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

[irishfeminist]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/caitlin-morans-more-than-a-woman-from-life-lessons-to-sex-advice-2pmn3d2kf

Bet you can't wait for this.

"But life for men, in the past 120 years, has remained almost exactly the same – save for the fact that men now don’t, generally, wear top hats. Or cummerbunds. 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.” There is something impossibly sad about this. Humans are programmed to want to help others. To make half our population feel that they can’t – that they are, just because of who they are, a threat – is a terrible position to put boys and men in.

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. All of us. In 2020, my feminism has become unisex, and the chapters about men are some of the ones I’m most excited about."

Regarding men helping children, it’s tragic that some men are reluctant to do this, but I still know many men who would help. If a child is lost/in danger and your first thought is being accused of being a paedophile, and that stops you from acting, then you are not a responsible adult IMO. Any good man should help the child and worry about any such accusations later. It should be pretty straightforward to determine if that’s baseless.

This^

And what bad timing to be hand wringing about something like that, given recent events in CM's circles.
Has she said anything about Eric Joyce?

Turning feminism into an "all lives matter" campaign will render it completely meaningless. It serves no one

Except it does, it serves men. Lets stop pretending that feminism will benefit men as well, it won't because it requires men as a class to give up places and power and the vast amount of physical and emotional work done by women. They will have to surrender places at universities, on company boards, seats in parliament and so on, and take up the slack and start cleaning the loo and organising birthday cards as well.

It's a total con if you keep pretending that feminism will be good for men as well, because then you can no longer see the fact that the current situation has preserved itself precisely because it benefits men at the expense of women.

It's like replacing racism with instead saying 'of course I'm in favour of equal rights for all'. Unless you can discuss the explicit ways that racism benefited white people, then it becomes meaningless. It's replacing BLM with all lives matter. Yet again, the sleight of hand isn't as acceptable when white folks do it, yet lapped up by the credulous when men do it.

Feminism requires men to lose some things, to take up more work. To deal with the facts of what men have done to women for thousands of years, to deal with the vast amounts of male violence committed against women and children...... and saying men are violent to other men too really does not do that.

If men really didn't want patriarchy, they could have gotten rid of it themselves, without waiting until women managed to stop being chattels, get the rights to work and own property, and vote, and own their own bodies (rape in marriage legal until 1989-1991 in the UK).......and then after doing all that we were supposed to point out to men how bad patriarchy was and kindly suggest it would be better for all concerned if we could get rid of that as well. Really? Men were too stupid to see it themselves? Why are women yet again supposed to do all the work??

Can you really not see it? But then again, the con has kept working for centuries.............

An open letter to Caitlin Moran -

If you're reading this Caitlin (because I know you're on Mumsnet), then sorry, but I simply can't take you seriously anymore. I'm not sure if you ever really wanted to be taken that seriously, because you've always been about putting a comedy spin on things, but really, now I've lost respect for you.

I understand why you have remained silent over the trans issue (because you were probably concerned about the safety of your children as well as the media reaction), but the fact that you have remained so silent about the biggest regression in women's rights in decades will not help your career in the long run. We'll remember that silence.

You love the title 'strident feminist', you think it's sexy (pretty sure those are the words from your own book actually and I could probably find the quote if I had it to hand). You've written books about feminism and being a woman (that centred an awful lot on biology, tsk tsk, such heresy) and you even write for a newspaper that would have, quite likely, supported you in airing GC concerns....but you've been silent.

I love your energy, enthusiasm and humour. I think you you're good at fun feminism, but I think it's so sad, and quite telling that the only way women can get men to care more about us is by telling them that feminism benefits them as well. See guys!! We're not a bunch of bitches! We're fun! And feminism can benefit YOU too! I've listened to interviews with you and I know why you wanted to write a book about boys & men. They seemed to be noble reasons (which I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear), but as soon as you focused on that rather than THE EMERGENCY SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN......well, I switched you off.

@SomeDyke

Turning feminism into an "all lives matter" campaign will render it completely meaningless. It serves no one

Except it does, it serves men. Lets stop pretending that feminism will benefit men as well, it won't because it requires men as a class to give up places and power and the vast amount of physical and emotional work done by women. They will have to surrender places at universities, on company boards, seats in parliament and so on, and take up the slack and start cleaning the loo and organising birthday cards as well.

It's a total con if you keep pretending that feminism will be good for men as well, because then you can no longer see the fact that the current situation has preserved itself precisely because it benefits men at the expense of women.

It's like replacing racism with instead saying 'of course I'm in favour of equal rights for all'. Unless you can discuss the explicit ways that racism benefited white people, then it becomes meaningless. It's replacing BLM with all lives matter. Yet again, the sleight of hand isn't as acceptable when white folks do it, yet lapped up by the credulous when men do it.

Feminism requires men to lose some things, to take up more work. To deal with the facts of what men have done to women for thousands of years, to deal with the vast amounts of male violence committed against women and children...... and saying men are violent to other men too really does not do that.

If men really didn't want patriarchy, they could have gotten rid of it themselves, without waiting until women managed to stop being chattels, get the rights to work and own property, and vote, and own their own bodies (rape in marriage legal until 1989-1991 in the UK).......and then after doing all that we were supposed to point out to men how bad patriarchy was and kindly suggest it would be better for all concerned if we could get rid of that as well. Really? Men were too stupid to see it themselves? Why are women yet again supposed to do all the work??

Can you really not see it? But then again, the con has kept working for centuries.............

It's a totalconif you keep pretending that feminism will be good for men as well, because then you can no longer see the fact that the current situation has preserved itself precisely because it benefits men at the expense of women.

So true...it kind of begs the question - if it's so fantastic for men, why haven't men being doing that for the last 2 thousand years? Why haven't women been living in respected bliss the whole time?

I’m just so bloody disappointed she hasn’t matured as a feminist and got a bit more steel about her
This was my immediate thought. Her brand of feminism isn’t that of the usual 45 year old feminist, surely? Comes across like she never grew up.

She could write a book about men, or about sex equality, to cover that.

Yes. I actually thought this is what she was going to do and I don't think there would have been anything wrong with that @JoysOfString. Like other women here have said, the problem is is that she's kind of doing an equivalent of 'All Lives Matter' and women here. Most people can see what's wrong with that when it comes to race. You can be accused of being all sorts of nasty things if you say that online...... but when it comes to doing the same thing to women's issues......then it's fucking fine is it?

As a long term political stretegy, then I can see the value to it, but if someone really believes it's ok to pull that on women, then it says it all about our place in society, doesn't it?

I don't want to tear CM to bits gratuitously and I mean to be reasoned and not sneery, but I do feel that what comes across with her is a sense of fear and lack of confidence, that makes it hard for her to say anything actually strongly, seriously feminist and stand by it, in case it frightens the horses or makes her seem less nice and fun. And I do think that's fairly common, it's not just her - it's just unfortunate (for radical feminists) that she's in a niche where she's seen as representing feminism.

I remember her saying she wouldn't go on panel-type comedy TV and radio shows because they're male-dominated and aggressive towards women. Now if she doesn't want to because she thinks she's not cut out for it or would hate it, that's fine and that's what she should say. But I didn't like the way it basically came across as "us poor little women aren't tough enough." And it's clearly bollocks - plenty of other female comedians go there and stand their ground brilliantly, and also often host the shows.

I would like to see her find her ovaries of steel and really use her platform for women. I do however defend her right to do what she likes - I just wish she wasn't seen as the voice of feminism.

Thank you SomeDyke, that was really thought-provoking. And I'm afraid you're right. There's not many who are willing to sacrifice their own privilege for the good of others, even if they're decent people otherwise.

Moran did an expert bit of fence-sitting prevarication on the trans debate in the Evening Standard the other week:

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/caitlin-moran-how-to-build-a-girl-covid-a4505511.html

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.

Great post SomeDyke and yes, it's delusional for women to pretend feminism is good for men. It's very worthy and important to interrogate how masculinity affects men negatively; the expectations and pressures, the high suicide rates, the number of boys who fall by the wayside. But that isn't feminism, it's an entirely separate thing.

Anecdotally I see a hint of wistfulness from men sometimes, at the way it used to be. A male relative of mine (40s) was joking about looking at his own life (dual income, both pitching in with childcare and housework, strong independent wife with her own hobbies) versus his dad's (company man, wife did absolutely everything round the house and with the kids, he played golf every weekend) and how cushy his dad's life was compared to his. He was joking but there was definitely a hint of envy. Why wouldn't there be? It doesn't do us any favours to pretend otherwise.

That "Standard" quote from CM about trans issues is idiotic. There is no "both sides" equivalence in terms of censorship, abuse and threats of rape, violence and death. She's just being a wuss and refusing to grow up.

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.

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?

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.

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...........).

@irishfeminist

I wonder if she'll address TRA ideology, the greatest threat to women's rights in a century? I can imagine how she'll dismiss it if she's worried about the poor men in general.

FTR, I'm not unaware of or indifferent to the challenges boys and men face, and I have good men in my life. I do think about the pressures of masculinity and what the disappearance of manufacturing in the West has done to them as a workforce. It's not feminism though.

Well although ‘I used to love her’ (cultural reference for the Irish Feminists there), when I read her initial feminism book, I think she has lost her way, in the same way as many media darlings have, so from this blurb, this book is not for me.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

@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.

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

[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.