Sauce for the Goose part 4 - Lived Experience

The starting point for a lot of this writing was the feeling I've always had that women are not less powerful than men. There was a time before the 1960s when women had far fewer rights than men of course, but I've never really known it like that. In my life the women and girls always seemed stronger and in many ways better than the men and boys. I come from quite a poor working class background and went to some pretty rough schools. The women in the family routinely looked down on the men - affectionately, impatiently, not in a mean way but because they saw the men as primitive, crude, smelly, immature, and not very bright. I never heard the men talk that way about the women - although there was a lot of what would now be seen as sexism, there was a lot of respect too. The men went out and brought home the money, sure, but it was the women who did the real work - managing the household and the kids - keeping things together. The men did filthy back-breaking work in all weathers while the women ran the house pretty much as they saw fit, went to the shops, met their friends for tea and had part time jobs. My mum did bar work and home-help while my dad worked at the power station. Mum would have been cycling around town in the rain, which is pretty miserable, but she loved bar work. At the same time dad told me how he had to crawl into the still-hot turbines to fix them, breathing coal dust, heavy metals, exotic hydrocarbons and asbestos. He died at 60. Mum is still going strong 24 years later. 

It's not that mum's work was a doddle - wash day especially was a slog, but I was under no illusions about which job I'd prefer. Absolutely no way did I want to do what dad did - or anything like it. 

The previous generation - my grandparent's generation - was different. In both cases the men were hard and authoritarian, and in one case, violent. One was loathed for his bad temper, the other was despised for his bigotry. Nobody respected that sort of behaviour, though nobody called the police either. In our family it was mum who lost her temper and she was pretty scary. Dad could get angry but he'd never shout because he didn't want to be like his dad.

When I got to school just after my fifth birthday I had never met another child my own age before and found the whole experience overwhelming. The boys especially seemed to be totally out of control. I don't remember being bullied much but the feeling that anything could happen at any time was always there. I was permanently on edge and hated school. The girls though generally seemed calm and confident - industrious and neat, though sometimes subtly nasty. My first friend was a little girl called Annie who told me to stop picking my nose. When mum met her later she said "You never told me she was black." I also had a little girlfriend called Maria but she left when we went to junior school. I loved Maria. My school work was a complete mess but the girl's work was always immaculate and I never felt I could live up to that standard. If anyone had asked me at the time I'd have said I wasn't doing very well but now I know I was always near the top of the school. I got nine O levels and was the only one from my class who even attempted A levels, though the stress got to me and I flunked totally. At that time the girls were still exemplary and they outnumbered us in the 6th form 21:18. The jobs I've had have been female-dominated - bar work and care work, teaching, and then gardening (not landscaping, which is very male). At university the humanities and ecology degrees had at least as many women as men. 

At no point did it ever seem like girls were in any way inferior or less capable. I wanted nothing to do with men generally. I didn't want to do what they did - the sports, the beer, the engines, the banter. 

I think it's fair to say that I felt a lot of self-loathing or even misandry, and that has stayed with me. I still don't really understand boys or men. All my life I've felt repulsed and disturbed by men and embarrassed about myself, but I've had many female friends and, given the choice, I know I'd rather have been born a girl. I don't want to be trans because, for me anyway, it would feel fake, but I've never wanted to be a man. I've always been very heterosexual because, like I said, I find men a bit repulsive physically, but at the same time I usually get on well with gay men, probably because they're not like 'normal' men. My family suspected I might be 'queer' and I'm fairly sure my dad would have been ok with it if I was. I was distinctly 'effeminate', and if I had been gay my life might have been simpler - at least I'd have known why I was different and I'd have had a bunch of people to hang out with, but I'm not. I don't really fit in anywhere - I'm probably somewhat 'neurodivergent' and strongly introvert. 

I was always a staunch feminist and believed that women were intrinsically better than men - that the world would be better run by women. I guess I've tended to put women on a pedestal. I was alert to the slightest hint of sexism or misogyny. More recently though I guess I've become more realistic. There were always things in feminist theory about how men think and feel that, being a man, I simply knew weren't true, and the fact that people I saw as strong and capable were trying to make out that I had the power in the relationship simply because of my biology seems laughable. More recently I've accepted that women can behave absolutely deplorably, while most of the men I know are actually decent people. My attitude to men has been almost like a kind of bigotry or phobia but I know now, at least rationally, that most men are ok, generous, good-hearted, well-meaning, even if I still find them difficult. At the same time I've had some dismal experiences with a few mean-spirited, aggressive, selfish women, so my opinion of the sexes has levelled out. I guess the expectation would be that a man who becomes sceptical of feminism would go to the other extreme and be anti-feminism, or anti-women, but I've just become more egalitarian. I know now that all people behave badly sometimes but are also capable of great good, and in terms of power, almost none of us has any to speak of - a few mostly old white men in the top jobs, and a few men who get what they want by violence at the bottom, but for most of us, men and women, we're just making do, getting on in the world as best we can. The most offensive thing I can say now is not that men are superior or oppressed (which would be laughable), but that men and women are really not all that different. That really upsets people. 

Most people have very little education or wealth and just don't have the time or energy or resources to even think about making the world a better place let alone doing the research - they're too busy just getting by. I think this is something my fellow progressives don't get - possibly because it's a very educated middle-class movement. I remember one exchange about the way men approach women they fancy - why they so often cause offense and fear. I said you have to remember the lives most people lead - you leave school as soon as you can, get a crappy menial job, live in a crappy estate, work incredibly hard then try to have a bit of fun on a Saturday night on your meagre wages (bearing in mind I went to school with these people - I know this stuff), and, more than anything - with no prospect of anything getting better. Probably you have some kids on top of this, and you buy stuff to relieve the monotony, and eat cheap crappy food. You don't really know anyone who lives differently so you have to fit in. You can't afford not to. And then there's the violence. So remember we were talking about how men should approach women, and this feminist man says "but there's plenty of literature out there", as if those lads off the estate are going to check the literature. 

I'm horrified at how little modern progressives know about poverty, or being working class. They denounce anyone who doesn't think the way they do and try to make out they're all fascists - not worth talking to. What they don't seem to understand is that these people are in the majority and we need to be on good terms with them if we want people to vote differently. Back in the 80s when all this was new to me, there were still powerful trades unions and a relatively left-wing Labour party. My dad was a trade-union shop-steward, and believed passionately in working class power. Now it seems these poor manual workers are beneath contempt for progressives because they won't talk or think the way educated middle-class kids say they should. Progressives who go on so much about privilege don't seem to be aware of their own when talking down to working class people, who, not surprisingly, go elsewhere and we wonder why they vote for Trump and Brexit. 

Their lack of education means they perhaps don't realise it's not in their interests, but that's not their fault. Back in the 80s we left-wingers knew that lack of education was the main reason people stay powerless. We didn't blame them for it. It was a deliberate policy on the part of right-wing parties to keep the working class down. It was not their fault. But now modern progressives don't understand why working class boys don't 'read the literature' and conclude that they're either evil or stupid and not worth talking to, and then wonder why they don't vote with us...

I was like this until recently - I remember ridiculing the working class opinions on Brexit, as if I wasn't working class myself. I was lucky - for whatever reason my dad was one of those working-class men who believed in self-improvement. There were reference books around the house, and we went to museums and zoos on holiday. I was one of the last to get a full grant to go to university and I got a BA in humanities at Brighton Polytechnic - a genuine hot-bed of radical leftist thinking. 

I've had three epiphanies over this last decade - 1. that woke/progressives really need to understand the working class and take them far more seriously if they want things to change, 2. that we need to talk, and listen, to people we don't agree with - respectfully, without putting them down or lecturing them, and also that, 3. as I said above, the distance in status between men and women now really isn't that great any more - that we're all more or less flawed and all more or less powerless and we need to work together if things are going to change.

Sauce for the Goose part 3 - Dress Codes

Being more likely to die young and not being allowed to talk about your feelings or ask for help certainly seem to me like major issues. The fact that these things are simply a given in our culture and we accept them mostly without question (and indeed ridicule anyone who brings them up as major issues) tells me this is systematic discrimination. I'm not sure anyone is consciously oppressing men - it's just the way the world is set up. 

In many ways this is how it was for women before feminism. Domestic and sexual violence were just a normal part of life, as was being burdened with endless pregnancies, as was simply being excluded from a whole range of activities that were available to men. No doubt some women objected but they were mostly urged, by their fellow women as well as men, to keep quiet about it and not rock the boat. There is safety in stability and tradition - especially for the poor and uneducated.

I've found at least three other quite major issues that are worse for men than for women, and they too are accepted as completely normal in our culture. 

The second is about dress codes. 

Women often complain that their bosses and teachers enforce dress codes on women that they don't on men - usually about hem lines (too high) and neck lines (too low), without noticing that the limitations on men are far more draconian. We don't notice this because mostly, men stick to the rules, so there are no complaints, but men who cross the line are heavily sanctioned. I'm talking about the obligatory suit, shirt and tie required of almost all men who work in offices. I've always been aware of the problem because I absolutely don't want to be cooped up in a stiff uniform all day. I've never worked in an office and never owned a proper suit. 

The suit-and-tie ensemble is pretty much totally designed to cover up any bare flesh on the man except for the hands and head. Essentially the instruction is to dress modestly. In hot weather it is perhaps ok to take off the jacket, undo the top button and roll up the sleeves, but certainly not when meeting clients, or being visible to the general public. The suit usually has to be grey or blue, maybe black, possibly brown. Men can maybe get away with having a more jolly tie or socks - but not too gaudy. Jewellery maybe a simple ring or cufflinks, or a watch. Obviously no make-up and short hair is standard. Women in the same office may have short sleeves, a lower neckline, and maybe calf- or knee-length skirts or dresses in a whole range of shapes, colours and fabrics, or they can dress modestly in a suit (trouser or skirt) of a more sombre colour if they want to. They can wear earrings, bracelets, necklaces and rings, and any amount of make-up and hair styling, all without being pulled in by HR for indecency. There are cases of men being pulled in for wearing skirts - plain and modest, but for most men it would not be worth the trouble, or the ridicule. It's just not done. 

Outside of the office, men and women in most jobs are required to wear overalls or other work wear. I'm a gardener and most of us, men and women, wear various sorts of outdoor wear - fleeces, work boots, shorts etc - and it's all fairly unisex. 

Away from work, again women can wear an extremely wide range of outfits that I am not qualified to describe, but men generally wear some sort of trousers and tops combo - jeans and tee-shirts and trainers most obviously, usually again in fairly plain colours - white, grey, blue, black, brown, maybe some green. You can have a colourful logo on your tee shirt maybe, or if you really want something colourful, wear a football shirt. Women of course can also wear plain modest clothes too if they want. Nobody will object.

A trip to any high-street clothes shop - comparing the men's to the women's section illustrates this very well. The men's is usually smaller, much less colourful and far less varied. Frankly it's incredibly boring and although I'd like to dress in a more interesting way I've found it very difficult to find anything inspiring. In fact it's so difficult, it's hard to imagine what the alternative might be, but we went through a phase in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s (my formative years) when men's fashion was as extravagant as anything women wore but now that look, with the flares, the wide collars, the platforms, the glam, the long hair, the eye make-up, the bling, and most of all, the bare skin, is laughable and liable to get you attacked in the street. Gay pride can get away with it, at least for the day, and tellingly, black men still seem to be permitted a more stylish wardrobe.

This may seem a rather trivial complaint but making yourself look fabulous has been a basic part of human culture forever. People think it's just a throw-away superficial thing but I see it as a genuine art form. When my step-daughter was hugely excited to receive a huge box of make-up for Christmas my feminist mind was saddened to think she was so in the clutches of western commercialised sexist culture, but I was wrong. For her it was as much an art as any paints or musical instrument might have been. We've been making jewellery and decorative clothes with coloured cloth, feathers and fur, using body paint and piercings and mucking about with our hair since the dawn of humanity, and many cultures still do. The western countries did until quite recently, but now look what's happened to us. How terribly dull we've become! It's a form of self expression as important as singing and dancing, but which western men can also only do under fairly prescribed circumstances, and often only in a very modest way. Imagine not being allowed to dance for fear of being ridiculed or even attacked.

Women's complaint about clothing is that there are social pressures - they are 'expected' to wear certain kinds of clothes - to sexualise them, so men can objectify them. My feeling is that women really don't have to go along with expectations or social pressure. It may be difficult sometimes but nobody is actually forcing them to wear sexy clothes. Many women don't and people do not point and laugh. Women now have the power to not do what society tells them if they wish, but only women can grasp that opportunity - we can't do it for them. Don't wait for other people to stop criticising - there will always be critics. If you don't want to wear sexy clothes - don't. It really is as simple as that. 

But also it seems most of the pressure does not come from men. Frankly we are nowhere near as bothered about this stuff as women seem to think we are. We don't mind if your clothes are from last year, or last century for that matter. We don't generally care if you're carrying a few extra pounds, and we often would rather you wear less make-up. There are of course some young men especially, for whom what woman you're with is a matter of status - like which car you own or what watch you wear, and among their kind, there is a lot of bitching, but for the majority of men, no, it's not that big a deal. But no, a lot of the flack comes from other women, who are far harsher judges than men, and of course this all has its roots in the fashion, cosmetics, surgery and dieting companies, which are absolutely enormous powerful wealthy industries. Women talking about who is judging them should probably look closer to home. You don't have to do what the adverts tell you to do, but it's certainly not men's fault if you do. We have our own social pressures to deal with (of which, more later).

And of course women are very free with their criticism and derision of men - and particularly venomous when it comes to how we try to make ourselves attractive. One theme that I will come back to repeatedly is that it's unrealistic to campaign about men being rude to women when women are so rude to men. Men are also rude to each other and from what I gather, women can be extremely rude to other women. The reason people generally aren't so much rude to men about their clothes is because, as I said about office wear, mostly we stick to some very narrow rules - our rather plain modest and unimaginative clothing is just not that interesting. If we do step out of line sartorially though we get pilloried. I remember the African politician who appeared in the House of Commons recently in a suit but no tie - oh the outrage. Likewise the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appearing in the US Capitol without a suit.

Women can choose to dress interestingly, or not. Men don't have that choice unless they are very bold. Women get criticised because there is something to have an opinion on, whereas with men, generally, there's nothing much to say because we don't dare step out of line. 

So who is the more oppressed here?

Sauce for the Goose part 2 - Early death

It seems like a lot of people have a real problem with the idea that some things are better for women now than for men. It's unthinkable, ridiculous, not even worth considering. A friend on here a while back told me there's nothing men suffer from 'simply because they are men' and at the time I went quiet because, like everyone else I know, I've been educated to believe that life is worse for women in pretty much every way. It's just a given. That said I know I've really struggled with the way the world is set up and many women I know have done much better than I have - they have more money, more status, more security. The idea that they have less power than I do, and I should act like I have the advantage over them seems like a bizarre thing to do. I just don't. And I know I'm not unusual. I've known plenty of men who have also had a hard time of it. 

So, me being me, instead of taking my friend's word for it, I decided to find out whether what he said was really true. It took a while because deep down I also believe that men are supposed to be big and tough and that complaining about our lot is just whingeing. I should man up - pull myself together – grow a pair. As it happens though, I found a few ways in which men are seriously worse off than women. 

The first one is that men are more likely to die young than women by every means except childbirth - by accidents, suicide, addiction, crime... That seems like quite a big deal to me. If it were true of women it would be a major plank of the women's rights campaign, and yet somehow, it doesn't seem to matter that much. It's just life.

For a start, men have always been expected to do the more dangerous jobs. Men were always the ones sent down the mines, out to sea, off to war. Somehow the ruling class has convinced us that these jobs are respectable, honourable, admirable, when actually they’re unspeakably horrible. Health and safety and mechanisation have meant that a lot of the old dangerous jobs are gone but still men are the ones operating heavy machinery, working on the roads, on building sites, in warehouses and still getting crushed and mutilated and poisoned and burned. Driving is one of the most dangerous things any of us do and it's mostly a male job. Simply being out in all weathers strimming the verge or collecting the bins is pretty tough and still dominated by men. Despite 100 years of feminism I don’t see many women wanting these jobs (I certainly don’t want one). I've seen a couple of memes poking fun at men who complain about how tough their lives are but the men in the pictures are invariably affluent middle-class men, presumably complaining about the pressures of executive life.  I have a feeling that modern progressives simply don't notice the people who do most of the hard graft. Women's work may be menial and tedious but it's rarely life-threatening. Recently there was a tribunal for women working in a shop to get equal pay with the men in the warehouse (which I applaud - working class people deserve all the help they can get). But the two jobs are not the same. In the warehouse we have heavy machinery moving about and heavy goods on tall shelves. The worst the shop workers have to face is an abusive customer, when they call the (usually male) security staff. An exception that's come to prominence recently is the genuine dangers care staff - mostly female - face, nursing Covid patients, but it's unusual. Generally female dominated jobs are not dangerous. Prostitution is another example sometimes cited, with women asking why these women didn't have training for careers, like men, but the male equivalent is not well paid skilled tradesmen - the male equivalent is drug dealers and thieves - men who have no choices in life but to do something illegal. It's important we compare like with like in these debates. 

The other huge problem is traditional (or toxic) masculinity which requires young men to prove themselves by doing exciting and dangerous things. In some cases this might be extreme sports or challenging careers, but for the less privileged it means driving too fast, drinking too much, pulling idiotic stunts, and getting into fights - trying to impress both their mates and the girls. The obvious reply to this is that they don't have to do all this stupid stuff - it's their choice, but then so is the endless dieting and worrying about their appearance that women do - making themselves sick with eating disorders and cosmetic surgery. The assumption is that men have more choice than women in this and could simply stop if they wanted to, whereas women are compelled by irresistible social pressures. My 'lived experience' however is that we're subject to the way the world is set up. 

This brings me to the next thing which is that men are far less able to deal with their problems because men are just not allowed to talk about how they feel or even think about it, far less ask for help. Mostly we get drunk and make a joke of it. The result is 'self-medication', self-harm and ultimately suicide. Again I suspect the fact that a lot of progressives don't recognise this is because it's essentially a middle-class movement and most of them have a fair bit of education and time to think.  Most men don’t have that. One I spoke to told me “There’s plenty of literature out there" as if the lads off the estate know anything about that. It's just not in their culture. It's not part of their lives. They're too busy surviving. And they're the majority - not some tiny irrelevant minority. 

Men are twice as likely to be murdered as women and as likely to be the victims of violence. A lot of progressives I've spoken to simply refuse to believe this, but murder is the best recorded crime - almost no murders go unrecorded, and men almost certainly don’t report most violent crime (I certainly didn’t – it would have been their word against mine and the police would probably have told me to learn to stick up for myself). Why do we not care about this? Do we think men are ‘asking for it’? or that we're all as bad as each other, so it's a kind of consensual violence? They speak of us 'getting into a fight' when normally it's a bunch of hard lads randomly attacking some poor soft boy. Never have I ever 'got into a fight' but I've been attacked a few times. 

Men are also more likely to be homeless. It’s true, women are more likely to be living in poverty but that's more single mums who receive some sort of accommodation and benefits. Men are more likely to be destitute – on the street, addicted, turning to crime to survive. 

It feels like we're inured to male injury and death. Every action movie, crime drama, western, and super hero movie there are men being shot and killed, beaten up or tortured, all over the place. It's fun. Bloodied men limp away with a flinch and wry smile. Hollywood is strewn with the bodies of dead men, but if you want to make a film that really disturbs people, have female victims (a serial killer most likely), where you can really feel what's going on. People campaign against violence against women and girls but they are far less likely to be attacked by a stranger in the street than a man. Men should be scared to go out at night but of course we're not supposed to show fear, whereas women are raised to be scared of all sorts of things - snakes and spiders, mice and men, and to be free to express their fear with screams and running away. It’s even considered attractive. Any man who expresses his fear is likely to be ridiculed or excluded. You pretty quickly learn to act like you're not scared of anything, with predictable results.

At the start of the Ukraine war a story emerged of a woman raped by Russians in front of her children. It was atrocious of course, but the fact that her husband who had been trying to defend them, had been killed hardly warranted a mention. The mother will go on to try to help her traumatised children. The man simply won't be there at all. 

It's almost like we still believe that rape is a fate worse than death. Suggesting there's some sort of comparison between sexual assault against women and the killing of men is considered deeply offensive because crimes against women simply are considered more serious than crimes against men. For most people that goes without saying. Men dying or being injured just doesn't matter all that much. I know two men who have permanent brain damage from being kicked in the head. People probably assumed they were asking for it. It's women and children first. Around the time Sarah Everard was killed I remember a young man called Bill Henham was savagely beaten and pushed out of a window at a party in Brighton and died, and I think maybe I heard two mentions on national news. I noted at least two other men were killed about that time and got a mention in the local press. Sarah Everard's death provoked a national campaign against violence against women and girls. Does anyone even know who Bill Henham was? 

There are also homophobic and racist attacks to consider - black men, gay men and transwomen are far more likely to be attacked than their female counterparts. A big story that appeared in all the papers a while back was of a pair of lesbians being attacked on the tube but it was a big story precisely because it's so rare. Women simply aren't attacked by strangers in public places anything like as often as men are. The violent crime stats for women are almost entirely about domestic and sexual violence in private places, by someone they know.

Finally, men tend to have weaker immune systems than women, so when they were talking about groups that were more likely to die of Covid, they mentioned certain ethnic groups but ignored the fact that men are more likely to die than women. Women being more likely to get long Covid though (because they have stronger immune systems) has been portrayed as yet another way women are disadvantaged. I have long covid as it happens and it's a pain, but I'd rather that than death.

None of this means I'm against women's rights, or that I think women are oppressing men, or even that men are overall worse off than women. Sometimes it seems people believe that conceding that men suffer in any way at all somehow implies that women don't. Maybe they think it devalues women's suffering - because men's suffering doesn't really matter that means women's suffering doesn't either. We all know the myriad ways women suffer in this world. Feminism has done an incredibly good job of alerting us to the many ways women are oppressed. We’ve been steeped in women's grievances since we were teenagers, and I don't really feel I should have to repeat all that here. There's an immense literature about how women's lives fall short and I don't feel the need to add to it, so I'm taking it as read. Nobody doubts women have had a bad time of it in all sorts of ways. This series of essays is written to tackle the assumption that men don't suffer in any significant way. My point is not that women don’t suffer, but that we all suffer, and almost all of us are powerless to change things. We are all oppressed by the way the world is set up. As always what I'm saying is that we're all in trouble and we should be getting together to change this - not bickering over who is more oppressed.

Sauce for the Goose part 1 - Women's Rights vs. Equality

I've been feeling for quite some time now that feminism has been going a bit off track. It's gone from women saying "Why can't we have the same rights as men?" (which nobody I know has a problem with) to "Why can't men be the way women want them to be?" 

Don't get me wrong - I am still very much the egalitarian - I believe in equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunities and so on, for everyone, and women have achieved immense amounts in a remarkably short time (relative to the many millenia of patriarchy). Feminism has been a huge success and I for one am very happy about that. I've certainly found it very liberating. How men and women relate to each other has been one of my main interests in life as long as I can remember (alongside gardening and ecology). For the last 60 years or so, the study of men and women has been largely a feminist enterprise - concentrating almost entirely on how society treats women badly and men have all the power, but there is also a psychotherapeutic perspective which is more broad-minded, but mostly done in private, where I've always been painfully aware that men are often far from powerful. In short there's a profound mismatch between how feminism portrays men politically, and how they really are in private. But as we know, the private is political. Lately it's become obvious that feminist theory has deep holes in it.

The first response to what I'm saying will of course be women saying "Who cares what you think of feminism? You're a man. Who are you to tell women what they should or shouldn't want?" and I agree - anyone can say anything they like - as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I can think and say anything I want too but I can't simply impose my will. Unless you plan to be a despot you have to persuade people you are right. They won't simply do as they're told - no matter how right you think you are. You need to convince people - either politicians directly or the people who elect them. In politics - unless you are trying to change people's minds you aren't really doing anything more than complaining. You can be angry - you can shout at people and call them names or lecture them or cancel them but unless you change their minds you're just preaching to the converted. They won't go away with their tails between their legs - they'll go away and talk about it among themselves elsewhere. The only difference is you won't be involved in the debate anymore. I think some activists forget this - they think just shouting and marching is political action. I made this mistake in the 2000s - thinking we'd won because racism and sexism and homophobia were so rarely heard in the media or on the streets nowadays. And then 2016 came along and we had Trump and Brexit and it was obvious it hadn't gone away at all. They'd just gone somewhere else to talk about it. And they voted.

I'm not 'telling' anyone what to do. My voice has no more power than anyone else's. This is just my point of view here. Feel free to ignore it and move on. I am under no illusions as to how much influence I have. I can assure you that nobody in the world is compelled to do anything at all by me. I'm here to communicate, to debate, and yes, to change people's minds, or at least, perhaps to throw a tiny grain of doubt in people's beliefs so  maybe they won't be quite so intransigent next time. I know they won't admit to it but you never really know what people take away with them. Ideas niggle at you, and they spread. Am I willing to change my mind? Absolutely, and I have done recently on some pretty major issues - not least that shouting at people and insulting them doesn't work, but that talking to them respectfully, and listening, to find common ground, is pretty much the only way. I too was arrogant and self-righteous and thought was 'making a difference'. My mind was changed by a friend on Facebook who was canvassing voters in 2016 USA. She believed in actually talking to Republicans - finding common ground. She said she usually felt she made some sort of progress. I was a bit dismissive I admit but the idea stayed with me and now here I am. Sadly we lost touch so she doesn't know she changed my mind.

A belief that gets in the way here that I see very often among my fellow progressives, is that the other side are not worth talking to. They even seem to get some satisfaction out of dismissing the opinions of well over half the population as irrelevant. It feels like, to them, being right (or rather, self-righteous) is more important than actually changing things. They seem to view 'the other side' as extremists and fascists, violent white supremacists and bigots, when in fact most of them are just ordinary people with a mixture of different opinions and feelings - some compassionate and informed, others, not so much. It all depends so much on wealth, education, and where you come from, and conditioning none of us can escape with ease, and yet they're treated as if they're simply wilfully evil or stupid - well able to be different - they just don't want to be. It's a common conservative attitude too - to the poor and the mentally ill - that they could try harder but they don't bother. They like being evil and stupid. It's a choice they make and they won't change. One thing is certain - if all you do is insult and sneer at them they definitely won't listen - they'll just dig in. The kind of modern progressive politics popularly known as Woke politics is exactly this. It makes no attempt to talk to people it disgrees with - it just shouts them down ('No Debate!') and imagines that's a good way to bring about change. So much for 'kindness'. One thing that has astonished and saddened me about the new breed of progressive activist is how little psychology they know. They just don't seem to understand how people work. Given the urgency of the Climate Change situation, to me this seems monumentally stupid. My impression of them generally is that they only read things they agree with, and won't talk to anyone whose opinions diverge in any way from theirs. To be seen talking to the other side is tantamount to treason. They imagine that conservatives feel 'validated' when a progressive talks with them - as if our validation matters so much to them. Personally I would speak to the foulest Nazi if there was the slightest chance the conversation might knock a tiny hole in their beliefs. I would consider that a very good day's work. But progressives don't have the time apparently - as if they have something more important to do. Mainly I think being a progressive has become a club. All you do is join in the activities, agree with each other about everything, and feel jolly proud of yourself. At least you're doing something...

There are two reasons why a man's view of feminism is worth having. One is that what women want does affect men. Feminism is to a great extent about getting men to change, and unless they expect men to simply unquestioningly do as they're told, they need to persuade us that it's the right thing to do. I'm not talking about crime here. Feminism has already changed the law about violent and threatening behaviour and discrimination in the workplace etc. The law needs applying better no doubt but that's a different campaign. No, I'm talking about feminism wanting to change the way men think and talk and behave - things about how men should approach women they're attracted to, or give advice, or do the chores - things that come under the heading of 'Everyday Sexism'. These are not a matter of law – they’re more about politeness, or decency - the correct way to behave in society, and they are more a matter of education or persuasion or guidelines. Much as women get very angry about these things, they still can't expect men to simply do as they're told. I don't unquestioningly do as I'm told by anyone - male or female. If you want me to do things your way you will need to convince me that you're right. I won't just roll over, whoever you are.

The second thing is that if women want men to change, they'll need to understand what’s going on with men. If you want to change something you need to understand it. Now, I know many woman seem to think they understand men very well and don't need to know any more, but I’m here to assure them they don't. I have been told how I feel, what I want and what I think by women so many times, and they almost always get it wrong. Often they're using some out-dated stereotype - some old 1960s truism like "You're all the same, you men", or "You're only after one thing" or perhaps some over-simplified feminist theory about power or violence, most of which are laughable when you think about what actual life is like for most ordinary men. Sadly, one of the basic tenets of feminist theory seems to be that women understand men better than men do themselves and that’s bound to cause trouble. Many women get very angry when it is suggested they actually go and ask men what men really think, feel or want. “All those books were written by men” they say. "We've read quite enough about men thank you very much!" I can guess how they'd respond if I said I knew all about what it's like to be a woman because I read a lot of books, but actually I'd probably be in a better position because there are so many books about what it's like to be an ordinary woman. When I used to read novels, a lot of them were women's literature. I preferred them because the books by men just seemed so distant. They were about things, events and ideas - science, religion, history. They were so external. Women's books were about relationships, growing up, getting a job, struggling with life. I can think of nothing I read about how it feels to be an ordinary man. I dare say such books exist but I don't remember any. One of the problems for men is they often don't really know how they feel or what they think, because they're trained by masculinity not to think about that stuff - far less to talk about it. I've heard good-hearted, sensitive men accede to the powerful violent image feminism has given them - "Yes we are so powerful and aggressive" says the man with no money, no self-esteem, no status, and no real sense of what his life is for. "It's a man's world" he adds apologetically. It's a deep kind of cognitive dissonance.

The main thing maybe women would discover if they did actually go and ask men what it's like to be a man, is the deep sense of inadequacy and humiliation many of us feel. A small number of us are, of course, very powerful, and rich. There are far too many old white men in top jobs - we all know this, but contrary to feminist theory, the rest of us do not benefit from some sort of patriarchal trickle-down effect. The idea that the rest of us get some sort of 'privilege' from having the same genitalia as the billionaires is frankly ludicrous. What progressives forget (being a very middle-class movement) is that most of us are working class, on low incomes, with very little in the way of prospects. Most people have no real power at all. 'Privilege' belongs to the affluent educated college kids who tell us what we should think. 

But what about the pay gap? This currently stands at 8 or 9% in the UK but that of course doesn’t mean that men in general get 8 or 9% more than women. The average is skewed by that ‘long tail’ of mostly male high-earners whose incomes go up into the millions and beyond. Most of us are way down near the bottom. But anyway, ONS data says that for the under 40s there is no pay gap, and among school-leavers, girls are doing better than boys. The real inequality is not between men and women but between that top 10% (mostly male) and the rest of us – and that gap has been growing since the 1980s. It’s also worth noting here that there are more men at the bottom as well. More women live in poverty it’s true, but they are mostly single mums who are entitled to some sort of accommodation and benefits. The genuinely destitute (homeless, addicted, involved in petty crime) are mostly men.

The other powerful people are the violent criminals, most of whom are men of course. Most criminals are men but most men are not criminals. Lately it seems feminism has tried to make out that violence is a normal part of male behaviour, when in fact violence is a crime, and like all other sorts of crimes, it is overwhelmingly perpetrated by a small minority of re-offenders. This is a basic fact of criminology. Most men are not violent. It's not normal behaviour. Most men are not criminals. One BBC Radio 4 presenter who should have known better said that since most women are victims of violent crime, most men must be perpetrators, but a moment's thought tells us that that is just obviously not true. We’ve all had stuff stolen at some point but are we all thieves? But women will say "But how would you know? Look at your friends. It could be any one of them" but I would be astonished if any of the male friends I’ve known over the years was a violent criminal. I don’t think I’m that bad a judge of character. I have come across violent men of course - every Saturday, going into town, we knew exactly who to avoid, who not to make eye-contact with and which pubs not to go in. We knew who they were. We didn't mix with them. I've also heard women complain that, even if it is only a few men, we can't tell which are violent so we don’t trust any of you, but that exact same argument has been used to try to prevent Muslims from entering the country (because you can't tell which ones are terrorists) and to keep mentally ill people in institutions (because some of them might be dangerous). No - that way of thinking is a kind of paranoia and does nothing for women's freedom - to be afraid of half the population does no good to anyone. Every car coming in the other direction could cross the midline and kill you. Every large dog could tear your face off. It happens, but most of us don't live in fear of cars and dogs. And there will always be crime. I can't think of a single instance where any type of crime has ever been eradicated. There will always be criminals. There's a popular meme calling for "An end to violence against women" when we know there will always be a few violent men out there. It’s like campaigning for an end to robbery or fraud. It’s not going to happen. We should take precautions of course (dismissed as 'victim-blaming' by campaigners), avoid dangerous situations and look out for suspicious behaviour. If crimes happen, we report them to the police and hope to get the criminal convicted, and if the legal system lets us down, we can campaign about that. That's how it is with crime. Crimes happen and they're terrible, but no amount of women reclaiming the night is going to change that. Men talking to each other in locker rooms is not going to change that. Good men changing their behaviour has no effect on what bad men do. (UK crime stats by the way show that men are just as likely to be victims of violent crime as women and twice as likely to be murdered. Women point out that men are also the perpetrators, but I fail to see how that makes it any better. More on this later.)