A cartoon is reproduced in the Exploring Maculinities programme document to make some point, one presumes, about boys in gangs. A group of pigeons, wearing leather jackets, is approached by a jacketless pigeon. The gang spokesman tells the interloper, "Listen pigeon-boy, we're birds of a leather . . . we don't flock wit' no one, and don't no one flock wit' us."
A mildly funny gag based on two strained puns, it's the kind of thing to make your nose twitch with amusement on the bus to work. Among the exercises proposed for the enlightenment of boys who will be taught this programme from Transition Year onwards is the following instruction to teachers: "Look at the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Ask the students to look again at the cartoon and say if they think any article in the declaration is being breached."
A great deal has been written about the defects of Exploring Masculinities: its obliteration of positive notions of masculinity, active promotion of homosexuality, and skewed attitude to domestic violence, but the chief insult it offers boys and young men is not to their manhood but their intelligence. It is, of course, dishonest and dangerous, but the main emotion you feel is pity for both teachers and pupils who have to endure it. What is extraordinary, at first sight, is the extent to it missed the obvious opportunities offered by its theme. One of its architects, Professor Harry Ferguson of UCD, for example, has co-written a useful book on fatherhood. But here, what is unquestionably the most important role a man can fulfil in his life is disposed of in four pages out of 420. It rapidly becomes clear, leafing through the programme and watching the accompanying video, that this is not about making men more aware of their masculinity, but about eliminating existing/traditional forms of masculinity from coming generations. The "Executive Summary" admits as much in its very first paragraph, when it states: "Recognition of masculinity as a social construct derives from the insights and increased level of awareness developed by the feminist movement which was the precursor for Men's Studies." The very people who for 30 years have been beating the heads off men, now pause mid-chastisement and observe, "God, but you're in a terrible state."
It is not so much that recognised concepts of masculinity are openly attacked and vilified; rather that mainly allegedly negative aspects of male behaviour get highlighted. The section on sport obsesses about competitiveness, locker-room culture, bullying, racism and drug abuse, but has minimal celebration of the tremendous achivement and satisfaction available to youngsters through sport. The approach is as if to "empower" the most weedy, unathletic boy in the class, and bring the rest down to his level.
In the opening sequence of the video, Prof Ferguson talks about the women's movement "revealing the kind of power structures that existed in society that worked to the advantage of men". At no point is it mooted that there might exist power structures which are to the advantage of women. Although the video features a man who stays home to mind his children while his wife goes to work, there is no reference to the fact that, if his marriage breaks up, he has, in common with other fathers, a 95 per cent chance of becoming a "McDonald's Dad", seeing his children, if he's "lucky", for a few hours a fortnight.
Exploring Masculinities is a flabby, intellectually dishonest vehicle for the implanting by stealth of feminist ideologies in the heads of teenage boys. Mostly it reads like "doss-class" fodder, offering a break from serious schoolwork. But the flabbiness, on closer study, reveals itself as a strategy to camouflage the true purpose. The bulk of the programme is an unwieldy woollen glove, inside which lurks the steely fist of Big Mac feminism.
In The Gender Agenda, Dale O'Leary wrote about multinational feminism spreading its tentacles around the globe, in particular about how the United Nations, using major international women's conferences as the engine of this secretive agenda, is engaged in a worldwide attack on existing social and family norms. "The Gender Agenda", she wrote, "sails into communities not as a tall ship, but as a submarine, determined to reveal as little of itself as possible." The attack on manhood in this programme takes many forms. Firstly, there is the creation of straw-man notions of masculinity which are then exultantly knocked down. The idea that male nurses are something new is promoted at great length in the video; in reality, men have been working as psychiatric nurses for generations. Similarly, the idea is advanced that men doing voluntary work is a new thing. What about the GAA, probably the greatest voluntary body on earth, run almost entirely by men? But this, oh yes, is "patriarchy".
In the section on relationships and sexuality, three pages are devoted to heterosexual relationships, while homosexuality gets 10 pages. The item on video is entirely to do with homosexuality. Under the new Gender Agenda of Big Mac feminism, a "family" can be two gays, a dog and somebody else's child.
In one section of the video, Dr Mona O'Moore, from the anti-bullying centre in TCD, provides a profile of the classroom bully, in what is perhaps the best section of the programme. She says: "There is a misconception that children who are victimised are smaller, physically weaker, perhaps not as intelligent, but we can throw all of that out of the window." In the relevant section in the written programme, it is stated: "Bullies can be both boys and girls, men and women."
But in the section on domestic violence, this logic also goes out the window, as the programme adheres closely to the gospel according to the domestic-violence industry. We are starkly informed: "Men are always going to be physically stronger than women. They are always going to be able to beat a woman. A woman cannot beat a man." (The early promotional flyer for the pilot version of this programme quoted a Women's Aid survey finding that "71 per cent of boys felt that there was some likelihood of their using violence in future relationships". This seemed to be the first evidence of men planning to start beating their wives, until it emerged that no such survey was conducted.)
In much of this programme, men are presented as inarticulate and inadequate. In the section on domestic violence they are presented as dark and dangerous. Actors in darkened rooms parrot the words of men who confess to sins against women, and in doing so purport to speak for all men. "I'm a very violent man . . . I was a street angel and a house devil . . . I always blamed the victim." Thus, a male seeking to suggest that a female has any responsibility in any disagreement with him is ipso facto guilty of two crimes: the crime of violence and the crime of "blaming the victim".
A similar device is used to disable those who might criticise this programme. It is asserted that men find the gains of the women's movement "frightening" and "a threat to their power". Could it be that people find feminism objectionable because it is dishonest and a threat to society?
As a programme about masculinity this is a joke. Most of the men featured on the video, apart from "men's movement leaders" like Prof Ferguson, are inarticulate and atypical, whereas the women are all bright young middle-class things, brimming with opinions and perspectives. In the recommended reading, you get several home-grown man-haters, rather than, for example, a feminist writer like Camille Paglia, who actually likes and respects men. Among the male writers, you get Colm Toibin and Joe O'Connor rather than Robert Bly or Norman Mailer. This programme is not about men or masculinity; it is about creating the conditions for feminist supremacy. The assumption throughout is that women, being perfect, already possess a perfect understanding of men, but that men know nothing about women, responsibility or civilised behaviour.
It goes without saying that masculinity is not a "social construct" at all. (Are beards and bald patches socially constructed?) But even if its chief premise was remotely plausible, Exploring Masculinities would be off-the-wall. If masculinity is a social construct, the architects of that construction are not men but women, who in selecting men to be their mates and the fathers of their children, and in nurturing and rearing those children, play the most fundamental role in the definition of male identities.
It would be easy to decide that this programme was a harmless fudge of doss-class fodder which will, at worst, distract boys from more important things. That would be a mistake. The suicide figures for young males in this State are currently running at - depending on the region - between five and 10 times the rate for females. The core reason for this is the loss of identity, self-confidence and meaning in the lives of young men. There is every risk that this programme, introduced by stealth by unaccountable and invisible people, will make this situation far worse. It is imperative that it be withdrawn immediately by the Minister for Education.
