The letter was written in response to a post on the University’s website that championed the cause of men’s equality in line with the controversial International Day. Lee was quoted in the post as saying, “in the area of gender equality, the focus has rightly been on raising awareness about – and removing barriers for – women. We are, however, also aware of some of the specific issues faced by men. Men are under-represented in the student population as a whole; they are also significantly under-represented in a number of academic disciplines across all three faculties.”
The statement outlined that “men currently have to wait longer than women before they receive a State pension and at certain stages in life, they are less well protected by equality legislation than women. These issues inevitably impact on men employed at the University and on the lives of our students.”
The post and the decision to recognise the Day have prompted anger across faculty and the student body, leading to the publication of the open letter, which can be read below. Signatories include YUSU’s LGBTQ Officer and Women’s Officer, lecturers from Politics, English, Philosophy, History and Law Departments, and a host of students and alumni.
The letter calls phrases in the University’s website post “retrograde” and showing “a profound lack of understanding on issues surrounding masculinity”. It also highlights that “a day that celebrates men’s issues, especially those outlined in the University’s statement, does not combat inequality, but merely amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities.”
“We believe that men’s issues cannot be approached in the same way as unfairness and discrimination towards women, because women are structurally unequal to men,” the letter goes on. “We recognise that patriarchy is damaging to both men and women, and we are in support of a discussion concerning this, as well as increased attention to specific issues surrounding men’s health. We do not, however, believe that the university statement engages with these complex issues with sufficient nuance or understanding.”
Duncan has responded to the open letter, writing in an email to the signatories that is also published on the University website. He said “I am sorry that this has caused unhappiness for some members of the University community who felt that the statement was inappropriate and should never have been issued. The intention was to draw attention to some of the issues men tell us they encounter and to follow this up by highlighting in particular the availability of mental health and welfare support which we know men are sometimes reluctant to access.
“The Equality and Diversity Committee is clear that the main focus of gender equality work should continue to be on the inequalities faced by women, and in particular the under representation of women in the professoriate and senior management.
“We believe that we can make meaningful progress in addressing these issues, while at the same time addressing other aspects of the equality and diversity agenda.
“We will certainly reflect on the views expressed in the open letter and I expect think twice about marking future Men’s Days. We will also consider whether it would be helpful to revise the statement in order to make its core purpose clearer, or perhaps to withdraw it altogether.”
The original statement on the University’s website outlining its commitment to supporting International Men’s Day has since been removed, and the above message from Duncan put in its place.
Duncan has also since confirmed that the University no longer plans to mark International Men’s Day in 2015 and that the focus of the work of the Equality and Diversity Committee will continue to be on the inequalities faced by women.
The organisers of the open letter have raised further concerns following the University’s stand-down, issuing the following statement to Nouse: “For us, the key questions which the university must answer are: how was the decision to mark International Men’s Day reached by the committee? What research was undertaken into IMD and its supporters prior to this decision being taken? And is this a consequence of flaws in the make-up or protocols of the committee?”
The issue has already attracted outside attention, in particular from the Director of the Society for Women in Philosphy in the UK, and Sara Ahmed, Professor in Race and Cultural Studies at Goldismith’s, University of London.
The open letter reads as follows:
To the Registrar (Dr. David Duncan) and Dr. Adrian Lee of the Academic Support Office:
We the undersigned students, staff and alumni of the University of York are deeply concerned by the University’s recent decision to mark International Men’s Day. We believe that giving practical application to concepts of equality and diversity should be taken seriously by the university. However, we do not believe that this is furthered by the promotion of International Men’s Day in general and are concerned by the particular way in which the university has chosen to do so.
According to its official UK website, ‘International Men’s Day’ exists to raise awareness of global issues facing men and boys, and to ‘celebrate the contribution that men make.’ It does not, however, seek a dialogue on such issues with women’s equality campaigns or initiatives. Nor does it acknowledge that the patriarchal structures which underpin society are inimical to both male and female advancement and wellbeing, or that the achievements of men are celebrated and disproportionately highlighted as a matter of course. We believe in a critical approach towards equality and diversity, which seeks to understand the structural causes of disadvantage.
We also believe that there is a significant reputational risk to the university in aligning itself with International Men’s Day an event which has not been without significant controversy. The homepage of the global website for International Men’s Day states: ‘The ability to sacrifice your needs on behalf of others is fundamental to manhood, as is honour. Manhood rites of passage the world over recognise the importance of sacrifice in the development of Manhood.’ Retrograde statements like this show a profound lack of understanding on issues surrounding masculinity. A day that celebrates men’s issues especially those outlined in the University’s statement does not combat inequality, but merely amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities.
The closing remark ‘gender equality is for everyone’ echoes misogynistic rhetoric that men’s issues have been drowned out by the focus on women’s rights. One particularly wrongheaded and offensive assertion is that ‘in the professional support services, there are areas where men are significantly underrepresented. Likewise in academic departments, the support staff complement is often heavily weighted towards women, with some departments employing no men at all in these roles.’ Though the statement concedes that the ‘reasons for these circumstances are complex,’ it proposes that they should be addressed ‘in the same way that we approach unfairness and discrimination by women.’
This misses the crucial point that men’s ‘underrepresentation’ in these areas is a direct consequence of unfairness and discrimination towards women; secretarial and support work are gendered and demeaned as ‘women’s work,’ whereas men dominate senior and better paid roles. The statement is particularly crass in view of the fact that of the twelvestrong university Senior Management Group (SMG), three quarters are male.
In recent years, a number of serious issues highlighting women’s inequality at the university at all levels have been reported. These include: the lack of female and BME candidates running for YUSU President in the past five years; reports from the YUSU Women’s Officer on serious issues surrounding sexual harassment and ‘lad culture’; the fact that the majority of executive committee positions in political and careers societies are held by men; and the continuing marginalisation of women in academic roles. Within this context, the Equality and Diversity Committee statement’s generalised references to ‘raising awareness about and removing barriers for women’ fails to acknowledge the full implications of gender bias against women within the institution.
We believe that men’s issues cannot be approached in the same way as unfairness and discrimination towards women, because women are structurally unequal to men. We recognise that patriarchy is damaging to both men and women, and we are in support of a discussion concerning this, as well as increased attention to specific issues surrounding men’s health. We do not, however, believe that the university statement engages with these complex issues with sufficient nuance or understanding. The failure of the Equality and Diversity Committee to do so undermines their selfproclaimed commitment to genderequality, and leaves us deeply concerned that their supposed investment in women’s rights is mere lip service.
We ask that you provide a full account of the means by which a decision to promote men’s issues in this way was reached by the Equality and Diversity Committee. We hope you will take our concerns and criticism with the seriousness they deserve, and look forward to a full response as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
The undersigned
Full list of signatories:
Sibyl Adam, University of York Alumna
Luis Abolafia Anguita, University of York Alumnus
Boriana Alexandrova, Department of English & Related Literature
Henrice Altink, Head of Department, Department of History
Jasmine Allen, University of York Alumna
Daniel Ashman, University of York Alumnus
Catherine Atkinson, Centre for Women’s Studies
Derek Attridge, Professor, Department of English and Related Literature
George Bancroft, Disabled Students’ Convener to Women’s and LGBTQ Networks,
Department of Biology
Patricia Bartley, Centre for Applied Human Rights
Heidi Baseler, Department of Psychology
Lynne F Baxter, The York Management School
Kate Beaumont, University of York Alumna
Rachel Bickley, University of York Alumna
Elizabeth Biggs, Department of History
Laura Blomvall, Department of English and Related Literature
Hannah Boast, Department of English and Related Literature
Eliza Bonello, Department of Chemistry
Kristin Bourassa, University of York Alumna
Chris Bovis, Centre for Medieval Studies
Robin Brabham, Department of Chemistry
Jude Brereton, Department of Electronics
Evie Brill Paffard, YUSU LGBTQ officer, Department of English and Related Literature
Thomas Bromwell, Department of History of Art
Rachel Brown, Department of Politics
Sydney Calkin, University of York Alumna
Claire Canavan, Department of English and Related Literature
AnneMarie Canning, President of YUSU 20072008
Gina Cardwell, Feminist Society Committee member, Department of Physics
Emily Casey, University of York Alumna
Nina Caspersen, Department of Politics
Sarah Cawthorne, Department of English and Related Literature
Claire Chambers, Lecturer in Global Literature, Department of English and Related
Literature
TingFang Chin, Centre for Women’s Studies
James Clarke, Lecturer, Department of Philosophy
Sabine Clarke, Lecturer, Department of History
Emma Cooper, University of York Alumna
Sophie Coulombeau, University of York Alumna
Katy Cubitt, Professor, Department of History
Rebekah Cumpsty, Department of English and Related Literature
Lucy Davies, University of York Alumna
Irene D’Amico, Professor, Department of Physics
Callum Delhoy, Liberal Democrats & Amnesty International Society, Department of Politics
Jack Denham, Department of Sociology
Caroline Dessent, Senior Lecturer, Department of Chemistry
Pelin Dinçer, Centre for Women’s Studies
Carol Dixon, Department of Philosophy
Kirstin Donaldson, University of York Alumna
Ana Duarte, Centre for Health Economics
Anaïs DuongPedica, Department of Sociology
Serena Dyer, University of York Alumna
Jonathan Eato, Department of Music
Katherine Ebury, University of York Alumna
Anna Einarsdottir, Senior Lecturer, The York Management School
Janet Eldred, Department of Philosophy, Department of Health Sciences
Luke Elliott, LGBTQ Network Secretary, Department of Physics
Karla K. Evans, Lecturer, Department of Psychology
Sanna Eriksson, Centre for Applied Human Rights
Mary Fairclough, Lecturer, English and Related Literature
Jonathan Fanning, Lecturer, The York Management School
Myra Faza, Department of Archaeology
Suki Finn, Teaching Fellow, Department of Philosophy
Triona Fitton, University of York Alumna
Sarah Fitzmaurice, Feminist Society Secretary, Department of Physics
Gemma Gibson, Centre for Women’s Studies
Veronica Gonzalez Temer, Department of Language and Linguistic Science
Erika GrahamGoering, Department of History
Hannah Greig, Senior Lecturer, Department of History
Joanna de Groot, Senior Lecturer, Department of History
Pat Hadley, Honorary Fellow, Department of Archaeology
CatherineRose Hailstone, Department of History
Alex Hall, Department of Politics
Claire Harrill, University of York Alumna
Alexander HardieForsyth, Centre for Eighteenth Century Studies
James Haikney, Department of English and Related Literature
James Harland, Department of History
Kate Harper, Student and Academic Services
Kate Highman, University of York Alumna
Deborah Hines, Language and Linguistic Science.
Lucy Hodgetts, Department of English and Related Literature
Edward Holmes, Department of Sociology
Dan Howdon, Centre for Health Economics
Carolyn Hunter, The York Management School
Kaytlin Hunter, Department of Sociology
Stevi Jackson, Director, Centre for Women’s Studies
Sharon Jagger, Centre for Women’s Studies
Carla Jardim, Centre for Medieval Studies
Hannah Jeans, Department of History
Ella Jeffries, Department of Language and Linguistic Science
Sam Johnson, University of York Alumnus
Martin Jones, Lecturer in International Human Rights Law, Centre for Applied Human Rights
Phil Jones, University of York Alumnus
Adam Kelly, Lecturer in American Literature, Department of English and Related Literature
Michelle Kelly, University of York Alumna
Catriona Kennedy, Senior Lecturer, Department of History
Emma Kennedy, University of York Alumna
Tim Kirk, Department of Chemistry
Emmanouela Kritikaki, Centre for Women’s Studies
Stephanie Lambert, Department of English and Related Literature
Jenna Lång, University of York Alumna
Tim Lawrence, Department of English and Related Literature
James Lomas, Research Fellow, Centre for Health Economics
Jelena Loncar, Department of Politics
Catherine Laws, Department of Music
Ken Leach, Department of Sociology
Barry Lee, Lecturer, Department of Philosophy
Mary Leng, Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy
Sam Lindsay, University of York Alumnus
Nicole Lindstrom, Lecturer, Department of Politics
Bridget Lockyer, University of York Alumna
Izzy Lomas, Feminist Society President, Department of Biology
Jelena Loncar, Centre for Women’s Studies
Gill Loomes, Department of Sociology
Nicky Losseff, Department of Music
Hannah Lyons, University of York Alumna
Antigone MacKenzie, Department of English and Related Literature
Reena Magudia, University of York Alumna
Katrina Maliamauv, Centre for Applied Human Rights
Nathan Manning, Department of Sociology
Katie Markham, University of York Alumna
Ross McIntire, Centre for Medieval Studies
Katherine Mellor, YUSU Women’s Officer, Department of Social Policy and Social Work
John Mellors, Department of Politics
Juliana Mensah, Centre for Applied Human Rights
Jaz Millar, Trans*gender convener for YUSU LGBTQ, Department of Biology
Chris Millson, University of York Alumnus
Eilis Millson University of York Alumna
Leah Mitchell, University of York Alumna
Stephanie Monteith, Centre for Medieval Studies
Karen Mumford, Professor, Department of Economics
Alice Nah, Centre for Applied Human Rights
Sarah NapoliRangel, Assistant Head of College to Goodricke
Kasia Narkowicz, Department of Sociology
Dustin Neighbors, Department of History
Rachel Nicholson, University of York Alumna
Catherine Oakley, Department of English and Related Literature
Megan Ollerhead, Directorate of Estates and Campus Services
Sebastian Owen, English and Related Literature
Isabel Pearson, Chair Amnesty International Society, Department of Politics
Adam Perchard, University of York Alumnus
Josh Phillips, University of York Alumnus
Lucy Potter, Department of English and Related Literature
Laura Price, Department of History
Bryan Radley, Lecturer, Department of English and Related Literature
Kelly Ramnarine, Department of Psychology
Conny Rhode, Department of Philosophy
Louise Richardson, Lecturer, Department of Philosophy
Niamh Richardson, Department of Medieval Studies
Duncan Robertson, Department of English and Related Literature
Tim Rowbotham, Department of English and Related Literature and Centre for Medieval
Literature
Xander Ryan, University of York Alumnus
Madelaine Schurch, Department of English and Related Literature
Ruth Scobie, University of York Alumna
Brittany Scowcroft, Centre for Medieval Studies & History of Art
Cristina Sechel, Department of Economics and Related Studies
Munzar Sharif, University of York Alumnus
Christine Skinner, Reader in Social Policy, Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Claire Smith, Lecturer, Department of Politics
Peter Smith, Professor, Department of Economics
Rosie Smith, Department of Sociology
Catherine Spencer, University of York Alumna
Elizabeth Spencer, Department of History
Holly Steel, Department of Sociology
Germaine Stockbridge, Department of Sociology
Tom Stoneham, Professor, Department of Philosophy
Dillon Struwig, Department of English and Related Literature
Ally Swadling, University of York Alumna
Vanita Sundaram, Senior Lecturer, Department of Education
Elizabeth Swann, University of York Alumna
Abigail Tazzyman, University of York Alumna
Ali Thompson, Department of Natural Sciences
Amy Tobin, Department of History of Art
Vikki Touzel, University of York Alumna
Evangeline Tsao, Centre for Women’s Studies
Giacomo Valeri, Department of English
Paul Walton, Department of Chemistry
Sethina Watson, Senior Lecturer, Department of History
Sophie Weeks, Lecturer, Department of History
Joanna Wharton, University of York Alumna
Gregory White, Department of Social Policy and Social Work
Ruth Whyte, University of York Alumna
Jenny Wilkes, Department of English and Related Literature
James Williams, Lecturer, Department of English and Related Literature
Mary Elizabeth Wilson, Centre for Medieval Studies
Tim Wingard, University of York Alumnus
Adam Winstanley, Department of English and Related Literature
Nick Wolterman, Department of English and Related Literature
Rebecca Woods, Department of Language and Linguistic Science
Emma Woolfrey, Department of History of Art
Beth Yarwood Smith, University of York Alumna
Helen YetterChappell, Lecturer, Department of Philosophy
Ananna Zaman, YUSU Women’s Officer, Department of Social Policy and Social Work
16 Nov ’15 at 5:39 pm
Anonymous
The fact that a group of people: decided we should mark International Men’s Day; went to the effort to write and release that press release; AND not see a problem with it, is staggering.
Is this Equality and Diversity Committee fit for purpose?
Report16 Nov ’15 at 7:13 pm
Anon
Not see a problem with international Men’s Day? You mean a day in the entire year where we actually discuss men’s issues like Suicide and Domestic Violence? Can you tell me what the problem is with that?
Report17 Nov ’15 at 4:01 pm
Anonymous
That would have been fine if that’d been the way it was framed. But it wasn’t framed that way.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 1:27 am
Bob
No, not see a problem with the press release. It was badly written and focused on the wrong issues. However, parts of the open letter were also badly written and the decision to cancel the event was not well thought out
Report17 Nov ’15 at 12:59 am
Isaac T Quill
No they are not and they are no fit to be in academia either … given that they have such self-rectitudinous bias it prevents them from even using Google to avoid inadvertent racism – http://www.webcitation.org/6d5wqQkJA
What Glorious And Useful Idiots They All Are! … or should that read “Were”?
Report29 Nov ’15 at 7:30 pm
Anonymous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuHLIsZymOU
What a bunch of disgusting creatures your university is full of. I always laugh when women make the double sided claim that they are oppressed victims and yet empowered at the same time. Tell me, which side suited your ridiculous movement this time? reversing a decision to mark international men’s day after a man in your university commited suicide? a time when we could address the issues men face in a society which sees them as disposable utilities. Feminists constantly push for legislated advantage over men in all areas of society just to compete or siphon resources from us (family court bias anyone?) I have news for you sweet hearts…
If you need a Handicap to compete with me, you are not my equal. :-)
Report16 Nov ’15 at 7:00 pm
Isaac T Quill
Where do we send the Kittens and Emergency Safe Spaces?
Report16 Nov ’15 at 7:01 pm
Anonymous
Well done York Uni.You have made yourself look ridiculous with this over-reaction. So much for elite University!
Report16 Nov ’15 at 7:51 pm
Anonymous
More evidence that feminism is a misandric cult that wants to harm men’s interests in any way possible.
Report16 Nov ’15 at 8:17 pm
Anonymous
In terms of signatures, there are 193. Of those, 13 are unisex names. Of the remaining 180, 135 are female names and 45 are male names. I find it interesting that the overwhelming majority of those people ‘blasting’ the University’s decision to observe International Men’s Day are women. If a decision to mark International Women’s Day was criticised by a list predominated by men, I have no doubts that there would be outrage.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 10:48 am
York Alumni
Not to mention at least 48 alumni, too. 145 students and staff out of 18,000 people who lived and work in a large, intellectually charged community like the University’s hardly have a claim to being the voice of people.
Report16 Nov ’15 at 8:44 pm
Finn Judge
It’s sad that gender-related issues have become this one-sided.
There’s a multitude of problems – physical, mental, societal – that men exclusively face: tackling, if not merely acknowledging those instances doesn’t pose a threat to the recognition that women are fundamentally unequal to men, because that’s still unfortunately a given.
But by no means are men’s issues confined to just patriarchy – as was suggested in this open letter. So whilst we tackle gender inequality, welfare must also be a priority on both sides.
If that were the focus of International Men’s Day (which Duncan professed it would have been), then I’d have seen no issue with it.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 6:46 pm
Lovekraft
Not buying your mental gymnastics. The hard fact is feminism controls the narrative. This is no different from islamists who hide behind special status.
Feminism and Islam. Two forces for censorship and control.
Report16 Nov ’15 at 8:46 pm
Dildo wielding feminist
International Men’s Day what a bunch of twats – I just read this on the website.
“Objectives of International Men’s Day include a focus on men’s and boy’s health, improving gender relations, promoting gender equality, and highlighting positive male role models. It is an occasion for men to celebrate their achievements and contributions, in particular their contributions to community, family, marriage, and child care while highlighting the discrimination against them.”
Bloody Arseholes, burn men let the feminist live long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S maybe the statement was bad, but perhaps IMD is for a good cause and we should celebrate it?
Report17 Nov ’15 at 12:55 am
Isaac T Quill
Evidently you have gender dyslexia coupled with myopia! That mixed with your incapacity to ask first and so as to avoid drivelling later is quite a handicap for you!
Maybe if you tried to do some homework rather than promoting our own silly bias you make look intelligent… I did say “May”!
IMD Six Pillers and Equality Policy, as adopted 2011: http://www.webcitation.org/6d5wqQkJA
“DIVERSITY AND EQUALITY STATEMENT
We encourage every man, woman, girl and boy in the world to join us in celebrating men and boys in all their diversity on International Men’s Day (November 19th).
We recognize that there are a broad variety of laws, values and viewpoints around the world that affect different men, in different countries in different ways. There is also a diversity of opinions about those laws, values and viewpoints which are held by the many different men, women, girls and boys throughout the world.
As a day of observance we place our focus on that which unites humanity- giving everyone who wants to celebrate International Men’s Day the opportunity to help work towards our shared objectives which we apply equally to men and boys irrespective of their age, ability, social background, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, religious belief and relationship status. Those objectives are:
1 To promote positive male role models; not just movie stars and sports men but everyday, working class men who are living decent, honest lives.
2 To celebrate men’s positive contributions to society, community, family, marriage, child care, and to the environment.
3 To focus on men’s health and wellbeing; social, emotional, physical and spiritual.
4 To highlight discrimination against males; in areas of social services, social attitudes and expectations, and law.
5 To improve gender relations and promote gender equality.
6 To create a safer, better world; where people can be safe and grow to reach their full potential.”
You see – some of us have done our homework – whilst a whole list of 200 biased fools have made International Academic Asses of themselves.
Whoops!
Report17 Nov ’15 at 2:10 am
Anon
I think you missed some attempted satire mate
Report21 Nov ’15 at 1:22 pm
Joe
whoops? more like WHOOSH
Report16 Nov ’15 at 9:28 pm
Anon
‘It does not, however, seek a dialogue on such issues with women’s equality campaigns or initiatives.’
Let’s forget about the fact Femfest was a week long event and maybe rightly so. Women do face a larger struggle than men. But I don’t particularly see any male campaigns being included during that week. Here is a schedule.
http://imgur.com/vQVGWiL
P.S It’s all well and good highlighting the BME issue present at UOY. But I do find it a bit odd how I wasn’t approached to attend and participate in Femfest whilst walking through Vanbrugh (several times!) Whereas all my white friends were actively encouraged. Fair enough, India has an appalling track record on women’s rights. But I never knew that meant every single brown male was a female-hating **** who doesn’t want to assist in making much needed progress.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 1:01 am
Isaac T Quill
Don’t let the Academic Idiots off so lightly for not doing their homework.
http://www.webcitation.org/6d5wqQkJA
Report16 Nov ’15 at 9:56 pm
James Kerr
Got around 7 minutes to spare (all it will take), why not read David Duncan’s short story (http://uoygrapevineonline.com/2014/09/08/more-than-conquerors-a-thriller-set-on-our-university-campus/) for an insight into his view of women (and foreigners)?
Report20 Nov ’15 at 12:37 am
Matt Augustus
Ok, I read it. I saw nothing in it to be able to detect anything about Duncan’s views of women or foreigners. Aren’t you reaching a bit here?.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 1:21 am
Lyle
“The closing remark ‘gender equality is for everyone’ echoes misogynistic rhetoric that men’s issues have been drowned out by the focus on women’s rights.”
>Proceeds to drown out mens issues by focussing on women’s rights.
I have no more words.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 1:46 am
Isaac T Quill
I would just like to add to the issues of Academic Ignorance and not doing any homework;
” The long gender war must come to an end. There has been too much sadness, single—parent families due to divorces and too many victims. Feminists and activists outside of the men’s movement should not feel threatened by International Men’s Day. They need to realize that IMD is another peaceful phase of the Men’s movement. Many of their goals are similar to International Men’s Day which includes improving gender relations and promoting gender equality. The focus of IMD is on males and females. Yes, International Men’s Day highlights the common bonds of humanity. Remind others of the life-transforming impact of IMD. This movement is supposed to generate positive forces and not promote divisions.”
Dr. Jerome Teelucksingh (8 December 2011). Achieving peace, equality and a healthy environment. AuthorHouse. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-4634-4217-0. https://goo.gl/I9EKAV
You may not be familiar with the name Dr. Jerome Teelucksingh – but you should be if you have done any homework, are not racist and also don’t dismiss other nations/nation groups due to Bias or even plain old-fashioned Stupidity.
https://sta.uwi.edu/fhe/history/JeromeTeelucksingh.asp Sorry But he Doesn’t use LinkedIn… naughty academic.
And here you can read of UNESCO’s support for IMD since 1999… addressed to The Good Doctor . Enjoy.
http://www.webcitation.org/6d60FsHd6
Report17 Nov ’15 at 8:30 am
Rav Shekelberg
Lots of alumni, none of them notable.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 9:23 am
Anonymous
Look well fellows, and take note: you have just been provided a list of people who detest you, who wish you silenced and want abuses against you ignored. Please, please write in complaint of this cancellation – this farce cannot continue any longer.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 11:15 am
Dave Bingham
Deeply deeply sad. In recent days we have all acknowledged the utter futility of the trench warfare of WWI, we know that the Troubles in Ireland began to end as a result of dialogue not military escalation, most of us understand that airstrikes in the Middle East for 50 years have not brought anyone any peace – and yet so many women and so many men are just talking out of their woundedness here, and so cannot see that if you fight fire with fire you just burn the whole fecking house down. 13 men a day are dying from suicide AND women are facing structural inequality. Both are true and they are not mutually-cancelling. Both need addressing. Those fighting against one should recognise those fighting against the other as comrades not enemies or competitors. Reading all the background to this I think the Uni screwed up by seeing Internatioanl Men’s Day and men’s issues generally through a purely academic lens: their statement talked about “under-representation among students” and “wait longer for pensions” instead of talking about male suicide and mental health issues. That a) pressed some feminist buttons and b) made it easy to shoot the proposal down as “retrograde”. And then everyone is back in their trenches and the machine-gun fire, mustard gas and heavy shelling all start up again (from both sides). Truth and Hope join each other on the railway tracks and wait to be put out of their misery..
Report17 Nov ’15 at 12:28 pm
anon
Peter…was told by his ex that if she got care of their son he would never see him again. CAFCASS said that would not happen. Then Peter got the report recommending sole care for mum. He spent the day drinking before hanging himself and was found by the Fire Service. John came with his mum. He had been told that if he tried to see his daughter, he would be “dealt with”. When he had no choice but to apply to court and face his ex partner, John killed himself. And so it goes on…but there are no men’s issues only righteous feminists. Universities have no idea about real life.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 1:36 pm
Mike
Really disappointed by some of the names on that list.
What a total embarrassment, I hope the uni realises that the response to this online is overwhelmingly negative and paints the institution in a very bad light.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 1:42 pm
Alain Williams
So: can I assume that in the spirit of fairness that York Uni will not mark International Women’s Day in 2016 ?
Report17 Nov ’15 at 7:00 pm
Suzanna Mason
Are you kidding? Women get a whole week! Men can’t even get one day. I am completely livid about this, I wish I had the time to write an article but I’m doing a PhD and my progress meeting is coming up. I’m certainly going to find the responsible party and give them a piece of my mind.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 6:50 pm
Lovekraft
In conjunction with the BLMers pulling coups and bringing special snowflake suffering to comedic heights, we are seeing yet another example of the true nature of feminism. Deconstructionism was and is a negative force dependent on a boogy man. Which also, I may add, displays a profound lack of constructive solutions.
Report24 Nov ’15 at 8:21 pm
Anonymous
This is hilarious. You can’t scream #AllLivesMatter at BLM activists and not be compelled to scream #AllGendersMatter at IMD. Unless you’re a hypocrite, but surely not.
Report19 Nov ’15 at 11:21 pm
McLarenF1
Women at this school get more than a week; they get the entire academic year because of the presence of the Centre for Women’s Studies. Notice that 9 signatories on the open letter came from the Centre for Women’s Studies, including the Director.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 2:21 pm
Jackie Chan
Well done this select minority group of ex students and staff from the academic dept’s. Very disappointed in you all and see no representation of the lower grade support staff supporting your views. There’s no equality on show here and I fully support Alain Williams view that to demonstrate equality, the uni forgets all about marking International Women’s day next year!!!
Report17 Nov ’15 at 3:19 pm
A Student
As someone who has been lectured , taught and supported by some of these people who signed the letter in my first year , I am disappointed. These people have damaged my and other student’s opinions of them. This shows the university in a terrible light.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 3:25 pm
Alumni
There are a lot of us who feel this way right now.
Report20 Nov ’15 at 3:04 am
Jason
If I were a student at York, I’d seriously consider a hunger strike, like at Mizzou; for humor, if not for effect. Not seriously though.. They’d let me die, I’m male after all.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 3:33 pm
James Woods
A day to discuss boys’ underachievement in school, lower attendance at university, homelessness, greater propensity to suicide, with the male suicide rate at nearly 4 times that of women – and RISING while the female rate falls – is OPPOSED by feminists.
And yet we are told again and again that feminists do not hate men. Hatred and bigotry by feminists towards men is a much more believable explanation for opposing this initiative than the feeble justifications expressed in the open letter.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 7:08 pm
Yemi
Not mansplaining, but would just like to point out what is wrong with this movement for women’s equality is that ideologically( though feminists ll disagree) men are the perpetrators of women’s oppression( terribly wrong by the way). So its ideologically defeating to admitting men have problems. That is why you never see any feminist or women’s rights activists looking through the feminism patriarchy theory lenses not deny men’s problems or not actively or passively fight its acknowledgement. So if you feel something is terribly wrong with feminism and u can’t point it out. That is it. Until men defeat feminism, men’s issues ll be ignored
Report17 Nov ’15 at 10:55 pm
SS
Wasn’t aware these 200 people have a right to say they hold the voice of the University of York. Wasn’t aware that issues specific to Men do not deserve a day specific to issues relating to them. Disappointed at the University’s knee jerk reaction. Disappointed by the names on the list.
Report17 Nov ’15 at 10:57 pm
SS
typo – *Wasn’t aware that Men do not a day for issues specific to them.
Disappointed at my ability to multitask….
Report17 Nov ’15 at 10:58 pm
SS
*DESERVE a day
Reportbloody hell
18 Nov ’15 at 1:38 am
KM
THIS RIGHT HERE is why we need International Men’s Day.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 8:08 am
Stapel Chips
To the Registrar (Dr. David Duncan) and Dr. Adrian Lee of the Academic Support Office and the people who signed the initial letter :
I am from Germany so please excuse me, if my English is not that good. Also, I am not an academic, so I am not involved in the academic structures, especially regarding the UK and the University of York. But I think a point of view from the outside can bring a different light to the theme.
I came across an article where a letter regarding the international men’s day is quoted.
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2015/11/16/open-letter-blasts-universitys-decision-to-mark-international-mens-day-read-it-here/
We the undersigned students, staff and alumni of the University of York are deeply concerned by the University’s recent decision to mark International Men’s Day. We believe that giving practical application to concepts of equality and diversity should be taken seriously by the university. However, we do not believe that this is furthered by the promotion of International Men’s Day in general and are concerned by the particular way in which the university has chosen to do so.
According to its official UK website, ‘International Men’s Day’ exists to raise awareness of global issues facing men and boys, and to ‘celebrate the contribution that men make.’
I totally agree with the letter-writers, that equality and diversity are things to strive for. But what is meant by ‘concepts’? Isn’t it so, that equality means that everyone – regardless of race, sex, gender, religion, etc. – has the same rights and opportunities? Wouldn’t this bring the best of every race, sex, gender… to the universities? And how can a day that raises awareness to the issues – the global issues – faced by men and boys not further it? Why is it a problem, that we raise awareness to the things men and boys contribute to our societies.
It does not, however, seek a dialogue on such issues with women’s equality campaigns or initiatives.
It is not intended to do so. It is intended to raise awareness to men’s issues. There is no need for a dialogue in an awareness campaign. If we have the awareness, than it is time for a dialogue. We are not at that point yet.
Nor does it acknowledge that the patriarchal structures which underpin society are inimical to both male and female advancement and wellbeing, or that the achievements of men are celebrated and disproportionately highlighted as a matter of course.
What are patriarchal structures? According to the Merriam Webster online dictionary a patriarchy is either
1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
or
2: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy
According to you, we have just structures left. These structures must be that men have a large share of power. What is a large share? When is it NOT a large share? >50%? >5%? >2%? And how are men in power inimical to both male and female advancement and wellbeing?
Also I have to ask how the achievements of men are disproportionately highlighted? The normal things men do are not highlighted at all. From the top of your head: Do you know the name of the person who invented the modern internet? No? I had to google it. Ah! Do you know the names of the inventors of the Google-Search engine? These inventions changed the world. And do we celebrate their names nearly as much as they deserve it? I don’t think so.
We believe in a critical approach towards equality and diversity, which seeks to understand the structural causes of disadvantage.
I believe in the same thing. But you also have to be critical of yourself. In a structure where your abilities, your networks and your intellect matters most, only the people are disadvantaged, who are not as able, not as intelligent as you are or do not know as many or as powerful people as you know.
These are the disadvantages you as a women can face in the current system. But everyone can face this disadvantages. As far as I am aware there is no: ‘Oh, and by the way, only men allowed in this position.’ Or: ‘We need xx% of men in this position.’
We also believe that there is a significant reputational risk to the university in aligning itself with International Men’s Day an event which has not been without significant controversy. The homepage of the global website for International Men’s Day states: ‘The ability to sacrifice your needs on behalf of others is fundamental to manhood, as is honour. Manhood rites of passage the world over recognise the importance of sacrifice in the development of Manhood.’ Retrograde statements like this show a profound lack of understanding on issues surrounding masculinity.
I agree to a certain degree. For example: A major problem is, that the sacrifice for the needs on behalf of others as a core of masculinity has led to the point, that it is no longer seen as a sacrifice. It is taken for granted. It is what men should do. They are expected to do the dangerous and dirty work. Not even in the workplace but at home as well. Men are ridiculed and called ‘oppressors’ for that.
Also honour. Yes, it harms men. When they do not lift a finger to defend themselves against a women. Because “YOU DON’T HIT WOMEN”. If men would not have honour, our species would have died out long ago, because men wouldn’t have shared their resources and the women would have died. If men would not have honour, women wouldn’t have so much freedom as they have.
All of our society including the feminist movement is based on this two things. Or do you really believe that men wouldn’t have violently ended the feminist movement or the women’s rights movement if they had no honour? Would a shaming tactic work, when someone wouldn’t give a … about his honour? A shaming tactic that uses derogative terms like “retrograde statements” towards someone at a university. Towards someone who works in an institution dedicated to push the boundaries of knowledge for the progress of humanity.
Also, stating that fact about masculinity is a ‘retrograde statement’? Is ‘gravity exists’ also a retrograde statement? Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that it is retrograde.
A day that celebrates men’s issues especially those outlined in the University’s statement does not combat inequality, but merely amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities.
So men and boys have some issues women and girls do not face. And by addressing them, inequalities are not combated? Really? Issues like “men currently have to wait longer than women before they receive a State pension and at certain stages in life, they are less well protected by equality legislation than women. These issues inevitably impact on men employed at the University and on the lives of our students.”
Let’s not point out, that “they are less well protected by equality legislation than women” is a violation of men’s and boy’s human rights (Article 7, All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.)
But no, let’s not raise awareness to this fact.
The closing remark ‘gender equality is for everyone’ echoes misogynistic rhetoric that men’s issues have been drowned out by the focus on women’s rights.
There is the shaming tactic again: misogynistic rhetoric.
For something to be equal you need at least two things to make them equal. How is this echoing misogynistic rhetoric? The remark ‘gender equality is for everyone’ stated a fact.
The fact that you used such a derogatory term to drown out men’s issues makes your statement misandristic in its core. Your whole letter so far stated: Don’t address men’s issues.
How is this not ‘drowning out men’s issues’? Do you have any self awareness?
Maybe the writers of that letter should watch the film animal farm. ‘All animals are equal but pigs are more equal.’
One particularly wrongheaded and offensive assertion is that ‘in the professional support services, there are areas where men are significantly underrepresented. Likewise in academic departments, the support staff complement is often heavily weighted towards women, with some departments employing no men at all in these roles.’ Though the statement concedes that the ‘reasons for these circumstances are complex,’ it proposes that they should be addressed ‘in the same way that we approach unfairness and discrimination by women.’
This misses the crucial point that men’s ‘underrepresentation’ in these areas is a direct consequence of unfairness and discrimination towards women; secretarial and support work are gendered and demeaned as ‘women’s work,’ whereas men dominate senior and better paid roles. The statement is particularly crass in view of the fact that of the twelvestrong university Senior Management Group (SMG), three quarters are male.
The crucial point is that men are underrepresented because women are discriminated against? So when men say: Ok, we want to be in this job, we want men to do the ‘women’s work’, we want more men to do this job. We want to raise awareness that men can do these jobs as well.
Than it is wrong? Have you ever considered that men in these positions are no longer in a higher paying position or will not be in one? That men in supporting positions are no longer in the pool for the high paid position? That this raises the chances of women in that position? Apparently not.
Your statement also raises a few other questions. Do we call it women’s work because women do this work or do women this work because it’s women’s work? Shouldn’t it be in your best interest to let men in those positions to break this circle? So that this work is no longer demeaned as ‘women’s work’?
Who demeans it? You seem to think men do it. But why would we as a society have those jobs if they were not necessary? Why would men want men in those jobs if they were not important to them? It seems like you are the only ones who have a very, very low opinion of the work women do and therefore demean it. Feel free to be ashamed of yourself.
Your statement is particularly crass in view of the fact that it is pointed out, that in some departments (that is more than 1) with no representation (0% male) of men while you – carefully using the best word for this – bitch about 25% representation in ONE group.
At this point I have to remind you, that I am neither from the UK nor have I been to York University. But to me this: ‘ with some departments employing no men at all in these roles’ sounds, as if some departments – as a rule – do not employ men. That men do not need to apply for these jobs because they wouldn’t get it because of … reasons. If that is the case do not feel free to be ashamed of yourself. BE ashamed of yourselves.
In recent years, a number of serious issues highlighting women’s inequality at the university at all levels have been reported. These include: the lack of female and BME candidates running for YUSU President in the past five years; reports from the YUSU Women’s Officer on serious issues surrounding sexual harassment and ‘lad culture’; the fact that the majority of executive committee positions in political and careers societies are held by men; and the continuing marginalisation of women in academic roles.
There is nothing, that holds women and BME people back from running for this position. Well ‘nothing’ is wrong. The people who constantly tell them that they are discriminated against and marginalized do it. If I would constantly hear that some things are harder for me because of something I am born as, I would not try. Be ashamed of yourself for holding women and BME persons back.
Did you know, that there is no YUSU Men’s Officer? Why is there no such position? Have you looked at the officers? 13 women 8 men. How come if they are discriminated against? How come if they are marginalized.
The only things that have any basis in reality, are the problems of sexual harassment and in this regard ‘lad culture’.
I was not fully aware of what ‘lad culture’ is, so I did a little bit of research. And it seems as if ‘lad culture’ is a direct response to feminism. And your cure is more feminism? You make men sick and you command them to be well. And if they propose a way of healing (that is: raising awareness to men’s problems) you want them to shut up? Maybe you should listen. It will help you in the long run.
Also: What have men’s issues with BME persons to do? Beside the fact that BME persons can also be men and are therefore included in the International Men’s Day. Do you want the problems of the men of the BME community not addressed?
Within this context, the Equality and Diversity Committee statement’s generalised references to ‘raising awareness about and removing barriers for women’ fails to acknowledge the full implications of gender bias against women within the institution.
Proof the gender bias against women (excluding your own). Not enough women in the highest positions does not proof anything. Maybe the men were just better. Maybe the women as good or even better as the men did not want to be in this position. Are there laws or rules that prevent women from higher positions? Show me a study that shows own-group bias for men over women. Should we ask Laurie A. Rudman and Stephanie A. Goodwin?
We believe that men’s issues cannot be approached in the same way as unfairness and discrimination towards women, because women are structurally unequal to men.
How? Seriously. How? That is a baseless assertion and as we know: Something that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
We recognise that patriarchy is damaging to both men and women, and we are in support of a discussion concerning this, as well as increased attention to specific issues surrounding men’s health.
So why do you oppose an International Men’s Day that is made to raise awareness to this issues? This doesn’t make sense. Either you allow men to bring up their problems to a discussion – so that we can have a discussion about this – or you don’t. But that would proof, that you are not interested in the discussion. How would you know what (other) men need? Why won’t you listen to the problems men face from their point of view? What are you afraid of?
We do not, however, believe that the university statement engages with these complex issues with sufficient nuance or understanding.
Letter writer: ‘Gender equality is a complex issue with many nuances’
Men: ‘ I agree, here are some more nuances.’
Letter writer: ‘ You lack the ability of understanding how complex this is and how many nuances this has.’
Maybe you should stop believing and start thinking.
The failure of the Equality and Diversity Committee to do so undermines their selfproclaimed commitment to genderequality, and leaves us deeply concerned that their supposed investment in women’s rights is mere lip service.
Gender equality is not a one way street. If you do not want to become the evil you fight, maybe you should realize this. If you do not allow men to raise awareness to their issues you are not for gender equality. Period.
We ask that you provide a full account of the means by which a decision to promote men’s issues in this way was reached by the Equality and Diversity Committee. We hope you will take our concerns and criticism with the seriousness they deserve, and look forward to a full response as soon as possible.
I have not been addressed, but I think I have addressed this with the seriousness it deserved. All of your concerns expressed in your latter do not invalidate male problems. Male problems need discussion as well as female problems.
A Personal note: I think your behavior is disgusting and a disgrace for intellectual conversation. Isn’t the purpose of a university to research, to educate, to challenge ideas and to solve problems?
You don’t want to allow a discussion about problems, that need to be discussed. You are basically discussing if they have to be discussed. Well. If they do not have to be discussed, there wouldn’t be someone who thinks that they are worthy of discussion. But there are people who think it is necessary. There are enough people who think this and who want to put money and time into it. Is that proof enough for the need of this discussion? I do think so. If you are not interested in this discussion, do not participate but DO NOT prevent us from having this discussion.
Yours sincerely,
ReportStapel Chips
18 Nov ’15 at 9:54 am
blog
the open letter blog now has a further update:
https://yorkopenletter.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/update-17112015/
Report18 Nov ’15 at 3:40 pm
Anonymous
Painful sophistry. The undersigned criticised the decision to mark International Men’s Day, because the motives may not reflect “the University’s stance on gender equality”? What absolute nonsense. They’re grasping at straws.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 3:42 pm
Anonymous
Also, were all 193 of the undersigned involved in penning that update? I doubt it. They’re the words of an even more select few.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 2:59 pm
Wow
Makes me feel University is not a place of discussion and academia and debate, but a 1 sided left wing narrative that only a handful want. 200 students is 1% of the close to 20,000 students here. They need to get a grip and get a fucking life.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 6:53 pm
Lovekraft
Just watch some of the ‘debates’ surrounding the BLMers in the States to see what passes for intellectual discourse. Mob intimidation, pleas to emotion, racism. All there for the world to see.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 3:42 pm
Isadore of Seville
A MAN HAS DIED..GET A GRIP. Those who signed that open ‘letter’ should hang their heads in shame – especially those members of staff and an ENTIRE department…wow
Report18 Nov ’15 at 4:17 pm
Josh
This whole embargo is embarrassing and surely detrimental to the quality and worth of a York degree
Report18 Nov ’15 at 4:50 pm
Anonymous
Looking at the list of signatories one can see why the time has come to eliminate funding for liberal arts in public education.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 4:53 pm
tareht
How can the university preach an equality train of thought when they disregard a whole gender, because one day talking about the issues that men face into today’s society would be too much? Too often men’s issues especially mental health are ignored which has left a stigma attached to it. How can we help these people when we wont let there be a discussion about it? If this day only helped one person it would be a success the fact the university wont give it the opportunity to happen is deeply saddening. Men’s day would have not lessened women’s rights or equality it could actually help young males, and those that are against it have shown a complete disregard for the issues faced by males today, because they have such a tunnel vision of feminism.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 6:30 pm
Sean
Everyone who signed this letter is a scumbags and should be sent down or fired, as may be applicable
Report18 Nov ’15 at 6:42 pm
Lovekraft
I skimmed through the names of esteemed academics and could only find the useless victimologists who’s racket is coming to an end so they act out of desperation in the most heartless, hypocritical ways.
Some patriarchy they are claiming dominates society and women in particular.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 6:49 pm
AnonyMous
this is the biggest bullshit I’ve seen in 3 years at this university
Report18 Nov ’15 at 8:00 pm
Anonymous
As a man who has suffered mental health issues and felt that as a result they were taken less seriously, I find the open letter writer’s analysis in this regard deeply disappointing and painfully political correct almost to a point of satire. Just for once, step outside the window of your blind, stultified centre-leftism.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 8:05 pm
Annonymous
Wow, so glad I no longer a student here. Females really are a gynocentric. self absorbed and misandric bunch – hurrah for having a uterus and a vagina. Its time young men discovered MGTOW and learned that they as men are on their own. Go on to Youtube, start with Stardusk’s Thinking Ape channel and move on from there. All the best for any men going through a tough time at the moment, these videos may help you more than anything. Don’t do anything rash.
(Thinking Ape) Key channel along with Barbarossa’s below
Report(CS MGTOW) From the UK
(Karen Straughan – AKA GirlWritesWhat) Must watch her oldest videos first.
(Barbarossa)
(Spetsnaz) He is a therapist, especially helpful for young men
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbbeOA5K7Hhc3I2vWG1jZ0w/videos
18 Nov ’15 at 8:46 pm
Jim
Some musings;
Suicide is the biggest killer of men under 45 in this country. More than cancer. More than heart disease. More than road traffic accidents.
Lots and lots of men feel unable to talk about mental health issues. And yet as a society, we don’t talk about those issues, because it is assumed that because men are men, they don’t need any support.
If anyone can tell how exactly talking about men’s mental health is either:
A) A bad thing.
B) Disrespective to women.
C) Harmful to equality.
D) Regressive.
… then by all means, go ahead.
Until then, think a little bit more about the 6,233 men that lost their lives due to suicide in 2013 (most recent available figures). Think about whether they needed someone to talk to. Think about whether they would have benefitted from one day in the calendar where men’s mental health was a focus.
Equality means exactly that. *Equal* discussion, opportunity, and support, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, religion or indeed any other factor. It’s not about being disrespectful to women. It’s not about ignoring the gross lack of equality between men and women; the gender pay gap; or any of the other horrendous issues which need discussion, debate and change where gender equality is concerned. It’s about giving support to those who need it – and that includes men too.
So stop yourself, for five minutes, and have a little think about that. And then realise to yourself how cold you’ve become, up on that high horse of yours.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 8:47 pm
Montana Man
It is certainly difficult to wrap one’s head around a feminist thought process… So if I read this correctly, women are angry that men might possibly have even the slightest possibility of gaining the smallest amount of attention on their issues and so in the name of equality, women demanded that men must not be allowed even the remotest of discussions about an issue that women are allowed to publicly discuss. Due to the glaring fact that these women have no clue to what the word ‘equality’ actually means, granting them power to cause action based on their bizarre definition of the concept, it is obvious that the University of York is not training intelligent people to, well, think intelligently. And it is obvious that when women are allowed authority over men, their utter stupidities become public of which men for centuries have protected the public from women’s stupidities that can be astoundingly dangerous and even deadly (e.g., murdering their own babies). Sadly as I have said since the mid 80s, what is found in Britain will be found in America in 10-15 years. Unless American men grow their balls back, we are doomed to British-like feminist stupidities.
Report18 Nov ’15 at 11:13 pm
Concerned
This is the unfortunate reality of what happens when you give groups of women power – they just marginalise men and promote women instead, under the excuse of “b-b-but men do it”!
But, unlike men, they still get to play the victim card even when they can literally kill off any competition to their dogmatic cult. Not even the so called “patriarchy” is afforded such a luxury.
This is “political correctness” in the 21st century.
This is “freedom” in the 21st century
This is how equality is perceived, when obvious and objective bias is demonstrated and we all have to pretend it is fair.
This is truly the progressive society we all wanted, right? zzz.
Report19 Nov ’15 at 12:40 am
ANonnyMouse
So they cancel support for a cause seeking to address the issues males face that drive them to suicide….the day after a male University of York student commits suicide.
Perhaps the ‘stunning and brave’ academics and special snowflakes behind that letter and campaign would like to explain to that lads parents why they thought their sons life didn’t matter.
Hang your heads in shame UY
Report19 Nov ’15 at 5:58 am
Random Canadian
Congratulation feminists. I’ve officially reversed my mantra of ‘Never hit a woman.’
In 47 years I never hit a woman, even during 11 years of a verbally abusive wife. I will now make an exception for feminists.
Report21 Nov ’15 at 1:22 am
Anonymous
can you please not make comments like this?
look at the rest of the comments here, they perfectly rip apart the ideas and fallacies of this open letter
now instead of feminists responding to THEIR criticism, they’re just going to point out YOUR comment and go “omg misogyny”
unproductive
Report21 Nov ’15 at 6:16 am
K05H
Let’s be honest, “Misogynist” is what feminists call any man who disagrees with them. If a woman disagree’s with them then she has “internalized” “the misogyny”.
ReportDon’t believe it? Article A: “The closing remark ‘gender equality is for everyone’ echoes misogynistic rhetoric that men’s issues have been drowned out by the focus on women’s rights.”
Because Feminists do not agree with Men having equal rights.
19 Nov ’15 at 11:25 am
Katie
By contrast, feminist Germaine Greer was ALLOWED the opportunity to inflict her transphobic rants upon Cardiff University students the other day after self-styled ‘prominent academics’ and their influential media chums kicked up such a stink about her supposedly being ‘no-platformed’ by those oh-so ‘evil’ trans activists who have the temerity to call out prejudice, misinformation and discrimination towards one of the most vulnerable, oppressed minority groups of women on this earth today. Funny ol’ world, eh?
Report20 Nov ’15 at 12:04 am
McLarenF1
1. Learn to distinguish phobia from criticism.
2. “Supposedly?” Wrong. The Student Union’s women’s officer Rachael Melhuish raised a petition of more than 3,000 people calling for Cardiff to cancel Greer’s lecture.
3. “Rant” is hyperbolic.
4. Which media chums? Ones that support free speech?
5. Women in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea are far more vulnerable & oppressed than trans-women in USA & Europe. Sorry, but in the Oppression Olympics, first-world trans-women just don’t compete well.
6. Yes, it’s indeed a funny ol’ world, because it’s populated with zealous morons like you.
Report19 Nov ’15 at 2:54 pm
Anaïs
The fact that said event was cancelled simply because a handful of of individuals making up around 1% of the universities attendees, mostly feminist women, bitching and complaining about “Omg men! Omg patriarchy!” Is just more proof that the patriarchy doesn’t fucking exist.
Report19 Nov ’15 at 3:45 pm
Abbey
‘”Gender equality is for everyone” echoes misogynistic rhetoric’ – how on earth did they get woman-hating from that? These people seem to toss out the word ‘misogyny’ so often that they’ve forgotten what it means.
Also, why is it assumed that the lack of female/minority YUSU candidates is a result of discrimination? Everyone has the opportunity to run and I’ve personally never heard about/witnessed anyone being pressured not to run because of their race/gender. Or are they assuming people won’t run because they think white people will only vote for other white people? Or, even more bizarrely, that both men AND women will only vote for men?
If the assumption is that students will automatically respect white men more because of their perceived social status, and will vote accordingly, it seems that the writers of that letter don’t credit students with much intelligence.
Report19 Nov ’15 at 7:49 pm
Anonymous
War is Peace
ReportFreedom is Slavery
Equality is Sexism
19 Nov ’15 at 9:25 pm
Jan Frackiewicz
Contemporary feminists really are the scum of the earth aren’t they?
“The closing remark ‘gender equality is for everyone’ echoes misogynistic rhetoric that men’s issues have been drowned out by the focus on women’s rights.”
Self-awareness is just something that happens to other people isn’t it?
Report19 Nov ’15 at 11:44 pm
Anonymous
“Feminism helps men too!”
Sure it does, cupcake.
Sure it does.
Report20 Nov ’15 at 12:29 am
Anonymous
Once again we see how loving and tolerant feminists are.
Report20 Nov ’15 at 1:03 am
James
The way feminists resort to authoritarian and sometimes even violence to silence those who simply want to discuss the issues concerning men and boys reveals their true colours. The woman who set up the first shelter for victims of domestic violence tried to do the same for men and endured outright terrorism from these so called “progressives” Look it up.
Women can be terribly violent and abusive. Pretending that this is not sometimes the case does nothing to help women and magnifies the abuse of those who suffer from physically and/or emotionally abusive women. In fact, by ignoring the abuse that boys face creates more violence towards women (and other men). Lets not forget that men make up the majority of victims of violence and murder, as well as suicides.
Demonizing men and shoving the “you were born evil” propaganda down the throats you young boys who increasingly are not even allowed to have a relationship with their fathers is going to just create misery for everyone.
Sincerely,
ReportA gay POC who has had enough of your collectivist lies
20 Nov ’15 at 7:09 am
Anonymous
This letter was nothing more than a threat. “Examine all issues through the feminist lens, or we will brand you sexists.” It is utterly appalling what has happened to our academic institutions.
Report21 Nov ’15 at 1:19 am
Anonymous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEW9Jajqty4
what’s it like getting your ideas apart? does it trigger you?
Report22 Nov ’15 at 7:07 am
Anonymous
We are in support of a discussion concerning this… now please cease all discussion of this.
Seems reasonable.
Report25 Nov ’15 at 6:11 pm
Edwin
A few interesting things one notices from browsing the signees.
1. I noticed only one signature from someone in a STEM field, and she was president of the campus feminist society.
2. There were a lot of alumni signatures (I estimate about 20%, but too lazy to count them). How are they even considered as relevant to campus life?
3. Of all the names I glanced at, most disturbing was this one:
ReportMartin Jones, Lecturer in International Human Rights Law, Centre for Applied Human Rights
I mean, he represents the Centre for Applied Human Rights and he can’t see the issue in curtailing human rights, i.e. removing a voice, for half the population?
26 Nov ’15 at 12:11 am
Anonymous
If you think cancelling a single event is a violation of your human rights you need to get a perspective tbh
Report27 Nov ’15 at 5:29 pm
Doubtful
Feminism has been and continues to be a force which poisons discussions of real progress and equality. It is a female supremacy movement, make no mistake. Men do not matter until they are subjugated and subservient – and Patriarchy is the lie they have created and continue to assert (and redesign whenever its foundations are exposed as fallacy) in order to baffle well-meaning people into following their destructive and hateful agenda.
Report27 Dec ’15 at 3:27 pm
Anonymous
You can’t use a generalisation based on a myth and loose understanding of what a feminist is to argue that there is no gender imbalance existent in society. Feminists fight for equality . One action does not represent the entire feminist movement, don’t draw conclusions from it. No feminist wants oppression of men, they want to end oppression of all genders. You can’t claim there is no gender imbalance, it is everywhere. Also FYI feminism is not a movement driven solely by females, it is represented in all genders and promotes equality. I would also like to point out that nowhere in the open letter is feminism alluded to. Nowhere does this letter claim to represent the entirety of the staff or student body. It is openly recognised within the letter that it is the opinion of those who signed it. Most people are not against celebrating men and making apparent male equalities. If the university had thought the decision through properly in terms of how they were representing IMD then this letter may not have been necessary. As it is, UoY’s poor handling of a problem it could have avoided has ended up hurting men and women, and kicked back discussions of equality as people react with extremism and seem to dismiss any ideas of inequality at all, which is preposterous.
Report3 Jan ’16 at 11:11 pm
Peter Zohrab
As a York alumnus, I note that the Open Letter raves on about structural inequality. What could be more “structurally unequal” than having the student body composed overwhelmingly of females and (even more importantly) having the university teach Women’s Studies but not the new Male Studies (http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/about/editorialPolicies#focusAndScope)? This arms women with a vast resource of victimhood arguments to hurl at men and deprives men of the mirror-image of that (see http://equality.limewebs.com/altmrfaq.html). Actually, I have not looked to see what subjects York teaches nowadays, but I am confident that it has predetermined that women are victims of men and that men therefore need no Male Studies courses!
Report