Caitlin Moran's new book - feminism is for women and men.

She's charming, entertaining and wants to be liked but stops short at rattling the cage. In a way, her method is more effective at getting the message across I think, but she also risks being seen as fluff. I quite like Bindel, who is often sharper but equally funny without trying.

Modern men have problems, too – suicide is the largest cause of death for men under 50; divorcing men tend not to get primary custody of their children; and I’ve lost count of the number of men who have said, if a child needed help in a playground, they would have to find a woman to offer aid: “People just presume you’re a paedophile.”

These are directly from the MRA lists. Odd that she omitted the MRA talking point that women rape and abuse just as much as men do...

On the suicides: Yes, men are more likely to kill themselves than women in all countries that I know of except for China, and as far as I can tell this problem is not a recent one.

At the same time, at least in the US women make more suicide attempts than men. That men complete more suicides is at least partly because men are more likely to use firearms and other forms of suicide where intervention is impossible while women are more likely to take drugs and that leaves some time for intervention.

What is also interesting is that in the US white rates of suicide are far higher than those for any other demographic group with the exception of Native Americans. This may have something to do with gun ownership rates differing by race but that is unlikely to be the whole explanation for the differences.

Male rates are higher than female rates in all the subgroups, but the rates for black, non-Hispanic men, say, are roughly the same as the rates for white women. My point is that the agony which causes suicides may not be completely driven by societal mistreatment because if it was then the lowest ranking men should have the highest rates.

I haven't seen research on child custody in the UK and even the US studies I have found are about some states only. My impression is that divorcing couples mostly agree that the mother should have physical custody or that custody is shared. In the cases where the parents disagree and the case goes to court one older study found that fathers win in more than half the contested cases.

But those cases may well be different from the average cases.

So yes, one can argue that it is the traditional sex roles which hurt fathers in divorce and in that sense feminism would make things better if it was of the type I used to think it is, i.e., about minimising the effect of retrogressive sex roles.

I expect her stance (or lack of one) on the trans argument is explained by the reference in the Standard article to her two daughters whose feminism is, apparently "intersectional".

I understand from experience how difficult it is to express GC opinions to woke young relatives, but the difference is that I'm not pretending to be an expert in Womens' Rights

If your feminism doesn't centre women, you need to find a different word for it and stop muddying the water, I think.

I grew up with Germaine Greer and my daughter's with CM, and sadly, it shows. Feminism diluted is feminism stalled. Might as well just say, "Men - be nicer!"

What percentage of men ever owned a top hat and a cummerbund????

She's a great writer but if she can't address the trans issue she needs to relinquish her feminist badge. Even if she talked bolleaux it would be something. Ignoring it is like Boris ignoring covid, it's just farcical.

As is the chummy lady journo gang she's in that appears to be unconcerned about men accessing abuse images of babies.

But I agreed with all of your post, then I started referencing other posters.

Oh, apologies. I should have paragraphed things better.

[quote PamDenick]@Wondersense great post. I agree.
I love reading CM and look forward to her pieces, however I am HUGELY disappointed that she hasn’t been more forthcoming on the trans debate.

I disagree that she had a privileged upbringing (?) and I have enjoyed her books but yes, it does seem like her feminism hasn’t developed.[/quote]
I think you might have got me confused with another poster.

I know she didn't have a privileged upbringing. Quite the opposite.

She didn't have a privileged upbringing but has a very privileged life now.

@Wondersense great post. I agree.
I love reading CM and look forward to her pieces, however I am HUGELY disappointed that she hasn’t been more forthcoming on the trans debate.

I disagree that she had a privileged upbringing (?) and I have enjoyed her books but yes, it does seem like her feminism hasn’t developed.

I used to like her but now see her as just another priviledged, media luvvy.

She’s stayed silent while braver women have spoken out, at great cost, to protect women and girls.

She’s no feminist and she’ll never get any more of my money.

Patriarchy hurts men but also rewards them greatly, that's why they don't want to give it up, too many cookies for "poor" menz.

Feminism doesn't really benefit men but decent ones still support it, because it is a right thing to do.

Goosefoot I can't disagree with all you say...it is so frustrating though that girls were at a massive disadvantage for decades, nay, centuries when it came to education but few cared. When girls finally come to have the edge, however, suddenly people feel the need to redress the balance.

And it doesn't change things when they enter the workplace....girls excel at school, but it is still the males who take home the fat pay cheque.

Slight aside, my husband once saw a crying toddler at the side of a busy road - the mum had walked on far ahead leaving her. He picked her up and took her back to the mother, he was concerned what she'd say to him but more concerned about the toddler!

I used to like her because she was bolshy.

Now I just see a middle aged woman cowering. Fake feisty. She is so scared of being judged for wrong think that she has stopped thinking about the most controversial topic in feminism today. She is a wet lettuce identifying as a jalapeno.

And in the real world, those of us with sons, daughters, husbands, brothers etc will still remain true to the cause of feminism which is as necessary today as it was when men wore top hats.

And somehow I doubt Caitlin would have been front and centre of the suffragette movement back then.

There's not many who are willing to sacrifice their own privilege for the good of others, even if they're decent people otherwise.

Well, I'm of the generation which used class-based analysis rather than individualistic privilege concepts. I think my point is that men as a class will have to renounce something. some of their power, and wealth, and opportunities.....

......relative to what someone else said, I really am saying that sometimes things will have to become WORSE for men/boys in order to improve things for women/girls. For example, on university courses like physics and other STEM subjects were women are under-represented, men will have to lose places, mediocre men will have to not take up a course, or go to a lower-status university in order to accomodate women. If we really believe that women are equally capable given a level playing field............

Just think of all the mediocre men who would not have been prime ministers, or ministers, or MPs if we had had equal representation in Parliament. True, some would have been replaced by mediocre women, but why should only mediocre men get the opportunity? Those who feared women would displace men from the workplace were absolutely right YES, we want your jobs, your wages, your university places, your pay rises, and some of your 'spare time' because even during lock-down, guess who ended up doing the majority of the housework and childcare:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52808930

And it's not a SMALL difference.

Perhaps when you understand that we are demanding that males give up a lot, then you can understand better why it has taken so many years of struggle to achieve any progress (and why womens rights always seem to be the first to be forgotten when the going gets tough...........).

From the interview in The Standard -

The trans debate is an example of how toxic Twitter can be. “Both sides are equally hurt and scared of male aggression — their description of that is what they are disagreeing with but they are all scared of the same thing. I see the points on both sides but discussing it on social media isn’t getting us anywhere.

No Caitlin - this is not 'equal' in any fucking way. To paint is as such is to really muddy waters.

Men who say they're women might be afraid of male aggression, but it's women that have little or no physical power to challenge them or fight them off when threatened. It's women who are being asked to make our spaces more vulnerable in order to accommodate men who are afraid of other men (instead of getting them to sort out their macho attitudes and violence to effeminate males). It's women that end up being hounded and horribly threatened on social media and cancelled for just saying women have periods. The evasive script that both sides are hurt, and both sides need to listen to each other is total bullshit.

Discussing it on social media isn't getting us anywhere Caitlin???? Maybe she should have a word with Stonewall on their 'No Debate' bullshit. Maybe she should speak to Women's Place UK about what happens when women try to meet up to discuss these things in person.

It seems like she is over-attached to the word feminism in a way.

There isn't anything wrong with her observations really. I worry about certain things my son will have to deal with that relate to his sex. In some instances, it's even the case that changes made to better accommodate girls are part of the problem for him, particularly that seems to be the case in education.

But I wouldn't say that means feminism is about men. I would say that it means that there is a need in society to look careful at balancing needs of women against men, that when we make changes to help one group we should think about how it might impact others, that people need to look at problems that affect men as well as those that affect women.

She could say, as I've become older I've found that a more egalitarian focus, or a universal perspective on communities, seems more important to me than looking very specifically at promoting the rights of one group only. And why not - we need people who look at the bigger picture as well as specifics.

But I find that the way progressives think these days, they are very concerned that they can claim certain labels, because if they don't it might indicate they aren't right-on. Or they would get flack for it, maybe?

Her "feminism" isn't feminism then. Men are refusing to sort themselves out, so why should women bend over backwards for them? They oppressed us for millennia and continue to do so. Oh yes, let's pretend paedophiles don't exist anymore because it'll hurt the menz feelings. Give me a break.

I gradually realised that if feminism is “the belief in the social, political, economic and personal equality of the sexes”, then that meant it is for women and men.

That's not what it means though, that's just part of it. That's equalism.
By all means write about matters of sexism, including structural sexism, which affect men. Nothing wrong with that. There's an overlap with feminism but it's not the same thing.