A couple of days ago I was accused of homophobia and misogyny at a Student Council meeting. It could be true, so I sent out a mass e-mail to the Council members asking in what way I was homophobic.
I discovered that my homophobia was manifest by mentioning HIV and homosexuality in the same sentence / same slide of a PowerPoint presentation:
“
- HPV is the most common cause of anal cancer in men.
- 61% of HIV-negative and 93% of HIV-positive gay and bisexual men have been estimated to have anal HPV infections.
- HPV is thought to play a role in 30% of mouth and throat cancers.
- HPV vaccination is not available to boys or men on the NHS.”1
At first, I thought this basis for the accusation was ridiculous, because I had used the information to illustrate how boy's healthcare needs are not being addressed by the National Health Service with respect to HPV, in contrast to the vaccination program currently offered to girls. I think if I was homophobic I would be more likely to think of 'homosexual men' as a separate entity from 'men' and I would not have sourced the data from the National LGBT Cancer Network. In my mind, it came down to simple statistics and targeting healthcare provision based on need. I would not for example think somebody was racist for mentioning the terms 'Asian' and 'diabetes' in the same sentence. The presentation I used was even checked by a homosexual friend before I distributed it, and he did not find it offensive.
On reflection, it comes down to sensitivities. HIV unfortunately has a stigma attached to it that diabetes does not a share. As a healthcare professional I do not discriminate on the basis of HIV sero-status and paradoxically I have become less sensitive to that stigma as a result (forgetting that people in general may fear it). If I was a homosexual man, I probably would not like to constantly be reminded of associations between homosexuality and HIV positive status, and I would not want the public reminded of it either. Science is for healthcare professionals and political correctness is for the public. Lesson learnt.
As for my misogyny, this was the motion I proposed to Union Council:
This Union Notes:
1. There are fewer male students than female students at UEA.
2. National statistics suggest that male students are at greater risk of violent crime than female students.
3. Domestic violence against men is largely overlooked.
4. Men have a lower average life expectancy than women.
5. Male suicide rates are higher than female suicide rates.
6. Male sexual health services have been cut from the UEA medical centre.
7. Boys are currently not offered vaccination against HPV on the NHS, even though the viruses contribute to oral, anal and penis cancers.
8. Students should check that their sexual partners have the mental capacity to consent to sex (i.e. are not intoxicated beyond their capacity to consent). Individuals that fail to do so may be committing sexual assault and men that fail to do so may be committing rape.
9. Union Council currently has a Women’s Officer but no Men’s Officer.
This Union Believes:
1. Male students are a minority on campus
2. Male students need as much protection from the threat of violence as female students.
3. Domestic violence against men, such as spitting and face-slapping in addition to more serious crimes should be openly identified as unacceptable and not trivialised. The students union should have a zero tolerance policy on violence, including female violence against males.
4. The health and social care needs of men are not currently being addressed adequately or in an equitable way.
5. Male students are generally at greater risk of suicide than female students.
As for 4
As for 4
6. Greater male awareness of legal issues surrounding sexual activity and intoxication could benefit both male and female UEA students.
7. In the interests of sexual equality, the UEA students Union should consider having a Gender Equality Officer post.
This Union Resolves:
1-9. To hold a general meeting open to all students for open discussion regarding the pro’s and con’s of having a Gender Equality Officer post.
1. There are fewer male students than female students at UEA.
2. National statistics suggest that male students are at greater risk of violent crime than female students.
3. Domestic violence against men is largely overlooked.
4. Men have a lower average life expectancy than women.
5. Male suicide rates are higher than female suicide rates.
6. Male sexual health services have been cut from the UEA medical centre.
7. Boys are currently not offered vaccination against HPV on the NHS, even though the viruses contribute to oral, anal and penis cancers.
8. Students should check that their sexual partners have the mental capacity to consent to sex (i.e. are not intoxicated beyond their capacity to consent). Individuals that fail to do so may be committing sexual assault and men that fail to do so may be committing rape.
9. Union Council currently has a Women’s Officer but no Men’s Officer.
This Union Believes:
1. Male students are a minority on campus
2. Male students need as much protection from the threat of violence as female students.
3. Domestic violence against men, such as spitting and face-slapping in addition to more serious crimes should be openly identified as unacceptable and not trivialised. The students union should have a zero tolerance policy on violence, including female violence against males.
4. The health and social care needs of men are not currently being addressed adequately or in an equitable way.
5. Male students are generally at greater risk of suicide than female students.
As for 4
As for 4
6. Greater male awareness of legal issues surrounding sexual activity and intoxication could benefit both male and female UEA students.
7. In the interests of sexual equality, the UEA students Union should consider having a Gender Equality Officer post.
This Union Resolves:
1-9. To hold a general meeting open to all students for open discussion regarding the pro’s and con’s of having a Gender Equality Officer post.
Apparently this motion was also offensive, to the extent that during the Council meeting the first two parts were completely deleted to avoid offending anybody and the third part was changed to something like:
This Union Resolves:
To hold a series of meetings open to all students for open discussion regarding the pro’s and con’s of having a Gender Equality Officer post, and then feed back to Student Council.
To hold a series of meetings open to all students for open discussion regarding the pro’s and con’s of having a Gender Equality Officer post, and then feed back to Student Council.
To be honest, I am still at a loss as to why the motion I proposed is misogynist, or why the first two parts had to be deleted. Perhaps any suggestion that men have any sex/gender specific needs is misogynist. The PowerPoint file was checked by a female Cheerleading Law student and we both scratched our heads in wonder and amusement as to the reaction it produced. Perhaps 'misogyny' is defined by feminists rather than women in general.2 A female friend from the Buddhist Society told me that she did not like the tone of the presentation and that statistics mean nothing to her because the margins for error are always high. I can understand that, because I presented the data in the same style I have seen data presented in feminist propaganda. Looking in the mirror must have been an uncomfortable experience for them!
V
References:
1.National LGBT Cancer Network (undated) HPV and Cancer. Available from: http://cancer-network.org/cancer_information/hpv_and_cancer/ Accessed: 20:02 12/3/2011
2. Wilkins A. (undated) UEA Women’s Campaign: what do we need it for? Available from: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=141786891654 Accessed: 20:04 12/3/2011
What defines homophobia and misogyny? Anything a Feminist chooses.
ReplyDeleteFacts and figures don't matter. The evident reality doesn't matter. The erosion of the male presence on campus doesn't matter. Ideology is everything.
When there is 80:20 ratio of female to male students on campus (and there will be on the current course), there will still be a women's officer or else a "gender" officer who deals solely with women's issues.
None of this is about equality or fairness or support for women. It is, bluntly, a hate campaign against men that very few people even call attention to, let alone fight.
I commend your stance and your attempts to effect a change. You will be up against it and the first volley of attack against you will be to label you misogynist and whatever other epithets they can dream up to silence you, shame you, and send you packing.
Good luck, speaking the truth and standing up for men is not an easy path.
I am afraid the reaction received is something that does not surprise me but please never give up. A similar situation happened a few years ago http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/23/men-students-support-groups-universities and I also I know Hull Uni abolished their men’s officer but kept their women’s officer.
ReplyDeleteAs more and more men, and importantly women, understand that “equality means equality for men too” there are unfortunately a hard core group of people who will do all they can to resist this. They see it as a threat to their power base and ideology and do not understand that their view of equality is not one shared by the majority of people.
We see it in the domestic abuse sector where the “establishment” still view domestic abuse as a gendered crime when patently it is not – it is a crime against the individual. This is partly why male victims do not receive the support they need in the UK despite being the fact that one in three victims are male.
Please let me know if the ManKind Initiative can be of any help?
Mark Brooks
Chairman
The ManKind Initiative
I'm sorry to hear about the awful treatment you've been subjected to. Standing up for men and genuine equality at a university is a very brave thing to do indeed.
ReplyDeletePlease keep us fully updated on how your campaign for an equality officer progresses.
Well done for exposing this travesty of 'consultation'. I am surprised it got as far as it did.
ReplyDeleteThere is little chance of a man being heard over the 'silenced' women who, of course, are prevented from expressing their 'feelings', or even any odd thought they might experience, by the Oppressive Patriarchy.
And why would you need to be heard when you must realize that what you seek is Privilege and men have all of them already.
All of the information provided is of course 'stolen' from other sources and 'twisted' to suit your Dominating rhetoric. Trying to be 'clever' and devious by omitting 'contextual' essentials has brought you undone. It was astute of the Students Union Executives to see through this patent use of Truth already accepted by others, especially feminists themselves. I am astonished that you have not been suspended from study for blatantly padding your case with facts.
While admiring your stance, I must ask one question: how on earth did they let you into university in the first place? I thought you had to toe the feminist line in order to have a chance.
ReplyDeleteStill never mind; you are finding that the anti-male sweep on campus continues unabated and never sleeps. You need guts to resist it, and you seem to have plenty of those. Facts ought to help too, but universities are no longer places where facts have any relevance, as we can see all too clearly.
Paul Parmenter
Thank you for your comments. Yesterday I received the minutes from the meeting and they read as follows:
ReplyDelete“Open meeting about the need for a Gender Equality Officer Post
C Clarke (PHI School Board) moved that the motion not be put. Proposing, he noted that the proposer of the original resolution had sent an email presentation to only the male members of Council; he believed that this was unacceptable behaviour. He argued that the content of the presentation was horrific, it had made a case that in contemporary society it was men that were oppressed not women. He claimed that parts of the presentation were homophobic. If Councillors felt that the resolution had raised a valid issue, he argued, it should be brought back to Council in a less repugnant manner.
M Taylor (PSI Other YR UG) agreed with C Clarke, he characterised the presentation as factually wrong and misogynist; however he thought that the idea of a Gender Equality Officer was a good one and he would be bringing amendments which would change the tone of the resolution to one that was reasonable and could be debated at this meeting.
The motion that the question not be put was defeated by 27 votes for, 36 votes against with 10 abstentions.
P Scott (BIO YR 1 UG) moved that the motion be deferred to the next meeting. He argued that, as had happened frequently in recent meetings, long and detailed amendments had being tabled in the meeting; it would be better for all the amendments to be put together into a new resolution set out in the agenda for Council‟s next meeting.
E Slater (Powerboat Club), against, argued that the next meeting was the last of the year and might be inquorate. If the issue were to be debated immediately and the amended policy was to be passed it could mean immediate benefits for both male and female students.
The motion that the question be deferred to another meeting was defeated by 21 votes for, 50 votes against with 6 abstentions.
V Mailoo, proposing the resolution, stated that he did not believe his presentation was homophobic and asked anyone who felt this to discuss it with him. He noted that UUEAS had Officers that cater for women and transgender students, he was asking for the specific needs of men to be met as well. He argued that men had specific needs because of their gender. He noted that at his first LCR he had seen male students making unsolicited physical advances toward female students. This was a problem of male behaviour and could be dealt with effectively by a Gender Equality Officer rather than a Women’s Officer, who, he argued, the kind of men who took part in this activity, would not listen to. He argued that male students were at three times’greater risk of being physically assaulted than female students. He had witnessed UEA male students being attacked, at the entrance to campus, by a group of local males whilst women students walked past unmolested. This gender based difference was not addressed by UUEAS.
Chair noted that this appeared to be a contentious issue but warned Councillors not to heckle and to be courteous to their fellow Councillors.
A questioner from the floor asked Councillors to avoid making personal allegations such as the implications of homophobia made against the last speaker.
A questioner from the floor asked V Mailoo how pitting one set of gender statistics against another could promote gender equality.
V Mailoo argued that he had pointed out differences that should be addressed and in order to do that he had had to highlight statistical differences between genders.
A Etches (PSI YR1 UG) questioned the idea of the allegations of homophobia having been a personal attack; they were, he argued, a valid criticism of parts of V Mailoo‟s presentation. He wondered if the violence against male students on campus, as detailed by the speaker, would be a matter for Security rather than a Gender Equality Officer. He noted that the case involved a gang of men beating up other men rather than women assaulting men...
...M Taylor moved a series of amendments. He argued that the tone of the resolution was horrible and he was disgusted by it but it had stumbled toward some valid points. He argued that men were affected by patriarchal oppression but in a different way from women. Genders were interdependent upon each other; for example, male sexual health screening affected women. If the amendments were accepted then Council could have a serious debate about gender equality on campus. Rather than a Women’s Officer he was proposing having a Gender Issues Officer. He argued that 90% of these issues concerned women; however, this meant that 10% were not being dealt with.
ReplyDeleteD Youmans (Community and Student Rights Officer) argued that both the resolution and the amendments betrayed a misunderstanding of the role of the Women’s Officer. He argued that there are different issues that affect different groups; such as students who smoke are more likely to contract lung cancer but that was the nature of the universe. To create a new officer post for students who got STDs, who committed suicide or were likely to be violently assaulted, was tantamount to having an Officer for Students Who Smoke. The point about the Women’s Officer and the other former Liberations Officers was that they ensured representation for unrepresented groups. To have a Women’s Officer meant to have a robust voice for women. Student groups had a right to self-organise in much the same way the previous motion on the fight for freedom of the Libyan people had stated. He argued it was not for men to state how women should challenge their own oppression.
M Taylor, in summation, agreed with much of what D Youmans had said but argued that UUEAS should continually ask its representatives how they wanted to struggle against patriarchy.
The amendment fell by 29 votes for, 32 votes against with 12 abstentions.
L Biscoe (FMH Faculty Convenor) moved an amendment. She thought this was an issue that needed to be discussed. She moved that the notes and believes be removed from the resolution; she argued that in this way the matter could be investigated but the, as she characterised them, dubious assertions contained in parts of the resolution would not then be UUEAS’ policy.
M Taylor moved that Resolves should read “a series of open meetings”
V Mailoo accepted both amendments.
K Espie (Women’s Officer), against the amended resolution, noted she had been sent the presentation by male colleagues. She did not object to the creation of the Gender Equality post so long as the Women’s Officer post was maintained. She noted that 80,000 women were raped in the UK every year and that 1 in 7 women students on campus were victims of sexual assault. She argued that, for gender equality, it was essential that women’s voices were heard. She noted that men formed the majority of Officers and women needed to increase their level of representation.
An amendment from the floor to add “would report back to Council” to the Resolves.
V Mailoo, in summation, noted that, in his entire presentation and in the resolution, there was no mention of any proposal to abolish the post of Women’s Officer, this had come from M Taylor’s amendment. As for the question of homophobia, he would happily discuss that with Councillors.
Council adopted the amended resolution by 54 to 19 with 2 abstentions.”
I am still unable to see how:
ReplyDelete“This Union Notes:
1. There are fewer male students than female students at UEA.
2. National statistics suggest that male students are at greater risk of violent crime than female students.
3. Domestic violence against men is largely overlooked.
4. Men have a lower average life expectancy than women.
5. Male suicide rates are higher than female suicide rates.
6. Male sexual health services have been cut from the UEA medical centre.
7. Boys are currently not offered vaccination against HPV on the NHS, even though the viruses contribute to oral, anal and penis cancers.
8. Students should check that their sexual partners have the mental capacity to consent to sex (i.e. are not intoxicated beyond their capacity to consent). Individuals that fail to do so may be committing sexual assault and men that fail to do so may be committing rape.
9. Union Council currently has a Women’s Officer but no Men’s Officer.
This Union Believes:
1. Male students are a minority on campus
2. Male students need as much protection from the threat of violence as female students.
3. Domestic violence against men, such as spitting and face-slapping in addition to more serious crimes should be openly identified as unacceptable and not trivialised. The students union should have a zero tolerance policy on violence, including female violence against males.
4. The health and social care needs of men are not currently being addressed adequately or in an equitable way.
5. Male students are generally at greater risk of suicide than female students.
As for 4
As for 4
6. Greater male awareness of legal issues surrounding sexual activity and intoxication could benefit both male and female UEA students.
7. In the interests of sexual equality, the UEA students Union should consider having a Gender Equality Officer post”
was “horrible” or “dubious” or how the Power Point presentation was “horrific” or “factually wrong and misogynist”. All of the statistics I used were clearly referenced. Are all of those researchers really misogynists (even the female researchers)?
V
The full meeting minutes can be found here: http://www.ueastudent.com/image_uploads/council-agenda31-march-2011fin.pdf
ReplyDeleteV
Is this homophobia: http://student.bmj.com/student/view-article.html?id=sbmj.d3937
ReplyDelete"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have specific health needs. A National Lottery funding body has awarded almost half a million pounds to establish an LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) health centre in Birmingham, UK"?
I do not think so.
V
Thank you for speaking up for male victims. I have been a victim of violence and assault, including all forms of abuse (sexual, mental, emotional, financial, physical) at the hands of a woman. It's nice to see more and more are recognizing this for what it is.
ReplyDeleteAs a psychotherapist I have worked with a number of men who have been victims of domestic violence from female partners. There is a great deal of shame in reporting this - as there is with male rape and men do not like to present themselves as victims.
ReplyDeleteWe are still recovering from a long period form the late 1960 which cannot distinguish between being authoritative and being authoritarian. So all notions of power or knowledge are rubbished.
The Principles of Social Competence is an interesting publication on all this available as a free download http://manhood101.com/ebook.html