Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Monday, 26 November 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Funny, I have seen the exact same thing used by some men here?


Sorry, I really feel this piece is misguided.
One of the reasons why I like TROM so much is that it has always steered clear of making sexist generalisations (THAT is usually left to the feminists whose activities are charted on these pages).

We need to keep intellectual and ethical coherence. Which means we must carry on arguing for justice and fairness and NOT tarring a whole category of people with the same brush.

More emphasis on the fine work of Skimmington and Jon Kimble please and less of this kind of nonsense.

John Kimble

I don't really agree with much of this. We're not debating women, we're debating gender feminists and all their various allies.

I'm not necessarily against controversial articles, but no sources are provided for any of the points made so it isn't really possible to defend much of what is said even if we wanted to.

Everything in the article also applies to men, white knight defenders of misandry in particular are often just as irrational and emotional as any of their female counterparts.

I really think articles like this damage the site far more than any random nonsense in the comments section.

Anthony Humphreys

I feel I must respond to the previous two comments to clarify the article. Firstly, I don't make any sweeping generalisations about women in the article - if you read what is there rather than what you want to see I refer to a lot/the majority/many women displaying this behaviour. If you are going to comment please read articles more carefully first.

Secondly, just because examples can't be refernced to an academic source doesn't mean they don't exist / happen. I live in the real world (not some academic neverland) which is where the behaviour addressed in the article happens frequently and which I have experienced personally on many occassions.

If we are to gain equality we must level the playing field again and that is what this article strives for. While we allow some women to manipulate us emotionally for their own benefit we will never be strong enough to gain what we desire as men.

John Kimble

Anthony, that last line of the article is quite a sweeping generalisation don't you think? Exactly the sort of statement you'd see about males by some man-hating Guardian writer.

You don't need to provide sources, but a link to some sort of research or even a real life example in the news would have made for a stronger article.

There's no shame in tweaking an article when people point out a mistake. I've certainly done it before.


Anthony. You will find talking with some of the "men" here like talking to feminists.

You are entering, the Mangina zone.

Paul Parmenter

Interesting article and interesting comments. I too think the article is somewhat out of place on this site, which aims at keeping debate at a higher intellectual level than we see elsewhere - which makes it such a breath of fresh air - and prefers to deal with specifics.

But again, although the article strays onto the dangerous ground of generalisation, I also understand Anthony's point. What he describes chimes very true with me; it is a phenomenon which we see time and again with women in all walks of life. It is remarkable how they can win arguments and make men back down from what they believe or even know to be right, simply by playing the chivalry card - "you have hurt me by your words, so now you have to make reparation to me. And don't do it again."

It is destructive and prevents proper debate. It is one of the reasons why misandry in our society is so stubborn and difficult to challenge or eradicate. So I think it is helpful to be aware of it. We should not shy away from tackling difficult subjects just because they may offend some people. At bottom, the most important question we should be asking of Anthony's article is not "why am I reading this here?" but "is it true?"


Good points Paul. On a policy level one can see the development of Laws and policies built around the emotional offence/affect of an action rather than the action itself. So Stalking is a very recent example. The actions have always been illegal and there have been high profile cases of men or women prosecuting stalkers. The "new" element is the affect of the various actions comprising stalking on the victim. Now in the relatively few pieces of research and statistical analysis done men and women are subjected to the behaviours and actions. However men are less likely to express fear and more likely to take steps to avoid the stalking. Consequently they are much less likely to be considered victims of stalking even though the same actions had been taken against them.
Its rather like deciding its unnecessary to prosecute a burgular if the victims of the burgulary are phlegmatic in their response and get themselves better security for the future.

Anthony Humphreys

thanks for the additional comments on the article as they explain the point I was trying to make better than I did I think and so hopefully can show others where I was coming from with it.

i think its dangerous to handicap what we're trying to achieve by making some methods or issues off limits to debate. while it is noble to try to claim the moral high ground and keep things on a purely intellectual basis this probably won't work on its own to change things. If we did that you can be sure women who are against us (not all women obviously) would be busy using every trick they can while we're being nice & playing fair

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List