'If masculinity needs to be revolutionised, so does feminism'

He then states that feminism (as currently constituted) cannot play a dominant role in that as it would be allowing one gender exclusive rights to define appropriate behaviour for the other - in other words, a simple reversal of the patriarchy rather than an end to kyriarchy.

Then maybe he ought to be pitching to men rather than women. Why isn't he, do you think?

I am baffled. Is he the dude who edited Loaded?

If so, why is any woman listening to a single word he says? He very obviously hates us. Who gives a fuck what he thinks we should do?

Ummm, why was all I heard while reading that

"Women, sort these problems our for us"?

I'd be interested to see the breakdown of which sex gives money to 'women's' charities, and which gives money to androcentric ones. We know that men earn more than women, are they giving more to women's charities? Why don't men give to androcentric ones? Is it actually men who don't give too much of a shit about other men? Is that because of the way they're socialised?

Why does he want to frame the whole thing as a war? Why does women's liberation = war to him?

He's got money, influence and power. Surely his old titty mag readers could band together and get this whole thing sorted within a week?

It looks pretty simple to me. The author is stating that gender reprogramming is extremely difficult, but entirely necessary and that it's the current socialisation that causes male violence. He states that this is something that urgently needs to be addressed, hence the citation of both male-on-female violence and male suicide.

He then states that feminism (as currently constituted) cannot play a dominant role in that as it would be allowing one gender exclusive rights to define appropriate behaviour for the other - in other words, a simple reversal of the patriarchy rather than an end to kyriarchy.

And yes, most people believe that feminism is hostile towards men, both individually and as a class. This is hardly a controversial statement.

He just hasn't done the reading has he.

Clueless AND whiney.

The whole thing is a bit ridiculous to be honest.

He is singling out Caroline Criado-Perez for causing an 'exhausting gender war' and the accompanying image is of a woman punching a man in the face.

Is that not a bit of a cheek given that Caroline Criado-Perez woman a human rights award and has been subject to rape and death threats?

Her work has mostly been about representation of women, and particularly about how women are excluded from speaking about health issues that apply only to women.

How are men the people exhausted by that situation? Why should she stop talking about these issues and start discussing male suicide?

I think it is all just badly written.

His points are:

1. He wants an end to a gender war.
2. Feminism is responsible for the gender war.
3. Gender roles are hard to change.
4. Bad things happen to men.
5. Feminism needs to change.

There is no logical reason given by him as to how these things are connected to each other. I think the point is that he wants men and women to work together on men's problems. So feminism should start concentrating on men rather than women. But who knows?