There’s a bit of a comments storm brewing over at LibCon over the ‘gender neutral baby’ story which came out a few days ago, with Flying Rodent in the ‘won’t the poor kid get bullied?’ corner, and Jennie Kermode of Trans Media Watch entering the fray for the ‘no it won’t, and gender’s just a social construct so we shouldn’t get so hung up about it anyway’ side.

I should put my cards on the table at this point and state that my sympathies lean far more towards Kermode’s arguments than Flying Rodent’s, but I’m not hugely satisfied by the arguments put forward by either of them.

Kermode suggests that bringing up children as boys or girls from birth will lead to “[f]rantically trying to ensure that kids play with the right gendered toys” and that this is “all about imposing adult insecurities on children too young to understand what’s going on”. Sympathetic though I am to the cause of deconstructing the gender binary, I don’t think it’s very helpful to indulge in the armchair psychoanalysis of millions of parents who do raise their infants in a gendered way, as Kermode effectively does by asserting that they’re all riddled with insecurities.

Nor is it particularly helpful to conclude that “[t]he real question is: why are we so obsessed with judging people on the basis of what’s between their legs?” There’s no denying that it’s a good and sensible question to be asking, but is it really helpful in this particular case? There’s nothing in Flying Rodent’s piece to suggest that he’s ignorant of or opposed to the attempts to question traditional gender role; indeed, he quite explicitly writes (albeit in a bit of a backhanded context) that “it’d be nice to live in a world where kids could express themselves however they like without being sadistically tormented”, and I imagine most people who read Kermode’s piece are going to be similarly sympathetic. The question is how best to balance the commendable desire of parents Kathy Witterick and David Stocker to help undermine society’s simplistic gender binaries with the likely consequences of their actions for the child in question – most significantly the prospect of said child facing bullying in school.

It’s undeniably true, as both Kermode and Flying Rodent acknowledge, that kids bully other kids for any number of reasons – weight, clothes, accent and so on – but it doesn’t follow that it’s therefore OK to act in a way that significantly raises the likelihood of your child being bullied. It would still be pretty irresponsible to call your kid ‘sweetums’ within earshot of their classmates even if they also had ginger hair and braces. Pointing to adults who act in ways untypical to their gender isn’t very convincing either; as a general rule, kids are a hell of a lot more vicious than adults when it comes to this kind of thing.

But for all the flaws there might be in Kermode’s piece, it’s by far the more convincing. The central argument of Flying Rodent’s article could be applied to parents who are openly gay, particularly given the appalling levels of homophobic bullying in schools. Should gay couples therefore not have children? What about mixed-race couples? And, perhaps even more importantly, what about the argument that the only way attitudes to this kind of thing are ever going to change is if people actually do something to try and challenge them?

Besides which, how likely is it really that little Storm (yes, that’s the kid’s name – and it’s not even like there aren’t any perfectly normal gender-neutral names they could have chosen. What’s wrong with Jo, or Sam? But I digress) is going to have their life at school (and possibly beyond) completely ruined by being allowed to decide their gender for themselves? Even if the kid does end up with a gender-atypical behaviour trait or two (which is possible), and even if the school they end up going to is rife with transphobia (entirely plausible) and the staff are unwilling or unable to do anything to challenge this (also quite believable, sadly), surely most children are bright enough to figure out fairly quickly the more obvious ways they can stop themselves standing out as targets for bullies? It seems far more likely that Storm will learn at a pretty early juncture to keep their more unconventional behaviour out of the classroom and playground than that they’ll be traumatised for life by the whole thing. Not that that’s an ideal outcome either, of course, but suggesting apocalyptically dire consequences for what’s effectively just a novel type of hands-off parenting is frankly unhelpful.

Edit: Lucy Cage points out on Twitter and in the comments that Storm isn’t going to be sent to school, a detail omitted from the BBC story. However, Storm’s parents do presumably intend their child to interact socially with kids of the same age at some point, (hopefully anyway), so I’d argue that the question of whether Storm’s likely to face bullying from them is still worth considering.

EU gotta be kidding!

Yesterday’s vote in the European Parliament’s to extend maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay across the EU should be welcomed by anyone who believes the work-life balance in the UK needs to be seriously revised. If approved, which is far from certain given Conservative opposition in Britain, it will also encourage more women who want to start families to feel secure in starting a career. Contrary the dribbling Daily Mail headlines, and the jerking knees of my Europhobic Third Estate colleague, the EU can actually do some good things. But unless paternity leave is equalised with maternity leave, the reform may do almost as much harm as it does good in the long run.

Despite strict equality laws, a report earlier this month from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission found that women in the UK earn on average 16% less than men. That this gap widens to 27% for women over 40, who are more likely to have started a family, is significant. Maternity leave – a fundamental necessity of modern society freeing women from having to choose between family and career – has had the unintended consequence of reinforcing the glass ceiling effect they experience in the workplace. All other things being equal, employers find themselves predisposed to promoting men to senior positions because they are unwilling to promote women who may take much lengthier and more costly maternity leave if they choose to start a family. This is one of the reasons women make up only 5% of the executive director positions of the top 600 British companies.

At present, women are entitled to 39 weeks maternity leave, with 6 weeks at 90% of their pay and the rest at a flat rate of £123.06. Men, on the other hand, are allowed only two weeks paternity leave at £123.06. The EU’s proposal will make those two weeks fully paid, but it will dramatically increase the gap between the two benefits by giving women ten times the amount of time off on full pay.

There are obvious reasons why maternity leave should be more generous than paternity leave. For one thing, men don’t have to go through the pain of childbirth. Nor can they produce milk. However, in a society where employers exploit pregnancy and maternity leave as a reason to underpay and underpromote women, increasing the gender gap in parental leave may throw up new obstacles to narrowing the gender gap in the workplace. Moreover, it reinforces the notion that the woman’s role is that of carer and the father’s that of the breadwinner. The only way to tackle both problems is to equalise paternity leave with maternity leave.

Ironic that that best way to promote female equality is to give men more rights.

Scotland, sex and decency. The combination of the three has long been known to generate weird and authoritarian outcomes. The scottish law against “Outraging Public Decency” appears to potentially criminalise anything that people might find a bit icky, and not long ago was used to convict somebody for having sex with his bicycle in the privacy of his own hotel room (don’t ask me about the logistics). The poor man ended up on the sexual offenders register.

In October Scotland’s new Sexual Offences Act will come into force. Unlike the 2003 Act that was written for England and Wales, the Scottish act contains a clause outlawing “indecent communication”. It will soon be illegal to communicate with someone sexually – either in writing or in speech – without obtaining their consent, or without the ‘reasonable belief’ that they do consent to it. Quite simply they have taken the standard traditionally applied to rape – to the actual penetration of another person’s body – and applied it to what people say.

Thankfully it is fairly normal to ensure that somebody consents to sexual intercourse. This is because putting your penis inside another person can have a serious and lasting affect on them, not least if they do not want it there. More generally people expect to enjoy sovereignty over their bodies and their physical experiences. By contrast we do not have – nor would any sane person require – a general right to be protected from hearing things we don’t want to hear. And that is why, in our culture, it is not normal to ask people for permission to say something sexual during the course of a facebook chat or a conversation in a bar. “Do you mind if I deploy an innuendo” just wouldn’t sound right. And quite frankly it shouldn’t.

Whether people get off with each other in bars, or engage in mundane msn conversations that degenerate into bad internet sex, people frequently make the transition from polite conversation into something more erotic. And this very often necessitates somebody saying something on a whim, somebody communicating some sexual feeling in the hope that it will be reciprocated. And sometimes that means saying something under circumstances that don’t quite match up to a “reasonable belief in consent”.

People’s styles differ. Some people take little baby steps, fearful of embarrassing either themselves or the subject of their attraction. Other people like going at it full throttle, precociously making their feelings and intentions clear. And some of the latter group might be pricks. Equally some people are better at reading social and sexual signals than others. But acutally criminalising prickishness or a lack of social intelligence  - simply to prevent people hearing the wrong thing  - is, in this context, unjustified and an overuse of criminal law. And this is not  least because every grown man and woman is capable of articulating a two word sentence ending in “off”.

Writing in today’s Guardian, the last standard bearer of the dead dream that is a socialist Labour Party hit out at critics by saying that if necessary, he would stand aside to secure Diane Abbot’s nomination for Labour leader. In fact, John McDonnell went further to say that “if my standing down would mean securing any woman on this ballot paper, or any black person, of course I will do so.”

That’s very noble of him. I’m sure he’d hold the door open for them too, unless he had to run off to help an old lady cross the street. McDonnell is right to say that principles must come before career. But giving a leg up to female and ethnic minority candidates, regardless of their policies, is not a principled position in and of itself. Would his offer extend to Thatcher? Or Mugabe? Clearly he felt saddened by the decisions of such shining leftwing beacons as Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper not to stand. Why? Because there aren’t enough vaginas on the ballot paper. Diane Abbot adds one, and can at least be said to have mildly progressive views.

But the point is, politics should not be about the colour of your skin, or the contents of your underpants, but the content of your character. It should not even be – and this will be a controversial point amongst socialists – about class. The defining point has to be policy. It doesn’t matter that John McDonnell is a middle-aged white male. It wouldn’t matter if he were Oxbridge educated like the New Labourite clones leading the race. All that matters is that he has the right policies, the right ideas, the right values. Of course more needs to be done to remove barriers to women and ethnic minorities succeeding across society and parliamentary politics is not exempt from this. But this cannot come at the expense of ideology.

Like most of the world, I cheered when Barack Obama won the US election. Not because he was black, but because he wasn’t a right-wing nutjob like the opposition. If the situation had been reversed, if McCain had been on the left and Obama the right, I would have forgone the opportunity to celebrate America’s first black president and cheered the man with the better politics regardless of his skin colour. To pretend otherwise is, well, slightly racist. It’s in this sense that I find McDonnell’s arguments, sincere and noble as they are, somewhat patronising. Yes, John, principles must come before career. But they must also come before colour, creed or sex. So go out and fight for them. And then maybe you’ll be in a position to genuinely help build a society that is free from all forms of discrimination.

The so-called sexualisation of children has been all over the news this week with a report for the home office being published by Dr Linda Papodopoulos. Amongst recommendations are those about softcore men’s mags such as Nuts and Zoo being made to be top-shelf publications, as they are often seen by eight to fifteen year olds. All of this is said in the language of sexual liberation, and a rejection of, as Papodoulos puts it, “fake breasts” and “fuck-me shoes” (incidently I’ve never really been interested in fucking a shoe.) The problem though, is that the agenda here has nothing to do with women’s liberation, or at least if it has tried to be about that then the project is completely misconceived.

The fact is that children are sexual beings. Sex and sexuality is without a doubt one of the strongest forces in our society, and to imagine that innocence is preserved in a society such as this beyond the point at which language and human interaction is developed is to do a massive discredit to all young people, and furthermore can lead to the belief that sex is a bad thing.

Of course there are problems with images in these magazines, with the fact that women in general, and not just children, may feel the need to emulate them, but these are undoubtedly wider societal problems, and one does not cure a disease by treating a single symptom. The attempt to get restrictions on softcore porn changed are mere prudishness, which is why the conservative party are so willing to embrace them.

The fact is, though, that if we are serious about addressing these issues in society, then the last thing we need is prudishness. Some of our readers may remember the issue that surrounded the publication of the children’s book Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin in the 1980s, which the Tories kicked up a huge fuss about, finally resulting in section 28. This is the same politics returning. Papadopoulos is a tad more trendy than Mary Whitehouse, but just as wrong and just as dangerous.

Would it not be more concerning to live in a society in which no 15 year-olds wanted to look at breasts? If, upon coming of age young men and women were given the choice of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge regardless of the fact that this very knowledge is there social condition? Of course we must protect children from damage that can be done to them, just as we should protect any person, and in many ways children are a vulnerable group. But it is a mistake to believe that childhood is a special place separate from all other parts of life. The preservation of such a Christian ideal is the preservation of no life at all.

If we are to ever promote plural sexualities, sexual liberation, self-identity, self-control, and radical approaches to gender, then we must open up the sexual sphere for discussion and education. A starved man will eat anything, whilst a man with a plentiful supply of food will be able to develop taste and appreciation of some foods, and distaste at others. In proposing that we keep our children de-sexualised, we run the risk of never allowing them the critical moment in which they can differentiate between sexual practices they like or dislike, approve of or disapprove of.

We must, as socialists, always fight hegemony in the social sphere. The problem here is that Papadopoulos to be fighting the against the social sphere in toto. Just because one particular image of a woman may be highly problematic for those who believe in women’s liberation, we should not take that to mean we should ban all images of women. We must fight for a world which is ours, rather than a world that is no-one’s.

With all the furore about a French parliamentary committee recommending a ban on Muslim women wearing Islamic face veils in public, I thought it was a good time to bring up France’s long-standing history of banning items of clothing…

Historically religion isn’t the only area to fall victim to the fashion police in France, sartorial expressions of gender-bending have also been under threat. Apparently there is a still-current law in Paris which prevents French women from dressing like men. Introduced in 1800 by a Paris police chief, the law says it’s only ok for women to wear trousers if they are holding the reins of a horse or on a bicycle.

Although it has lain dormant for years, the law has never been repealed despite many opportunities to do so. There’s still nothing to stop it being enforced – although it would have to be enforced by a policeman as the uniform for Parisianpolicewomen includes trousers (what a winning instance of “do as I say and not as I do” that would be…). I’ve never understood why women who dress as men have traditionally been seen as a moral danger or a bit risqué (even in panto), but men who dress as women are the focus of hilarity on both sides of the channel. It’s a humour I will never understand, much like Benny Hill.

It may seem hilariously archaic now but when the ‘sanscullotes’ law was introduced, a reason was given which we often hear being used in the arguments for banning the veil – fear of displays (or non-displays in the case of the veil) which transgress ‘the norms’ of society. The veil is certainly an affront to the liberal secular view.

European politicians often speak of the veil as making them feel uncomfortable, suspicious or disconnected from the wearer. People who appear visually different evoke an old fear in Western society, particularly those who wear masks or conceal their faces – a mask allows you to lose inhibitions and commit transgressions without fear of being identified. As Shakespeare writes in Measure for Measure – a play where a central character is a woman about to take the veil and become a nun:

“To speak so indirectly I am loath… to veil full purpose.” (Act 4: Scene 6)

We worry about this for practical reasons of security. However, if France were banning the veil for this reason only then hard hats, motorcycle helmets and hoodies would also be banned.

It’s worth remembering that at the time the Parisian law was introduced (shortly after the revolution), women in trousers were seen as threatening to the fragile status quo. The law was meant as a reminder that the promise of egalité of the revolution was only to be extended to the fraternity, not the sorority. Ironically, now the veil stands accused of representing exactly the same kind of sexual inequality. Plus ça change.

The taboo on relationships between older women and younger men is one of the stranger and more persistent ones in modern Britain. No one seems to think much of Rod Stewart being married to a woman 26 years his junior, but the love lives of Sam Taylor-Wood and Iris Robinson are the focus of a kind of fascinated horror. In the latter case, there’s been a kind of depressing predictability about the way that the juicy details of Robinson’s affair with the then-19-year-old Kirk McCambley garnered far more attention than Robinson and her husband’s alleged financial misdeeds.

The weirdest example of this disgust at relationships where women are older – at least of the stuff I’ve read – has to be this Liz Jones column from today’s Mail on Sunday. The general gist of it seems to be that when men have relationships with younger women it’s perfectly acceptable because men are entirely motivated by sex, (and everyone knows that nubile twenty-somethings with huge tits are the only attractive women in the universe). Women, on the other hand, don’t really like sex, so if they enter into a relationship with young  (and presumably libidinous) men, they must have some other dark, underhand reason for doing so. More specifically:

A woman embarks on a relationship with someone much younger than her because she believes she can manipulate him, boss him, steal his sperm and then nurture him as she would a child or a pet.

In return for these (doubtful) benefits, Jones suggests, the woman in the partnership provides financial and career assistance to her young lover – a leading film role in the case of Aaron Johnson, Taylor-Wood’s boyfriend (he plays John Lennon in recent biopic Nowhere Boy), and a dubious £50,000 loan in the case of Robinson and McCambley. In arriving at these conclusions, Jones also claims to be drawing on her own (apparently somewhat disastrous) experience of being married to a man 15 years her junior.

Finally, by way of a parting shot, Jones insinuates that Robinson’s affair is a sign of something far worse than ‘a trendy, cougarish predilection for toy boys’, on the grounds that she was  willing to risk her marriage and political career over it, though she isn’t very specific as to what this might be. She mentions Humbert Humbert (the protagonist in Lolita), but that isn’t particularly helpful. It doesn’t seem very fair to equate having a romantic relationship with a 12-year-old (as in Lolita) and having one with a 19-year-old (as Robinson did). And even if it was, that still doesn’t really provide any sort of insight into what drove Robinson to put herself in such professional and personal jeopardy. Perhaps more bizarrely, Jones also seems to be suggesting that relationships between older women and younger men are almost totally devoid of sexual desire, since according to her younger men only pretend to find their older partners attractive, while the women simply don’t enjoy sex at all.

More than anything, this column makes me feel deeply sorry for Liz Jones. By her own admission, she’s basing her arguments on her own experiences, which rather strongly suggests that it’s Jones, not Robinson, Taylor-Wood or any other older woman, who hasn’t enjoyed sex since her ‘teenage crush period’, who sees younger men as willing suppliers of sperm who are easy to manipulate, and relationships with them as a kind of cold commercial transaction. I hope that isn’t true – it doesn’t sound like a very happy existence – but it looks fairly plausible.

I’m not denying that there are many reasons to dislike and criticise Iris Robinson (her homophobia, for starters), but tenuous armchair psychoanalysis based on your own experiences seems a pretty flimsy basis for that. I don’t know – any more than Jones does – what Robinson or Taylor-Wood’s precise motives were when they started their respective relationships. But I really can’t see what grounds we have to suppose that there was anything more Machiavellian going on than there is when older men have relationships with younger women. It’s almost as if the Mail has some sort of agenda against women who step outside its narrow Victorian vision of acceptable female behaviour, but I’m sure that’s just crazy talk.

So the Tories want to incentivise marriage? Who says romance is dead?

I got married two years ago (please contain your disappointment…). Contrary to popular belief I did this by choice. It hasn’t made one iota difference to our relationship, it does however change how others treat you (I now get patronised even more by bank managers). We could easily have just continued co-habiting.

However, there’s a certain romance after 5 years of living together of ‘sealing the deal’ in front of witnesses. Also, my husband is Australian and with this government changing visa restrictions and residency rules almost annually on a whim there was a constant unease in the back of my head that we could be forced into a difficult and inconvenient situation in the future.

It wasn’t an easy decision to make – as a feminist the symbolism sat uneasily, as an atheist even more so. So we solved the problem by sodding off to Vegas, rewriting the ceremony removing all traces of god and obedience and letting friends and family give some staggeringly inappropriate readings instead. Then we had alcohol. It was a good day. It was our day. It was our choice.

Should I be rewarded for that choice? No. We didn’t even have a wedding list – why should every taxpayer in the country give us presents?

I am really surprised the Tories want to offer tax breaks for married couples for two main reasons:
1) In this economic climate surely new unnecessary tax breaks are an unaffordable luxury? Aren’t the Tories supposed to be the party of cuts?
2) Aren’t they also supposed to be the party of minimal state interference in people’s lives?
The whole ‘family values’ thing is a strange anomaly of The Right. For example, in America the Republicans are pro-choice in everything from the ‘freedom’ to bear arms and an open market for healthcare – but anti-choice when it comes to ‘pro-choice’.

I don’t think marriage should be specially commended in tax law. There are commitments that I believe should be rewarded more thoroughly – carers of people with disabilities and long term terminal illnesses for example – but all I did was sign a public declaration of love for my partner (he’s that needy…).

The Tories seem to see marriage as a sort of salve for societal ills but it’s not – it won’t make you a better person and there’s no proof it will make you a better parent. And if you need a piece of paper to stop you running away from your partner every 5 seconds then my guess if that you’re probably not suited to long term commitment of any kind.

It’s no coincidence that the Tories have made their policy announcement in the first week of January – a month which traditionally sees a spike in the number of couples filing for divorce (Christmas’ll do that to you). Statistics show that if the economy picks up, it’s likely the divorce rate will too. Which seems on the face of it to suggest that marriage is an economic situation as much as a social one. However, if, as the stats seem to show, many of those people endured being trapped in a difficult marriage for financial reasons, one has to question whether incentivising them to stay married is a good idea.

Luckily, it looks as we’re all safe for now because it turns out the Conservatives are talking complete cant.

Look closely at the fine print in the following associated Cameron proclamations:

It is something we want to do, something we believe we can do, it’s something, within a parliament, I’ll definitely hope to do.

(Translation: “we have almost no chance of achieving this and I know that”)

Recognising marriage in the tax system is something I feel very strongly about and something we will definitely do in the next parliament. We will set out exactly how in due course.

(Translation: “we have absolutely no idea how we would go about achieving it anyway”)

Phew…

Next Friday my Students’ Union will host a ‘Playboy Mansion’ themed club night. Over the past few weeks at what is still quite a new University for me I have been more and more bothered by the sexualised atmosphere promoted by the union’s venues. But, with my attentions largely elsewhere (on job cuts, the fact that Joe Glenton is imprisoned just down the road and the small matter of a Masters Degree), this has mostly taken the form of low-level grumblings with like-minded individuals. However, this seems to be the last straw, and our Womens’ Officer, to her credit, launched a facebook group against the theme on Thursday.

I should make it clear that I agree with her, and the campaign is being conducted in exactly the right way. Women (and men) should be allowed to dress however they like, but Students’ Unions should not be promoting such hyper-sexualised objectification. This is not about censorship, it is about what is appropriate for the Union. The fact that some people find it fun should not trump our commitment to equality and liberation. Promotion of such a narrow conception of sexuality compromises that commitment. However, this isn’t what I wanted to post about. Instead I wanted to share some of the appalling comments that have appeared on the facebook group from those defending the night:

“sounds like [NAME DELETED]  needs a good shagging to me….”

“im extremely worried for you girls as you are acting like feminists which is just as bad as being sexist”

“But it is scientifically proven that women have smaller brains and less brain cells, as a result women are considered inferior species.”

“you’re just an ice queen in need of a good humping”

“i propose that women shud not be allowed to dress up in any clothing. problem solved.”

“WTF, get over it you mardy bitches. No one is asking you to take your clothes off. Sort your life out and do some uni work instead of making pointless Facebook groups.”

The extrardinary level of sexualised vitriol aimed at young women who have a problem with this (largely from men, though not always) is terrifying. It’s almost like it proves a point about women’s liberation being a long way off, or something…

The statement which inspired such aggression:

At the start of the term, the SU organised and planned on holding a Flirt event themed as ‘Playboy Mansion’ in Sub Zero. Though this was cancelled, they have now re-scheduled this event for the 4th of December! Why is a Union like ours, which promotes equality, allowing such sexist and degrading events to take place?

Events like Playboy Mansion simply degrade women solely to sexual objects! In the past we’ve had other similar events like Bunny Auctions held in Sub Zero, which were justified by the SU as trying to ‘strike a balance’ between differences of opinion, as it has been argued that some women find such events liberating. However, is this not because we are constantly being exposed and normalised to these sexist views in our daily lives through the media and other sources, that some have come to accept that this is liberation?!

An academic institution supposedly representing the students should, of all places, be the last to organise and promote events like ‘Playboy Mansion’!! Essentially what the SU have done is sell nights to private companies who organise events to make money, without putting thought into ethics or the student welfare. We want our Union to be a place exempt from discrimination towards women. Let’s bin the bunny!

Let’s fight sexism on campus and fight for true sexual liberation for all – Join us in our Campaign to oppose such SU events from taking place!

If anyone wants to add their name onto the list of signatories, feel free to do so by messaging the group Administrator.

Signatories:

• Zeynep Koc (Women’s Officer)
• Hannah Prime (Women’s Committee & NUS Women’s Delegate)
• Balqis Abdulkadir Mohamud (Women’s Committee)
• Kaileigh Clarke (Women’s Committee)
• Emma Milne (Women’s Committee)
• Mark D. Bergfeld (Campaigns Officer)
• George Papaioannou (Ethics and Environment Officer)
• Jevanni Letford (Black and Ethnic Minorities Student Officer)
• Nibras Hadi (Equality and Diversity Officer)
• Robert Wayman (LGBT Officer)
• Beatrice Blois (Charity and Fundraising Officer)
• Saul Jones (UAF President)
• Elizabeth Mantzari (Stop the War Soc. President)
• Iolanda Gomes (Portuguese Soc. President)
• Sam Potter (Campaigns Commitee)
• Waleed Rahmati (Campaigns Committee)
• Joe Poser (Campaigns Committee)
• Nathan Street (Ethics and Environment Committee)
• Sophie Parr (Ethics and Environment Committee)
• Daisy Blench (Ethics and Environment Committee)
• Munira Abduletif (Equality and Diversity Committee)
• Kate Douglas (General Rep)
• Savin Koc (1st Year Rep)
• Nathan Bolton (1st Year Rep)
• Dan Swain (Mature Students Committee)
• James Burch (UAF)
• Miguel Borba (SWSS)
• Oliver Lowe (SWSS)
• Stuart Burrows (SWSS)
• Tim Allen (Workers Power)
• Rix Payne (Workers Power)
• Waheed Raja (Stop the War Soc.)
• Izzat Shamroukh (PSC)
• Max Morris
• Charlotte Doman (Red Radio DJ)
• Matt Hutton
• Margarida Santos-Silva
• Louis Gigon
• Hannah Rebecca
• Matt Murray (SU Equal Opportunities Officer 07-08)
• Professor Peter Lynn (Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Colchester)
• Anna Rocks
• Eloysius Nightingale
• Carlos Rivera (PHD Student, U of E Psychology Dept.)
Katrina Suzanne Michel

Across the left there has been an explosion of mockery and outrage at the formation of men’s societies at Oxford and Manchester universities. This is, in part, because of the reputedly dubious activities of the Manchester men’s society in particular. Equally there has been an instinctive – and to some extent reasonable – reaction against the presumed idea that men’s societies can play an equivalent role to women’s groups within a society characterised by male privelege. Jim Jepps of the Daily (Maybe) has been amongst those leading the charge. Nonetheless, it is my contention that students’ mens societies have a potentially progressive – and perhaps  even irreplaceable – role to play in the sphere of gender and in the struggle for male and female liberation.

Over on facebook, many of my friends and  comrades have joined a group set up by a number of leading student lefties to protest the creation of mens groups. The reason given for such opposition is stark. The group description states, under the subheading of ‘why?’ that ‘men are not oppressed’ before listing the huge number of ways in which women genuinely are shafted by present social circumstances. As such it is suggested, there is no need for men to explore their interests as men.

Nobody with a brain would suggest the position of men in western society is remotely comparable to that of women. Yet with this said, relations between men and women cannot and certainly should not be understood in terms of two people sharing a cake. The fact that women have less does not mean that men universally and collectively have more. And while the gendered expectations that permeate our society are clearly most oppressive to women, this does not prevent the dominant notions of masculinity from bringing shame and unfreedom to the lives of men.

This all may seem a little abstract. Yet I am reminded of some government propaganda that I witnessed from the 1920s. With Britain gripped by an  unprecendented wave of strikes, the Tory government tried to shame men into going back too work by telling the country that these hideous creatures were failing to ‘provide for their families’. A decade earlier the same men had been cojolled into the trenches with deeply gendered ideas of heroism and cowardice.  The point here, is that while the ideas of men as providers or as soldiers have characteristically confirmed the subordinate position of women, these same ideas took a heavy toll on certain men. As the gender historian John Tosh reminds us, notions of masculinity do not simply mediate relations between men and women but between men and men. In these cases, masculinity was a tool through which the men of the ruling classes could shackle the men of the lower orders. Today a man who, like millions, loses his job is faced not only with material hardship but with the cultural onslaught that arises from his failure to live up to gendered expectations.

Relations between men and women are not, I repeat, a zero sum game. That men happen to be priveleged relative to women does not mean that men cannot have a legitimate interest in collectively addressing what it means to be a man.

And thus the stated aim of the Oxford Men’s Society is to explore the meaning of masculinity today. Now we may not expect them to  come, necessarily, to the conclusions we would like -not least given rumours of ‘beer and top gear’  that surround the Manchester mens soc. Yet the fact that this question is being asked – and that a space is being created in which it can be asked, by men, is undoubtedly a step forward. If you doubt this, you need only consider the now-well-syndicated reaction of the loaded editor to the issue of men’s socs. In a statement – that for some fucked up reason was quoted approvingly by Jim JEPPS – the editor said, presumably in a deep voice:

“”I don’t think men are remotely confused about what it takes to be a man. They just get on and do it. My generation would not sit round and build a website about being confused. It’s complete navel-gazing bullshit.”

The implication is that men ‘just know’ what it is to be a man, as though it were something innate. Against this background, the idea that men might actually get together to discuss what masculinity, and perhaps even exersize some agency over its meaning surely opens an important door.

And the attitude expressed by some opponents of mens socs to the idea of men exploring masculinity is, i’m afraid, rather stupid if not appalling.  On the front page of the anti-mens socs facebook group, prominence is given to comment by Kent Student Aaron Kiely, who tells mens soc members that   ‘If you want to campaign on the issues of gender and identity, the LGBTQ society and liberation officers should be able to help you out.”   His thoughts are echoed – again quoted approvingly – by another student who asserts that “since this is more a gender identity issue than one of a bias against men as men, I agree that it falls under the remit of the LGBTQ.”

Amazingly these people cannot imagine that  heterosexual men have reasonable interest in discussing, let alone challenging the dominant gender norms. It is a view that is incredibly simplistic and in fact deeply pessimistic.  It barely needs saying that the gender roles ascribed to both sexes are indterdependent and mutually reinforcing. And if people cannot percieve the need for the 90 odd per cent of men who are heterosexual to discuss and reconsider what it means to be a man, then there is little hope of liberation for any of us.