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

January

Tackle Misogyny.Ignore Misandry

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

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

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

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

Man Driven to Attempt Suicide After Woman Makes False Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

February

Stop The ‘Gym Weirdos' from Glancing at Me

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

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

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

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

Banksy, Domestic Abuse and Double Standards?

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

Gritting Routes Are Sexist

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You're Not a F***ing Man" – Sheree Spencer Jailed

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

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

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

March

March was certainly a busy month.Marilyn Manson's rape accuser admitted to making a false allegationandHarry Potter was called a little patriarchwho resorts to violence and magic to rule.Hilary Clinton saidthat the war in Ukraine shows us that women and children are the primary victims of conflict (despitemen being bannedfrom leaving war-torn Ukraine;Russian men breaking limbsto avoid conscription and history showing us that the vast majority of war deaths are men).

Double Standards and Body-Shaming

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

Men: Do Not Talk About Your Sex Lives Too Loudly

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

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

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

Finally, the report associated with the proposals stated that the justice system has been designed "by men, for men." With research showing: men receive63% longer sentences on averagethan women!convicted women being twice as likely to avoid incarceration!and male offenders receiving14.7% longer sentences than female offendersunder the same circumstances, it is difficult to believe the justice system was designed "for men."

Shut Up When I Am Talking

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

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

"No Male Should Ever Approach a Woman in a Parking Lot.Ever"

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

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

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

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

April

Boys Must Give Respect.Girls Must Receive It

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

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

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

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

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

May

Parks Built by Men Can Undermine Women's Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July

Barbie and Patriarchy

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

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

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

Boys And Men Are the Problem

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

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

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

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

In November 2023, the Committee expressed theirdisappointmentat theGovernment's responseto their recommendations.I am pleased that the response does not include confirmation that the Government will implement the specific misandristic recommendations.

‘Maaate'!Violence Starts with Words.Against Men?Who Cares?

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

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

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

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

I am left wondering who exactly videos like this are aimed at.As Joe Hildebrabnd stated in his2019 article!"Good men don't need to be told and bad men won't listen." Videos like this are unlikely to stop anyone from perpetrating violence.I very much doubt the husband who is angry with his wife, and loses it by violently lashing out will, in that moment, be positively influenced by videos such as this.Having derogatory views about any group of people is not guaranteed to transfer into physically harming members of that group, and there is a significant difference between verbally expressing your anger to using that anger to physically harm someone.I am sure many of us have talked about killing our boss at some point in our lives.Perhaps the fact that the vast majority of us did not do so is because most of us do not act on our thoughts by violently harming others.

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

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

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

August

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Kiss

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

Some have condemned Luis's actions and others have said the matterhas been blown out of proportion.Luis hasresignedand whilst an investigation remains ongoing, he hastweetedthat he will defend his innocence.

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

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

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

At the time of writing the incident remains under investigation.

September

Treat Boys Like Potential Monsters in The Making

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

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

The Aftermath of Suggesting a Minister for Men

Competing for Victimhood

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

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

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

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

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

Rehabilitate the Average Bloke

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

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

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

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

Laurence Fox Sacked

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

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

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

A Minster for Men?Insulting!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In regards to men being less likely to be killed by a partner, this is true, however globally the numbers are not that different.Looking at data from arecent UN report, approximately 133 women a day are killed by a partner or family member whilst 117 men a day are killed by a partner or family member.See below.Research from2010 states that!"when domestic violence-related suicides are combined with domestic violence homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence-related deaths are higher for males than females." As mentioned earlier men are also a lot more likely to be killed in the streets than women, but the prevailing narrative seems to suggest that this matters less because most of the perpetrators are men.More misandry.

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

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

October

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

There was a little bit of good news in October.In February 2023 the Office for National Statistics produced data relating tohomicide in England and Wales for the year ending March 2022.One of the points highlighted said ‘Males accounted for 72% of homicide victims in the latest year,but93% of convicted suspects.' The use of the word ‘but' is often used to suggest that the statements made after it are more important than the statements made before it.This clearly implies that most convicted suspects of homicide being male matters more than most homicide victims being male.

Nick Mathers, Group Quality Manger for a large education provider, and I shared these and other concerns with the Office for National Statistics who welcomed the feedback and replaced the word ‘but' with ‘and.' The statement now reads ‘Males accounted for 72% of homicide victims in the latest year,and93% of convicted suspects.'

November

November was a busy month for issues affecting boys and men.Ukrainian men wereswimming rivers, faking illnesses, and in some cases losing their lives in desperate attempts to escape the draft.We saw the media reporting on the conflict in Gaza with a heavy focus onfemale hostagesand thekilling of innocent womenwhilst male hostages and the killing of men were, in comparison, hardly mentioned.We also saw "fury" being expressed when over half of the honourees forGQ's Man of the Yearwere female.

"I Could Hardly Head Round There Myself as It's Three women"

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

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

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

UN Report Reveals Interesting Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December

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

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

Allegations of Sexual Assault… Against Men by Women

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

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

Recruitment: Are Men Getting a Fair Deal?

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

White Men Get Extra Scrutiny

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

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

The Achievements of Men?No Thank You!

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

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

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

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

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

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