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

Another trade minister walks away from David Cameron's failed project

Francis Maude is lucky enough to be able to walk away from this Government and their failing policies – if only the rest of us could do so.  

After just nine months in the role Francis Maude has announced he will be stepping down as trade Minister. It means David Cameron will have gone through four trade ministers in six years.

The nine months that Maude has been in the role have not been happy ones – for him, or the British public.

Our trade deficit in goods has grown to a record £125bn and our overall trade deficit has risen to £34.7bn. Meanwhile, under the Tories the current account deficit increased to its largest level since 1830 – when the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister.

We’ve also seen a widening gap between the Chancellor and the Trade Minister in that time. While initially championing Osborne’s much vaunted “£1 trillion trade target by 2020” recent weeks have seen Maude pouring cold water over the target – referring to it as a “big stretch” and indicating it is unlikely to be met. The “stretch” he refers to is the whopping £350bn that the Office of Budget Responsibility says Osborne’s 2020 target will be missed by.

Despite saying yesterday that he would be stepping down having devised a plan to tackle Britain’s huge trade problems these new figures – incidentally released on the same day as Maude announced he’d be leaving - are evidence that if there is a plan, it’s done no good so far.

While Maude might be able to just walk away from Britain’s dire trade situation others aren’t so lucky. Domestic export industries such as steel and manufacturing, where output is still lower than 2008, have come under huge pressure in recent years from soaring energy costs and cut price competition from markets such as China.

Boosting exports is key to tackling the historic deficit, but the government shows no sign that it really understands this. While Osborne fails to provide crucial support to the steel sector, which has seen devastating job losses, he isn’t failing to take every opportunity to court the increasingly unstable Chinese market which leaves Britain even more exposed to global headwinds. It was just a few months ago the Bank of England warned that if Chinese GDP were to fall by three per cent relative to its trend then the output in the UK would be around 0.3 per cent lower as a result, yet Osborne is undeterred.

It is workers in Britain that will be paying the price for these failing policies. Those losing their jobs at Tata steel, small manufacturing businesses suffering in the industry’s stagnation and many other ordinary workers are not lucky enough to walk away from the situation like Maude.

Their situation is compounded by the Government attacking ordinary people on middle and low wages in other ways.

Although Osborne pledged in November to stop all tax credit cuts, he is still going ahead with a proposed cut to the income disregard costing 800,000 people an estimated £300 a year. This is on top of the IFS’s analysis from just a few days ago that shows the Government’s planned cuts to Universal Credit will see 2.1 million working people lose out by an average of £1,600 a year.

And coming down the line Osborne’s ‘tenant tax’ which will force all but the very poorest council tenants to ‘pay to stay’ – charging them huge market rents to stay in their home – which many will be unable to afford.

Under the new measures a couple earning £15,000 each per year – scarcely over minimum wage each – would be asked to pay market rent for their home, or reduce their working hours in order to take them out of the income bracket.

Osborne claims to want the Tories to be ‘the Party of the workers’ but this policy shows how much of a farce that is. People who work hard on low pay will be forced from their homes.

Maude is lucky enough to be able to walk away from this Government and their failing policies – if only the rest of us could do so.  

Jon Ashworth is Labour MP for Leicester South.