MEN'S HOUR REVIEW

Having flagged up and now listened to Men's Hour, I would give it 4/10.

The show was self deprecating which can be OK if done properly but kept using Women's Hour and women as a reference point (even having the presenter of Women's Hour) which it should not have done. It just did not take it itself serious enough.

Also the presenter did not have enough energy. It also didn't really tackle enough topic and issues that men face. It had former Home Secretary Alan Johnson on and his life story was interesting but he needed to be asked about men's issues and how men's issue were not taken seriously by Government.

It is a missed opportunity but maybe it will improve.

Comments please.

Posted by Skimmington

Other reviews - BBC, Independent, Telegraph, The Guardian

A moan from Jan Moir (Daily Mail) before

Comments

[Groan]

I agree not really a leap ahead. But it has stimulated a fair degree of debate. I think it should be welcomed as one of many small steps to redress the paradoxical invisibilty of men.

[menareangrynow]

It's a shame that one can only download the radio show in the UK. I would have liked a copy for later. I don't suppose that you could send me an MP3 of the audio over email? I don't mean to be a bother. If it's not a problem contact me at [email protected]

[Bob]

At least there is a step towards equality after 64 years. All that is needed now is for men to write in and say they want debates on Child Custody Law, Domestic abuse (against men)and man other issues that get swept under the carpet by the misandrous media.

[tom of covent garden]

We'd already been doing that Bob. They need to be shamed into doing it, and letter writing is not public enough.

[Jon]

Personally I would be very willing to mount a placard-waving protest about this. Is anybody interested in this? I'd take a day off work to do some protesting in London. It would make a nice change to feeling so powerless about being marginalised and treated like dirt, and laughed at if I try to protest. What do people think?

[Bob]

F4J tried that and it didn't seem to go well. I'm not really a placard waver Jon to be honest, though maybe it'll come to that one day!

It sounds as though they are gearing up to axe the show. They seem to give a lot of weight to female pundits who slated it, but not for the reasons I do.

I must say it really was some of the biggest load of tosh I have ever heard in my life. They covered nothing of importance and the presenter (as he even said himself) is not really suited to it.

There was nothing really in the way of issues for married men or young men caught in difficult relationships, which are even more difficult if you havn't had a father to advise you on these aspects of life.

The main thing is to get them round to the real issues. I think control of the mass media is the number one battleground.

[Jon]

Bob, I hear you... although I would suggest it is because not enough of us are 'placard-wavers' that we have the problems we are faced with now. The feminist lobby have done their 'placard-waving' and it has landed them in good stead to get many people's needs and concerns simply ignored by the media. Protests equals coverage. I would relish the opportunity to protest something like, say Race for Life and the massive publicity that would bring.
Might involve a sea-change for us men who have been so used to turning the other cheek. I have to ask... would you wave a placard if you were falsely accused of rape? Or if your children were taken away from you? These things have yet to happen to me yet, but I would raise a publicity storm if they did, as the law would protect me not one jot. Just thinking out loud here... I'd be a reluctant (but determined) protestor if either of those things happened to me.

[Bob]

No offence by my use of the phrase 'placard waver' by the way.

I've been thinking a lot about your post Jon and yes, it would be ideal if men who have been mistreated and chucked out of their homes by abusive wives or falsely accused all went out on the street and campaigned, but in reality unfortunately they don't.

The experience is so utterly devastating that most would rather just try to end the nightmare as quickly as possible and come out of it at the other side sane and hopefully unbroken. If the men who are victims of this insidious system we now did go out and demonstrate then the streets would be filled. I do actually speak from experience.

You're not wrong my friend, but it gets complicated once you get down to the nitty-gritty of these things. One needs to pause and muster some strength sometimes to go back into the fray.

[mikeysussex]

There is something very "straight" about this programme. Tim Samuels is hopeless, a poor interviewer and totally lost. if the first programme is anything to go by, there seems to be a very "i'm definitely straight" culture. the guests are supposed to be intelligent but couldn't wait to mention their girlfriends.
I'm a gay bloke and will stick to Women's Hour. Not because i'm "feminine": because its well presented and researched. Hugh Dennis has dropped even lower in my expectations. A disgrace .. and a shambles.
Get a new presenter and some decent guests and stop the talk from straights who are obviously threatened by "gay-type" stereotypes.

[Emmanuel Peterson]

Man, a truly interesting way to look at some thing that most people find difficult to comprehend. Before this post, I never quite envisaged that men are so misunderstood.

[Bob]

Its the BBC, what do you expect Mikey. The programme has been contrived to be ridiculous. It is advertised as having slots such as "Thought for the Gay", "Token Woman" and "Hoover the Studio or Apologise for Feminism" for goodness sake! Someone has actually sat there and though..."Hmmm, Men's Hour, how can we make this as ridiculous as possible but still pass it off as a serious attempt."

I don't possibly see though how you can say it was in any way underrepresentative of gay men or anti-gay. Did you listen to the same show as me? The first guest introduced was Louis Spence from Pineapple Dance Studio. Louis has been in a Civil Partnership for ten years and was given the first chance to talk about his boyfriend and his relationship with him.

He was also the first to talk about infidelity as they all discussed the subject in turn - but only infidelity by men and not women, welcome to the BBC. Also, of course straight men are going to talk about their girlfriends on this subject. That doesn't mean they are simply trying to hightlight their heterosexuality!

Hugh Dennis made very interesting point that he was in the first in his family to EVER get divorced, but sadly Tim Samuels didn't pursue it and steered the show towards talking about some ridiculous nasal hormone spray that would be used on men by their partners to stop infidelity. Just one of the many missed opportunities by Tim.

The format needs to be changed and they have to get a presenter who knows and feels passionate about Men's issues. Perhaps a different topic every week? Divorce, child custody, problems facing gay men, fatherhood, false accusations, men's portrayal in the media, it'd be a great chance for Families Need Fathers to have a week to themselves to give advice - they have been around since 1974 and must be one of the most under-represented charities in the UK. There are many issues to cover and enough material to go on for years!

[drex]

this show was a shameful piece of pisstaking, clearly for a feminised audience and clearly an attempt to restructure masculinity into the politically correct feminised version that grovels at the foot of female "owners" like compliant littlem poodles..

But what can we expect from the Big Brainwashing Corporation?