Oh, absolutely. What I would say is that it's not a failing of feminism that it has not talked about men's issues first. Feminism is about gender and the struggle against structural violence and structural exploitation, and it is important to put women and women's issues at the centre of that discussion. And I think a lot of guys, and it's not their fault, it's the way they're raised… a lot of guys get very anxious when they see any area of discussion that's not entirely about them and doesn't have their issues at the centre. I think one of the litmus tests for young men who are into feminism is the age-old argument about what feminism should be called. Every day I get guys, often quite young guys, saying "well if it's men's rights too then shouldn't it be called equalism?" And I'm like, "well, look, whether you can be part of a discussion of feminism without throwing a tantrum about it is kind of the first test". I had a question from a guy recently, who said "I am very interested in feminist ideas and I feel that they are relevant to my life and I am very passionate about it. But, the problem is, whenever I try to talk about feminism I am worried that people won't take me seriously. And sometimes people don't take me seriously because I'm a man, and sometimes people talk over me, or say that I can't know everything about it." And what I said to him was, "OK, I'm sorry for your experience but maybe it will help you to understand that the experience you've had talking about feminism is the same experience women have when they try to talk about anything that isn't feminism. Or shoes." So this idea of the 'crisis of masculinity' is usually deployed by conservatives, but do you think it's something feminism can tap into?

Well I don't use the phrase 'crisis of masculinity'. I think men have serious problems, are being exploited by patriarchy and by a viciously right-wing turn in Western politics. What's interesting about the phrase 'crisis of masculinity' is that it's very very old. And whenever there are times of social unrest, economic upheaval… you can go right back to the 1870s, the 1930s, the 1970s - people were talking about the 'crisis of masculinity' and how men weren't real men anymore, and men weren't allowed to be free to be real men and maybe it was all the women's fault. When actually, it's patriarchy's fault and it always has been. Have you copped much criticism from feminists for writing about male disenfranchisement? No, actually. I've caught a lot of criticism from men, some men. It's funny, the criticism I get every day on Twitter is "Why don't you care about men? Why don't you care about male rape or suicide rates?" And I say, "Well, have you read my book? I really care about that. I think that's a feminist issue and I write about it all the time." And I say, "do you want to talk about it?" And they just disappear. You've noted the link between high unemployment and social breakdown, and the rise in domestic and gendered violence. But, in feminist circles, linking socio-economics to gendered violence can be problematic, because it's seen as running counter to the argument that domestic and gendered violence is caused by misogyny - and that it cuts across all classes. Do we need to introduce more nuance to our discussions about the causes of gendered violence?

I think there are very few situations where more nuance isn't a good thing. I think the problem is, when people are like "you're talking about capitalism when you should be talking about misogyny!" No, I think misogyny is part of the structure of capitalism as we experience it. I think the suffering and frustration that a lot of men feel is played out in misogyny. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Mark Latham, who's been in the news a lot over the past week over some awful things he's said about prominent women including the Australian of the Year Rosie Batty, who's a domestic violence survivor. He is one person who says domestic violence is socio-economic, and that awareness-raising campaigns aimed at changing male attitudes are a waste of time and money... Hang on, let's… give me a second, I'm just going to look this guy up. This is fascinating. Oh my God, really? Uhh. Here we go, 'Why left feminists don't like kids.' Anyway, what was your question about this guy?

I think feminists often feel they have to defend the position that domestic violence is caused by misogyny from people like him, who say that it's just socio-economic, and that it's not really about men's attitudes towards women. So there is this need to shout down discussion of other causes because they end up being used as an excuse to say that it's not about sexism and misogyny, it's about all these other things. One of the big unspoken truths that so many people, particularly men on the left, don't want to face up to is that sexism and misogyny and gendered violence are economic issues at their heart. And you cannot separate misogyny and sexism from broader economic issues, and the fact that people are so very anxious to do so is very telling. You tweeted this week that feminism is now a marketing strategy, and that that's both sign of the power of the movement and a "trend to be set on fire immediately". Should we always view marketing that capitalises on the popularity of feminism as damaging to the movement? I don't necessarily think that it's damaging to the movement, but any company that is trying to divert women's energy into a movement that ultimately serves its own bottom line is inherently not to be trusted. [...] Don't get me wrong, I think that the fact that feminism is now a broader and more accepted part of the cultural conversation, I don't see that as being anything other than a good thing. Have you seen Harry Potter? It's like Alastor Moody saying "constant vigilance, constant vigilance!" you know, to make sure we're not being co-opted. Capitalism will always try to co-opt its own dissent.