The world is changing. Almost nobody wants to return to the rigid class, race, and gender structures of the past. Yet for some people the pace of change can feel threatening. Old social hierarchies are breaking down, and groups that previously held all of the power are finding they have to share.
This is not a new phenomenon. A New York Times poll from 1964 suggested that a majority of white New Yorkers felt that the “Negro civil rights movement [had] gone too far”, and that African Americans now received “everything on a silver platter” and there was “reverse discrimination” against white people. Jim Crow laws enforcing racial segregation were finally overturned in 1964 and ’65.
Following the Brett Kavanaugh hearing in the United States, President Donald Trump argued that it was a “scary” and “difficult” time to be a young man today. When we interviewed Ann Widdecombe earlier in 2018, she argued that feminism and gender equality today has gone too far. She argued that, in developed countries, women hold plenty of power and gender inequality is now being suffered by “poor guys”:
[…] If you ask me about gender inequality, I would now say it’s the men who’ve got the real grievance. I mean, if you take for example, all women short-lists for Parliament – let’s just take that as one example – then you’ve got a man who’s grown up in a constituency, educated his own children there, used the local health services, knows it backwards, but can’t apply because it’s reserved for a woman. Now think what would happen if that the reversed were approved. Men are certainly at a disadvantage in some of the legal positions. We’ve seen it a lot recently, whereby a man is named the moment there is an investigation, doesn’t even wait until he’s charged; the woman remains anonymous throughout, even if she’s falsely accused him. Men are at a disadvantage in the family courts, where the presumption is nearly always with the women. So, don’t tell me we have gender inequality against women. If anything, it’s now against poor guys.
Are men under attack? Or is it just that the world is changing, and previously disempowered groups are getting more of a say? Is the pace of change too fast? Or is justice delayed justice denied? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
.jpg){kind=link}
23 comments Post a commentcomment
Humanity as a whole is under attack. Corpofeminism is just a particularly dishonest phase in the post-humanist attempt to immanentize the eschaton. But it will fail. As for your statement that “nobody wants to return to the rigid class, racial, and gender structures of the past”: that’s demonstrably untrue. Even the people of socialist Sweden are voting for people who promised to do just that. In my opinion, the past is past, and we can’t go back to it, but the vision of the future presented in trashy propaganda like what you’ve presented here has failed before it’s even been implemented. The future will be nothing like you imagine.
“ALMOST nobody wants to return to…”
Still wishful thinking. Why do you think right wing governments are being elected around the world? Because most people reject techno-futurism. If you were to ask people on the street, even in a major European metropolis, whether gender is merely something that they choose, I am confident that most of them would just laugh.
The reality is more disconcerting – most right-wing groups promising a return to traditional values only present false opposition to the techno-futurist oligarchy. But then, most people are totally ignorant about what their corporate and governmental overlords have in mind. I was talking to a woman the other day who told me that she’s “liberated and totally happy”. I asked her if she was looking forward to having grandchildren. She said “of course”. Then I told her that the CEOs of the major tech corporations have all stated that they plan for humanity to be replaced by “post-humans” by 2040, which will be fully integrated with computers and supposedly have eternal life. Sexual reproduction, according to them, will be a thing of the past.
The woman started laughing hysterically (I live in a small country with heavily censored media – most people don’t read interviews with tech CEOs). She said she’d never heard anything about this and I’m obviously crazy. So whom should I believe… some ignorant lady, or the richest, most powerful people in the world?
Michał The far right are just the natural outcome of to much power in the hands of the barking mad left, both are relics of the last century and both should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
As far as sexism goes both legal and social realities differ so vastly throughout Europe it’s hard to imagine how this could be approached from a European perspective.
I would say though that strict legal parity is the way to go. We should distrust anyone from any faction seeking to enshrine or vindicate prejudice and discrimination in society and particularly in law, and defend the virtue of judging each person as an individual strictly on their merits, no matter whose toes we thereby step on.
Real man are under siege from all quarters, just trying to hold your ground in today’s topsyturvey wirld
It’s certainly true that our conceptions of fairness and equality have not been sufficiently adapted to meet the increasing understanding of where problems lie in society, and who is affected by them. Sexism is generally seen as a prejudice held by men against women, despite the reality showing it existing in the reverse as well, and not simply in minor, isolated cases. We are a more overtly complex society now, and thus nuance, rather than identitarian new-conservative views, is required to address our problems. The fact is currently men are likely to encounter silence, dismissal, or even hostility for voicing non-conformist views on gender issues. That is, if a man espouses a genuinely misogynistic view, or a pro-feminist view, he is only responded to through the accepted playbook. If he challenges the norm, stating that he sees ‘everyday sexism’ in the workplace, that men have fewer legal rights (i.e. paternity issues, lack of victimhood recognition) et al, he is more likely to be subject to more vitriol, because it is seen as ‘other.’ Regardless, as we strive to become more aware of and sympathetic towards various peoples’ experiences, we must be willing to listen to and think about what men say as well, in the same we ought to with women, trans people, and anyone else currently seen as having genuine grievances.
Specially white heterosexual men! Worldwide.
🤣
Yes, by few political activist woman, that do not accept the defeat on the polls.
Are you joking? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8n_xWLu0r8
You do realize that this isn’t a two side issue, that men’s issues and women’s issues can co-exist?
It is a huge problem of this debate that feminists reduce men’s issues to saying ‘we have it worse’.
No a real man can not be afraid of anything for the rest I do not know
Yes, please…
Man kind is under attac from the egoist politicians how do not start to do nything to counter the Green house effekt
Yes
No. Calm down, straight white men are not “under attack”.
For sure. Even more here in Spain. And boys too.
Are men under attack?
Yes, and it is disgusting. Western men have been the stalwart of our cultural life and respect. This is the most horrific betrayal of our people to date. Millions literally dying for way of life and then this bunch of cheap tarts feeling they have been wronged. The reason I have never and will never ever be a so called feminist. What a pile of shit they really are. Rub their noses in it, I say.
All they want is a file of nancy boys lined up for a kicking. So they can get off on it.
Since my birth, men have always been wonderful to me. And I am grateful to all of them. As, without them, life could have been much harder.
No. Men are not attacked, that is absolutely ridiculous. Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist and does NOT deserve to be the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you think that men are “under attack”, open your eyes.
@ Emma
What must happen, in order to keep sanity and the justice of civilised countries in tact, is that people like you, who condemn a person without a shred of evidence, and in fact, before a pack of obvious lies, should face a libel charge and have it followed through to court charges.
When a so called ‘victim’ waits over thirty years to make a complaint against a man or woman, who at the time of so called rape or whatever crime alleged, the person was a minor, as was this accused. A victim who makes such accusations who, A) Cannot remember the year or month of the offence. B) Names witnesses who deny the person in question was at the venue during that time. C) Likewise other witnesses who are friends of the victim for many years, come forward and declare the victim is not being honest, as they say, this victim, was not at same party where this event is said to have occurred. D) Appears to have the demeanour, when giving evidence, of an unstable individual who cannot answer reasonable questions,then weeps childlike in order to deflect from questioning. Then you have an unsound accuser.
A life changing event such as this, where you suffer for decades from the flash backs, do not fade into oblivion. Dates, times, places of people in attendance at the time, does not diminish with years. Shock doesn’t work that way.
Additionally to wait thirty or more years to make an accusation is preposterous. What should amount in this matter, is, the FBI should investigate the background of this person, especially her recent spending habits, or, the spending habits of family. Political or career advancement, presently or in the future, for no apparent reason. Enlightenment may then rise to the surface and even expose others on the journey as to how this accusation came about.
Meanwhile people who want to convict without evidence, even circumstantial, as you do in this matter, want to return a civilised Western justice system to medieval acceptance and expectation of law. Should that happen, then you would see the results of such vicious thinking. .
This position is similar to the edict of witch drowning, if she lives when sunk, she’s guilty of witchcraft, if she dies she was innocent. It’s called a catch 22 situation after the Vietnam war system.
I don’t think men are under attack yet in Europe, but looking at America I can imagine we will import that problem soon enough.
Emancipation should be about allowing people to become anything they want. Which requires a good education. Gender roles should play a role in education. What people do afterwards with their education is up to the people themselves.
It’s not wrong if all women want to become nurses. And all men want to become engineers. Or if women prefer to work part-time jobs or stay at home and men start businesses. As long as people have the option to choose for the opposite as well.
Politicians however, often try to force people into certain roles. That’s when problems start to occur. And you get ‘forced diversity’ at the expense of others. Which creates tensions in society. Politicians should accept their limitations.
The truth is emancipation is a slow process which takes generations of slow progress. And if it’s achieved through education then it will have a lasting effect. But you can’t fit it into a 4 year period just before the next elections.
While we are not as polarised in the EU as the States, increasingly this is becoming an issue. Unfortunately our political establishments have become involved in this ‘us v them’ version of identity politics. This is a shame since I regard the EU as one of the most free, equal societies in the world. Yet we have EU institutions trying to foster division between genders.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in the Eurobarometer report of 25th November 2016. The headline of this report was that 27% of EU respondents believe sex without consent was acceptable in certain circumstances. In other words, 27% of us believe that rape is ok in some situations. In the same report, a lesser highlighted result, 95% of us believe sexual harassment is wrong.
No media organisations appeared to pick up on the clear disparity between these two results, or perhaps were fearful to point it out. Are we expected to believe that 27% of EU citizens think rape is ok but only 5% think it is ok to make a sexual joke to a woman on the street? (And yes, the survey question asked was whether it was ok to make a remark to a woman – no consideration as to whether women may catcall men). This would mean that 22 people from every 100, believe that you should not catcall someone, but raping them is ok?? Ridiculous result.
So let us explore this further. What was the question our civil servants asked the respondents?
(Rape) – Some people believe rape is acceptable in certain circumstances. Why do you think this is?
Answer: a,b,c,etc
In other words, the surveyors have preempted the response. They have told the respondent that some other people hold a particular point of view and then asked the respondent to guess why those people hold that point of view. While the vast majority saw through the attempt at subversion, and answered “None of the these”, clearly there is tremendous scope for people to misinterpret the question and speculate why some people might hold that viewpoint.
On the other hand, the sexual harassment question was conducted in accordance with proper research guidelines.
(Sexual harrassment): Do you think making a sexually suggestive comment or “joke” to a woman on the street is wrong?
Clearly, a yes or no answer asking the respondent what they believe. Not asking the respondent to speculate. And indeed, the overwhelming majority of us answered “Yes. That is wrong.”
Why did they not ask the consent question in the same manner? Why did they not ask “Do you believe sex without consent is acceptable in the following circumstances?”?
The reason why? Because they were looking for a particular result. To foster division between us. To create hate where there is none.
I emailed Eurobatometer about this and they refused to engage. It is an absolute shame that a public institution has decided to push a political agenda and conduct substandard, indeed coercive, statistics such as this. Women’s organisations jumped on these results to promote their “toxic masculinity” theory. So yes, I would absolutely agree that men are under attack in modern society.