Is feminism sexist?

While British feminist campaigners explicitly try to address the gender iniquities faced by all, sho

Does feminism discriminate against men? Tom Martin thinks so. Today, the former MSc student at the gender studies institute of the London School of Economics sued the university for misleading advertising and breach of equality legislation, on the basis that the course promotes a "sexist agenda".

Martin, who has raised £4,300 to fund his case at the central London county court, argues that feminism makes women think of themselves as victims, and that it promotes a discourse which "excludes mention of men" and the inequalities they face, such as increased risk of homelessness and subjection to hypergamy (gold-digging), which his website claims is "prevalent among most of the world's women".

Martin would like to see the gender studies course incorporate male studies, a burgeoning field in America backed by the likes of Warren Farrell, the controversial author of such books as The Myth of Male Power. A substantial part of the evidence that he will be using for his case is the language of the core texts for the LSE course, which he believes establish an "all women good, all men bad" binary, while research that is "articulate and forthright on men's problems" is systematically blocked.

But is feminism sexist? Admittedly it often overlooks the M-word in policy papers focusing on inequalities that predominantly affect women. While British feminist writers and campaigners from the F-Word blog to UK Feminista explicitly try to engage men and address the gender iniquities faced by all, should men's rights ever be feminism's responsibility?

It seems obvious that liberating women from gender-based discrimination would help men, too - apart from appealing to a sense of justice, how else can house husbandry be sold, if not as an antidote to the male burden of being breadwinner?

Men may not be the enemy, yet with so few people prepared to identify as feminist in the first place, many "feminisms" are understandably wary of providing a critical male platform that might be used against women. Although Martin advocates joint custody rights, which the coalition are moving towards, he holds provocative views on "exaggerated" rape statistics and the role that women's shelters play in exacerbating sex segregation. He also dismisses the notion of patriarchy.

And he presumably hopes his lawsuit, if successful, will create a precedent for anti-feminist discrimination cases.

Nichi Hodgson is a 28-year-old freelance journalist specialising in sexual politics, law and culture.

Nichi Hodgson is a writer and broadcaster specialising in sexual politics, censorship, and  human rights. Her first book, Bound To You, published by Hodder & Stoughton, is out now. She tweets @NichiHodgson.

This article first appeared in the 12 March 2012 issue of the New Statesman, The weaker sex

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The three avoidable mistakes that Theresa May has made in the Brexit negotiations

She ignored the official Leave campaign, and many Remainers, in pursuing Brexit in the way she has.

We shouldn’t have triggered Article 50 at all before agreeing an exit deal

When John Kerr, the British diplomat who drafted Article 50 wrote it, he believed it would only be used by “a dictatorial regime” that, having had its right to vote on EU decisions suspended “would then, in high dudgeon, want to storm out”.

The process was designed to maximise the leverage of the remaining members of the bloc and disadvantage the departing state. At one stage, it was envisaged that any country not ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would be expelled under the process – Article 50 is not intended to get “the best Brexit deal” or anything like it.

Contrary to Theresa May’s expectation that she would be able to talk to individual member states, Article 50 is designed to ensure that agreement is reached “de vous, chez vous, mais sans vous” – “about you, in your own home, but without you”, as I wrote before the referendum result.

There is absolutely no reason for a departing nation to use Article 50 before agreement has largely been reached. A full member of the European Union obviously has more leverage than one that is two years away from falling out without a deal. There is no reason to trigger Article 50 until you’re good and ready, and the United Kingdom’s negotiating team is clearly very far from either being “good” or “ready”.

As Dominic Cummings, formerly of Vote Leave, said during the campaign: “No one in their right mind would begin a legally defined two-year maximum period to conduct negotiations before they actually knew, roughly speaking, what the process was going to yield…that would be like putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger.”

If we were going to trigger Article 50, we shouldn’t have triggered it when we did

As I wrote before Theresa May triggered Article 50 in March, 2017 is very probably the worst year you could pick to start leaving the European Union. Elections across member states meant the bloc was in a state of flux, and those elections were always going to eat into the time. 

May has got lucky in that the French elections didn’t result in a tricky “co-habitation” between a president of one party and a legislature dominated by another, as Emmanuel Macron won the presidency and a majority for his new party, République en Marche.

It also looks likely that Angela Merkel will clearly win the German elections, meaning that there won’t be a prolonged absence of the German government after the vote in September.

But if the British government was determined to put the gun in its own mouth and pull the trigger, it should have waited until after the German elections to do so.

The government should have made a unilateral offer on the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom right away

The rights of the three million people from the European Union in the United Kingdom were a political sweet spot for Britain. We don’t have the ability to enforce a cut-off date until we leave the European Union, it wouldn’t be right to uproot three million people who have made their lives here, there is no political will to do so – more than 80 per cent of the public and a majority of MPs of all parties want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens – and as a result there is no plausible leverage to be had by suggesting we wouldn’t protect their rights.

If May had, the day she became PM, made a unilateral guarantee and brought forward legislation guaranteeing these rights, it would have bought Britain considerable goodwill – as opposed to the exercise of fictional leverage.

Although Britain’s refusal to accept the EU’s proposal on mutually shared rights has worried many EU citizens, the reality is that, because British public opinion – and the mood among MPs – is so sharply in favour of their right to remain, no one buys that the government won’t do it. So it doesn’t buy any leverage – while an early guarantee in July of last year would have bought Britain credit.

But at least the government hasn’t behaved foolishly about money

Despite the pressure on wages caused by the fall in the value of the pound and the slowdown in growth, the United Kingdom is still a large and growing economy that is perfectly well-placed to buy the access it needs to the single market, provided that it doesn’t throw its toys out of the pram over paying for its pre-agreed liabilities, and continuing to pay for the parts of EU membership Britain wants to retain, such as cross-border policing activity and research.

So there’s that at least.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496