The Australian National University features over 180 clubs and societies, ranging from the Chocolate Appreciation Society, Fly-Fishing Club and the Gender-Equality Circle. In the most recent ANU Student Association Clubs Council meeting, groups including the Drake Appreciation and Virtual Reality Society gained the approval (and subsequent funding) of ANUSA, however the proposed ANU Men’s Network was rejected, with concerns regarding the potential to harbour misogyny and lack of ‘clear purpose’ expressed.

In a October 2016 Woroni article, the Treasurer of the proposed network expressed that “they assume that we are a bunch of men’s rights activist gremlins who, at our core, are vile misogynists wanting to oppress and denigrate women.” Instead, the group was interested in providing a forum to discuss men’s mental health issues.

What constitutes men’s rights activism as “gremlin” behaviour?

In many parts of the world, discrimination against fathers is still evident in the law. For example, the European Court of Human rights was urged to represent unmarried fathers in Germany as they were subject to an unjustifiable loss of rights over their children. In the United Kingdom and parts of Europe, fathers are denied equal rights to parental leave and are often subject to criticism for taking advantage of it. Most government-funded domestic violence initiatives explicitly discriminate against male victims (from both heterosexual and homosexual relationships), to the extent that Australian and British governments were urged to withdraw funding from many shelters for refusing to assist male victims.

The most prevalent issue expressed by men’s rights activists is the historic drafting of men before they are even old enough to vote. The American Vietnam War Memorial has 58,000 male names and 8 female names. Males, in both developed and developing nations are still forced to fight wars, with U.S. males still required to register for the draft by age 18 regardless of ‘only son’ status or disabilities.

The conclusion that could be made with just the above evidence, is that a Men’s Advocacy Group is necessary to discuss and potentially form solutions to many of these problems.

However, men’s rights issues are absolutely not as prevalent or as concerning as the issues faced by ethnic minorities, the LGBTQI* community and women (which would provide some logic to the rejection of the Men’s Network as being “a step backward” or having an “unclear purpose”). Also, the Clubs Council is justified in suggesting that such a network has the propensity to harbour misogyny.

Just because men’s rights issues are not as severe as other groups’ does not warrant the blatant censorship of Men’s Rights Activists’ voices. An extreme example would be that despite women in Saudi Arabia still unable to obtain a driver’s license, women in Melbourne are justified in advocating for an equal amount of male and female pedestrian lights. We can advocate for two issues at the same time, rather than focusing on whatever issue is deemed more concerning by a certain ideological group. Furthermore, a Men’s Network may harbour misogyny likely to the same extent that a feminist group would have a proclivity for anti-male sentiments.

It is justified to be divided on the existence of a Men’s Advocacy Group, but the ANU Men’s Network did not seek the same action and goals as an advocacy group would. The Men’s Network sought to address issues such as 5/7 suicide victims being male, or discussing the cause and potential resolutions to a mental health epidemic that claimed the lives of 1185 men in 2013.

Come to your own conclusion.

-A

Bibliography

www.thelocal.de/society/20101221-31945.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8395456.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8149702.stmwww.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/12/02/1245d8f7621c

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/05/domestic-violence-charity-funding

http://thedailycougar.com/2010/04/21/study-examines-domestic-violence/comment-page-1/#comment-1380