There has been a huge amount of contention over the cancellation of the University of York’s celebration of International Men’s Day (IMD), most of which seems to be due to factual inaccuracies that have gained traction over social media platforms. The University of York announced on the 12th November their plans to mark International Men’s Day ‘by highlighting some of the issues that have an adverse impact on equality for men.’ An open letter written on the 16th November responded to this with the signatures of just under 200 students, alumni, staff and heads of departments from all over the university. Contrary to some people’s thinking, the open letter was not from FemSoc, whilst some people who signed are from FemSoc, they were acting as individuals, not as representatives of the society. The letter was not against men nor was it against furthering gender equality. It clearly states: “We recognise that patriarchy is damaging to both men and women, and we are in support of a discussion concerning this, as well as increased attention to specific issues surrounding men’s health.”
The letter was written as a direct response to the original university statement (which is now cached) announcing its proposal for IMD and its proposal to tackle issues specifically via the institution of International Men’s Day, rather than tackling gender discrimination within a wider discourse of the patriarchy and its damaging effects. IMD was cancelled by the university, (it is uncertain as to whether this was before or after the open letter was published) and an apology was issued for the upset caused, although it did not, as was requested by the open letter, “provide a full account of the means by which a decision to promote men’s issues in this way was reached by the Equality and Diversity Committee.”
The first university statement outlining proposals for IMD gave a description of some areas of life in which men are negatively impacted. Whilst all of the areas that were mentioned in the first university statement, such as the fact that ‘men are 20 times more likely than women to go to prison’ need rectifying, the statement didn’t demonstrate, as the open letter explains, “sufficient nuance or understanding” in relation to gender politics. The most prominent example of this lack of awareness as to the causes of gender imbalance is its claims regarding the under-representation of men in the professional support services and in the support staff within academic departments. The appointments are “often heavily weighted towards women, with some departments employing no men at all in these roles.’ This definitely does need redressing but the causes of this under-representation is due to discrimination towards women, rather than towards men, which the statement implies. As explained within the open letter: “This misses the crucial point that men’s ‘underrepresentation’ in these areas is a direct consequence of unfairness and discrimination towards women; secretarial and support work are gendered and demeaned as ‘women’s work,’ whereas men dominate senior – and better paid – roles. The statement is particularly crass in view of the fact that of the twelve-strong university Senior Management Group (SMG), three quarters are male.”
The university responded to this open letter by publishing a response detailing the cancellation of IMD celebrations and taking down their initial proposal, it is now cached. Whilst this may have been intended to prevent further upset, it also means that people are unaware of what the open letter was responding to. Through both the wording of their second statement and the difficulty in accessing their original proposal, the university appeared to, whether intentionally or not, encourage people who have not read the open letter or the initial proposal, to intone that “some members of the University community” were totally against attention and action given to ensuring men’s wellbeing, such as “the availability of mental health and welfare support which we know men are sometimes reluctant to access.”
This is totally untrue, as seen in the open letter to the university. In the second statement, which details IMD’s cancellation, the university implied that its primary focus would have been men’s mental health, which could have been true, however, this was not made clear in their original proposal. Nowhere in the original proposal was men’s mental health seen to be the main issue, it was listed one amongst a number of concerns. By emphasising this in their second statement, the university were being socially irresponsible by implying that those who signed the open letter were point-blank preventing attention to men’s mental health. What the open letter protested was the format in which these proposals were taking place, both with the lack of perspective in which men’s issues were presented in the original statement and the collaboration with the organisation behind International Men’s Day itself.
Glenn Poole, the coordinator of International Men’s Day in the UK was reported in the York Press as wanting to ask the following question to people who signed the open letter to the university, ‘Whose voice is it more important to listen to on International Men’s Day, yours or the voices of suicidal men and those bereaved by male suicide?’” It appears that he, along with many of the recent commentators on social media appear to have been unaware of the actual content of the open letter, which clearly acknowledges the need to engage with issues surrounding men’s health. The continued misrepresentation of this whole issue and its propagation on social media is deeply harmful to the cause of gender equality and it is overshadowing the real need to address damage caused by patriarchal gender roles, of which men’s mental health is a victim.
