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

Getty
Show Hide image

By refusing to stand down, Jeremy Corbyn has betrayed the British working classes

The most successful Labour politicians of the last decades brought to politics not only a burning desire to improve the lot of the working classes but also an understanding of how free market economies work.

Jeremy Corbyn has defended his refusal to resign the leadership of the Labour Party on the grounds that to do so would be betraying all his supporters in the country at large. But by staying on as leader of the party and hence dooming it to heavy defeat in the next general election he would be betraying the interests of the working classes this country. More years of Tory rule means more years of austerity, further cuts in public services, and perpetuation of the gross inequality of incomes. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Seema Malhotra, made the same point when she told Newsnight that “We have an unelectable leader, and if we lose elections then the price of our failure is paid by the working people of this country and their families who do not have a government to stand up for them.”

Of course, in different ways, many leading figures in the Labour movement, particularly in the trade unions, have betrayed the interests of the working classes for several decades. For example, in contrast with their union counterparts in the Scandinavian countries who pressurised governments to help move workers out of declining industries into expanding sectors of the economy, many British trade union leaders adopted the opposite policy. More generally, the trade unions have played a big part in the election of Labour party leaders, like Corbyn, who were unlikely to win a parliamentary election, thereby perpetuating the rule of Tory governments dedicated to promoting the interests of the richer sections of society.

And worse still, even in opposition Corbyn failed to protect the interests of the working classes. He did this by his abysmal failure to understand the significance of Tory economic policies. For example, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had finished presenting the last budget, in which taxes were reduced for the rich at the expense of public services that benefit everybody, especially the poor, the best John McConnell could do – presumably in agreement with Corbyn – was to stand up and mock the Chancellor for having failed to fulfill his party’s old promise to balance the budget by this year! Obviously neither he nor Corbyn understood that had the government done so the effects on working class standards of living would have been even worse. Neither of them seems to have learnt that the object of fiscal policy is to balance the economy, not the budget.

Instead, they have gone along with Tory myth about the importance of not leaving future generations with the burden of debt. They have never asked “To whom would future generations owe this debt?” To their dead ancestors? To Martians? When Cameron and his accomplices banged on about how important it was to cut public expenditures because the average household in Britain owed about £3,000, they never pointed out that this meant that the average household in Britain was a creditor to the tune of about the same amount (after allowing for net overseas lending). Instead they went along with all this balanced budget nonsense. They did not understand that balancing the budget was just the excuse needed to justify the prime objective of the Tory Party, namely to reduce public expenditures in order to be able to reduce taxes on the rich. For Corbyn and his allies to go along with an overriding objective of balancing the budget is breathtaking economic illiteracy. And the working classes have paid the price.

One left-wing member of the panel on Question Time last week complained that the interests of the working classes were ignored by “the elite”. But it is members of the elite who have been most successful in promoting the interests of the working classes. The most successful pro-working class governments since the war have all been led mainly by politicians who would be castigated for being part of the elite, such as Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Crosland, Barbara Castle, Richard Crossman, Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey, Tony Blair, and many others too numerous to list. They brought to politics not only a burning desire to improve the lot of the working classes (from which some of them, like me, had emerged) and reduce inequality in society but also an understanding of how free market economies work and how to deal with its deficiencies. This happens to be more effective than ignorant rhetoric that can only stroke the egos and satisfy the vanity of demagogues

People of stature like those I have singled out above seem to be much more rare in politics these days. But there is surely no need to go to other extreme and persist with leaders like Jeremy Corbyn, a certain election loser, however pure his motives and principled his ambitions.

Wilfred Beckerman is an Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and was, for several years in the 1970s, the economics correspondent for the New Statesman