Today is International Men's Day. Yes, I know, you thought every day was International Men's Day (IMD), but 19 November is set aside as an opportunity to highlight gender-specific issues of male health and wellbeing – the conversations that men, whatever their positions of power and influence, traditionally avoid.
Within just a few years, I've noticed reactions to IMD follow an interesting trajectory, from bafflement through indifference, hostility and mockery to a grudging recognition and acceptance. It's a journey that probably feels familiar to many of the individual charities and campaigns involved.
A couple of weeks ago I was a guest at the second National Conference for Men and Boys. It was mostly an event for frontline workers and activists from the statutory and charitable sectors, and as the only identified journalist in attendance, several delegates spoke to me of their difficulties in getting their causes and issues taken seriously by local or national press. Despite that, one senses a subtle change in mood, as the media, book publishers and even soap writers have finally realised that male-specific issues are occasionally worth a mention.
Although it was billed as an event for the men and boys "sector", conference organiser Glen Poole used his own plenary session to spell out his dream of a global men's movement. I'll confess I winced when I first saw his title. Over the years the term "men's movement" has described an array of diverse trends, ranging from mythopoets who gather in the woods to howl at the moon, to those nod-along male feminist academics and activists who are less concerned with problems facing men than those caused by men. More recently the phrase has been co-opted by the angry antifeminists of the internet as a cover for untrammelled misogyny, grievously mislabelled "men's rights".
The vision laid out by Poole was very different. Like the day itself, it focused on specific social injustices that specifically or disproportionately affect men and boys, mostly well-recognised and uncontroversial. All he did was join the dots. He presented the issues as ultimately inseparable. How do we pick apart male suicide from mental health, then mental health from substance misuse and addiction? How do we separate those from homelessness and physical health outcomes? How can we talk about the crime and violence perpetrated by men and boys while ignoring the brutality inflicted upon men and boys? How do we support boys through early life with good fathering, when workplace rights and family courts are so often structured against it? If it was really a join-the-dots game, it would sketch out a spider's web.
The men's sector, as represented that day, includes many brilliant organisations. In isolation they have done great things. But in coming together as a sector, for International Men's Day or for a conference, we may be seeing the seeds of a new unity, a recognition that the problems they face are often the same one. What is it? Some would call it anti-male prejudice or misandry, some call it socialisation, some call it the workings of capitalism and some call it patriarchy. Personally I don't really care, most of the time it all describes the same effects.
There may be feminists who find it threatening. I believe that is misplaced. As I argued on the day of the conference, I believe a unified men's sector can not only peacefully co-exist with the women's movement, but actually complement it. Feminists want an end to male violence and criminality? So do I. Feminists want equality in the home and the workplace? So do I. The old refrain "patriarchy hurts men too" is undoubtedly true but it is not a solution. It implies that all we need to do is achieve full social justice for women and male-specific problems will simply wither away. That's not only a bit daft in theory, it is patently not working in practise. Men's issues must be considered alongside women's issues, not least because our lives and welfare are intertwined. Perhaps the single most encouraging statement I heard at the conference was Mark Brooks of domestic violence charity the Mankind Initiative stressing that they only ever argue for male victims to be helped in addition to, never instead of, services offered to women. To steal from Petra to pay Paul is not only morally abhorrent, but (deservedly) an unwinnable argument.
Are we seeing the seeds of a new men's movement? The phrase seems grandiose, but the word "sector" is not enough. To begin to address and reverse these problems will need not only the intervention of specialist services, but the engagement of the media, politics and the public at large. The first step in solving any problem is to identify and acknowledge its existence, and International Men's Day is a very good place to start.
