SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 15 - Unthinkable

I've been thinking about how men and women relate and interact pretty much my entire adult life. It's a fascinating subject. Most of that time my thinking has been dominated by the feminist take on it but more recently I've had to recognise that there are two sides to the story. On a few occasions I've been scolded for daring to comment on a woman's post about men and accused of mansplaining when I try to explain the men's perspective. Surely mansplaining is when a man tells a woman about something she knows more about. This seems like the opposite. Some are suspicious of my need to comment on women's issues at all, but if the subject is how men and women interact, then I think I'm completely free to contribute. They could just ignore me, or block me. Instead we get into a lengthy exchange, and then they accuse me of hijacking the conversation. What has been universal is how vehemently feminists have resisted my attempts to look at the other side. In some cases they pretty much insist that there is no other side - men just have to shut up and listen, and do as they're told. Now obviously that's not going to happen - people just don't work that way - but especially when a lot of us know that what's being said about us simply isn't true - or isn't the whole story. But we're supposed to just keep quiet and accept it?

One thing I've been saying all along is not that men are right/good and women are wrong/bad. It's often assumed by activists that if you disagree with what they say, you must be saying the opposite (see for example Andrew Tate and his misogynist ilk) but I'm saying something far more radical - that men and women are not very different – that they’re about as bad/good as each other - that we're all human - we're all messed up and there's good and bad in all of us. This apparently is deeply offensive. They really need women to be better than men. Certainly violence is usually something men do but women are absolutely as capable of every other sort of abuse (emotional and psychological) as men, and arguably more so - because they don't tend to fall back on violence. Plus as I've said, the vast majority of men are not violent, so it's a bit of a straw man. I know nobody who thinks violence is acceptable - violent people need to be arrested, tried and put away - it's actually very simple. It's the rest of it that's complicated.

 

To most people this idea that everybody's flawed and we all do good and bad things, right and wrong things is obvious, but then if you get into a debate about men and women something very strange happens. Suddenly we're expected to put all the blame on men and simply take it that women don't do anything wrong. I come across this all the time in conversations, and it seems to be implicit in every conversation about women's rights. It’s as if, if we admit that women do bad stuff, that the entire feminist edifice will crumble. It will be the thin end of the wedge. This conceit that oppressed people are eternally blameless infects practically every left/right debate I see. I can see why campaigners want to maintain this image - it keeps the message simple and easy to sloganize - but it's so obviously not true to the other side that it makes a mockery of any attempt to negotiate. So we just end up demonising each other.

Obvious though this is there is a subtle but powerful set of traditional beliefs underlying the feminist message - so subtle it's almost impossible to put into words. I know because it's deeply ingrained in me too. Most of my life they’ve been my basic assumptions, and it has taken an awful lot of soul-searching to see it clearly. I still feel like a bit of a fraud when I articulate it in public.

The first thing is that men have all the power and women have none. I still hear women say this despite all evidence to the contrary. In any conflict between a woman and a man the assumption is that the man must be at fault. It's practically hard-wired into us and has been all my life - way before I knew about feminism. The women is always the innocent victim. If she does something obviously bad (violence, infidelity) then the man must have driven her to it.

Once you notice it you see it everywhere - when I told my partner that a friend's ex had sold his record collection when they broke up she said, "I wonder what he did to deserve that?" She's normally a very fair-minded person who likes men but her automatic reaction was to assume it was his fault.

I stopped watching Riot Girls because one of the characters’ development depends on her writing songs about her shit boyfriend. It never occurs to anyone to wonder what actually happened and if it really was all his fault (if the subject gets tackled later in the series I apologise to the writers).

A recent episode of Add To Play List on Radio 4 applauded Lily Allen for trashing David Harbour on her latest album - assuming unquestioningly that obviously he deserved it.

Many groups on Facebook are infested with posts where women slag off their exes - not just women's groups but fan groups, AI art groups, neurodivergent groups, music groups. In every instance the comments are supportive of the women and do not doubt that the man was at fault. I often comment "I need to hear the other side of this" just to remind people that another side exists. Apparently though this is deeply offensive - there is no other side. The woman is entirely blameless. In one case - on a neurodivergent group - a woman was complaining that her male partner got very upset about loud noises and wanted silence, and of course everybody came out on her side - accusing him of being controlling and abusive, but I wonder how it would have gone if it was the woman who needed silence and the man who wanted noise? My guess is they would have supported the woman's need for peace and quiet and denounced the man's selfishness. 

In contrast it's remarkable how rarely I see posts of men complaining about the women in their lives. There'd be plenty no doubt if I went into the manosphere, but I don't see those complaints in mainstream groups on other subjects - it's just not done. In real life - in the past, I've almost never heard men putting their female partners down. I heard it more when I was a kid but even then not often. Some women seem to believe that the men's world if full of misogynists denigrating the women they know to their mates and abusing them when they get home, but that's simply never been my experience, and unlike women, I know what men say when women aren't around. I'm not saying it never happens but I've never heard a man say that women are inferior of evil. Many men believe women are better than men. These days, if your partner is upsetting you, you keep it to yourself. In some circles I know, any criticism of a woman is likely to get you labelled a sexist or misogynist, and behind that there's still a lot of chivalry. I know feminists find this laughable but the need to protect women is deep in masculine conditioning. Well before feminism went public in the 60s, being mean to the woman in your life was deeply unacceptable. Of course it happened, and back then the police did not get involved. I had one relative who was known to have hit his wife and his daughter, and he was held in contempt by everyone. I was brought up with the very clear instruction not to hurt girls (not that I would have hurt anyone) but hurting boys was ok. Men only talk about their relationship problems one to one down the pub with a close friend, and then apologetically, because they feel deep down that it's all their own fault somehow.

It took me a very long time to stop taking all the blame when my first marriage fell apart. I felt so guilty that I simply left her the house we jointly owned rather than claim my share. It was much later that it really sank in how badly she'd behaved. I certainly didn't behave impeccably but essentially I was a naive schmuck who got dragged into an impossible situation.

Even now, knowing this, I know people will read this and be going "Yeah right - what did you really do?" because somehow it has to be my fault. I've considered describing the whole sorry tale here to show what I mean, but I know that if people really want to blame me it won't matter what I say - they'll say, "yes but you could have done better". The urge to make the woman the innocent victim - no matter how badly she behaved - is incredibly strong - even in me. Still - what I'm saying is that we both handled things badly - for all sorts of reasons, and really, like all such stories, the moral is that we shouldn't have been together. No doubt she could have been very happy with someone else (and I hope she is) and I've certainly had very much better relationships since. (The idea that the shit people do in one relationship tells you all you need to know about how they’ll be in all relationships is idiotic. None of us gets things right the first time and we can all learn from experience.)

I think what's happening now is that a lot of men know deep down that they're not to blame for everything - that women behave badly too - and feminists really don't like that. Like all political activists they need to maintain the moral high-ground in every possible way at all times. There can be no chink in the armour. I've come across a lot of women - friends and girlfriends - good people in every other way - who simply can't bring themselves to admit that they messed up in a relationship. It simply has to be somehow the man's fault. They may be compassionate about what his problem is (insecurity, anxiety, autism, depression etc) but it still has to be his problem and she did nothing wrong.

 

This is the bedrock. He has all the power - therefore he is responsible for anything that goes wrong. She is the innocent victim - therefore she is not. She has all these obstacles ranged against her - he doesn't. The idea that anything really goes wrong for men is laughable - it's simply not an admissible argument. If men do have any problems it has to be their own stupid fault - because they could make things better if they really wanted to - they just choose not to. At the same time men are kind of stupid - they don't really know what's going on. If there's any dispute between men and women then the men should simply shut up and listen. "Believe women" is the campaign slogan - unquestioningly accept their side of the story, because after all, there isn't another side to the story. For the record - I don't unquestioningly accept what anyone says - man or woman.

It took me quite a long time to take seriously the idea that men have real problems. I suspected it was so because my life has been such a struggle, but it felt like whining - because we shouldn't complain - we should man up and deal with it. I'd been conditioned so thoroughly to believe that women are good and men are bad, I couldn't even take my own issues seriously. A common response to this is that I'm saying that women oppress men (on the assumption that, since I am critiquing feminism, I must be saying the total opposite of what feminists say) but I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we're all oppressed by the way society is set up - which gives us all these ridiculous crippling gender roles. My epiphany came when I read that men are far more likely to die young than women by every means except child-birth, and twice as likely to be murdered. These are solid statistics - not 'lived experience' anecdotal evidence bullshit, and they tell us not just that there is this huge horror at the centre of men's lives but also that it somehow doesn't matter very much to most people. It’s just the way it is. Violence against women and girls is the big campaign. The men somehow deserve to die - or it's their own stupid fault - because aren't we all so powerful? No - we're not. This realisation connected me with my working-class roots and the nature of the pay gap, which is not at all what it seems, and that told me, as I keep saying, that hardly anyone has any power or wealth to speak of. As usual my argument is not the mirror image of the feminist argument (that men are especially hard-done-by) but that we're all oppressed by that tiny minority of old white men at the top, and all these culture wars are just a distraction from our real battle, which is bringing them down.

Can we not all agree on that?

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 14 - Gaslighting

I'm well aware that the women I get into 'debates' with on social media might not be representative of women in general. I've known plenty of women in real life who do not share some of their more extreme views, and many of them seem to even quite like men. Strange but true. 

There are though some basic assumptions that almost all women seem to share - the most pervasive being that we men are all powerful, confident, strong, and generally at ease in what they see as a 'man's world'. Bad things do not really happen to men - or if they do, it's their own silly fault. If something goes wrong in a relationship it's generally assumed to be the man's fault. If the woman does something obviously wrong (violence or infidelity) then the man must have driven her to it. In contrast, women are ever the powerless, blameless victims. This means that, in disagreements between men and women, the men's point of view is worse than worthless - it's an impertinence. A man explaining his perspective on the subject is simply 'mansplaining'. Only the woman's perspective is valid. 

The usual explanation for this is that we've heard enough of men telling us what's what and it’s time to listen to the women 'for a change'. The problem with that is that although men wrote all those big books, they're very rarely about ordinary men's every-day lives - what your ordinary man in the street feels, thinks or wants. They're writers, academics, priests and politicians pontificating on the world at large, generally avoiding the subject of what men actually feel on a day-to-day basis. This is the opposite of 'women's literature' which has covered every possible aspect of women's lives - work, relationships, parenting, sex and just generally coping with life. I used to read quite a lot of fiction but tended to avoid men's writing because I just couldn't relate to it. I preferred women's writing because it tackled the ordinary everyday events and feelings they have to deal with. I confess I still don't really know enough about how men think or feel, because they just won't talk about it - even in literature - unless they're some kind of criminal or outsider. An editor told me that novels simply shouldn't be about the kind of experiences I wrote about - insecurities and anxieties and failures and embarrassments. The facade must be maintained - even if we injure ourselves and others maintaining it. 

Many women seem to think the same thing - they believe in the man as powerful, confident, strong, and generally at ease in the world, and see men who show their feelings as needy, creepy or weak. It's odd to me that modern feminism seems to have swallowed traditional gender roles so uncritically. There was a time, back in the 80s, when sensitive, feminine men were considered cool, we were all 'new men', ‘in touch with our feminine side’. In the 90s we were 'metrosexual'. Now young men who are not traditionally masculine must identify as gay, queer or trans in order to be acceptable at all. Other (cishet) men, not surprisingly, have to go to the other extreme. There is no in-between anymore. I've never been very masculine myself, but I've never been much interested in how I look, or wanted to have sex with men, so frankly, if I were young now, I don't know where I'd fit in. 

The problem here is that women think they do know what it's like to be a man - better than men do in many cases. I've been accused of mansplaining when I'm talking about how the man feels in an interaction between a man and a woman. Apparently only the woman's opinion is relevant. Despite the fact that there are two people involved, only one of them gets a voice. The woman explains how the woman feels and also, how the man feels. When I've disagreed with the woman's assertions about what a man thinks, feels or wants, I've been dismissed - because what would I know? I'm just a man and women know better. I've recounted occasions when my intentions were misunderstood, ignored and derided because they didn't fit in with what women assume men are like and been told that the woman was right and I was wrong. When I've pushed my point of view, women have posted laugh emojis - because obviously I don't really know what's going on inside my own head. That or I'm lying. This is actually a pre-feminist view of men and women - I remember it well as a child - men not understanding what's really going on, being naive and childish and simple-minded, and we don't help ourselves. 

Traditional masculinity forbids introspection ('navel-gazing'), showing or talking about our feelings, or going for help, so it's a fact that many men genuinely don't know what they really feel - they just won't go there, but I know for a fact that any man who is not scared to look at his own mind is as capable of understanding what's really going on as anyone. I'm one of those people and can honestly report that woman have very often misinterpreted what I think or feel, though they insist they haven't. They are absolutely sure they know what's going on in my head better than I do. It's very discouraging.

The basis for a lot of their assumptions about men is in that simple characterisation I started with - that men are powerful, confident, strong, and generally at ease in a man's world. In many ways it's the underlying bedrock of feminism, and yet it's just so obviously wrong. Modern progressive politics is riddled, and I would say, corrupted, by the embarrassingly simplistic belief that you can tell who has the power in a relationship simply by knowing their sex. It's a weird sort of biological determinism. Men are powerful and to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world. Women are powerless and innocent. I have come across this idiotic belief even among otherwise intelligent, educated, compassionate people. It's ok as an average - men are on average better off and have more power than women, but as I've explained many times here, that's because the average is skewed by a small minority of very wealthy powerful men at the top. It simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of men, who have about the same amount of wealth or power as women. There is, as I've said many times before, also a minority of men who get what they want by violence, and that gives them a kind of power too, but the vast majority of men are not among them. Most of us view violent men with fear and contempt. Some women have claimed that all men somehow benefit from the fact that most people at the top are also men, but I've seen no evidence for this - there is no patriarchal trickle-down effect that I can detect (though there is an old boy network but the men at the top view the rest of us with suspicion and contempt.) I've also heard it said that "All men benefit from rape" but I can't see how I benefit in any way from half the population not trusting me. How does that help me? I have no idea.

Still this presumption persists. Arguably, the whole feminist edifice stands on the idea that everything men do is about dominating women, and can be interpreted in that light. The fact that I know, as a man, that that is simply not true holds less than no weight. Apparently I'm deluding myself. It is very strange to have other people tell me that my mind does not work the way I know it does - hence the title of this essay. 

An obvious example is 'mansplaining'. This assumes that if a man is telling a woman something she already knows or hasn't asked to be told, that he is doing it to dominate her. My own experience is that most 'mansplaining' stems from a genuine wish to be helpful, or someone whittering on about his pet subject. In what sad world are either of those bad things? It might be annoying or boring, but it is not domineering, and of course, women do them too. Of course, sometimes it is genuinely belittling, but I've seen women do this at least as much as men - often as a response to their perception that they are being talked down to. A particularly brazen example happened recently when we were visiting Petworth House. A group of women were standing among the lowest branches of a tulip tree (Liriodendron) admiring the flowers. We went over and looked at them too. I probably told my partner something about it because it is an amazing thing and she is not a gardener, but just then a woman came over and very pointedly told me all about it, as if to put me in my place. Then, point made, she strode back to her husband and left. And no - she was not one of the guides. Me and my partner looked at each other bemused. The fact is though that I really love explaining things. (I nearly became a teacher - realising just in time that I have no idea how to talk to children.) For me though, sharing the things I've learned - finding a way to explain them as well as possible - is a real pleasure. It's the main reason why I write. I have so much stuff in my head - the idea of never using it or giving it to other people seems like a terrible waste. For a species whose crucial adaptation for survival is the passing on of knowledge, this does seem like one hell of a handicap. And yet some people are offended by iat. They assume I'm trying to put them down somehow, and for some women that definitely comes from feminist theory telling them that men are always somehow trying to dominate women - that we always see them as somehow lesser people needing extra help. That doesn't fit my experience of being a man at all, and yet if I say that, I'm mansplaining. Telling a woman what it's really like to be a man, apparently, is mansplaining. 

I also heard a woman complain that a man at work was putting her down by asking her questions about her taste in music, maybe as a sort of test, but what she didn't seem to realise was that men do this sort of thing to each other all the time, and he was treating her as an equal. Certainly this sort of one-upmanship can be tedious - I don't really like it - but the idea that men only do it to woman in order to put them down is ludicrous. Some women tend to assume that men don't respect women as much as men, and cite all sorts of minor transgressions, but never check to see if men do the same to other men or not (or indeed whther women do it to each other - I have it on good authority that they do). All-male and especially working-class environments can be tough, noisy, competitive, and down-right rude, but a woman in that situation can't be complaining of sexism if she's being treated as one of the lads. If she wants to be treated differently she's perpetuating the traditional gender roles that tell us that women are the weaker sex and need to be treated with kid-gloves. Surely that's not what feminism is about? In any case it's certainly not been my experience of women.

'Objectification' is another one - the idea that men typically view women as nothing more than objects to do sex to. I'm not saying that no men are like this, but I've rarely met them. It's certainly true that many men get a lot of pleasure from looking at women - I mean we really do - whether it's in real life - in the street or at a party, or in a picture or video - we absolutely love looking at women. I don't know if there is a female equivalent - women's attraction to men is often taken to be deeper and more meaningful somehow, but again this probably rests on the idea that men's attraction to women is not deep or meaningful - that it's just sex. Once again of course, most men are rubbish at talking about their finer feelings, but that doesn't mean they don't have them. The problem with the theory of objectification is that it asserts that men only look at women in a sexual way, or that if they look at a woman sexually, they can't appreciate anything else about her. Both these things are wrong. Me being sexually attracted to a woman does not prevent me appreciating other things about her at all - often the opposite. There used to be a myth that sexy women are dim, but I don't know anyone who thinks that anymore. This is also where feminism gets tied up with prudishness – the idea that men having sexual thoughts about a woman is somehow intrinsically wrong. The bottom line is that men have all sorts of complicated feelings about women - just as women do about men, but in my experience, domination isn't high among them. 

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 13 - Give a Dog a Bad Name

 Just seen a post where the question was asked "What do men do that is a turn-off?" and the first reply is "Being men". 

I guess the author (a friend who seems otherwise intelligent and insightful) would chide me for not being able to take a joke. Can we imagine the reaction if a man posted the same question about women? I've been seeing this sort of thing a lot recently. Basically men are just always wrong. Nothing about them is good. 

Ok so the rationalisation would be that men have all the power/privilege and should be able to take this sort of thing on the chin, or we have all this confidence/ego - we should be cut down to size, or even - since we're all guilty or complicit in violence and abuse we deserve abuse back. 

The problem with this, as I've been saying over and over, is that men aren't really like that - some are - to be sure, but a very high % of the men I've known in my life have been anxious/insecure, low self-esteem/confidence, on low income and holding down hard manual jobs - plus often somewhat neuro-atypical and introvert, plus not being allowed to talk about their feelings or ask for help. Knowing what it's like to actually be a man (in my 'lived experience') most men don't feel powerful - no matter how much women see us that way. A minority of men are violent criminals, and another minority are wealthy and powerful, but most of us are neither. But I've said all this...

So I'm wondering what effect my friend thinks being told over and over that you're a waste of space has on young men? Her answer I guess would be that they should change to suit women - do as you're told - don't be A Man. Women apparently want men to not be men, or to only be men the way women like. 

Now I've had as much trouble as anyone with traditional masculinity - it's pretty crude and noisy a lot of the time - hard and competitive, and I don't fit in. But is it 'bad' or just different? It can be incredibly irritating for sure, but is it actually wrong? or is it just a different culture? If it does get violent - sure - call the police - but if not? Isn't it just part of the diversity of human behaviour?

Feminism - when I first became a fan - back in the late 70s - was all about equality of rights and opportunities, which I still support totally. Now it seems that feminism is about women picking men up on every tiny thing that displeases them and calling it 'misogyny'. Now it seems to be about contempt for the other sex. I would have thought that women, of all people, would know that that's not a good way to go.  

What are young men supposed to do about this? Just submit and do as they're told? I can't see that happening. People aren't like that - they hate being told what to do. My guess is they'll get angry and rebellious - as women did before them. Most of them i guess will go "Well if you think everything we do is shit, why should we even try to be better? Why should we care about what you think? F'ck you!" So now we have the Manosphere...

I was always hoping that, as women gained more power and wealth (and apart from those two minorities it's pretty close now), we'd be able to communicate and negotiate better - that men and women would be able to work together as equals. Apparently not. It all just makes me incredibly sad...

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 11 - Mind-Reading and Gas-Lighting

One of the things that saddens me about this generation of progressive activists is their love of outdated stereotypes and crass generalisations. I thought we'd dealt with this sort of thing back in the 80s but no. Now if they know your demographic (young or old, man or woman, black or white) they think they know all about you. The women's rights movement is especially replete with such assumptions. It's practically a rule of feminism that women know what men think, feel and want better than men do. Sadly, as traditional masculinity forbids introspection ('navel gazing'), men often don't really know what's going on in their heads, but any man who takes an interest is as capable as anyone of being psychologically and emotionally literate. Nonetheless women have often opined confidently on what I really think, and how I really feel and what I really want, and when challenged have smiled patronisingly at me. Of course there's no way to prove either way, but it has to be so that nobody knows what your life is like better than you do. Anything else is just gas-lighting.

One basic feminist assumption is that men feel powerful and confident and are always trying to dominate women, and any less-than-ideal behaviour should be interpreted in these terms. 'Manspreading' for example is a man 'taking up space', dominating his surroundings and the people in it. Never mind that it's just more comfortable sitting that way. People who don't have half a pound of mixed giblets dangling between their legs can't be expected to understand this. I used to sit with my legs crossed as a sort of effeminate affectation back in the 80s but it's really not comfortable. Some men can be a bit inconsiderate to be sure - spreading their legs very widely but the idea that they're trying to dominate the room is a bizarre piece of cod-psychology. As usual I'm not saying it never happens, but the idea that it's typical male behaviour is very strange. Honestly - it's just a lot more comfortable to sit that way.

'Mansplaining' is another one. Obviously, says feminism, the man is trying to dominate the conversation and tell the woman what to do. Apart from the fact that I've had women 'splaining to me how to my job, how to drive, politics, science and housework, what about the possibility that the man just wants to help? or is just really enthusiastic and wants to share his knowledge? Among neuro-atypicals, telling people all about their latest obsessions is like a love language. It's a gift. An old man tried to help one of my ex girlfriends to parallel park in a small space. She was furious and rude to him, but I'm sure he was just trying to help. I'm terrible at parallel parking and would really love someone to come along and guide me in. When did giving advice become a put-down? When did wanting to tell everybody about some amazing thing you've been reading about become abusive? Certainly people may be boring or inappropriate, or they can come over as arrogant or over-bearing (especially we neuro-diverse types) but we're not attacking you. Why would you think that?

I had this back when I was at Brighton Poly back in the 80s. I was very opinionated. I did ask my friends in the group if they minded me speaking up so much and they didn't seem to mind. Probably they were being polite. One women though literally hated me for it - me loving the sound of my own voice - telling everyone what to think - dominating the group - arrogant entitled man. The truth though was that I'd never spoken up before. As a child and a teenager I'd always kept my thoughts to myself. People talked over me or just ignored me so I gave up trying. This was the first place I'd ever been encouraged to speak up and I guess the dam burst. It was amazing. 

This is the problem - even intelligent insightful women tend assume that men feel dominant and confident. So if a man is holding forth a bit too much or offering unsolicited advice, the woman's response is often to try to cut him down to size - put him in his place. At that point the man may appear hurt or angry and then the woman customarily tells him he has a fragile ego. As far as she's concerned he saw himself as being in the more powerful position - talking down to her, and her response seems impertinent - not respecting his status. But often that's not at all how it is. He may feel anxious or insecure. Maybe he's trying to impress her. He may have low self-esteem. Maybe he's an introvert. Being a man is all about trying to look like you know what you're doing, even when you don't (especially when you don't). He doesn't feel like he's above her - he wants to be on a level with her. So when she 'puts him in his place' what's actually happening is she's putting him back down beneath her. No wonder he's upset. Humiliation is a terrible thing.

Women don't seem to realise the power they have. Feminism has convinced at least some of them that they still have none relative to men. For many men that simple generalisation is just so obviously wrong it's baffling. (One thing men seldom claim to understand is what goes on in women's heads). A lot of the time, men just don't feel powerful in relation to women. We just don't. I certainly never have. 

But what would I know about what goes on in men's heads? I'm just a man.

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 10 - 'Getting beaten up is part of growing up'

Maybe you don't know but here in the UK crime stats show that men are just as likely to be attacked as women and twice as likely to be murdered. Women are mostly attacked by people they know in private but very rarely attacked by strangers in public places. Men should be much more afraid than women but we're not because men are brought up to not show fear, where women are brought up to be afraid of all sorts of things and it's considered attractive and sexy. Men are brought up to take risks - women aren't. So the fact that women 'don't feel safe' is based on conditioning - not reality. It's in the culture. And in reality it's a great way to keep women in their place - afraid to go out, afraid of men, afraid of sex - and feminism is endorsing it. 
Some people have tried to make out that the fact that men are mostly attacked by other men somehow makes it ok - like it's consensual or recreational violence ('He got into a fight'), or violence is a normal part of male behaviour so we're all guilty (in reality most crimes are committed by a small minority of re-offenders. Most men are not violent - it's not normal behaviour), or we're 'more evenly matched' (in reality, the thugs like violence, they're good at it, they get a lot of practice at it). Or us men are all so very powerful that we could change it if we wanted to - we just don't want to. I'm so powerful - I have SO much influence on how the world works. [sarcasm]
I was attacked a few times as a lad and I'm here to tell you that that's not how it is at all. I was terrified, but there was no point reporting it - it was their word against mine, and it I'd have just been told to learn to stick up for myself. So I just lay there and hoped they'd get bored. 'Getting beaten up is part of growing up' as the song says. I was a soft boy - never been violent in any way and I was attacked by the local hard lads because I was alone and I looked a bit different. I didn't stand a chance. I know two men with brain damage from being kicked in the head. Have a listen to The Special's Concrete Jungle, or The Jam's Down in the Tube Station at Midnight.

I often see the Margaret Attwood quote - "Men fear women will laugh at them - women fear that men will kill them" on social media and think it's a daft thing to say. I generally like her books but this is not worthy of her. It's not comparing like with like. The fact that people get killed doesn't mean humiliation is not a problem. Ask any oppressed group - humiliation is a huge problem, and men (who are traditionally supposed to be powerful) take it very badly. Humiliation is a powerful force in history - ask 1930s Germany. Under one such post recently I commented that, actually, murder is a very rare crime - it's about 1 in 100,000 per year over most of the Western World, which is historically very low - and two thirds of the victims are men. When it happens of course it's always terrible, but it's not very likely - far less likely than dying in a car accident for example. Obviously my argument was considered irrelevant, even offensive by the women in the group - clearly I'd missed the point but that was deliberate. There's a question about how we assess risk when we decide whether or not to do something. We do some sort of mental calculation about the seriousness of the threat versus the likelihood of it happening. Some things are absolutely horrible but rare (plane crashes) while others are trivial but common (stubbing your toe on a corner). In both cases we usually take the risk. We are lucky in the West that we live in a time and place where horrible things are mostly rare. Road accidents are probably the worst. Murder is horrible but very rare, and yet women won't go out at night. The problem here is probably the way violence against women and girls is reported. "If it bleeds it leads" so they say so people get the idea that murder is happening all the time, but it plainly isn't. Women are being conditioned to believe that life is far more dangerous than it is. Historically this was about men keeping women under control - 'safe' in the home -  but now it seems feminism has taken up the cause and women are once again the weaker sex, needing care and protection from men, by men. It wasn't like this last century - the women I knew were fiercely independent and weren't scared of anyone. One woman I knew regularly hitched from her home in Sussex to her university in Lancaster without any real trouble. I met another women backpacking on her own around Mexico. This new fearful feminism baffles me. I think maybe the idea is that if women make it clear to men how scared they are of us, that we'll do something about it - we'll 'call out' the violent men, as if we all know who they are (because we have the same genitalia) but we're covering for them - letting them get away with it. The problem with this idea is that most of us don't hang out with violent men if we can possibly help it. It's like telling men to 'call out' their burglar friends, or their people-smuggling friends. We don't know these people - or if we do they're keeping very quiet about it. I've also been told I should 'own' all men's behaviour, but I'm sorry - I don't take responsibility for anyone's behaviour but my own (and maybe my kids if I had any). In the end though, if your belief is that men's power is down to us having (on average) greater strength than women, then it's a dead-end, because short of some sort of eugenics campaign, men are not going to be weaker than women any time soon. Thankfully for feminism, I don't think male power does reside in our greater strength any more, and women are quite capable of standing up to us as equals without it coming to blows.

 Violence against men and boys is hardly reported at all and has never been taken as seriously. These campaigns against violence against women and girls are banging against an open door because most people already take crimes against women more seriously than crimes against men. This has been true since long before feminism became a thing - it's called chivalry. It could be argued that domestic and sexual violence are seen as especially heinous compared to death and mutilation, precisely because they're the kinds of crimes mostly women suffer from. Crimes against men just don't really count. 

Girls are also brought up to be more fearful (or show their fear more) than boys. It's even considered attractive, cute or sexy when girls shriek at a spider or a mouse, but apparently they react similarly to men. Men however, who should be more scared are usually pretty blase about it. We assess the risks, look out for signs of danger, and avoid certain situations. It is remarkable how often women set up home and have kids with men that we know are dangerous ("Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street"). Some women report that they've had 'a string of abusive relationships' and I try to sympathise but am left wondering how they can have missed the signs over and over, and then not got out of the relationship as soon as the warning signs appear. I've had quite long conversations with women about this and I still don't get it. In a few cases there is the fear that man will go really mad if she leaves and she fears for her life, but those are very rare, and often there is a house and children and joint finances at stake by the time the women is ready to leave. Surely the man was not such a great actor for all those years, pretending to be a decent chap, before turning into a murderous psychopath? I've come across a couple of these guys over the years - one I shared a flat with - and the scariness manifested itself pretty quickly. Nevertheless they never had any trouble finding female company. I have to assume that there's something so compelling about these men that some women just can't resist them. Maybe that's the deal - maybe at some level they accept it - "If I want to be with a man who truly excites me, I have to accept that I'm going to get hurt." Maybe it's like climbing Everest, or breath-play, or back-packing in Sudan - some people accept the risk to get the stimulation they need. Those people though don't usually complain about how hard their life is on social media. They know it's their choice.

So maybe boys should be advised to run to a grown-up shouting 'daddy' when they're being chased by the local thugs. I can't see that happening. Crimes against men are not taken as seriously as crimes against women - we all know this - 'women and children first'. Boys are told they mustn't hit girls, but other boys - that's ok. The entertainment industry is strewn with the bodies of dead men - it's a laugh - but if you want to make a film that really upsets people - have a female victim. Men are far more likely than women to die young by every means except child-birth. We die at work, by addiction and suicide because we're not allowed to ask for help, by crime and by taking stupid risks trying to prove ourselves. If that were true for women it would be a major plank of the women's rights campaign, but it's just men so it doesn't matter. Everything's worse for women so forget it.

But now a girl dealing with some guy she doesn't fancy trying to chat her up is a campaign issue. We see some big numbers about attacks on women but not how many men were beaten up of knifed or otherwise attacked during that time for comparison. We (and I include myself in that 'we' because until quite recently I was an uncritical women's rights advocate) simply quote how things are bad for women and sort of assume that things are better for men - we don't check - we're only looking at half the story - we don't feel we need to look at the other side because we simply believe everything must be better for men. Seeing that UK murder rate stat was a kind of wake-up call for me. Not everything is better for men. Actually quite a lot of things are worse. All the while I called myself a feminist I had mental lists of 'crappy things that happen to women' but somehow completely ignored all the crappy things that happen to men. Some of these things are much the same for men and women, or comparable, but some major ones are definitely worse for men. I was just in denial, because I wanted to be a good feminist. Now I just call myself an egalitarian and leave it at that.
The other thing we do is unconsciously assume that crimes against women, especially sex crimes, are worse than other violent crimes - even death! Why? Probably partly because men don't show their hurt so we assume it doesn't bother them much, but also because of some traditional sense of chivalry where hurting women is very bad but hurting men just doesn't matter very much. Why? Why do we still believe that? And why is rape worse than, say, being knifed? or kicked in the head? It seems invidious to compare different sorts of trauma but I'm pretty sure most people would submit to sexual assault if threatened with violence. They know which is worse.
I really just want crimes against men to be taken as seriously as crimes against women. That doesn't seem like it should be controversial to me.

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 9 - "All we want is for men to respect us like they respect each other"

Just got into a big hoo-hah about that American actor who lost it with a journo who asked her to show her legs. I always learn a lot from these exchanges - though not usually what my interlocutors would like me to learn. 

Various points were raised - one is that some bloke yelling from the crowd is giving an order - telling her what to do - as if he has some power over her and she has no choice but to obey. Here was a wealthy actor being told what to do by some poor schmuck trying to make a living. Talk about punching down...

A second one was that she yelled at him "You wouldn't do that to a man", but men make rude comments about each other all the time. If the actor had been known for his physique "Show us your abs" would have been a joke, and if he'd got angry with the journo HE would have been the b@st@rd, not the journo. 

One woman opined that it's different because men kill women. Apart from the fact that men kill men too (and more often) this was a guy trying to get a sexy picture of an actor - not some psycho attacking his wife. She could have just ignored him - which is usually what happens when journalists yell at celebs. The problem here seems to be a double standard. One women said "All we want is for men to respect us like they respect each other" and I had to laugh. I think if women were suddenly treated by men the way men treat each other they'd be horribly disappointed. Women certainly don't respect men, men don't respect each other, and from what I gather, women don't especially respect each other either, and yet men have to respect women? That's not equality - that's special treatment. 

My feeling is that the women's rights campaign has gone from fighting for important issues like equal pay and opportunities and male violence (which we all support) to some general campaign against 'offensive' male behaviour - ie anything that a woman disapproves of, which in some cases seems to mean anything women don't do.

Now let me get this straight - I don't like blokey behaviour either - I'm not into being laddish, larey, loud and rude, but I don't want to stop other people doing it - as long as they're not violent - that's their culture - especially if they're working class. And I've known some women who were shockingly rude. Do we really want a world without rudeness or the occasional inappropriate behaviour? There'd be no punk or direct action for example, no Tracey Emin or Joan Rivers. Rudeness is surely a valid part of hu-man society. We lefties certainly feel free to be extremely rude to people we disagree with. Maybe it's just that we don't want people being rude to us. Maybe we only want respect for ourselves? We can dish it out, but we can't take it. 

But I suspect it's mainly about sex. There is still this residual feeling that anything sexual is dirty and degrading, especially when it involves women. There was a horror expressed that the actor in question had in any way made a living from her looks, and her legs in particular. I say good for her - I wish I could have made money from showing my legs - there are many worse jobs - but it's not generally an option for men. It seems to have escaped their notice that most Hollywood and TV actors are considered good-looking and/or sexy. Only feminists still seem to think that women are ONLY appreciated for their looks (and that men are only appreciated for their minds?) Or maybe they think that women are too weak and delicate to handle a bit of rudeness. That does seem a bit old-fashioned to me. Are we going back to seeing women as The Weaker Sex? because honestly, that doesn't sound very empowering to me.

Maybe the big issue here is that the women's rights movement seems only to want men to become more like women and sees the other direction as intrinsically bad ("Boys will be boys") I've never liked traditionally masculine behaviour myself but that's just my personal preference. As I said above, I don't want to stop other people doing their thing, as long as they're not dangerous. In any case, the modern progressive's equation of rude and inappropriate behaviour with actual rape and murder is surely way over the top.

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 8 - The Pay Gap

I still absolutely believe in equal rights and opportunities for women however. I used to believe that the world would be better run by women but now I don't think it would be much different. Women in power behave as badly as men – not because they’re corrupted by the patriarchy but because power corrupts men and women equally. Women are absolutely as capable as men as behaving badly. So I’m not anti-women or anti-feminist. My view is something far more controversial - that men and women just aren’t all that different anymore. 

[I’m talking mostly about the UK. Things are much worse in other parts of the world, and I would absolutely back more women’s rights campaigning there.]

[I will be using the word ‘woman’ throughout in a generic way, responding to many conversations and interactions I’ve had over the years. Obviously it’s #notallwomen so should not be taken personally.]

Things have changed massively in my lifetime but many women don’t seem to have noticed. Compared to my mum when I was a kid in the 60s - what women can do now compared to what she could do then - the difference is immense. She couldn't have had a career, couldn't have owned property, couldn't have divorced, had an abortion, had casual sex, driven a car, been a single mum, run her own business, gone to uni, gone out for the night on her own, sat in a pub and had a pint, worn sexy clothes out, gone through life unmarried, been a lesbian, hitchhiked around the world on her own, been loud and sweary in public, called the police if she was being attacked by her husband, been a prime minister, a journalist, a vicar, a CEO, a soldier, a doctor, a lawyer…

Sadly modern feminists continually move the goalposts in order to prove that things are as bad as ever and keep the faithful riled up. But it’s no longer good enough for women to simply blame men when things go wrong. It’s time for women to take responsibility for their part in the problem. Women can no longer just say “A man made me do it.” 

All over the place I'm being told that everything is still so much worse for women than for men - despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. There seems to be a very strong need to say that men don't suffer in any way that really matters. If you say bad things happen to men you'll get a long list of bad things that happen to women - but the question is not whether bad things happen to women - of course they do - the question is do they happen MORE than to men? If you want equality you need to know both sides of the equation. Generally though the assumption is that men have nothing much to complain about. 

I could write a huge list of bad things that happen to women – I used to be a staunch feminist and I’ve been reading about this most of my life. I take it as read and don’t see the point in rehashing it all here. Now I’m just an egalitarian with a special interest in how men and women interact, and I know we all suffer. The world is not set up for any but a small minority of mostly old white men – and there is no patriarchal trickle-down effect. (Though there is an old-boy network it’s not going to involve anyone I know any time soon.) Violent men also have a kind of power, but most men are not violent. Rape does not benefit all men as I’ve been told - I see no benefit in being distrusted by half the population. Power no longer rests in physical strength but in money and technology. The most powerful men in the world are hardly paragons. Violence is mostly a desperate last resort for people who have no power. Genuinely evil psychopaths are far rarer than the movies suggest.

The fact though is that most people have no power to speak of at all. Most people are poor, working class, and minimally educated. The fact that so many people seem to think that you can tell who has the power in a relationship simply by knowing their sex (or age, or race) strikes me as hopelessly simplistic. Life is so much more complicated than that. As I've said many times before, there are too many old white men in top jobs (we all know this) and that skews the income distributions and creates the pay gap. At the moment in the UK it stands at about 9% I believe, however, that does not mean that men typically get 9% more than women. As usual it’s more complicated than that. In the UK, for people on lower incomes and for the under 40s the pay gap is very small, and among school leavers girls are doing better than boys. There are more women living in poverty but because they’re mostly single mums they usually get some sort of accommodation and benefits. The truly destitute and homeless are mostly men. Although there still aren’t as many women in those few top jobs, by far the most significant inequality now is not between men and women but between those old white guys and the rest of us, and that gap is widening.