Show Hide image The Staggers 19 November 2016 Can International Men's Day ever be a force for good? Those worried about toxic masculinity try to distinguish themselves from anti-feminists. Print HTML Saturday 19 November is International Men’s Day. Its organisers claim their aims are to promote men’s physical and mental wellbeing, as well as work to improving gender relations. However, the idea of a day concentrating on men has proven divisive, with many of its supporters using it as an opportunity to fight feminism. Some victims of sexism joke that every day is International Men's Day. So is the concept fundamentally misguided, or is it a question of interpretation? Journalist, writer, and activist, Ally Fogg, is part of the organising committee for UK International Men’s Day. We spoke over the phone on 9 November, the day, as it would turn out, Americans voted for a man who boasted about groping women to become their next President. One problem with a lack of debate, Fogg argued, is that International Men’s Day is about more than just raising awareness of individual issues. “You can’t talk about men’s suicide rates, without talking about the higher rates of alcoholism," he said. "Without talking about men being more reluctant to seek help from the NHS." None of this exists in isolation of a culture of violence, which is exacerbated by the criminal justice system. He is keen to stress that International Men’s Day isn't purely about celebrating men. “We live in a patriarchal society that systematically empowers men over women. But what happens to men who fall through the cracks?” he asked. “How do we address the fact that the majority of victims of sexual violence are women without ignoring that many victims are men?” To illustrate his argument, he gave the example of a friend, who reported being a victim of child sexual abuse to the authorities, and was offered support. However, the independent adviser couldn’t use her own office, as it was a women-only space. Instead, Fogg’s friend was expected to recount his trauma in a public coffee shop. To Fogg, this was not to suggest women-only spaces should be removed, but to illustrate the gaps in support. Nevertheless, talking about men as victims seems impossible without also acknowledging that men commit most violent crimes. Fogg said: “If we can do something about making men less violent, the number one beneficiaries of that are men and boys”. His believes that curing men of toxic masculinity is a worthwhile end in itself. International Men’s Day UK also focuses on the intersection of gender with race, sexuality, and poverty. “Look at the appalling coverage of the migrant crisis in Calais," Fogg said. He believes newspapers played on the fact many in Calais were male, Muslim, and had dark skin. Had they been Muslim women or white, Christian men, it would have been harder to portray them as menacing. “We are now seeing the same thing with Donald Trump and Mexicans," he added. But while focusing on a particular demography always brings new perspectives, International Men's Day is not just about refugees in Calais. One of the most prominent political backers is the Conservative MP for Shipley, Philip Davies, a man who has voted against equality legislation, attacked what he called "militant feminists" and bombarded the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission with questions such as "why is it so offensive to black up your face?" He once said disabled people don't need to earn the minimum wage. With Davies leading the debate, it sends a message that men’s issues matter, but not if the man is disabled, gay, Muslim, BAME, or trans. This is vitally important because these are the groups of men who suffer from the highest rates of suicide, violence, and discrimination – with the least support available. I pressed Fogg to name someone he’d prefer, who hasn’t offended just about every minority and at-risk community. He avoided an answer, but suggested there there has been a growth in conversations about masculinity itself. “Grayson Perry’s work has great for this," he said. "More and more people are asking how to be a man in the 21st century, but what they don’t do is acknowledge that these are political issues. We can’t just say we want more boys to read and go to university. Men and boys can’t reinvent ourselves without policy being involved”. The cycle of toxic masculinity won’t end itself. › Why Britain needs a museum dedicated to gay rights More Related articles Diane James quits Ukip seven weeks after quitting the leadership too Theresa May just scrapped her own brilliant pro-business idea Is Francois Fillon Marine Le Pen's dream opponent?
Show Hide image The Staggers 21 November 2016 No, John McDonnell, people earning over £42,000 have not been "hit hard" by the Conservatives The shadow chancellor's decision to support this tax cut is as disappointing as it is innumerate. Print HTML John McDonnell has backed Conservative plans to raise the point at which you start paying the 40p rate (that’s 40p of every pound earned after you hit the threshold) to above £45,000 by April 2017 (part of the Conservative manifesto pledge to raise the 40p rate so that it only covers people earning above £50,000 by 2020). Speaking to the BBC, the shadow chancellor said that those affected “need a tax giveaway at the moment because the mismanagement of the economy by the Conservatives is hitting them hard”. Is he right? Well, let’s crunch some numbers. Let’s say I earn £42,000, my partner doesn’t work and we have two children. That puts our household in the upper 30 per cent of all British earners, and, thanks to changes to tax and benefits, we are 1.6 per cent worse off than an equivalent household in 2010. Have we been “hit hard”? Well, no, actually, in point of fact, we have been the least affected of any household with children of the coalition. The pattern holds for every type of household that will feel the benefit of the 40p rate hike. Those with children have seen smaller decreases (1.0-2.3 per cent) in their living standards that those in the bottom three-quarters of the income distribution. The beneficiaries of this change without children, excluding pensioners, who have done well out of Conservative-led governments but are unaffected by this change, have actually seen increases in their tax-home incomes already under David Cameron. There is no case that they need a bigger one under Theresa May. But, nonetheless, they’re getting one, and it’s the biggest bung to higher earners since Margaret Thatcher was in office. For context: a single parent family earning £42,000 is in the top 15 per cent of earners. A family in which one person is earning above £42,000 and the other is working minimum wage for 16 hours to look after their two children is in the top 13 per cent. A single person earning £42,000 is in the top 6 per cent of earners. That’s before you get into the big winners from this policy, because higher earners tend to marry other higher earners. A couple with one person earning £45,000 and the other earning £35,000 is in the top three per cent of earners. A couple in which both are earning £45,000 with one child are in the top four per cent. (Childless couples earning above average income are, incidentally, the only working age demographic to do better since 2010 than under New Labour.) And these are not cheap tax cuts, either. To meet the Conservative proposal to raise the 40p rate to £50,000 by 2020 will cost £9bn over the course of the parliament, and giving a tax cut to “hard-pressed” earners on £42,000 will cost around £1.7bn. The political argument for giving up on taxing this group is fairly weak, too. Hostilty to tax rises among swing voters extends all the way up to the super-rich, so Labour’s commitment to the top rate of tax has already hurt them among voters. To win support even for that measure, the party is going to have to persuade voters of the merits of tax-and-spend – it makes no sense to eschew the revenue from people in the top five per cent of earners while still taking the political pian. Which isn’t to say that people earning above £42,000 should be tarred and feathered, but it is to say that any claim that this group has been “hit hard” by the government or that they should be the target for further tax relief, rather than clawing back some of the losses to the Exchequer of the threshold raise and the planned hike in the higher rate to £50,000, should be given extremely short shrift. Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics. More Related articles Diane James quits Ukip seven weeks after quitting the leadership too Theresa May just scrapped her own brilliant pro-business idea Is Francois Fillon Marine Le Pen's dream opponent?