“To suggest that men need a specific space to be ‘men’ is ludicrous; when everywhere you turn you will find male-dominated spaces”
Olivia Bailey, NUS national Women’s Officer
…or female-dominated spaces. Or Indo/Pakistani-dominated places. Or Christian-dominated places. Or those dominated by ants, or sheep, or any other type of animal. Or people-dominated places.
Quoted in the latest Kent Union newspaper on an article about Men’s Groups, Ms. (I presume) Bailey seems representative of everything bad in segregational groups – regardless to their cause. There is absurdity here in two forms and it does not take many words to point out where the smell is located. First to contextualise the argument.
Argument: Men’s Groups in Universities shouldn’t exist because they don’t need them/they reinforce bad habits/they are exclusionary/men are men and not confused as to their identity (this one comes from the editor of Loaded no less). This argument started off, it seems, in a reaction to a recent trend for the promulgation of Men’s Groups due to the ‘current state of masculinity’ and the perceived need to discuss male-based issues. This shall be turned to shortly, but first Olivia shall be dealt with.
Just exactly what is ludicrous, given that Women’s Groups are fairly common in the Unions across the country, about men wanting to be around men in the same way? The obscene two-faced-ness of this argument is sheerly baffling and especially so given her elected Union position to represent student females across the country. Presumably Olivia is fairly well versed in the women’s liberation movement, the pink-banded/branded and specifically targeted ‘break through for breast cancer’ organisation (in itself a horrible organisation which ignores completely that men can also get breast cancer) and other feminist rhetoric. None of the above issues, or the feeling of camaraderie that is developed in groups fighting for issues, are applicable in some way for men as well? Men do not get cancer? Their bodies always function at 100% efficiency and never have cause to be worried and in need of consultation or support? Really?
The article I have taken this from also states that,
“The first official Men’s Society was created by students at Manchester University, in spite of criticisms that it undermines equality for women.”
So the existence of Women’s Societies doesn’t? Faced with the hard question of justifying the existence of one and not the other, I find it incredibly hard to see (and indeed I’ve not yet heard) even a semi-respectable justification.
In actual fact, the entire debate here misses the point of what the groups are actually trying to achieve; social/representative/medical/pastoral support for people. Of course both genders suffer sexual problems and illnesses; are subject to sexual assault (with a differing likelihood, given); suffer domestic violence; face personal crisis’ which seem unconquerable; and a plethora of other issues. My question above:
“[W]hat is ludicrous, given that Women’s Groups are fairly common in the Unions across the country, about men wanting to be around men in the same way?”
included the contingency for a reason. The hypocrisy of Olivia’s argument is one thing, however surely the best method of dealing with the issues listed above (although by no means an exhaustive list) is to create an environment where people are not categorised into boxes? When they are, individuals take on associated roles within that identification and add layers of complexity to issues that may face them. How is this necessary? Identifying oneself as the opposite to another is self-defeating and reinforces, for instance, the divisions which lead to questions of gender confusion or ‘what it is to be a good man’ – two of the given arguments for the existence of the groups. The division also prevents open and truly pluralist dialogue between individuals; for instance, surely the best way of deciding ‘what it is to be a good man’ (if you really have to delineate so strongly in the first place) would be to ask a woman?
Olivia’s argument is hypocritical and ignorant of the larger repercussions that the existence of her group has on gender dynamics at the level she is working at. It is symptomatic of the problem of justifying oneself as not another. Genders are not a concrete thought-object and, rather, are fluid and subjective concepts. The idea that you can form individuals into bipolar organisations and differentiate their issues is counter-productive. Groups founded on gender should not be supported by the NUS, who should instead focus their efforts on providing well-rounded support to their electorate and breaking down gender barriers.
learning and polemic 