that Lily definitely wanted to go ahead with such behaviour, checking the she was absolutely certain, proposing that she might not really want to do this. How does such a suggestion align with women’s agency and the fact that she initiated and promoted this venture? The implication here is that when women initiate and engage in extreme sexual behaviour, they are not fully responsible for their choices, and that it is the men that should take on the responsibility. This is not only promoting inequality, it also patronises & infantilises women. Misogyny perhaps? If a young man made a choice to have sex with a hundred women in a day, I doubt we would be as likely to see accusations of exploitation and blame being directed at those women, and I doubt we would see them being encouraged to take responsibility for the activity initiated by the man.

The idea that some women initiate and engage in extreme sexual behaviour is something that some people cannot comprehend and so divert to demonising men rather than accepting the fact that some women make decisions they do not agree with. Zhana Vrangalova, Sex and Relationships Researcher and Consultant asked her “sex-positive IG audience” if a “100-men train or gangbang could ever be enjoyable to a woman.” Out of 399 female respondents, 9.5% said this sounded appealing and that they would do it they knew it would be safe. Zhana concludes that some women find this hot because they like to be used. Something that challenges a narrative rigidly held by some.

When people initiate and engage in sexual behaviour it is not just the responsibility of the man (as some have implied) to communicate clearly, and give/get consent; it is the responsibility of all parties involved. Many wonder what has happened to this young woman to influence the choice she made. Some say she needs help. Others say: her body her choice – a term that is seemingly abandoned when the choice relates to extreme but legal and consensual sexual behaviour. Sadly, some people are more comfortable quickly demonising men and labelling them as perpetrators rather than accepting that some women make free choices that are different to the ones they might make.

Male Victims: Stabbed, Raped, and Waiting

As we approached the end of the year, we once again saw men being harmed and neglected. A 30- year-old woman stabbed a 19-year-old man but said she was so intoxicated that she couldn’t remember the attack. A 38-year-old female teacher was imprisoned for 25 years after “raping” a 12-year-old boy, becoming pregnant with his child and allegedly telling him he would regret disclosing to the police. On 20^th December, the Men and Boys Coalition reminded us that on Christmas Day it will be exactly 1,000 says since the UK Home Office promised to clarify if the Minister for Safeguarding has responsibility for male victims of crimes of abuse. As of 15^th February 2025, a response has still not been made.

Male Suicide: Protectors and the Falsey Accused

In addition to the reports above highlighting how boys and men are physically harmed by others, a number of other articles addressed male suicide. The Economic Times informed us that 730 personnel of India’s Central Armed Police Forces, National Security Guards and Assam Rifles have committed suicide in the last five years. Whilst the article does not focus on gender, available information tells us that most personnel in Central Armed Police Forces are men.

A BBC article addressed the suicide of 34-year-old Atul Subhash. According to the BBC a video and a suicide note left by Atul states he took his own life due to divorce proceedings and marriage troubles. Referring to India’s tough dowry law, the article states that many argue the law is now being misused by women to harass their husbands, with a judge from India’s top court describing it as legal terrorism that was intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon. An article by NewsX, India quotes a prominent Supreme Court lawyer who explained that “in his extensive practice, he has consulted over 3,000 husbands and handled hundreds of cases where men find themselves victims of false accusations, unfair maintenance demands, and prolonged litigation.”

Female School Shooter; Natalie Rupnow: Misandry Ignored?

On the 16^th December, a school shooting occurred at a School in Wisconsin. The perpetrator, 15- year-old Natalie Rupnow perpetrated the shooting which saw a pupil and a teacher shot dead and six others injured. Natalie was also found dead with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Whilst the media focused heavily on this tragedy, one aspect they focused little on, was a social media post that has been referred to as a “manifesto” allegedly posted online by Natalie where she states “every single male must be wiped out, from babies to the elderly.” The manifesto refers to men as parasites, parasitic sludge, a “f****** scourge upon the earth,” and suggests that the only solution is to “total exterminate them,” presumably meaning to totally exterminate them? The author of the post goes on to write that they have been “craving to kill them all,” that this is their mission, and that in approximately 10 minutes they will be dead.

On 18^th December, the Guardian told us that the manifesto “is not confirmed as genuine by authorities” perhaps implying that the manifesto is fake, but the same Guardian article quotes the police chief who says “A document about this shooting is circulating at this time on social media, but we have not verified its authenticity.” At the time of writing (23^rd February 2025), police have not confirmed if the manifesto is genuine or fake. Whilst Natalie’s two fatalities were female, the sex of those who sustained injuries has not yet been revealed. If all or most of those who were injured were male, and the manifesto is confirmed to be genuine, are we seeing clear evidence of misandry influencing harm? Is this something that many in, and out of the media do not want to highlight? How long will we be waiting for the media to confirm the sex of those who were injured? How much longer will we have to wait for confirmation as to whether the manifesto is genuine or fake?

Good news

Finally, the Centre for Social Justice, acknowledging that many boys are “struggling at school, finding themselves on the employment scrapheap, and filling up our prisons” declared “enough is enough” and launched an inquiry to improve the lives of boys and young men.

The post Blog: 2024 – Another year of men’s issues, misandry and double standards appeared first on Home.

January

Tackle Misogyny. Ignore Misandry

The first month of the year saw controversial influencer Andrew Tate receiving media attention with many asking why he is so popular among boys and men. Appearing on BBC Newsnight, barrister Charlotte Proudman stated she thought Tate was popular because he says what so many men think. How we are defining and quantifying “so many” is perhaps worth pondering on, but Charlotte proceeds to say that misogyny is endemic in our society. The barrister says that we know this because one in four women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime and that three women are killed every week by a man. Charlotte goes on to say that what Tate is saying has become normalised in our society.

Whilst it goes without saying that sexual assault and murder are of course horrific crimes with long lasting effects, Charlotte appears to be assuming extreme harm perpetrated by men against women is always misogyny or extreme harm perpetrated by men against women is motivated by misogyny.

Whilst I am sure there are some incidents where this will/may indeed be the case, it is an assumption to label all such incidents – in fact any incident of men directing adversity towards women – as misogyny and/or as being motivated by misogyny, simply because the perpetrator is a man and the target is a woman. The fact that women who may also harm women have not been included in the conversation leaves me wondering if this is perhaps less about helping women and perhaps more about demonising men?

As for Charlotte stating that what Tate is saying has become normalised in our society, I must disagree. There is not a month that goes by where we do not see a headline, a news piece or a storyline addressing female victims, “male violence” and “toxic masculinity.” Hardly the hallmark of a society that has normalised what Tate is saying. However, what has become normalised is the blatant misandry that is directed at boys and men and we know this because schools are leaping into action to tackle known/suspected misogyny whilst, in comparison, remaining deafeningly silent when it comes to tackling blatant misandry. Whilst concerns are being expressed about boys writing ‘MMAS’ (make me a sandwich) at the bottom of homework set by a female teacher, we seem comparatively comfortable with headlines implying men are the problem; with MPs dismissing men’s issues; with celebrities making hateful comments about men; with male victims of abuse being mocked and dismissed; and with misandristic comments such as “Kill all men” regularly being posted online.

Man Driven to Attempt Suicide After Woman Makes False Allegations

January also saw Eleanor Williams being found guilty of perverting the course of justice after making false rape allegations and claiming she had been trafficked by a gang of men. One of the falsely accused men, Jordan Trengove, spent ten weeks on remand at Preston prison, sharing a cell with a child sex offender, and was driven to attempt to suicide. Despite such distress, there are some that remarkably still believe false allegations do not really have any serious consequences on those who are falsely accused. Eleanor’s bid to appeal the conviction was denied.

Whilst it is good to see false accusers facing justice, there is a prevailing narrative that they are only a very small percentage of cases, but those promoting this narrative are not only excluding important context, they are also showing bias. There is an implication that the only sexual offences (for example) that are false are the ones proven to be false and subsequently logged as such. The missing context is that whilst a number of reported allegations will be genuine (but sadly do not meet the threshold to proceed to court), a number of them will be false. The bias comes when we suggest that the only false allegations that have occurred are those legally proven to be false but that the sexual offences that have occurred are those legally proven to have occurred and those that were alleged but not legally proven to have occurred.

I have certainly spoken with a number of men who were accused of various forms of abuse and later told that the accuser admitted lying or that evidence clearly proved them to be lying. Sadly, these false allegations were not officially logged, with reasons given including: it will deter real victims from reporting; it is a police decision to proceed, and false allegations are not a force priority.

Whilst allegations should be taken seriously and victims should of course be offered support and access to justice, the falsely accused – often men, should not be treated as socially acceptable collateral damage.

False allegations remain one of the most ignored issues plaguing society and affecting many boys and men. I am not just talking about false allegations of rape, I am referring to false allegations of all types of harm including but not limited to child abuse, sexual offences, sexual harassment in and out of workplace settings, acts of violence and domestic abuse. Whilst women can also suffer the adverse consequences of false allegations, research shows that most of the known victims are men, and it is worth wondering whether or not more action would be taken to tackle false allegations if most victims were women.

February

Stop The ‘Gym Weirdos’ from Glancing at Me

February started with the Guardian highlighting the women exposing gym harassment on TikTok. The article includes a comment from historian Natalia Mehlman Petrzela who asks “Why can’t men mind their own business at the gym?” She goes on to say that women who enjoy working out “have to negotiate with their sense of safety any time they want to head to the gym” and that the behaviour “from men” encourages her to work out at the earliest time possible.

Not only do most men who frequent the gym, mind their own business, but most women are safe at the gym. Some women may not feel safe, and whilst this issue needs exploring, women at the gym are relatively and reasonably safe. The proceeding ten months were filled with videos posted on social media containing young women working out at the gym and alleging harassment from the men around them. A number of these videos show women filming themselves and expressing their frustration when men walked in front of their recording. Joey Swoll, CEO of Gym Positivity has criticised those who express such frustration stating that the gym is not their personal recording studio.

Other videos posted on social media consist of women filming themselves working out at the gym and claiming harassment and expressing frustration simply because men are smiling at them, glancing at them, or offering to help them. One such video (included in the above Guardian article) was criticised by Joey Swoll. He posted a video response stating that there is a big difference between staring at someone and glancing at someone, and that the man offering to help this woman is not misogyny. Joey states that the woman is making herself out to be a victim which she is not. As highlighted in the Guardian, Joey’s video was liked over 812,000 times, and the woman ultimately apologised for her post.

Was this a desperate attempt to cling on to a manipulated version of victimhood (presumably because it may bring some sort of benefits)? Could it have been a desperate attempt to manipulate objective reality to portray men as predatory? Maybe it was a claim of victimhood from someone who genuinely believed she was a victim? Perhaps it is a combination of all three? Whilst it is positive that such exaggerated allegations of harassment are being challenged by personalities such as Joey Swoll, such behaviour has left some men feeling like they will be labelled as predators simply for glancing at someone.

Banksy, Domestic Abuse and Double Standards?

February also saw graffiti artist Banksy unveiling a new painting depicting domestic abuse. The mural appeared to show a 1950s housewife with a black eye and missing tooth smiling as she pushes her male partner into a chest freezer. The Daily Mail stated that it is believed that the artwork is a means of shedding light on the issues of violence against women. Whilst some have praised the artwork for depicting an important issue and highlighting that victims of domestic abuse can stand up to their perpetrators, it is perhaps worth wondering how a painting of an injured man pushing his violent wife into a chest freezer would be perceived? Is there perhaps a double standard in society suggesting that it is acceptable for female victims to “joke” about harming their male perpetrators but that it is never acceptable for male victims to “joke” about harming their female perpetrators?

Gritting Routes Are Sexist

In February, Alex Beckett, the lead councillor for Cambridgeshire County Council’s highways, labelled the winter gritting of routes as “sexist” after saying that the networks “primarily focused on getting men to work in cars” and must change. Councillor Steve Tierney said Councillor Beckett “seems to think only men drive to work and then amusingly accuses others of sexism.” He added: “I can assure him there’s no shortage of female drivers going to work, certainly not where I live…” During an online exchange Councillor Beckett told Councillor Tierney that prioritising routes used by business over routes used by those used for social caring responsibilities can disproportionately affect women.

This seems to be a classic fallacy relating to the assumption that something benefitting men more than women must be because of some sort of innate sexism and because they are men. Maybe it is a bit like saying classic day time TV is sexist because most programmes are created for and enjoyed by women

Perhaps there is an implication here that the chief decision makers involved in planning the gritting of roads have decided which routes to grit based on which roads men use. Such an implication is not only ridiculous but not supported by any evidence. Correlation is not causation. I suspect that those involved in planning and carrying out gritting have made the decisions they have based on volume and not on sex.

The article also refers to a Swedish study where snow was cleared first on main roads leading into the city, benefiting commuters who were mostly men. I doubt the men are travelling down these gritted roads to enjoy a day of sunbathing by the pool as they drink cocktails; most are probably travelling down these roads to go to work and provide for their family. Gritting the roads to make it easier for them to do so does not seem unreasonable.

In September 2023, BBC’s Women’s Hour addressed the issue of what women need and want from public transport and included a comment from Maryanne-Stephenson, co-director of the women’s budget group who stated “We know that our public transport system is largely based on the needs of male commuters.”

Any decision made by a council about the city’s infrastructure will not benefit men and women equally creating a perfectly even 50/50 split. Nothing will. Such an expectation is unreasonable, as is the assumption that something benefitting men more than women is always sexist.

“You’re Not a F***ing Man” – Sheree Spencer Jailed

In February, Ministry of Justice employee, Sheree Spencer was jailed for four years after subjecting her husband to what the Metro described as a shocking’ 20-year campaign of terror. It is reported that she “punched, kicked, slapped, bit and ragged her husband around during persistent ‘nasty’ attacks which left him feeling trapped and fearful.” She spat at him, grabbed him by the throat, assaulted him with a wine bottle, attacked him with a knife, damaged his property and threatened him with false allegations. She admitted coercive and controlling behaviour and grinned as she left the dock to be taken down to the cells.

One particular element of this shocking case includes a recording where Sheree can be heard saying “You’re not a f***ing man. I want you out of my life.” If a man perpetrating violence against his wife said “You’re not a f**cking woman,” I am sure we would hear accusations of misogyny. Does Sheree’s comment warrant an accusation of misandry? What we do know is that when women harm men we rarely consider the possibility that the behaviour may have been motivated by misandry but often assume that when women harm men it is always misogyny.

Interestingly, it appears that to date, the Guardian, a newspaper that often reports on female victims of male perpetrated abuse, has not reported on the case of Sheree Spencer perpetrating violence against her husband. Do we think they may have been more likely to likely to report on this case if a man had abused his wife in such a way?

March

March was certainly a busy month. Marilyn Manson’s rape accuser admitted to making a false allegation and Harry Potter was called a little patriarch who resorts to violence and magic to rule. Hilary Clinton said that the war in Ukraine shows us that women and children are the primary victims of conflict (despite men being banned from leaving war-torn Ukraine; Russian men breaking limbs to avoid conscription and history showing us that the vast majority of war deaths are men).

Double Standards and Body-Shaming

March also saw the Times publish an article by Molly Gunn, entitled ‘My husband used to be hot. If I met him now, would I still fancy him?’ Not only am I left wondering what the response may be to an article entitled ‘My wife used to be hot. If I met her now, would I still fancy her,’ I am also left feeling rather surprised seeing a follow up piece by Molly entitled ‘I was body-shamed by trolls after writing that my husband used to be hot’. Would a man be as likely to be given a platform to highlight how he was body-shamed after expressing his disappointment at his partner’s looks and saying he preferred his wife when she was younger, before they had kids? I doubt it.

Men: Do Not Talk About Your Sex Lives Too Loudly

March was also the month where the SNP Government proposed creating new laws designed to outlaw “abusive and humiliating male behaviour.” Under a new proposed offence of “misogynistic behaviour,” an offender would be found guilty when watching pornography where others could see it, or having loud, graphic sexual conversations about women in a public place where they can be heard by others. Under a new proposed offence of “misogynistic harassment,” a man would be committing an offence if he shouted sexually abusive remarks at a woman in the street or used abusive language “to a girl who does not want to be ‘chatted up.’” Other proposed offences include “stirring up” hatred against women and girls in an attempt to tackle inflammatory remarks about the opposite sex, and making threats of rape, sexual assault and disfigurement against women.

This may leave you questioning; what about women who watch pornography where others could see it? The women shouting sexually abusive remarks at men who do not welcome this? The social media users stirring up hatred against men and boys by posting online comments such as “Kill all men” etc.? Whataboutism? Call it what you want, but when laws and sanctions are proposed in such an unequal and unfair manner, you bet you will hear more than a few men saying “Err… Hang on a minute…” Will the sanctions be applied in an unfair manner? I hear you ask. Yes. According to the Telegraph; “Women making unwanted sexually-motivated advances towards men, or discussing their sexual conquests in public, would not face sanctions under the legislation.” The double standard is as blatant as it is astonishing.

The double standard continues with the suggestion that an offence could be punished more harshly if it has features or motivations associated with misogyny. Nothing on misandry, implying that actions motivated by perceived hatred for women matter more than actions motivated by perceived hatred for men.

Finally, the report associated with the proposals stated that the justice system has been designed “by men, for men.” With research showing: men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women; convicted women being twice as likely to avoid incarceration; and male offenders receiving 14.7% longer sentences than female offenders under the same circumstances, it is difficult to believe the justice system was designed “for men.”

Shut Up When I Am Talking

March also saw GB News hosting a debate around climate change between royal historian Dr Tessa Dunlop and former Conservative Party lawmaker Jerry Hayes. The debate got rather heated, and as both parties started to talk over each other, Tessa placed her left hand over Jerry’s mouth in an attempt to literally silence him. Jerry responded saying “Do not touch me,” and “That was an assault” to which Tessa responded to by immediately apologising.

Whilst the interview seemed to end with Jerry smiling jovially at Tessa, I have little doubt that if a man had placed his hand over the mouth of a female panellist he was debating with, we would see numerous headlines referring to “toxic masculinity” and misogyny. The host referred to the panellists as getting a little “het up.” I cannot help but wonder how the host would have responded if Jerry did to Tessa what Tessa did to Jerry.

“No Male Should Ever Approach a Woman in a Parking Lot. Ever”

Late March saw a TikTok user post a video online stating no male should ever approach a woman in a parking lot. The TikTok video starts with the young woman talking to camera saying she is literally shaking because a man approached her in a parking lot. She says she is going to tell us how to address the incident after reading how to do so in a book. The TikTok user describes how a man, approximately 30 feet away from her said “Excuse me” and that she responded by literally yelling at him over and over again; “Do not approach me.” She says that the man “of course” responded with confusion asking her what her problem was, to which she replied “You do approach women in a parking lot.” The video ends with a very clear and assertive message from the woman; “No male should ever approach a woman in a parking lot. Ever.” She then says that if a male does approach a woman in a parking lot, you need to turn around and use the strongest voice that you can possibly use with him, saying “Don’t be polite. They need to literally screw off.”

According to a follow up piece by the New York Times, the TikTok user later described the man as the “sketchiest-looking guy” she had ever seen in her “entire life” saying she thinks he was asking people for money and that as she didn’t have any form of protection, she didn’t want to let the man get close to her where he could knock her out and rob her. She also stated that the man was definitely not trying to help her in any way.

Lots to unpack here. First, using the fact that the person approaching you is a man does not justify yelling at them repeatedly. If we used any other demographic to justify treating a person like this there would be outrage, and arguably a lot more outrage than this incident yielded. Second, if a person is this scared when a man approaches them, it is worth asking how such fear may have adverse effects not only on them, but also on the people around them. If the person is willing to address this fear and they want to reduce it, then some therapy sessions may help. Adopting a cautious approach is reasonable but adopting this approach based predominantly on someone’s gender is not only unreasonable, it is unhealthy. Third, the use of “of course” in relation to the man’s reaction suggests that she knows his reaction to her yelling is perhaps more reasonable than her yelling at his “Excuse me.” Fourth, men can absolutely approach who they want in parking lot. Perhaps they are asking for change, enquiring about directions, letting someone know they have dropped something. There are numerous reasons someone may be saying “Excuse me” and no one has the right to repeatedly yell at a them because of prejudiced views they hold about the person being a man. Fifth and finally, the TikTok user said that the man was definitely not trying to help her which perhaps implies an expectation that a man should only approach a woman if he is attempting to help.

Videos such as this contribute towards peddling the myth that men are generally dangerous to be around. They are not. Men are the ones you want to be around when there is danger, and whilst someone may have a fear of men (androphobia), this does not justify treating all and any men in such an extremely aggressive manner.

April

Boys Must Give Respect. Girls Must Receive It

April saw TalkTV presenters Mike Graham, Ian Collins and David Bull joined by TalkTV contributors Nicola Thorp and Afua Hagan to discuss Labour’s leader Keir Starmer’s statement that boys should attend lessons on how to treat women with respect. In the discussion that followed, Mike said that boys are already being made as if they are already doing something wrong and that children should be taught to respect everyone. As Ian tried to share his views, Nicola attempted to speak over him and when he said “Hang on one second girls,” Nicola responded with “Let’s listen to the men, let’s listen to the boys.” Ian said that he was not “mansplaining” because he was a bloke talking about blokes. Nicola said that teenage boys become adult men who can then go on to sexually assault and rape women. Ian asks Nicola how she arrived at such a comment from just boys being boys in the classroom.

Discussions continued to Andrew Tate and misogyny being mentioned. No mention at all of the general disrespect directed at boys and men, or the online personalities posting regular misandry. Nicola said that she could not be objective because she is a woman and the issue affects women. Ian reminded Nicola that the issue also affects men to which she responded to by frowning with confusion, shaking her head slightly and asking how.

There we have the problem. Some people are so focused on promoting such a rigid, oversimplified and context free narrative that states girls should get respect and boys should give it, that they have not the slightest iota of awareness (or perhaps interest) of how such an approach may adversely affect boys and men. It is all about girls and women.

When you promote a narrative that implies it is a lot more important for boys to give girls respect whilst remaining comparatively silent on girls giving boys respect, it is perhaps worth wondering what sort of men and what sort of women such an approach may create. A society full of men who are angry at being treated as if they are inherent abusers? Where men are scared and anxious around women in case, they have not got it quite right and showed the right level of respect? A society full of women who have not been taught to give respect and so treat their anxious male partners with little or no respect because they received the message that men are generally disrespectful? Where women fear men, believing that they are inherently abusive and disrespectful? If we do not even consider that these are potential outcomes, or perhaps even care, we have a problem that need serious attention.

The discussion ended with Nicola responding to Ian and Mike’s logical comments with; “I am so glad the men are talking for us.” Mike says that he is talking for men and Ian challenges Nicola saying that what she has done there is a classic trope when you have run out of ideas and that the “mansplaining thing” is often throw in too. Not the first time someone responds to a man expressing his opinion by making it about his gender, and probably not the last in the misandry-heavy society we live in.

May

Parks Built by Men Can Undermine Women’s Rights

May saw the release of a report which said public spaces designed by and for the “default male” can feel fearful and exclusionary. The report, entitled ‘WHAT MAKES A PARK FEEL SAFE OR UNSAFE? The views of women, girls and professionals in West Yorkshire’ states that parks should feel safe for women to use by themselves, but that they are not designed that way. Referencing certain research, the report states that it is increasingly recognised that public spaces designed by and for the ‘default male’ can feel fearful and exclusionary, undermining women’s right to the city and everyday life.

Whilst I have no doubt that a similar report using the term “default female” would result in quick and loud claims of misogyny, it is worth wondering if there is an implication that public spaces designed by women cause women and girls to feel fear and excluded. Was this aspect considered, or was this another opportunity to take a pop at men?

The report also states that the safety of women and girls in West Yorkshire is a top priority, perhaps implying that the safety of boys and men (who statistically make up most victims of homicide, muggings, street violence and knife crime) is not a top priority. Disappointing to say the least.

The report says that men can be allies by giving women space when using the park. Men giving women space will not eliminate any fear they may have; it will maintain it. Suggesting men generally need to give women space based on the harm perpetrated by a minority of men is prejudice that would never be tolerated if it was directed in a similar way at any other demographic.

If we really want to reduce women’s fear of men, we should not encourage avoidance but appropriate interaction. This will provide evidence that most men near women in parks wish them absolutely no harm. The question becomes, do we want to reduce such fear or maintain it, and so some sadly want to weaponize such fear to justify misandry?

I have a slight fear of flying. I am hardly going to reduce my fear by constantly avoiding planes and airports. Whether or not I want to do anything about my fear is of course up to me but what I do not do is demonise the pilots and professionals in the aviation industry and put unreasonable expatiations on all of them based on the small percentage of plane crashes. Perhaps not the best analogy but hopefully you get the point.

I am all for increasing people’s feelings of safety when they use public spaces, but we should not be doing this by using terms such as ‘the default male,’ and by generally demonising men by publishing a report stating that men’s attitude and behaviour must change. If we were to generalise women in a similar way, we would surely hear claims of misogyny. It would be unreasonable to expect any demographic to help a different demographic when the latter generalises the former based on the harm a minority of the former do. Why do so many of us struggle to see this when the demographic concerned is men?

Finally, the report says that men need to be more aware of how their presence and behaviour in parks affects women. Maybe those who hold such beliefs need to be more aware of how making such sweeping statements and telling men that they need to be aware of how their presence and behaviour in parks may adversely affect men.

June

I Do Not Care If You Are Blind. Stop Staring at Me

In June, it was revealed that blind footballer Toby Addison was once ‘removed’ from a gym after a woman thought he was knowingly staring at her and ‘being creepy.’ He told the woman that he was blind and was not staring at anything but sadly she told him to shut up, called him a creep and got him removed from the gym. Toby rightly says; “The gym should be a safe space where everyone feels comfortable. But I promise you, not every guy in the gym is a creep.”

This is not the first time a blind man has been removed from a gym after being false accused of staring. In 2021 YouTuber ‘Blind Surfer Pete Gustin’ posted a video highlighting how he was approached at the gym by a woman who aggressively accused him of staring at her. Pete explained that he was blind but this apparently did not satisfy the woman. According to Pete, the woman stormed off and returned with the manager. From his wallet, Pete produced a card from the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind to which the manager said; OK, but you still can’t make other gym members uncomfortable by looking at them.

The fact that this man is physically incapable of using his eyes to look at someone but is still told he cannot make people feel uncomfortable by looking at them not only shows how some people refuse to acknowledge context and logic when it is clearly presented to them, but how quick we often are to assume the worst in men, even in circumstances when we are given clear evidence that our assumptions are wrong. Would a blind woman falsely accused of staring at someone be treated like this?

You Are a Man. You Are Accused. You Are Sacked

There was some good news in June when a male teacher won an appeal after being unfairly sacked following sexual assault allegations. An article highlighted how teacher Jonathan Hawker lost his job and was arrested by police who raided his home and seized his laptop, phone and other electronic equipment after girls said he had inappropriately touched them in class. Charges were dropped as there was “no chance of a conviction.” Allegations were denied but Jonathan was still dismissed.

Whilst the employment tribunal was not in a position to say whether the alleged misconduct took place, it was in a position to look at whether the school carried out a fair and reasonable investigation. The tribunal found that the investigation by someone untrained and ill-equipped was flawed, unfair, irrational unreasonable, wholly inadequate and compounded by misrepresentation and concealment.

The statements of two girl students who said Jonathan’s accusers had told them they tried to get him fired for fun by saying he had touched their thighs and sexually assaulted them, was not given sufficient weight during the investigation.

The employment judge awarded Jonathan £44,868 after finding he had been unfairly dismissed and said; “… if he is innocent, and a playground plot can end a career and destroy a reputation, the school is not providing a safe working environment for its staff, in particular for its male staff.” A powerful comment.

Whilst allegations should of course be taken seriously, due process matters and investigations must be conducted in a fair manner. Many have been pleased to see an employment judge highlighting the risks that disproportionately face male teachers, and it is perhaps worth wondering how such alleged false allegations may continue and perhaps increase if we only teach boys and not girls about behaving with respect.

July

Barbie and Patriarchy

July saw the release of the Barbie Movie which smashed box office records around the world with a $300 million opening weekend and whilst some have raved about the film, it has certainly attracted criticism from others including Piers Morgan, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Bill Maher and more.

Some of the criticisms relate to patriarchy, something featured in the film, but perhaps interestingly, not in the trailer. There are scenes implying that men working out and fist bumping each other is a problem. Other scenes imply that male police officers riding around on horses represent patriarchy. There are exaggerated scenes where men in suits are talking about making a lot of money and saying how officially important they are and then saying; “Not now Margaret” when a young woman attempts to interrupt them. We see Ken removing books from shelves, one of which is entitled ‘Why Men Rule (Literally)’ before asking a young woman “Why didn’t Barbie tell me about patriarchy, which, to my understanding is where men and horses run everything?” The young woman gives a patronising smile, nods, and says; “Sure.” Ken is then seen confidently telling another man that he will take a high level, high paying job with influence. The man tells Ken the requirements he will need to meet, to which he responds by arrogantly asking; “Isn’t being a man enough?” Ken is told that it is kind of the opposite right now to which he responds with; “You guys are clearly not doing patriarchy very well.” The man says that they are doing patriarchy well but just hiding it better now. We then see Ken asking a female doctor if she will allow him to carry out just one appendectomy. The doctor says no and Ken replies; “But I’m a man.” The implication that this is what the real world – or rather what an exaggerated version of the real world is like, is as distorted as it is embarrassing.

Whatever your views on the Barbie Movie, with scenes such as these, I think it is more than reasonable to say that the film contains clear examples of contempt towards men which would be a lot less likely to be tolerated if they were examples of contempt towards women.

Boys And Men Are the Problem

July saw a lot of attention again directed at tackling inappropriate and disrespectful behaviour displayed by boys and men. An article by the BBC highlighted that the Women and Equalities Committee was calling on the government to develop a specific strategy for engaging with boys and young men on the topics of sexual harassment and gender-based violence. The committee also recommends that all teachers should be trained on how to engage male pupils in conversations that “challenge prevailing gender norms” and ideas of masculinity. Perhaps shockingly, the article also highlights how the inquiry by the Committee heard relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) was “less applicable” to boys than to girls.

The implication here is that the issues addressed in RSHE are not as applicable to boys as they are to girls, unless of course it is about the harm boys do. This is yet another example of blatant misandry where boys are being targeted based on what the minority of them do. Research around child sexual exploitation states that educative work should engage both boys and girls and should address both risk of perpetration and risk of victimisation (and the potential for overlap). In her 2021 article, Rita Panahi published an article entitled ‘What’s toxic is treating our boys like predators’, and in 2020 psychologist John Barry published his article entitled ‘Demonising boys won’t turn them into angels.’ We have also seen psychologist Elly Hanson stating that it is not fair or helpful for young men to be made to feel guilty just for being male, whilst a Telegraphs article printed the headline ‘Not all teenage boys are toxic – and telling them they are is dangerous.’ If this isn’t enough to make people stop and listen, the government’s very own guidance on relationships, sex education and health education states it is:

“… essential that assumptions are not made about the behaviour of boys and young men and that they are not made to feel that this behaviour is an inevitable part of being male; most young men are respectful of young women and each other. An understanding for all pupils of healthy relationships, acceptable behaviour and the right of everyone to equal treatment will help ensure that pupils treat each other well and go on to be respectful and kind adults.”

Perhaps a case could very easily be made that certain suggestions in relating to how respect and consent should be taught in schools do not align with the guidance above.

In November 2023, the Committee expressed their disappointment at the Government’s response to their recommendations. I am pleased that the response does not include confirmation that the Government will implement the specific misandristic recommendations.

‘Maaate’; Violence Starts with Words. Against Men? Who Cares?

July also saw the Mayor of London’s ‘Maaate’ video which formed part of a campaign to tackle violence against women and girls. Whist the campaign does not explicitly say that it is aimed at men, it is a reasonable assumption to make as the website hosting the video states that in the UK, a man kills a woman every three days. There is no mention of violence against women by other women. The website also references the Mayor of London’s 2022 ‘Have A Word’ campaign which called on men (not people) to reflect on their own attitudes and to say something when their friends behave inappropriately towards women. The website also contains ‘Resources for Men.’ These include a link to dealing with your own anger which leads to violence, a phone line for domestic violence perpetrators, and links to the White Ribbon campaign which provides information on how men can become allies to promote the safety of women and girls.

The message sems to be pretty clear; Men are perpetrators, women are victims, and violence by men against women matters a lot more than any other type of violence. Perhaps it would make a lot more sense to make decisions and create campaigns encouraging mutual respect and based on severity harm rather than the gender of the victims and perpetrator.

The ‘Maaate’ video shows a group of young men playing a console game. Throughout the video one of the young men makes comments about women that get progressively worse and the viewer is encouraging to press the ‘Maaate’ button to indicate an appropriate place to intervene. Comments made by the young man range from referring to women footballers as being “pretty fit” to laughing about sending an unsolicited “dick pic” to a former female school friend. When the viewer clicks on the ‘Maate’ button at a certain point, one of the other young men in the video says “Maaate,” and challenges his friend on making the comment. The berated individual responds by acting as if he has just seen the light and apologises. And of course, this is exactly how it would work in real life. For anyone who is not sure; that’s sarcasm. The viewer is also told that they may have missed other opportunities to intervene if they did not press the ‘Maaate’ button sooner.

‘Maaate’ is not the only campaign that targets men in general based on what the minority of them do. Police Scotland run the ‘That Guy’ campaign where men are encouraged not to be “that guy” by not challenging your male mate who shows disrespect to girls and women.

I am left wondering who exactly videos like this are aimed at. As Joe Hildebrabnd stated in his 2019 article; “Good men don’t need to be told and bad men won’t listen.” Videos like this are unlikely to stop anyone from perpetrating violence. I very much doubt the husband who is angry with his wife, and loses it by violently lashing out will, in that moment, be positively influenced by videos such as this. Having derogatory views about any group of people is not guaranteed to transfer into physically harming members of that group, and there is a significant difference between verbally expressing your anger to using that anger to physically harm someone. I am sure many of us have talked about killing our boss at some point in our lives. Perhaps the fact that the vast majority of us did not do so is because most of us do not act on our thoughts by violently harming others.

The ‘Maaate’ website provides examples of misogyny but the blunt reality is that we need more context to decide if the examples provided actually constitute misogyny. For example; belittling women or girls in conversation by using derogatory remarks is labelled as misogyny but it might not be. If a woman says she thinks that an iPhone has an actual eye in it, and someone responds saying “No, you idiot,” this guidance would label that misogyny, but it is only misogyny if the respondent is influenced by some sort of hatred, contempt, or dislike for women. The person may have said exactly the same comment to a man.

Another example of misogyny provided by the website includes objectifying women. Perhaps this begs the question; is objectifying men misandry? A third example of misogyny is ‘Treating women differently from men in social and professional settings’ but ironically, perhaps this guidance encourages us to do just that, by stating derogatory comments made about women should be challenged whilst remaining silent on challenging derogatory comments made about men. Furthermore, it does not suggest how women can challenge men who make such derogatory comments – only other men. This oversimplified and context free guidance could falsely lead boys and men to think that any form of discomfort experienced by a woman as a result of their actions is misogyny. This is quite simply not true.

The website also states that violence against women and girls starts with words. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no, but what about violence against men and boys? Does that start with words? If so, then why are we only addressing words that may proceed violence when they are uttered by men about women? The number of derogatory words that are shared online by women about men is high and they range from “I hate men” to “Kill all men.” Has anyone bothered to explore how violence against men and boys may start with words? Words that proceed men being the main victims of homicide, muggings, street violence and knife crime? Of course, they have not. Can we look forward to a campaign by the Lord Mayor of London encouraging people to challenge misandristic comments and violence against men and boys? I doubt it, and perhaps that is because his actions are more aligned with promoting misandry rather than combatting it.

August

Telling Women to Get Off the Grass? That Is Male Entitlement

August saw barrister Charlotte Proudman posing for a photo on the lawn of King’s College, Cambridge. According to an article published by the Daily Mail, Charlotte’s posing on the lawn attracted attention from a “white male student” (Charlotte’s words, not mine) who shouted at her “If they catch you, you’ll get chucked out.” Apparently, college rules stipulate that completed PhD students, associate fellows and mature masters graduates are allowed to walk on the lawns, but students are not. Putting the academic snobbery to one side, Charlotte meets the criteria, meaning she is allowed to walk on the lawn. Charlotte states that she “sharply” responded with; “I belong here, my portrait hangs in the College Chapel.” According to the Daily Mail, Charlotte stated that the comments made by this man reflect “male entitlement” and a deep-rooted belief that women like her do not belong. We cannot say for certain that this man’s comments reflect any such thing.

The implication here seems to be that when a man tells a woman she should not be doing something he is doing so because he believes being a male entitles him to do so. The article includes no evidence to support such an insinuation. This male student might not have known the specific rules around who can and cannot stand on the lawn. Perhaps he did know the rules and maybe he made an assumption, but there is nothing to suggest that assumption is based on perceptions around gender. How do we know he would not have said exactly the same thing if he had seen a man on the lawn? We do not. An assumption is being made based on the fact that the instigator is a man and the target is a woman. This is nowhere near enough information to reasonably claim “male entitlement” or that the man had a “deep-rooted belief” that women like Charlotte do not belong. Being so quick to claim some sort of oppression whilst assuming a man’s suggestion towards a woman must be influenced by some sort of misogyny and/or male entitlement is not only a baseless assumption, it is unhealthy behaviour often used to justify demonising men.

If I know lots of people have received a fine after parking in place where they were not allowed to park, and I then see someone parking in that space, I may tell them that they are not allowed to park there. If the person then produces some sort of permit showing me that they are in fact allowed to park there, we simply leave it at that. Yes, I am making an assumption, but it is not based on gender. I am just trying to help. It is likely this “white male student” was doing the same.

Men: If You Do Not Like Manbags and Lose the Car Key, You Are A ‘Manbag Refusenik’

August saw an article published in the Telegraph, entitled ‘10 sensible things that men refuse to do.’ The list includes: refusing to wear sun cream (referring to a “shiny red-faced David Beckham”); never using a tray to eat supper in front of the TV; refusing to wear gloves and refusing to use a stepladder. The writer, Shane Watson refers to a ‘manbag refusenik,’ a man who, according to Shane, shudders at the thought of carrying a bag unless it is a backpack for the gym or travelling, and who owns a book bag but is too not sure what to do with it. Shane goes on to say that these men believe that what this man thinks is that pockets are all a man needs. She implies that she has written the article after being in the sixth day without a car after the car key fell out of “his” (presumably her male partner’s) shorts. Shane lists the consequences of losing the key including the “hidden cost to trust in the marriage,” the certainty of more micromanaging (referred to as nagging in quotation marks) and being the only bag owner in the marriage meaning having to carry the keys along with “everything else.”

It seems to me that in response to feeling frustrated at her partner losing the car keys, Shane has decided to write an article criticising not just her partner, but men in general. The end of the article states that refusing to carry a manbag is one of several sensible things many men refuse to do which affects their friends and families.

Some say this is not misandry as it refers to a certain type of man; Shane’s ‘manbag refusenik’ men. Even if we ignore the title which refers to what “men” refuse to do, not ‘manbag refusenik’ men, I am left wondering how often we see articles in the mainstream media addressing sensible things women refuse to do? Such an article would inevitably be followed by claims of misogyny and, if written by a man, mansplaining. However, the society we currently live in suggests the double standard is acceptable for articles to be written about the sensible things certain groups of people do not do, when the group of people concerned is men. We all make mistakes and we can all lose things. It’s called being fallible.

Interestingly, in December 2023, the same writer wrote an article entitled ‘All the things we don’t want men to do’ and provided a list including hair dyeing, wearing heels, having precious clothes, “sloshing” on the aftershave, and blemish cover-up. Now we know!

That Kiss

August saw the President of the Spanish Football Federation Luis Rubiales accused of sexual assault. The allegation came after Luis kissed player Jennifer Hermoso on the lips during an awards ceremony after Spain won the FIFA Women’s World Cup. Whilst Luis acknowledged he made a mistake, he said that his actions were done without any ill intention in a moment of high exuberance. Jennifer originally said it was a totally spontaneous mutual gesture because of the immense joy that winning the world cup brings, but has since accused Luis of sexual assault saying that the kiss was not consensual and that he pressured her to speak out in his defence immediately after the scandal erupted.

Some have condemned Luis’s actions and others have said the matter has been blown out of proportion. Luis has resigned and whilst an investigation remains ongoing, he has tweeted that he will defend his innocence.

Whilst it goes without saying that it is generally wrong to give someone a kiss without their consent, perhaps this particular incident is not as black and white as some would have us believe. Luis has stated that he asked Jennifer if he could give her and peck, and according to him she said OK. Is he lying? Is he telling the truth? Perhaps we will never know, but what we do know is that it is not uncommon for public displays of affection to be present in the world of football, especially when a team wins. There are numerous images online of male footballers kissing each other after scoring a goal and winning a match. Perhaps this kiss was in keeping with this culture? A kiss, whether unwanted or not, is not always an indicator of something sexual. It can sometimes be an indicator of affection.

As a child, I remember my mum vigorously grabbing me and kissing me. I definitely did not want her to kiss me, I definitely did not give consent and I definitely made it obvious I was uncomfortable. My mum was older than me, had power over me and she knew full well I often felt scared of her as she would often shout the house down when she was angry. Should I have reported my mum to the police? As I say, sometimes things are not black and white. There is contextual grey that we must consider.

Interestingly, a short clip has appeared on social media showing Jennifer, on the pitch, being hugged by a fellow female player who squeezes and then pats her bum. I highly doubt the fellow female footballer asked Jennifer’s consent. Surely this begs some questions, one of which is; why has Jennifer accused someone who kissed her of sexual assault, but not someone who squeezed and patted her bum of sexual assault? Is it because the former was a woman and the latter was a man? Are assumptions being made about each person’s intentions based on their gender. If the president had been a woman who kissed Jennifer as Luis did, would a sexual assault allegation follow?

At the time of writing the incident remains under investigation.

September

Treat Boys Like Potential Monsters in The Making

September saw The West Australian print an article containing an image of young boy next to the headline ‘How We Stop This Kid Becoming A Monster.’ Rita Panahi, among others, criticised the article calling it disgraceful. She said that these sorts of attacks against boys and young men under the guide of tackling domestic violence are idiotic, damaging and counterproductive. An article written by Thor Forster for the Centre for Male Psychology referred to the West Australian article, stating that correlating young boys’ masculinity with domestic violence is flawed and disturbing.

Whilst it is positive to see such misandry being criticised it is disappointing but perhaps no surprise that it needed to be criticised in the first place. The headline published by the West Australian is one of many examples not only of misandristic headlines and journalism, but also misandristic practice in schools. In 2021, Brauer College in Victoria, Australia attracted media attention after holding an assembly where boys were asked to stand as a symbolic gesture of apology for the behaviours of their gender that have hurt or offended girls and women leaving parents and male students furious.

The Aftermath of Suggesting a Minister for Men

Competing for Victimhood

September was filled with lots of discussions around the suggestion that there needs to be a Minister for Men. On BBC Women’s Hour, Conservative MP Nick Fletcher told Nuala McGovern that if men are living a better, happier, healthier life that it is better for women too and society as a whole. This is undoubtedly true but looking after the welfare of men should not only or predominantly be because it benefits women, it should be because it also benefits men. Nick goes on to say that he sees Government neglecting boys and men to which Nuala gives a disappointing but perhaps not surprising response. She says; “You know about the gender pay gap, the lack of women at the top table in companies, the fact that less than a third of MPs in the House of Commons are women?” Nuala then asks Nick if he feel the needs of boys and men are greater than that of girls and women. Let’s remember; this is BBC Women’s Hour.

Those who respond defensively to the suggestion of a Minister for Men often have two types of reply; “Girls and women have it worse” or “Men and boys are the problem but have the privilege.” The above shows Nuala initially responding with the former and then responding with the latter asking if a Minister for Men would be to talk about male privilege or for boys and men to understand the privilege they have in society.

Competing for victimhood is not helpful or healthy. There are disadvantages predominantly affecting women and there are disadvantages predominantly affecting men. Both can be addressed without fighting over who has it worse. As Nick says, we can do two things at once.

However, implying that women have it worse because they are earning less and holding fewer senior positions than men whilst most victims of suicide, homicide, homelessness, street-based violence, and work place fatalities are men, seems rather incomparable. Perhaps it is a bit like suggesting dogs have it worse than cats because no one is replacing the bulbs in the dogs’ home whilst no one is even built a cats’ home.

Recent data from the Office of National Statistics shows around 35% of victims who disclosed domestic abuse to the Crime in England and Wales survey were male. Do they get 35% of the funding? Data shows that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. Do you think they benefit specifically from most of the funding to tackle violent crime? Does as much effort go into keeping men safe in dangerous jobs as there does into getting women into higher paid jobs? Where is the privilege? The fact that a female presenter can confidently ask if a Minister for Men would address male privilege when a wealth of evidence shows certain severe disadvantages are overwhelmingly experienced by boys and men, indicates how privileged boys and men really are, and perhaps where the privilege really lies.

Rehabilitate the Average Bloke

After comedian Geoff Norcott appeared on Politics Live to promote his new book, host Jo Coburn said that men have arguably taken a lot of flak “rightly in the past few years many people would say.” She goes on to ask if Geoff’s book is an attempt rehabilitate the image of an average bloke. Such a comment clearly implies that there is something wrong with the average bloke and that they need rehabilitating. They do not. This is just more mainstream casual misandry. If such comments were made about the average woman, we would see days’ worth of media headlines condemning misogyny.

The discussion moves on to the issue of a Minister for Men, and Geoff highlights the hostility that often emerges when the issue is brought up. Geoff says that when women have issues affecting them, we ask why is society making this happen, whereas as when men have issues affecting them, we ask whey are men doing this to themselves. Ava Santina, who was also on the show, stated that she thinks ministers bandy the idea of a Minster for Men about to make an enemy of women. I see little to no evidence to support such a claim which is rather interesting coming from someone who has said ‘Enjoying my pint like I enjoy my men: socially distanced’ and ‘I will continue to wear my mask on the tube to protect myself from the most powerful virus of them all: men.’ Projection perhaps? Should we really be asking women who hold such views what they think about appointing a Minister for Men? Would we ask Andrew Tate to take part in a discussion about what he thinks about initiatives to support women? The double standard is as astonishing as it is blatant.

Geoff highlights how men were the main ones dying during Covid to which Ava responds with; “But who was doing all the work during Covid?” Again, not only another attempt to compete for victimhood, but a rather astonishing and disproportionate response to men dying. Can you imagine the outrage if most Covid deaths were women and in response to this fact being highlighted, a man said; “Yes, but men were working more.” Geoff highlights that he does not dispute what Ava says but does say that there are issues specifically faced by men which Ava appears to sit and listen to with a smirk on her face before Geoff provides the male suicide rate as an example. Ava responds with; “That’s because women are unsuccessful” and Geoff says it feels like Ava does not have any space for the challenges men face, and it does not look like she has.

Geoff can see where Ava is coming from and does not dispute some of her comments but she responds to his comments not with acknowledgment of what men are experiencing but with attempts to divert on to the suffering of women. Whilst another panellist says issues affecting boys and men need attention, she emphasises that women earning 15% less than men also needs addressing and goes on to suggest that Geoff does something to support women who are being sexually harassed. Again, if the focus is not on how women have it worse, it is on how men are the problem even during a discussion about a Minister for Men.

Laurence Fox Sacked

Ava Santina featured in the news again after former actor and GB News presenter Laurence Fox referred to her as a “little woman,” asking “Who would want to shag that?” The comments came after Laurence criticised Ava’s comments made on Politics Live. See above. Whilst some of his comments were inappropriate and irrelevant to the point being discussed, I am left wondering if male public figures need to be more careful when criticising women whilst female public figures can, in comparison, say what they want about men?

When a male celebrity or newsreader makes any sort of derogatory about men there is outrage but when a female celebrity or newsreader makes any sort of derogatory about woman there is comparative silence. Example? Laurence Fox refers to Ava as a little woman, asking who would want to shag that and he is sacked. Sharon Osbourne laughs about a man’s penis being cut off saying it is “quite fabulous” and after an apology she remains relatively unaffected. There are plenty of other examples highlighting this double standard.

I very much doubt a woman appearing on TV who criticises a man’s views around tackling women’s issues and who says “That little man” and “Who’d want to shag that” would receive the same treatment Laurence has. Laurence was subsequently sacked from GB News.

A Minster for Men? Insulting!

An article in the Guardian published by Martha Gill said that the idea of appointing a Minister for Men was insulting, referring to men as a dominant group. Martha makes the unreasonable comparison of appointing a Minister for Men being like appointing a Minister for white people, heterosexuals, or the able-bodied.

Referring to men as a dominant group when they are the majority of prisoners, suicide victims, homeless people, victims of violent crime, war fatalities, workplace fatalities, underachievers in education, victims of paternity fraud and victims of false allegations is an example of the Apex Fallacy; when someone evaluates a group based on the performance of best group members, not a representative sample of the group members. A tiny proportion of men may hold wealth and certain power but a significantly larger proportion of men do not.

This sort of thinking implying we should look at two opposite groups, decide, reasonably or unreasonably, who has it worse and then focus only on helping that group whilst in comparison ignoring the other is not the sort of thinking we should be encouraging or be proud of. Perhaps it is the sort of limited thinking that abandons logical and bathes in ideology and unhelpful victimhood.

Martha makes several other claims such as men are far less likely to be burdened with unpaid work; men save much more money in their pensions; they dominate top positions in nearly every trade and profession; and they are less likely to be killed by their partners or to suffer sexual violence.

Studies addressing the claim that women do most unpaid work often exclude unpaid work done by men as highlighted in Eric Anderson’s blog on patriarchy. No one is paying a man to fix the car, paint the shed, mend the fence or do the heavy lifting, but these examples are often excluded from the prevailing narrative. If men are doing less (although I doubt it is a lot less) unpaid work around the house, this may be because they are at work earning money so they can provide for their families (which is exactly why they save more for their pensions).

Another reason men may be doing less unpaid work around the house, could be because some women want certain jobs done immediately, whereas some men are willing to complete these tasks, just not at the time when his partner wants him to. This can contribute to the context-free narrative that women are doing more unpaid work than men but if this is because some women want things done immediately whereas some men will wait, this does not to women doing more unpaid work because men do not want to. This was certainly the experience of a man I spoke to last year.

As for men dominating the top positions, again, this is a minority of men on the planet and many of them are likely to have achieved this through hard work and dedication. That fact that a minority of men are at the top does not cancel the fact that a lot more men are nowhere near the top with many being at the bottom.

In regards to men being less likely to be killed by a partner, this is true, however globally the numbers are not that different. Looking at data from a recent UN report, approximately 133 women a day are killed by a partner or family member whilst 117 men a day are killed by a partner or family member. See below. Research from 2010 states that; “when domestic violence-related suicides are combined with domestic violence homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence-related deaths are higher for males than females.” As mentioned earlier men are also a lot more likely to be killed in the streets than women, but the prevailing narrative seems to suggest that this matters less because most of the perpetrators are men. More misandry.

Regarding sexual violence, as I have said numerous times before, male victims are less likely to recognise it and less likely to disclose it, but this does not mean it is happening to them a lot less. Perhaps articles like this suggesting men should shut up because they do not have it as bad as women may contribute to the silence of male victims?

Finally, I do not think it is reasonable to say women have lower social status than men. Decisions are made, projects are funded, headlines are published and initiatives are created based on how women feel. It could perhaps be argued that as a group, women are generally valued and protected whilst men are generally demonised and neglected. Perhaps this Guardian article is another example of this. I do not think the idea of a Minister for Men is offensive. Implying there does not need to be a Minister for Men because of the power and wealth a minority of men have whilst ignoring the disadvantage significant more men have – THAT is what I call offensive.

October

Replacing ‘But’ With ‘And’ Can Make a Difference

There was a little bit of good news in October. In February 2023 the Office for National Statistics produced data relating to homicide in England and Wales for the year ending March 2022. One of the points highlighted said ‘Males accounted for 72% of homicide victims in the latest year, but 93% of convicted suspects.’ The use of the word ‘but’ is often used to suggest that the statements made after it are more important than the statements made before it. This clearly implies that most convicted suspects of homicide being male matters more than most homicide victims being male.

Nick Mathers, Group Quality Manger for a large education provider, and I shared these and other concerns with the Office for National Statistics who welcomed the feedback and replaced the word ‘but’ with ‘and.’ The statement now reads ‘Males accounted for 72% of homicide victims in the latest year, and 93% of convicted suspects.’

November

November was a busy month for issues affecting boys and men. Ukrainian men were swimming rivers, faking illnesses, and in some cases losing their lives in desperate attempts to escape the draft. We saw the media reporting on the conflict in Gaza with a heavy focus on female hostages and the killing of innocent women whilst male hostages and the killing of men were, in comparison, hardly mentioned. We also saw “fury” being expressed when over half of the honourees for GQ’s Man of the Year were female.

“I Could Hardly Head Round There Myself as It’s Three women”

November saw singer Gareth Gates post a video online accusing three women of bullying him. The video was posted after Gareth, who was working on a cruise ship at the time, heard three women in the cabin next to him mocking his stammer. He said they had been doing this relentlessly for three days. Gareth went on to say that if it had been three men, he would have approached them and challenged their behaviour but said he could hardly head around there himself as it was three women. The singer said his female partner approached the three women and politely asked them to stop, which they did.

The implication here is that a man cannot approach women to criticise their behaviour. The obvious question this begs is; why not? How relevant was gender in this scenario? It does not sound like Gareth was frustrated at the fact he was being bullied by women. It sounds like he was frustrated at being bullied regardless of the gender of the bullies. Some might say Gareth is displaying misogyny, accusing him of not treating women as he would treat men, and that his actions are influenced by beliefs that women are incapable of handling confrontation because they are women. We do not know that and nothing he says evidences such an assumption. Others may say, irrationally of course, that a man confronting women to criticise their behaviour under any circumstances is always misogyny no matter what. If Gareth feared being falsely accused of misogyny, it is perhaps understandable that his partner, rather than him, confronted the bullies.

It would have been interesting to hear exactly why Gareth did not think he could approach the bullies because they were women, and it would have been even more interesting to see how they may have responded to his confrontation.

UN Report Reveals Interesting Data

In November, the UN released a report entitled ‘Gender-Related Killings of Women and Girls (Femicide/Feminicide); Global Estimates of Female Intimate Partner/Family-Related Homicides in 2022.’ The report states that nearly 89,000 women and girls were killed intentionally in 2022, which is the highest yearly number recorded in the past two decades. It goes without saying that this is awful, needs and attention and that the victims deserve justice. The report provides data that reveals some interesting findings, and it also makes certain comments that I think require a response.

First, the report states that women and girls are approximately 53% of all victims killed in the home referring to them being “disproportionately affected by homicidal violence in the home.” Whilst 53% could reasonably be referred to as the majority, I am not sure it is reasonable to refer to it as disproportionate. One would assume the other 47% are men and boys?

Second, from the percentages included in the report we are able to work out that in addition to 133 women a day being killed by a partner or family member, 117 men a day are killed by a partner of family member. The difference between these figures is not as large as many of us have been led to believe.

Third, the report says most killings of women and girls are “gender motivated” but it does not really say what is meant by the term. The wording seems to imply that of the women and girls who are killed, most of them are murdered by someone who is motivated by misogyny but how do we know that to be the case? From what I can see, nothing in the report provides any elaboration on this comment or clear evidence to support the claim.

The report does use the term “gender related” and says; “Within the ‘Statistical framework for measuring the gender-related killing of women and girls,’ femicides, denoting gender-related female homicides, are defined as those resulting from the victim being a woman.” Does this mean killings resulting from the victim being a man can be called androcide? Some of the most violent men in the world would never raise a hand to a woman but would think a man vs a man in is more acceptable.

The report refers to the “ideology of men’s entitlement and privilege over women, social norms regarding masculinity, and the need to assert male control or power, enforce gender roles, or prevent, discourage or punish what is considered to be unacceptable female behaviour.” The key word there is “ideology” and if no logical science can clearly evidence this ideology, it should not remain being blindly believed.

Whilst I am sure some men who murder women are motivated partly or wholly by misogyny, it is a huge assumption to state that all/most of those who kill women are motivated by misogyny or by the fact that the victim is female. Everyone who is murdered has a gender but how this may or may not be related to the perpetrators actions or motivations perhaps remains up for debate. The big problem that remains is that we assume misogyny as motivating factor when a man harms a women but never even consider misandry as a motivating factor when a woman harms a man.

December

The final month of the year saw several eyebrow-raising comments made about men. We were told that lesbians earn more money because they don’t have to put up with men at home. The Daily Mail told us that using three mean one-liners to humble men and get under their skin will make them obsessed with you, and we learnt that many women will reduce a guy’s rank from 10 if he has an Android phone. I thought rating people was sexist? Or does that not apply when women do it to men?

The Jewish Journal published an article entitled ‘2023: Another Year of Horrible Men’ with the subheading ‘Have you noticed how the worst mass horrors in the world are led by men?’ We were told that the development of a male birth-control pill will be another test of whether heterosexual men are actually willing to share the responsibilities of adult life. Doctor Who returned with The Doctor being told by others, who held a certain type of power, that they can just let it go, but that he would never understand this because he is a male-presenting timelord. More casual digs at men that are delicered in way suggesting we should just tolerate them.

Allegations of Sexual Assault… Against Men by Women

December saw female theatregoers accused of sexual assault. According to an article published by the Daily Mail, a complaint made to the police alleged that women who attended the Magic Mike live show sexually assaulted male staff. Allegations appear to be related to ushers and waiters being “stripped and handled” with a source stating that many staff have been slapped on the bum, grabbed and kissed by drunk guests. The article also contains claims of a waiters not only being flashed at by inebriated guests shouting “Get your c**k out,” but also being pulled with force towards a woman’s cleavage. It is alleged that the privates of one dancer were “roughly grabbed” and that one waiter’s crotch was grabbed by a woman who received a warning. No arrests were made and complaint made to the police by a third party was “dismissed completely.”

Whilst it is worth wondering how police and other newspapers may have responded to men being accused of groping and sexually assaulting female ushers, performers and waiting staff, perhaps a more poignant question is; why was the complaint completely dismissed? Was it because the allegation was not made by the alleged victim(s)? Could it have been due to perceptions around gender affecting how police viewed the allegations? Was it because of some other reason that we may not know about? What we do know is that when men behave disrespectfully towards women, we are bombarded with news articles and headlines, but when women behave disrespectfully towards men, in comparison, we hear very little about it, as is evidenced by the small numbers of media bodies covering the story.

Recruitment: Are Men Getting a Fair Deal?

December also saw several articles published in the media addressing issues related to the recruitment of men. An employment tribunal dismissed a prospective human resources manager’s claim that he was rejected for a job because he was a white man. The decision was made after Chris Palmer alleged that he was told at his job interview that the company wanted to hire fewer white men, a comment the interviewer denies making and the CEO says was “misconstrued.” If this comment was made it is certainly worth wondering how it may have influenced the interview process, and also how a comment relating to wanting to hire fewer women in a female-dominated industry may have been perceived by a female candidate.

White Men Get Extra Scrutiny

In an attempt end sexism, Aviva chief executive Amanda Blanc revealed that senior white male recruits have to get a final sign-off from her and the chief people officer. Amanda stated that this is done because she wants to make sure that the recruitment process has been diverse and carried our properly and not just via a phone call to a mate saying “Would you like a job? Pop up and we’ll fix it up for you.”

Whilst there are numerous ways to describe this approach, it is more than reasonable to label it as treating the hiring of men with suspicion simply because they are men. Wouldn’t a healthy level of suspicion at such a casual approach to recruitment be better applied across the board rather than laying it on thick when just white men are recruited for senior roles? Would it not make more sense to focus more on hiring the right person and less on their demographics? Has consideration been given to the possibility that other demographics could be casually offered job roles over the phone by their friends? Does anyone even care about that? If only the recruitment of white men into senior roles is treated with such suspicion, could this approach be taken advantage of by those who are not white men and who know their recruitment process will be carried out with less scrutiny?

The Achievements of Men? No Thank You!

Perhaps we should be asking if we are heading towards an era where men applying for jobs may do so with an unhealthy and unfair feeling of anxiety? Some may argue that we already live in that era. In December it was reported that a collection of portraits of former Chief Constables had been officially “cancelled” by Police Scotland as an example of unacceptable misogyny. Officers were asked to submit images which they felt reflected ‘everyday sexism’ within the force, and a gallery of former senior officers, who just happened to be exclusively male, was given as an example.

It is astounding that some of those who are supposed to use logic to keep law and order, investigate crime, and support crime prevention see this as an example of misogyny. This is yet another example where misogyny is not proven but assumed, and it is assumed because all those whose achievements were acknowledged are men. This alone does not evidence misogyny. Perhaps it is a bit like saying it is misandry when all/most of those acknowledged for their achievements in the nursery sector are women. What is the message here exactly? Only acknowledge the achievements of men when there is an equal number of women? Such ideology fails to acknowledged scientific findings around average sex differences related to freedom of choice regrading careers.

In November 2023 a meta-analysis covering 85 studies, including 361,645 employment applications submitted for real jobs in 26 countries over the past 44 years had some interesting findings. First, that bias against females for stereotypically male and gender-neutral jobs has disappeared or even reversed over time, whereas bias against males for stereotypically female jobs has persisted. Second, that both everyday people and scientists alike fail to fully recognise or appreciate this “progress” (not my word) and drastically overestimate anti-female bias across time. This may be progress for women but it is certainly not progress for men. An article highlighting these findings entitled ‘Success – men now face more hiring discrimination than women’ (satire? Who knows?) summaries by saying biases that used to favour men have been eliminated or reversed, whereas biases that favoured women persist virtually unchanged.

So that was 2023. A year crammed with double standards, misandry, abuse, disadvantage, prejudice and discrimination.

Let’s hope 2024 will be a better year for boys and men.

You can follow Phil on Twitter @philmitchell83 and/or sign up to his newsletter here.

The post Blog: 2023 – A year of men’s issues, misandry and double standards appeared first on Home.

Click here to read the article.

December 2023.

The post Article: Acronyms and male mental health appeared first on Home.

Click here to read.

September 2023.

The post Article: Neglected, rejected and unprotected: The sexual abuse of boys and men appeared first on Home.

An short article written for the Centre for Male Psychology responding to the campaign by EE, targeted at men to tackle sexist hate.

Click here to read

July 2022.

The post Article: Sexist hate starts with people, not just men: A response to EE’s recent campaign appeared first on Home.

Click here to read the blog.

December 2021

The post Article: Why it’s not ok to say ‘Kill all men’ appeared first on Home.

A 2016 article, highlights that men seem unable to grasp the “very real fact that misandry isn’t a real thing”, saying that misandry is only a theory; not a practice. This is simply not true. Whilst debates could occur regarding the extent to which misandry exists, I am not convinced that we can rationally question the existence of misandry when so much evidence highlights its prevalence. Misandry definitely exists. Below are a few examples.

Social experiments by BBC (1), BBC (2), Mankind Initiative and OCK TV show how male perpetrated violence against females generates a supportive response, whereas female perpetrated violence against males generates little or no supportive response with many onlookers laughing as the woman hits the man. Perhaps this is not a great surprise as the violence perpetrated by women against men is often portrayed on TV as acceptable and humorous.

Earlier in 2020 a number of girls and women recorded themselves hitting their unsuspecting male partners in the face with purses and bags in a trend that became known as the ‘purse challenge’. Another video showed women joking about abusing men, saying that men can’t say no to sex if women wanted it. In 2012 Jenny McCarthy joked about grabbing Justin Bieber’s bum referring to it as “cougar rape”. Keep the behaviour and swap the sexes. Does your perception change?

Strategies aimed at tackling violence against women and girls exist, but strategies aimed at tackling violence against men and boys do not currently exist, despite data from The Office of National Statistics highlighting that men more than women are more likely to be victims of violent crime. Furthermore, MP Ben Bradley received a torrent of abuse after suggesting it would be useful to have men’s minister.

A 2018 report highlights how boys are “barely addressed” in some legal frameworks around sexual violence, and that a number of countries have laws around rape that lack legal protection for boys. The offence of rape in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act is worded in such a way that makes it legally possible for males to perpetrate rape, but not women.

Panellists and audience members on ‘The Talk’ laughed when a woman cut off a man’s penis, and audience members of the ‘Jeremy Kyle Show’ laughed when a man shared how he was forced to jump from a three-story balcony after his abusive partner locked him in their flat.

Merchandise containing the text; “Boys are Stupid Throw Rocks at Them” can be purchased on Amazon, and huge numbers of people, including MPs, journalists and celebrities use social media to promote misandry, and dismiss and belittle the disadvantages facing boys and men. Just go to Twitter and see how many accounts are dedicated to the killing of all men, compared to how many are dedicated to the killing of all women, and see how many other online groups encourage and celebrate the abuse of males.

A 2015 article revealed findings from an international study highlighting that teachers give girls higher results than boys, even when they have produced the same quality of work. A 2020 article entitled ‘The Myth of Pervasive Misogyny’, highlights a number of studies demonstrating biases and attitudes that appear to favour women.

These are just a few examples of misandry. There are many more. Moxon (2018) highlights how findings from research indicate that misandry is real, and in 2016 Kort wrote an article entitled ‘Misandry: The Invisible Hatred of Men’ but the hatred of men is no longer invisible; in fact, it’s very visible. It’s just excused and justified to such an extreme extent that some people think it doesn’t exist. In their book ‘Spreading Misandry’ Nathanson and Young highlight that many people cannot, or will not see the evidence of misandry around them.

A recent example of misandry is the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag that was trending online, and often followed comments such as “Men are trash/scum”, “The world doesn’t need men anymore”, “I’m a proud man-hater”, “The world would be better off without men”, “All men are good for is dying in war”, “Being a man makes you an automatic failure”, and “Go and kill yourself and help increase the male suicide rate”. I could go on.

Below are some of the comments that attempt to justify, minimise and excuse misandry and the ‘KillAllmen’ hashtag, followed by a response to these comments.

“It’s only a joke”

First of all, there are a number of social media users who explicitly type “Kill All Men. I’m not joking.”

Second of all, the implication that it’s OK to “joke” about the killing of all men when the majority of homicides, suicides and work place fatalities are male, is at best, in poor taste. “Kill All Men” is not a joke. It’s a simple statement, and a pretty hateful one at that.

So many people are expecting boys and men to see the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag as a joke. Such an expectation is unreasonable, especially as these three words are often posted online with little or no context, or as a response to one man, or a small number of men displaying unacceptable behaviour. Newsflash; decent men don’t want to be tarred with the same brush as abusive men, especially as some of them have also been abused by men, any others (like men in general) do a lot more to combat abuse, than they do to perpetrate it.

In a 2016 article, referenced earlier jokes and insults made against women were condemned, but similar jokes and insults made against men appeared to be excused. A 2020 article implies that it is unacceptable to trivialise the rape of women but seems to suggest it is acceptable to joke about the killing of men.

I wouldn’t blame girls and women for getting angry and responding strongly to ‘KillAllWomen’, and I certainly wouldn’t expect them to see it as a joke, so how can it be reasonable for anyone to expect men not to get angry and respond strongly to ‘KillAllMen’ and see it as a joke? It just doesn’t make sense.

Some have responded to the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag with ‘KillAllWomen; another hashtag I do not support. Comments that often follow include “It’s OK for women to joke about killing all men because men aren’t actually being killed by women.” This is simply not true. A 2019 article highlights how Conner Cowper was killed by his girlfriend who reportedly bragged about being a man-hater. Whilst this is an extreme example, this person is not the only female killer who has murdered a male, and based on comments made on social media, she is certainly not the only person who is proud of being a man-hater.

Whilst women may not be killing men at the same rate men are killing women, both rates are rather low in the grand scheme of things, and this is not a reasonable excuse to promote the killing of all men, because of the actions of the minority.

Promoting the belief that there are reasons making it acceptable to joke about killing all men but that there are never reasons making it acceptable to joke about killing all women not only sets up an unhelpful hierarchy but also promotes a delusional and unjust belief of entitlement. How about we don’t joke about killing men or women?

“We don’t mean it”

If you don’t mean it – don’t say it. Simple. Why would you say something you don’t mean? Especially about such an emotive issue, and especially on social media where communication is open to interpretation at the best of times.

If I see an offer online saying ‘Any pizza for £5’ I will not be happy if I am later told that the offer doesn’t apply to all pizzas. The takeaway has said something they don’t mean, and not made their terms clear, subsequently resulting in conflict. Some of those who are posting ‘KillAllMen’ are not making their terms or reasoning clear, and are only doing so with poor justification after they have been challenged.

As highlighted above, some who have posted ‘KillAllMen’ follow this by saying that they do mean it and that the world does not need men because sperm can be developed from bone marrow. This implies that the only use males have is to produce sperm. A vast amount of data has highlighted the various positive contributions men have uniquely/disproportionately made to society, so that’s simply not true.

Other comments have said that women don’t really hate men, and whilst I would agree that most women do not hate men, a loud and significant minority do, with perhaps many more having contempt for men to the degree that they expect them to endure behaviour that they themselves would label as unacceptable if it was perpetrated against them.

A 2020 article says that “Kill All Men” should be seen as a cry for the death of “the patriarchy”. First of all, if you want to kill the patriarchy say “Kill The Patriarchy” not “Kill All Men”. Second of all, such a suggestion implies that the patriarchy exists, and that it’s OK to say “Kill All Men” when you actually mean “Kill The Patriarchy” because all men contribute toward and are part of “the patriarchy”. For videos that debunk Patriarchy theory see videos by Dr Jeffrey Ketland, Will Knowland and Dr Jordan Peterson

The 2020 article mentioned above also highlights that feminists don’t want men to die, they want the death of “conventional masculinity”. Perhaps we need to remember that what is being called “conventional masculinity” has played a huge role in protecting people, providing for loved ones, saving lives and building civilization.

I have been abused by women but I don’t say “Kill All Women” because I know that the majority of women are not abusers, just like the majority of men are not abusers, and if I were to say “Kill All Women” or “All Women Are Abusers” I would not mean it. How can anyone hope to engage in rational discussion or debate if we are saying things we don’t mean?

When you say “Kill All Men” don’t expect people to know that what you really mean is “Kill All Abusive Men” or “Kill All Misogynists” etc. because that is not what you have said. Some have said than ‘KillAllAbusiveMen’ doesn’t sound as good as ‘KillAllMen’ but expecting boys and men to put up with that because it sounds better, and expecting them not to respond to, or criticise such a statement is unreasonable.

“If you get offended, you are part of the problem and one of the men we are talking about”

This makes absolutely no sense, and suggests that if a man gets offended by the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag he is a problem simply because he got offended. Not only does this show some rather bizarre and distorted thinking, it implies that a man’s displeasure at the hateful comment is irrelevant compared to the reasons why people choose to make the comment. This is not only unreasonable but also very dangerous territory as it implies there are times when it’s OK to make comments that label all members of a group in a particular way based on someone’s individual experience, and the harmful actions of the minority of said group.

Imagine the increased outrage if a man said “Women who get offended with a the ‘KillAllWomen’ hashtag are part of the problem and are the very women we are talking about.” Imagine the outrage if any other group of people were expected to endure a hateful hashtag that promoted their killing because a small percentage of that group perpetrated abuse.

A 2020 article referenced earlier implies that if men are offended by the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag they do not have confidence in their treatment of, and respect for women. Not only does this show some pretty interesting mental gymnastics at play, but it’s a huge assumption that suggests men who get offended by the hashtag do not have confidence in their treatment of and respect for women. No. Men simply don’t want to be told to kill themselves because of the harmful actions of other men; the minority.

It’s also quite ironic that the author is talking about respect, when I think we can reasonably say that expecting men to endure the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag is anything but respectful.

A 2020 article referenced earlier highlights that joking can help victims process traumatic events, implying that “joking” about killing all men will help victims. This suggests that many of those who tweet ‘KillAllMen’ have been abused by men. Whilst I am sure some have, it’s reasonable to say that some have not. Many of these hateful comments are being made to spread misandry and promote a false narrative that men in general are harmful, not to help process trauma at all, and even if they, are we seriously saying that posting the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag is a healthy and acceptable way to process trauma?

If we are expecting men to stay silent whilst people are tweeting ‘KillAllMen’ in an attempt to process trauma perpetrated by men, equality means that we should also expect women to stay silent when people tweet ‘KillAllWomen’ in an attempt to process trauma perpetrated women. If we are not promoting equality, then we are promoting privilege.

Perhaps it is a lot more reasonable and helpful to find ways that process trauma that do not promote a form of hate or prejudice. I am not convinced that dealing with the consequences of one type of abuse by perpetrating a different type of abuse is the most effective way of dealing with the original abuse.

“You can’t oppress men. They are the oppressors”

The very fact that I, and many other boys and men have been told to “Shut up”, “Stop crying”, and “Stop pretending you’re oppressed” after complaining about the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag is perhaps one element that contributes towards reasonably illustrating oppression towards males .

A 2016 article referenced earlier states:

Fundamentally, a group cannot be in a position of systemic power and continue to hold that position of power, then accuse the oppressed who are trying to create a fairer world that they are being oppressive.

This is a rather rigid way of looking at things. Promoting an oversimplified narrative that suggests men are only ever the oppressors/perpetrators, and that women are only ever the oppressed/victims doesn’t just ignore the evidence that dispels such a narrative, but perhaps it also shows bias.

Another, and perhaps more realistic way of looking at things is acknowledging the possibly for a group of people to experience advantage in certain areas whilst experiencing disadvantage in other areas.

I fail to see how men can reasonably be called the oppressors when there is so much evidence and data highlighting suffering and disadvantages that disproportionately affect men.

Even if we agreed that men cannot be oppressed, does this mean it’s OK to expect them to put up with the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag? No.

“The effects of misandry aren’t as bad as the effects of misogyny”

This really depends on what effects we are talking about, and what behaviour is fuelled by misandry. If a woman hits a man because she couldn’t control her anger, this is not misandry, but if a woman hits a man because she couldn’t control her anger, and because she thinks it’s OK to hit men because men should be able to take it; that is misandry.

Colleagues and I have certainly worked with a number of boys and men who experienced horrific abuse and extreme trauma at the hands of some who clearly had misandrists views.

Even if the effects of misandry aren’t “as bad” as the effects of misogyny – so what? It’s not a competition, and just because some may believe that misogynist behaviour is worse for girls and women than misandrist behaviour is for boys and men, what are we saying? That this justifies misandrist behaviour?

In her 2020 presentation on coercive control and domestic violence, Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan states how one of the most consistent differences between men and women that is highlighted in research is that men and women differ in how much fear they report, highting that men are socialised and maybe even evolved to not express vulnerability. Perhaps this is an important point to remember in how boys and men report the adverse effects of misandrist behaviour.

Whilst some say that men are just “keen” to be victims, I really don’t think that’s the case at all. Men simply don’t want to be treated like sh*t, simply because they’re male.

The effect on boys

Commenting on findings from an Early Years survey, Kate Middleton states that how children are raised will impact future society. With this in mind perhaps we should think about how so many people posting ‘KillAllMen’ may adversely affect not only men, but also boys who will become men. A 2020 study highlights how 88% of men agree that the term ‘toxic masculinity’ may have a harmful impact on boys, so it’s perhaps not too much of a stretch to say that the constant posting of “Kill All Men” may also have a harmful impact on boys.

I saw that one boy commented on the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag online, saying that it always made him think that he should be constantly questioning if he’d done anything wrong. Colleagues and I are also starting to hear boys telling us that due to the messages they are receiving from peers, media, society, school, social media and in some cases, their parents, they are questioning if being a boy makes them bad. I have received messages from a number of boys telling me how they are expected to endure misandry and the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag, but how they don’t feel they have the confidence to challenge it. I have heard of boys being silenced in school for challenging misandry, and I have known of groups of boys being gathered in an assembly and told not to rape anyone, whilst girls are gathered in an assembly and told; their body, their choice.

Below is a quote from a boy who gave permission for his comment to be shared:

“There weren’t many boys in my class. The girls and the female teacher joked about locking all the boys in the school up saying boys are nasty and smelly and that they should all be pushed off a cliff. The girls and the teacher laughed and I just felt like I couldn’t say anything. There were more of them than me and some of the other boys didn’t really say anything. I just felt that I was hated for being a boy.”

What message are we giving our boys? Calling masculinity “toxic”, responding to boys as if they’re rapist in the making, the constant posting of ‘KillAllMen’, the regular mocking and belittling of male suffering; how is any of this going to help our boys? The boys who are already struggling with their mental health and self-confidence; the boys who are being or have been abused and are struggling to disclose and engage with services; the boys who are affected by abuse and violence in the home; the boys who are struggling in school. Do we really think such behaviours will help our boys? Do we even care?

There are established links between bullying and suicide, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag could play part in some boys taking their own life. Perhaps we are now starting to more visibly see the adverse effects of misandry. The boys of today who will become the men of tomorrow are starting to see just how rife misandry is. If we want boys to grow up to become functional and healthy men, perhaps we have a better chance of achieving this if we stop regularly making misandrist comments such as “Kill All Men”, and expecting boys and men to endure it.

Perhaps we should also think about how the ‘KillAllMen’ hashtag will be experienced by the men in our lives; the men who have helped us; the men who protected us when we needed protection; the Dads who protected their daughters from abuse, and the husbands who protected their wives and children from harm; the men who supported and protected their loved ones from abusive people; the men who worked hard to provide for their families; the men you care about who have never abused anyone but have supported you. How will these male protectors, providers and supporters feel being lumped in with the abusers they protected their loved ones from? Their sex connects them but their behaviour doesn’t.

Rather than demonising men for being male, perhaps we should start to value and acknowledge their positive contributions: the men who risk their lives to protect us; the police officers, fire fighters, rescue workers, soldiers and the men on the street. The men who contribute to our society; the construction workers building our houses; the workers maintaining our roads; the scientists and inventors developing lifesaving drugs and life changing technology.

Conclusion

Whilst some of the suffering and disadvantages uniquely/disproportionately experienced by boys and men are not necessarily because they are male (just like some suffering and disadvantages uniquely/disproportionately experienced by girls and women are not because they are female), some definitely are.

Misandry is happening on a global scale and is evidenced by the mass mocking, minimising, dismissing, encouraging and celebrating of the various forms of abuse, suffering and disadvantages experienced by boys and men: the online accounts dedicated to misandry; the absence of male-friendly services and strategies; the treatment of Dads in family courts; the male victims of domestic violence who are automatically arrested when they should be supported; the boys and men who are falsely accused of abuse; the male victims of paternity fraud; the sniggering of MPs and people of influence at the suggesting of appointing a Men’s Minister; men being labelled as abusers and rapists because they’re male, the list is endless.

A number of people told me not to write this blog, telling me I would receive online abuse and death threats. Whilst I am sadly used to receiving such abuse, perhaps such a response contributes towards why it is so important to highlight and tackle misandry.

I hope the reader will see that I am not wanting to take anything away from girls and women, and that I simply want to highlight the prevalence of misandry and the adverse effects that appear to be becoming more visible.

#SayNoToMisandry
#StopSayingKillAllMen

You can follow Phil on Twitter: @philmitchell83

The post Blog: Misandry: Stop saying “Kill all men” appeared first on Home.