THE FEMINIST WORLDVIEW AT THE BBC

Well, it's my first real go at blogging and, as is probably usual in these situations, I kind of feel it has been thrust upon me by circumstances more than anything else.

The story started a few weeks ago, where on a long car journey home from work I happened upon the views of one Lynne Franks, as she was asked for her impression of "Men's Hour", an experimental show for men that pitched itself (no joke) as "Women's Hour's cheeky younger brother". Lynne was asked her opinion of whether the show was necessary and worthwhile, and proceeded to heap scorn on both the show, and the notion that men as a group might find more media attention helpful.

After spending the remainder of the drive quietly seething to myself, as soon as I got home I wrote an indignant email to the feedback section of the show - the full text of which you can find here.

I got what I would call a cursory response; more intrigued as to why I might possibly have anything to complain about than, well, appreciating and understanding the complaint and perhaps even (gasp) apologising for the broadcast.

After returning from my holidays last week there was something more promising: an email from the BBC's iPM programme, which deals with listener feedback. They were planning a "Men's Hour" version of iPM, including interviews with a man who survived breast cancer, and a man who ran a 'domestic violence unit', in their words "...a field so dominated by women that he has very interesting things to say about how his co-workers view him and the effect on his own masculinity." This is a very interesting choice of words, and one that I will return to before I finish the article.

A brief phone call followed who, to the production team’s credit, were very enthusiastic and eager to have my feedback and input into the show. I had a real hope that this show might be worth listening to, and really raise men's issues, from a men's perspective.

You can hear the full broadcast here, if you are in the UK and until Saturday I believe.

So what did I think?

A brave but severely misguided attempt.

The piece on male breast cancer was very interesting - John Nestor tells the story of his experiences being treated for the cancer, alongside his late wife. But why no mention of the disgusting 'Race for Life'? This would seem extremely relevant to the story, especially as it is yet another example of blatant apartheid against men. The "men's issue" here should have been Race for Life, as well as the lack of funding for male cancers, not just the occasional breast cancer case within men.

The piece on domestic violence was a vivid reminder of just why we need a men's rights movement. I guess I should have been forewarned by the intro piece at the beginning of the show: "..dedicated to the things men do, like domestic violence".

Then Simon Currs 'Domestic abuse partnership manager' from Cambridgeshire came on and was if anything as sad to listen to as Lynne Franks. This guy not only has significant mistrust towards the male gender as a gender, he has been so programmed during his 'training back in 2002' that he considers domestic violence to be a gender crime. This flies in the face of the a comprehensive study by California State University, which examined 275 'scholarly investigations', and concluded that "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners". So why does Simon describe DA as a gender crime? You can get some hints from his comments about the 'King of the castle' character that he goes on to describe:

"I wasn't sure of the history and dynamics of domestic abuse, really and fully until I undertook some training back in 2002, based around an individual called the 'dominator', a male individual who exhibits certain abusive characteristics. The idea of this 'dominator' really made me look at myself, my use of language, the way I conduct myself, the beliefs I have, and certainly, at some level, the character of the 'dominator' is exhibited by all men.

"'The king of the castle'; I'm sure you'll recognise the stereotype.

"He has his own chair at home, sits with the remote control on the arm of the chair and a beer in the other and scratching... his balls, if you like. I know its a bit of a stretch to get from that type of individual to an abusive personality, but its indicative of the types of behaviours that all men exhibit - I certainly do it..

"That is me acting in my capacity as king of the castle."

Er... what!?

Having a favourite chair, drinking a beer, using a remote control, and scratching your balls are all signs of a potential abuser? A good editor could have cut this right down to the words 'x chromosome'. So wait a minute… if a woman has a favourite chair, drinks wine while watching TV and using a remote control (gasp), and occasionally adjusts her bra strap, should she be on the watch list? Or is this just another way for feminists to basically describe men as evil, by their very nature?

This is why I know that Simon Currs is a feminist. He views all males with distrust, including himself, and 'realises' that deep down inside, every man has domestic abuser traits just waiting to come out. I suspect that the 'training' he undertook in 2002 was in fact simply feminist brainwashing.

In short, Simon Currs is the last person we should be hearing from on a show broadcast to publicise 'men's issues'. A domestic violence feature from a 'men's perspective' should feature the severe under-reporting of domestic violence against men (briefly mentioned, admittedly), but then feature details of shelters for men, men's stories about abuse they have suffered, the reaction they got and the support, if any, when they reported it. It should also mention the fact that for every pound spent on DA shelters and support for men, three and a half grand is spent on women. Simon says that, in Cambridgeshire, the ratio of men to women reporting DA is 15% / 85%. Even if this is correct (which is doubtful), why, on average, do female DA victims get 99.97% of the funding?

The answer is simple. There is a gender crime being committed, and it isn't Domestic Abuse against women, it is the ignorance of the needs of male victims.

So, to summarise. To the BBC, thanks for the effort, but no thanks. All you have done here is to demonstrate what you think are 'men's issues', and to frame them through the feminist weltanschauung lens of the Beeb.

I see this time and time again from the BBC. Here is the most recent example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10826350

Can you see where you went wrong there? I sincerely hope so.

 

Posted by Jon Horridge

Comments

[John Kimble]

Hi Jon, great to have a new writer on the blog. An excellent first piece.

It was great to hear about your activism and you've really exposed the problems with the BBC. In terms of how to improve the piece the only criticism I can think of was it could have been marginally more concise - perhaps slightly less on the processes of what happened and more of the type of stuff in the second two-thirds of the article where you completely take the BBC to pieces so eloquently?

In terms of the conclusions, I'd basically agree although hearing both sides of a story is a good thing. Perhaps the best idea for Men's Hour would be to actually have some hateful feminist guest but use the programme to debunk all their lies and confront them on the myths they are constantly spreading and the harm this causes?

Many thanks for quoting the 3500:1 figure - that was my calculation so nice to see people remembering it (I should add that it only applies to Scotland, although I'm pretty sure figures for the rest of the UK would be similar).

Finally thanks for sharing that final link - an incredible find perhaps worthy of having a whole article dedicated to it? There are actually two major errors rather than one so I think I'll put something together.

[j]

Very nice! It's great to see another voice out there.

[JohnTaylor]

Hi, best of luck,Jon, in your future endeavours...
I noted the reference to Race for Life - so, have a read of this, incidentally, published on the day Diane would have been fifty (50) had she not died on 17th August 2001.

EQUALITY CHAMPION IN RACE FOR LIFE SEXISM CLAIM

Hope the above link works - tis the first time I have used an hyperlink on this site..Like you Jon - somewhat...

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Alas,my link above never worked - this is the long version

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8324139.Equality_campaigner_in_Race_for_Life_sexism_claim/#commentsList

[Groan]

A very welcome contribution indeed.I know exactly the training referred to. It is based on such stereotypes that I'm sure the public would find it almost comical. Can I just plug Parity who have just put a presentation on their site. Also The links on this site to Amen Mankind Dewar Esteem.All part of a growing move to get honesty back into supporting victims

[deegee]

No one will listen to this show or at least a statistically insignificant number who have the BBC on permanently as background.

[Jon]

Hi, thanks for all the kind remarks and feedback.

John Kimble, yes, I was shocked by the link at the end, too. It amounts to nothing more than an attack on males as a gender. It is propoganda, nothing more.

John Taylor, love it. I'm considering creating a satirical website called 'Race For Whitey' which raises money for skin cancer and doesn't allow black people to participate. The wording would be almost identical to that on the 'Race For Life' site apart from the words 'breast cancer' would be replaced with 'skin cancer', 'women' with 'white people', and 'men' with 'black people'. THEN we can ask people if they think it is a good or bad idea, and if they think the solution to initiatives like this one would be to create an equivalent 'blacks only' event, perhaps for a form of cancer that principally affects black people. Do they think that this is a good solution, or would they consider it discriminatory and divisive? Sorry, waffled on a bit there, but Race For Life is one of my own personal bugbears - to the point that I refuse to sponser family members who ask for support with it, and usually letting them know as clearly as possible why they are not getting sponsored. Great work, though.