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
