The two faces of feminism

If feminism were really about gender equality, then feminists should be spending time looking at all situations where people are disadvantaged on the basis of gender. Yes, that includes men. The immediate reaction - that only women are disadvantaged on the basis of gender - is simply untrue. The fact is that men and women face quite different challenges.

The challenges faced by women are quite well known. They generally earn less money than men, they are underrepresented at senior level in various institutions including board rooms and government, they are more often and more severely the victims of sexual and domestic violence, religion can restrict them in various ways, they are more housebound and take on an unfair burden of child-rearing, they feel they have lower status, men disrespect them, they sometimes get worse education, they get raped in war, they have less freedom. 

I may have missed some. And I’m all for fixing these issues, by for example mandating equal parental leave for both parents, or by teaching teenagers about respect and consent.

The challenges faced by men are less well known. They are far more likely to be the victims of violence, and murder, they often have to work longer, harder and more manually, die 5 years younger, are forced to spend time away from family, are treated far more severely in the courts, have far higher suicide rates, have far higher incarceration rates, have much less access to social housing, are more likely to be depressed, are much more likely to be homeless, are much more likely to be alcoholics, are treated unfairly by family courts, do not have as much opportunity for paternity leave, are more likely to be lonely, suffer an education system taught by and for women, are underrepresented at college (university) undergraduate level, are paid less than women in full time employment (in the UK, for people in their 20s and 30s), face far more stress from hierarchy, the pressure to provide, and are the first to get killed in an armed conflict.

It’s only by very narrow economic measures, that you can say that men are better off than women. By any sensible measure, such as quality of life, women are often far better off. It’s far too easy to look up to the elite of society, and see the men, and ignore the most desperate in society, where you will also see the men. I think the male suicide rate says it all. 

Neither is it true that men universally wield more power than women. In the places that actually matter, such as home, family and the bedroom, the person who has the power is the woman. Right now, the leaders or acting leaders of 5 of 6 of the main political parties in the UK are women. Bullying, one of the ultimate expressions of dominance, is at least as severe in women, and totally invalidates gendered analysis which assumes that only men are aggressive and dominant.

It’s often presumed that women have far fewer life choices than men. I disagree. Women have the option of having a baby, men don’t. Women can choose whether to pursue a career or do something else, whereas this simply isn’t an option for most men. Do women really think that men go to work all day for the fun of it? If a woman makes the same career choices as a man, they generally earn within about 5% of the man. It’s unfortunate that a pay gap still exists, but it’s not as bad as all that. After the initial weaning, men and woman are far more equal in child-rearing duties than they were even 20 years ago, and that is a good thing. The technical innovations of contraception and abortions mean that babies are usually only positive choices, whose trade off against future earnings is a choice willingly taken. The world is overpopulated and women are not doing anyone any favours by having babies. Women also tend to study the fun but less socioeconomically useful subjects like linguistics or social sciences at university, which is a free choice and cannot be blamed on the supposed patriarchal conspiracy, whereas men are much more career-minded in their choice of study. We see women exercising far more lifestyle choices than the narrow career paths of men.

Anyway, this was not supposed to be a competition about which gender has it worse. Sometimes women have it worse, and sometimes men do. Even if women have it ten times worse than men, we should still be nurturing both genders, and treating all victims as individuals. The point is really that there are lots of good reasons to be outraged by gender inequality in both genders, and to realise that many of these things can and should be fixed.

Now, to feminism. It’s not about gender equality at all. It’s about women’s rights. Period. Does it even make sense to have “gender equality for women”? Equality with what?

Of the feminists I know, those I have encountered on the internet, and the articles I read, give inescapable conclusion that feminists never worry about situations where men are disadvantaged. If policies benefit men, then it's only as a side-effect. In spite of men being the main victims of violence, feminists are only interested in female victims of violence. In spite of men making up 23% of all domestic violence homicides, these victims are stonewalled by radical feminists. Female rape is an outrage, but male rape victims should "get a sense of perspective." Feminists complain bitterly about war rape, but don't complain at all about the far more numerous male war dead. In spite of both genders suffering body image problems, only young women are seen as the victims to worry about. Trying to get feminists interested in male victims just doesn't work.

In terms of showing respect for the other gender, I again doubt the sincerity of feminists. Many feminists undoubtedly believe that stereotypically female traits such as communication and cooperation are superior to stereotypically male traits such as ambition, determination and competition. Any man who disagrees with the feminist hard line is not merely wrong, they are branded a Neanderthal, as if owning a vagina endows the owner with an extra capacity to think. Feminists dwell on all the negatives caused by men against women, without acknowledging any of the positives. Feminists wrongly imagine that women are the only people who have it hard in this life.

So what are the two faces of feminism? One face, gender equality for both genders, the one we want, is the one that feminists often claim they are doing. The other face, gender equality for just one gender, is the one feminists actually do. Of course, being two-faced is not a compliment.

In defence of this sexist approach (i.e. favouring one gender over another), maybe it’s just too much to tackle all forms of gender inequality at once. Yes, women’s issues are different, and they do form a cohesive idea, based around the radical feminist notion that all women's problems are caused by men. And it doesn't hurt men right?

Wrong wrong wrong. There is a very simple reason why it’s wrong to ignore male victims. Because it’s wrong to ignore female victims.

Of course it's unfair to suggest that all feminists are like this. But for majority of feminists who only deal with women's issues, I simply ask this: Why should men care about the problems facing women, when you don't care about the problems facing men?