Mary Harrington's 'Feminism Against Progress' book is out.

Turns out that the way for women to make their lives fairer and safer is to focus more on the needs of men

how incredibly unexpected

Here we are on a thread about feminism on a board about feminism agonising about how to make the lives of men and boys better

funny how that happens innit?

I think that dealing with men's and boys' issues is really important too. Not just as an end in itself, but also because most women are heterosexual and the majority would like to get married and have children with spouses who are successful and happy human beings. We need a rising tide that helps everyone - it's not a zero sum game.

Spot on.

But I don't think the solution is to say "feminism" should be for all problems and all people

I didn’t take @RotundBeagle posts as advocating that as a solution. The impression I got was that feminism needs to consider the impacts of any campaigns on the entire population…on all humans, not just on women because we can create situations where by fighting for what men have, it may be damaging to society as a whole or even to women in the long run.

One example would to my mind be the fact that the default in divorce since Womens rights is mum gets 95% of the custody and responsibility for any children- it’s now culturally expected. And what was originally a feminist campaign to overcome the older outcome of divorce which was the father gets custody of children, has now reached a point where men can impregnate and then fuck off and leave mum footing the entire bill and time to raise their joint children. That’s not helped women..all because we focussed on we want to take what men have. It wasn’t thought through what is best for everyone. And now mothers are more likely to be in poverty than ever before.

Having googled it, this is what they were grievously offended by. At face value they seem like interesting discussion points to me and many are relevant to UK society. Definitely not something I would try and violently shut down.

What Warren Farrell Was Discussing

This is besides the point of the post but as an addendum, many of you are going to be curious as to what the controversy entailed.

The thesis of Warren Farrell’s speech was that men in the developed world, particularly the United States and Canada, are facing an unprecedented crisis in five key areas: education, jobs, emotional health, physical health, and fatherlessness.

He points out several facts that should come as no surprise to those who keep up with the economic posts on this site and elsewhere:

• For the first time in history, our sons and brothers in the United States will have less education than their fathers.
• The current societal hierarchy ignores the mental health of boys as evidenced by the fact that the suicide risk for boys and girls are the same up through 10 years old. After that, when men begin being indoctrinated into the societal roles that are expected of them, suicide risk climbs 2x relative to girls between 11 and 14, 4x relative to girls between 15 and 19, and a staggering 5-6x girls between 20 and 24 years old.
• Addiction to media, including video games and other interactive content driven by the information revolution, is disproportionately hurting men. Men in general spend 3x the hours per week engrossed in these types of activities compared to women.
• For every 1 girl who drops out of high school in Canada, there are 2 boys who do the same.
• The reading and writing scores of boys throughout Canada are significantly below those of similarly situated girls.
• Unemployment rates are significantly higher for men than they are for women, especially African American men. This is causing a rise in extended adolescence as a coping mechanism for the failure of society’s institutions to address the emotional needs of boys. This extended adolescence ultimately hurts women.
• College graduation rates for boys are falling relative to girls. This has terrible economic consequences.

This is the, video of the event which I remember watching. Quite a while ago now. If you skip to 2:00 mins you'll see the guy saying he was hoping to gain some understanding of his friends' suicides and the feminists telling him that feminism addresses these issues.

Another guy a minute or so later is saying he's not even on a side and just wanted to hear the speaker's opinions. A feminist stands there calling him a rape apologist.

Whether or not I agree with the speaker these people are loons and I honestly would feel embarrassed to be associated with them.

Just arguing the other side... Jess Philips was widely condemned for that - and the debate did happen in the end (as it should have done)

I agree with you that this:

I remember a guy who had tried to get in saying that he'd lost two friends one after the other and was hoping it might help him understand. The feminist next to him chimes in with something like "feminism has solutions for things like mental health"

is terrible. But I don't think the solution is to say "feminism" should be for all problems and all people - actually I think that's part of what caused the problem in the first place. 3rd wave feminism looked for ways to make feminism more applicable to men and somehow the idea that "toxic masculinity" was the cause of all men's mental health problems and violence against women was born and that feminism would help men by ending toxic masculinity. And men on the whole hated it

For example person A might be concerned with free speech being shut down on college campuses from feminist perspective (like lots on this board). Person B might be concerned as a free speech absolutist even though they would never in a million years call themselves a feminist. On that one issue their needs are aligned and they can work together - but person B shouldn't be expected to become a feminist/centre in order to do so. Neither should person A be expected to stop centring women if that's their main concern. Both might change focus and that fine. But we need lots of different voices in society and that includes those happy to focus on specific women's needs.

She also said several times that it was “laughable” as a defence of her hand over mouth, shoulders shaking laughing out loud interrupting him pitching that suicide and violence are important mens issues. I think it’s still on YouTube as a few news outlets carried exactly what was said.

Also, it wasnt Warren Farrell, it was Warren Buffett. Feminists were blocking entry to one of his events and the police had to attend.

I remember a guy who had tried to get in saying that he'd lost two friends one after the other and was hoping it might help him understand. The feminist next to him chimes in with something like "feminism has solutions for things like mental health" but I just don't really ever see any evidence of men's mental. health being even the slightest of concerns for most feminists outside of maybe their immediate family and friends.

Yes, that was it.

He said something like "do you think this is funny?" and she said every day is international men's day. Try telling that to a suicidal or homeless guy.

cross post

Ah yes, I thought at the time that was Jess Phillips being a twit and still think so. I doubt very much she has women's best interests at heart either. She's dreadful. I realised after Rotundbeagle had also posted about York Uni protesting international men's day, but then York and other Unis also protest/try to cancel feminist events so in a sense I guess they are being even-handedly dogmatic (yay equality).
Actually university culture and cancel culture in general are absolutely an area where the needs of women in general/feminists to have free speech etc match up with the needs of others to have the same. Its also a case where they HAVE cooperated together (thinking GC feminists and the likes of Harry Miller etc being on the same side). I don't think you need to not be a feminist for that -'2 people coming from completely different angles can complement each other without shifting their main priorities.

where was the case of feminists disrupting events against men's suicides out interest? Its not that I don't believe you (genuinely, its hard to show tone on the internet) but it runs contrary to everything I've experienced/seen in that area so I'm curious.

York University.

They didn't disrupt it, they created a petition and after 200 signatures the university apologised and cancelled IMD saying they were going to continue with their 'main focus' on women's issues.

Another petition to reinstate it was created and after several thousand signatures they still wouldn't reinstate it.

I also remember quite a few other protests. Like wasn't Warren Buffett protested against when he tried to hold events about male suicide.

where was the case of feminists disrupting events against men's suicides out interest?

Not sure if they were referring to this but an MP Phillip Davis asked about debating men’s suicide, health, and violence in Parliament on International Mens Day (1 time a year) to have a bit of parity with the monthly women’s issues debates (12x a year) and MP Jess Phillips laughed in his face and then shut it down.

@RotundBeagle where was the case of feminists disrupting events against men's suicides out interest? Its not that I don't believe you (genuinely, its hard to show tone on the internet) but it runs contrary to everything I've experienced/seen in that area so I'm curious.

The problem with "equality" as you describe it is that you see it as being achieved by levelling down as well as up. e.g. women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence than men but I doubt anyone here would cheer more men being victims of sexual assault because "equality". So it is a little disingenuous to suggest women "don't want equality" in suicide statistics. I do in that I want suicide rates for men to go down. But it isn't a zero sum game in which a certain number of suicides have to happen a year and women aren't doing their fair share.

Also - I think thanks to the internet everything gets seen through an American lens. Women in the UK have been eligible for conscription since 1941 (admittedly with more exceptions at that time than men and there were rules against women doing killing people jobs which have since been removed). Its a moot point though since I think if we do ever have WW3 it will be an "all go together when we go". So relax - we will have "equality" should that happen.

Yes if they don’t register at 18, they can’t get student loans for University, or get a job with the federal government. Also failing to register is a crime that can land you in prison for 5yrs and a $250k fine.

" I think that what we need to acknowledge is that if feminism isn't going to give any thought whatsoever to half of society then it can never be a complete solution and it needs to be applied in conjunction with something else to create a truly equal society if such a thing really exists."

Yes, this is sort of what I was feeling my way towards, @RotundBeagle. Feminism will achieve its general goals faster and better if we persuade men to 'buy-in' to them - which they won't do if said goals are to the detriment of men.

I also dislike the idea that women need to have what men have/be like men are to consider themselves 'equal' (another nebulous term I find unhelpful and un-nuanced). There are important differences between the sexes, and the way forward lies not in the denial of these but in a better kind of collaboration, towards goals as agreed upon and mutually beneficial as possible.

I've asked my daughters to buy me the book as a late birthday present, and would be interested in more granular discussion of its contents once I've actually read some of it!

If I'm not mistaken American men have to sign up for the draft or they don't get state sponsored education and various other things which women get regardless. I was a bit surprised to learn this recently.

They definitely don’t want to be conscripted into the armed forces! Or be 50% of murder victims instead of the 25% we are now.

I also don't think that aiming for equality with men is necessarily the ideal situation, because let's face it feminists don't want the bad bits. They don't want a 50/50 split in homelessness and suicides. They want 50/50 in pay and directorships etc.

I'd like to see men doing better too and us aiming for that. Not aiming for what men have now.

OK, I don't want to derail thread too much more (even if it's already a bit late for that) as the book sounds quite interesting.

However, I actually think that 'what about the men?' is actually a fairly pertinent question to ask at times. By this I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to focus on female-specific issues or devote their time to these. Even all of their time with not a solitary thought for men if this is what they want.

However, I think that what we need to acknowledge is that if feminism isn't going to give any thought whatsoever to half of society then it can never be a complete solution and it needs to be applied in conjunction with something else to create a truly equal society if such a thing really exists.

I know from lurking on here for ages before signing up that people find it tiresome when feminist discussions become 'all about the men', but it's not like posters don't mention men. They do a lot. It's seemingly just when somebody says something remotely sympathetic that people seem to start with the 'poor menz'/'won't somebody think about the men'.

But the reality is that feminists have successfully managed to get events focused on things like male suicide cancelled and feminist ideology seems to be the driving force behind them protesting said events - 'they warned that celebrating the event 'amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities'.

So, I know this might seem a bit of an odd place to talk about men's issues but the two are intertwined to some extent and in some cases it does become a zero sum game even if this isn't strictly necessary.

The subjugation and exploitation of the weak(er) is a perennial feature of humanity. I don't see it changing any time soon.

Agree. I think this is where some of the tension lies between absolute woman-centred feminism and a movement for both sexes. Because ultimately it feels that women will always have to hold the line. Our rights will always be under some sort of threat whether "progressive" or "regressive".

Haven't read the book, so don't know how relevant this point is but more in response to a previous poster, but I would be cautious about being reactionary to the adverse effects of so-called progress, because I would still rather live in the West and in this century than the last, even with the problems we face now.

Not ultimate solutions, but I would like to see:

1. Women and men equally taking greater interest in progressive policies that promote harmony between the sexes. This should not be the sole responsibility of feminists.
2. Global consciousness raising for women so we are encouraged to act in our own interest, not to sow class division between men and women, but in acknowledgment of the fact that advances can be used against us, and that we are groomed by the dominant culture to subsume our own interests. I think this is what mainstream feminism needs to return to.