In 2007, a group called the Men's Coalition was set up by a number of public funded organisations who speak up for men. The organisation mutated into the Coalition on Men & Boys and its members include the Fatherhood Institute, Men's Advice Line, Men's Health Forum, Relate, Respect and the White Ribbon Campaign.
A month or so ago they produced a report called Man Made: Men, Masculinities and Boys which attempts to "provide a unique, in-depth picture of the circumstances and needs of men and boys."
So far so good you would think, but as ever, it depends what lens you are looking through and the lens in this report is one that on one hand says public policy needs to ensure it better meets the need of men (good), but then blames and patronises men and is guilty of making some serious and glaring omissions. It is based on the fact that men need to change not that society or public policy needs to.
The 158 page report says that men need help but bases this on a feminist world-view (it says "The report draws significantly upon feminist scholarship" page 19) and throughout suggests that men need to change to help women, children and men themselves. Indeed, it keeps coming back to the theme that male dominance in positions of power (which is reducing all the time) means that men have to be more aware of gender equality and to stop blocking and being sexist towards women.
In addition, in key areas it fails to address the key problems of discrimination or the lack of help for men and boys such as education (exam results) and issues such as domestic violence, forced marriage, and the bias of the family courts. It only really excels in the area of health which will be down to the Men's Health Forum's input.
It says that the Coalition of Men and Boys is committed to work with women's groups, but whilst at face value we should all be working for gender equality, the basis for this statement is to patronise and not recognise the discrimination that men regularly face in their lives. Would such a report on Women & Girls state that it would like to work with men's groups, I very much doubt it.
In fact, some of the things it says are a bizarre for a report and organisation purporting to be on the side of men. An example includes:-
"The Government's Equalities Dept and Equalities Commission should establish designated policy and research positions focusing on how men and boys can contribute to tackling gender and other inequalities." This though is about men and boys pushing a female equalities agenda and has nothing to do with helping men and boys in terms improving access to health, improved examination results etc?
There is plenty of mentions of a Minister for Women but the report does not mention that it is unequal therefore not to have a Minister for Men.
In addition, "it admits that the Government has no strategy or have not been a work stream within the work of the Women's Unit (page 33). This is partly due to lack of resources but probably also to the relative invisibility of masculinity as a gender issue". No mention of course to the fact that why would a Women's Unit look at supporting men and of course, no irony is given in the report to the fact there is no resources. The report mentions it but does not condemn it.
It's key policy-specific recommendations (page 16) on work, fatherhood and education do not mention the bias in the family law court system (the report in Chapter 6 rejects that men get a raw deal in the family court system), the poor results of boys in the context of a lack of male teachers and the switch from exam-related O' Levels to course-based GCSE's (it rejects the notion that the lack of male teachers is a problem) and domestic violence - it makes no mention of male victims and the lack fo support they receive.
It even says that the proposals in the Equalities Bill to allow men to be discriminated against in the workplace are 'mild' (page 41). Not if you are a man who is discriminated against.
The health section is the only one that could be said to be positive in that it demands more that the health authorities not only do more to educate men about male heath issues but also that an assessment of services is needed to ensure they are there to support men.
Overall, the report is negative about men and boys, it patronises them, wants them to change (to be less masculine) and does not confront, on purpose, the obvious problems that men face in areas such in education and elsewhere.
The report is a wasted opportunity and one that look at the problems that men face not through a male lens but one that believes men are a negative force in the UK.
Editors Note
There are many references in the report to the "men's rights movement". References include
"..There are some risks in involving men in gender equality strategies" (page 12)
"Some men are resistant to change - especially if the proposed changes entail giving up some privileges (better pay than women) and result in them having less power at work and in the home. The emergence in recent decades of a range of vocal 'men's rights' groups, both in the
"It should not be assumed, however, that all men and boys share the same hostile approach of many 'men's rights activists to the progress of women and girls" (page 26)
These accusations, probably aimed at this site and other organisations/sites are a disgraceful slur not backed by any evidence. This is a example of using a report to try and trash people who believe that equality should actually mean equality for both men and women. If the reports authors can find anything on this site that is anti-women, then they will not find it.
Editors Apology #1
In this post I originally called the Coalition - Coalition of Men & Boys but as Bob rightly pointed out (see comments) I was sorely mistaken. It is the Coalition on Men & Boys, a subtle mistake but one that is vital to be aware of because it shows emphatically and with more clarity that it is not a coalition about supporting men & boys at all. It is a coalition that hectors men & boys.
Good to have you back. A great story that I expect most people missed too!
The Men's Advice Line and Respect are the same organisation i think. They are just a front for feminists who want to pretend they are helping male victims of dv. I heard one of their spokesmen interviewed on Woman's Hour a while back and even though teh topic was specifically male victims of dv he spent most of the time going on about how there were so many more female victims and how they had it all so much even though the question he was asked had nothing to do with that!
As for the White Ribbon campaign, well they're significanlty worse. Quite frankly they're the biggest set of self loathing, sexist man haters you could ever wish to meet. A truly sick organisation trying to demonise all men and bully and shame them into feeling guilty for actions of people they've met. I suppose to be fair it might be run by men, but there's a hell of a lot of females involved doing their dirty work too.
Posted by: John Kimble | Tuesday, 20 October 2009 at 04:17
Indeed, great to have you back!
Well, this "Coalition of Men & Boys" - is that some sort of joke name? - I suspect has been set up by feminists and/or male apologists so as to muddy the waters within men's movement.
It is a very well known tactic to set up fake, proxy organisations in order to malign the opposition.
What to do?
Write to them and complain complain complain.
Why not set up a "Coalition of Women and Girls" to call for women to be free from being chained to the desk and allowed to bring up kids at home as a homemaker who works alongside her man; two halves of the roof protecting and nurturing their children together.
Then the feminists can stick that in their pipe and smoke it.
Posted by: Bob | Tuesday, 20 October 2009 at 14:45
AHA! I UNDERSTAND ! Its NOT "The Coalition OF Men and Boys" but "The Coalition ON Men and Boys"...they are not comprised OF men and boys at all, but they will pass comment ON men and boys.
They are a government sponsored quango set up so the gov't can say it listens to men's groups. This is a true proxy organisation for feminists and the "women's" movement.
Note they refer to other men's organistaions (who don't agree with them) as 'men's rights' groups, implying that these groups are not in fact necessarily fighting for men's rights.
This is truely an incideous development.
There is a new tactic developing in the War on Men that I have noticed and that is to masquerade as a men's rights activist but then undermine the key issues and
perpetuate attacks on men by adopting feminist arguments as the base for so-called 'men's rights' campaign.
Time to join them en masse I think ! If they represent me then surely, as an equalitarian, I and my views - even though they contrast starkly with theirs - should be represented.
This sets a good example for children and especially helps society reflect common feeling, which in turn encourages healthy debate, which is of course, also good for women.
Posted by: Bob | Tuesday, 20 October 2009 at 16:31
Some quite excellent points Bob.
However, we shouldn't suggest everyone in the coalition is a man hater. For example, the Men's Health forum would appear to be a perfectly decent, honest and useful organisation.
Posted by: John Kimble | Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 02:21
I agree the Men's Health Forum finds itself with strange company in this report. I agree that that the feminist inspired groups simply parrot some well worn lines. However it may motivate those more genuine organisations to also try and join up their voices. Overall more men need to get involved even in some of these groups so mesmerised by a dated femenism.
Oh and welcome back TROM
Posted by: Groan | Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 21:37
As we prepare for the Voilence Against Women and Girls report and National Strategy the Guardian no less published a detailed disection of the misuse of research and data by feminist idealogues.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated
A rather sordid topic but non the less educational story of basing policy and law on little more than fantasy. Pleasingly the minister(a man looking like Captain Mannering leading a feminist home guard)looked totally foolish when interviewed on Newsnight.
I wouldn't myself lift a finger to defend prostitution but neither should policy be based on such flimsy fabrications.
Posted by: Groan | Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 22:10
Wherever a Guvmunt-funded or 'approved' men's Organisation springs up be sure of one over-riding thing. It is a FRONT. It is a means of getting MRAs out of the shadows and into harness, and pulling in the wrong direction. The 'approved' direction.
Here in Tasmoania we have TasMen, supposedly advocating for men's rights - and yes they also have some 'health' programs that seem OK - but the unmoveable leader (as the Guvment funds him) is a 'counsellor who runs 'approved' anger-management courses using the Duluth Wheel !! The mind boggles.
They go in for weekend 'bonding' and 'drumming' retreats and 'sweat lodges' and other such distracting games that simply divert men from the task of criticising and countering feminism and directs their heads up their arses.
Also in Oz we have the ubiquitous Dr. Michael Flood, a 'super-mangina' who claims to represent the men's movement down under. The friggin' nerve.
By their fuits shall ye know them. (Unless they get to carnally know you first !)
Posted by: amfortas | Friday, 23 October 2009 at 08:33