Graeme Archer's Diary: In praise of men

I was going to write about my father this week, since what would have been his seventieth birthday passed recently, and the daily ache I have for his company has been consequently more pronounced. But the drafts became too personal, so I’ve tried to rephrase in more general tones. I’d like to pay him some small dedication by talking about the lessons he taught me, if that’s OK with all of you.

***
I sometimes think that one of life’s grand ironies is that gay men appear to be the last group of people to celebrate the worth of heterosexual men. It feels that way to me, anyway, as I flick through the endless succession of adverts, sitcoms and “dramas” that make straight men out to be foolish, feckless and worthless. If we are to believe the chatter of the culture, men can no more pass GCSE English than they can select the correct laundry fluid for the weekly wash. The stereotypes of gay men are revolting enough – we’re not all obsessed with celebrity gossip, and most of us couldn’t tell a soft-furnishing from a screwdriver – but our ultra (numerical) minority status, and the usually auxiliary role we perform in child-rearing (the odd break for harassed parents provided by the uncles!) mean the gap between the media narrative and the truth about male homosexual experience remains a matter for private toe-curling, rather than a political problem. But what about straight men? They are nearly half the population and until recently seen as core components of successful child-rearing. What is the effect of the “all men are rubbish” narrative on them?

The first generation of boys raised under the anti-men orthodoxy is ending its schooling. You all know the results of that particular experiment – less intellectual focus on individual disciplines (physics submerged into “science”), stronger reliance on group-work and a move from written examination to pre-prepared, and oft-revised, coursework. I think the statistics about the relatively poor functioning of boys in such a system speak for themselves. (The New Culture Forum is to host a discussion on this topic on 24 September – click on the link if you’d like to take part.). Is such an outcome – a lowering of male educational attainment - going to make us a better society? Is this what the social engineers intended?

What was wrong with the way that I was taught – that is to say: didactically (the clue is in the root of the adverb) and then tested under proper examination conditions? I would have floundered and sank in a system where I was expected to empathise with the sorely oppressed Scottish textile industry workers, rather than to learn about their contribution to the rise of prosperous, Victorian Glasgow.  And I remembered that fact 20+ years later without the aid of google, by the way – I doubt I’d still remember any pseudo-empathetic “feelings” with such clarity.

At the Tory mayoral hustings this week, I’ve listened to very wise people discussing the problems of gangs, increased lawlessness and the need to set “boundaries” for young people. Fathers, I should think, are fairly fundamental to the setting of these boundaries. Do you know, even writing that last sentence felt like a political statement. This is one reason I so passionately support David Cameron’s unequivocal resetting of marriage at the heart of all our policies and salute his courage for standing up to the sneers of the liberal-left who think it frankly shocking to hear a politician suggest that children are best raised by their two biological parents. I’m going to say it again, because it felt so refreshing to be so explicit: children need their fathers.

Let me make another political statement: men are the workhorses and powerhouses of our society. As I’m typing this, I can hear the sound of a new block of flats being constructed on Mare Street. Look out the window at those men climbing over the scaffolding, building with their bare hands a tower of houses that will reach up into the sky. These men must work harder in one day than I do in a year. Some of them travelled across Europe in a bus to do this.

If women were represented so consistently as little more than sex-mad idiots, Germaine Greer would still be writing relevant books. A propos of Germaine Greer, her recent book about the beauty she sees in young boys proved another lie, that gay men find classical Greek sculpture more attractive than do Cambridge feminist academics d’un certain age. Most gay men of my acquaintance can see the beauty in the careworn faces of real men, and by “real” I mean the blokes you pass on the street, not some hunkathon pin-up “I’m a fireman when I’m not felling trees” cliché. (The grand irony I mentioned at the start, of course, is that the attraction can’t become sexual – probably just as well, human life being messy enough.)

And so to the personal. What if I had not been blessed with my own father? These things I learned from him: don’t belittle people, simply because they differ from you. And: you are not a failure if you sublimate personal ambition to the love of your family. And: working hard is a good end in itself. What would have come of me without these lessons learnt?

***
For someone who doesn’t really like leaving his house, I’ve been out a lot this week. On Monday I was on the Albert Embankment - on Tuesday I visited Ilford. Wednesday saw me in Ruislip while we ended the week on Friday in Wimbledon. South of the river twice in one week! The reason for the peripatetic week, of course, is the Mayoral hustings. If you were at any of the events – hello! I was the bloke in the ill-fitting Asda teeshirt with “Choose BOFF” hastily ironed onto the front, who was desperately trying to press one of Andrew’s leaflets into your hand as you entered the room. No madam, you haven’t read it before, it’s fresh off the printer this morning. Oh well. Be like that then. The best bit was when the real people in the audience get to ask questions. Someone asks about tourism. May I suggest a Tory Tour slogan: “Visit the four corners of London in a week, and die”?

What did I learn? That the north-south divide in London is as nothing compared to the east-west one. And that while it’s gone extremely well, the party has missed a trick. With a bit better planning, we could have scored the political hit of the season. Belatedly, the media have woken up to the dramatic nature of the Tory selection process, and the Fantastic Four made their appearances on the Monday night London news bulletins. But too late to get the mass participation such a selection deserves, and too late to reap the political benefits of drawing all those Londoners into a Tory selection process. They came to select, they stayed to deliver leaflets. Who wins? We decide – but the “we” is largely the existing Tory activist base, and not the hundreds of thousands of Londoners it should have been. A very tiring week, in order to make contact with somewhere around one thousand voters.

***
So, as predicted last week, we went to coo at Atonement at the Barbican. It’s rubbish. You’ll enjoy it, but it’s still rubbish. The postmodern trick on which the whole novel is constructed is a very unfulfilling device when translated to the screen. There is one amazing directorial tour-de-force on the beach immediately prior to the Dunkirk evacuation, but the emotional affect (not effect, affect) of the whole is blunted by the rabbit-hat-pulling trick in the last twenty minutes. Deus ex cuniculo? (If you can fix my Latin I’ll buy you a cup of tea at conference).

Comments

[Paul Oakley]

Too true about the media belittlement of men. We should boycott any product which advertises itself on the back of a portrayal of men as oafs/stupid/incompetent.

[support the strivers]

Excellent article as usual from Graeme. He really is very good and an absolute pleasure to read....

[Norris for London]

Graeme Archer should have been aware that Friday's Mayoral hustings meeting was actually in Southfields, in Justine Greening's Putney constituency rather than Stephen Hammond's Wimbledon. The organisers could not have picked a more inaccessible venue for public transport. Hardly an advetisement for a Blue Green agenda!

The performance of all four candidates was very disappointing. There was lots of rhetoric and waffle but LITTLE REAL SUBSTANCE - especially on housing, the environment and transport. The candidates had had three meetings to practice and prepare and yet managed to fluff simple pat questions, e.g. on attracting young voters. They could not run the proverbial party in a brewery never mind a large city with over 8 million citizens and budget of £4 to 5 billion.

A journalist friend, who sat beside me, shared my view of the proceedings. A choice of three mediocre councillor wannabes and a bumbling celebrity clown is no choice at all. Boris Johnson, given his experience, was simply dreadful. I have decided to spoil my ballot paper and write in Steve Norris's name.

[Graeme Archer]

I took the district line to Southfields and walked to the hall in less than 15 minutes, norris-for-London. Not that inaccessible and I got home on the district line much quicker than I did from Ruislip on the Metropolitan on Wednesday (this might have been to do with the ~25 million football fans who had to squeeze on at Wembley. Fortunately they were all good humoured!).

I think you're far too hard on the candidates. If I can pick just one (guess which one): Andrew Boff is committed to not spending any public money on subsidising the building of 1 or 2 bed flats. All public money should go to building family homes. This both houses a family (natch), eases the overcrowding and frees up further down the chain smaller homes for younger people.

The real trouble with housing is (to be fair - a point made very well and very clearly by Warwick) that we labour (geddit) under central government targets. The mayor can and should use his bully pulpit to as influential an effect as possible, but if we really want to change housing in London - as everywhere - we have to get rid of this appalling Labour government and implement a proper localist agenda.

[Robert Winterton]

Norris - not a hell's chance - the man has failed and would do again, so get over it! Sadly, the political 'well' is dry both at national and London level, hard work alone won't prevail, political bravery and and I don't political cliches will win out! By this I mean returning to 'our basic principles' of opportunity, individual and community responsability in all matters and even after the 60 odd years of the corrosive effect of both the dehabilitating welfare state(safety net yes, that alone) and 'statism' (i.e the huge growth of government intrusion into every aspect of our lives)on our society we can turn the tide and produce a more mobile, vibrant and happy society more at ease with its self driven by contribution and achievement. But it needs no half measures to do this! Not the usual political promises of something for nothing.

[Editor]

We've been a bit side-tracked away from Graeme's thought-provoking piece. Only comments 'on subject' will now be approved.

:-)

[Robert Winterton]

Sorry editor - yes Graeme's piece is well thought out, though with respect, his comments on the family etc coincide with some of my broad themes of responsability and intrusion etc. and the fact that we ought to defend what seem unfashionable ideas?!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Two things sprang to mind when I read Graeme's column.

50% of Victoria Borwick's campaign for the Mayoralty is concentrated on her gender (the other 50% on her hair colour!). I find it rather unsettling that she thinks that "only a woman" can take on Livingstone. Can you imagine the outcry if a man said that?

I am also getting increasingly fed up of having the go up and down stairs in shops and department stores for men's clothes. Why can't they have a selection on the GROUND floor for men and women. Do companies like M&S believe that women are far too feeble to use the stairs? Or do they think men are wimps and will put up with it? Well, this on isn't!

Sexism sucks!

[TomTom]

I sometimes think that one of life’s grand ironies is that gay men appear to be the last group of people to celebrate the worth of heterosexual men.

You didn't really need to put the last adjective in, but I know why you did. It is very true Graeme...have you also considered that one of the few 'acceptable' Men Only Clubs today is a gay sauna ?

It is somewhat limiting that there are far fewer Boys Only Schools than Girls Only Schools....that the ability to have boys' activities is limited by the superfluity of female (head-) teachers in primary schools.

That the whole ethos of taking risks, challenging boundaries, and competitive team sports have been eroded into a modular world of coursework with the emphasis on Process rather than Product.

Yes the whole nature of TV comedy (in Britain) - it is not the same in Continental Europe - is a sneering contempt for men as 'deficient women'. It is what makes British sitcoms tediously repetitive and daily life in this country banal and boring.

[Biodun]

Great article, Graeme. You are so easily the best columnist on here.

[TomTom]

Sadly Justin these stores assume women are buying men's clothes...or that women are acting like mothers in taking junior to the outfitters. It is complete infantilism they are trying to impose.....go look at Boots and how they submerge men's shaving gear and toiletries amid the ever-expanding women's section.....or how B&Q now intends to follow Homebase and the rest down the Feminised DIY route with soft-furnishings......the sooner Home Depot takes over B&Q the better before retailing becomes Women Only

[David Strauss]

Graeme is right on the issue of praising men's contribution to society.

There is now a growing "men's rights" movement in the UK. They are plenty of blogs etc out there. They have come about not so much because they wanted to, but these sites have been forced into playing the victim group card becuase they have suffered from decades of anti-male propaganda and institutionalised sexism.

The pity is that the Conservatives have also been playing the anti-male card.

Not only through continuing to advocate a Minister for Wmen but not for Men, but also by stopping men as individuals from being Conservative MP's because of the biased priority lists and selection rules. Having groups like Women2Win etc just stir it all up and Theresa May's recent comments on this site about the gender pay gap look ominous in terms of discrimination against men.

In addition, David Cameron said in February "We need to make it as socially unacceptable for fathers to avoid their responsibilities as drink driving now is". Easy male bashing if ever there was an example.

The Conservatives should not indulge in the belittling of men that Graeme rightly diagrees with.

[John Moss]

I sometimes wonder if the party misses the potential to sell family friendly policy across many levels?

As Graeme rightly points out, Andrew Boff's policy to use public funds only for family housing to relieve overcrowding - and yes, I was the guy in the other Choose Boff T-Shirt - has the potential to solve not just one "household's" problems, but several.

As a family moves out of an overcrowded two bedroom flat, a couple with two young children who can share, move into that property. A couple without children move into the one bedroom flat they vacate and then a single person takes over their studio.

Families sticking together also mean fewer houses need to be built, one of the major drivers of the predicted rise in the number of households being divorce. It means fewer car journeys, as there is no longer the need to ferry kids from Mum's, to Dad's and back again. That's also one home heated and lit, not two, one meal cooked, not two and a more stable family, so less crime committed, fewer drugs taken, better results achieved at school, better jobs secured, more taxes paid in and less benefits paid out.

There is an answer to almost any arguement against family friendly policy. We should deploy them all and we should absolutely celebrate the role of men in making families work. It may not be politically correct, but men don't have the kit for childbirth, so they will always work more, earn more and advance further and faster than women, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Umbrella man]

Beautifully written Graeme - thank you.

[Annabel Herriott]

My other half is a primary school Head, retired since 1988. He says he wouldnt last 5 minutes today, what with the 'elfn'safety, political correctness, and interference by government.(targets etc) He turned out some great lads. He was extremely firm, but fair.
His main grump these days, is that there are not enough men in primary education, and the boys are suffering from the lack.

[Sally Roberts]

Graeme I was moved by reading that sensitively written article - well done! I wish more men - both gay and heterosexual - would be less afraid to show their emotions and get in touch with their own sensitivity! Doing that in a sensible and controlled way does not make one an "emotional incontinent" - it makes one a better human being!

More articles in the same vein please - and more in the main stream media - we need to get a positive message across.

[TomTom]

both gay and heterosexual - would be less afraid to show their emotions and get in touch with their own sensitivity!

No thanks Sally...that is the very feminising that is causing the frustration and penchant for violence....do not impose female characterists on males

[Andrew Lilico]

Graeme - I liked this one, particularly the men bit. I thought this was one of your best.

[Stephen Warrick]

Fastastic article Graeme!

[Sally Roberts]

Tom Tom - why does your reaction not surprise me in the very slightest? It's a shame you quoted one sentence of my posting but then clearly didn't go on to read the next sentence....

[TomTom]

Tom Tom - why does your reaction not surprise me in the very slightest?

So pleased you weren't disappointed....but then again Sally I think the world is Hobbesian and that the world you think is stable will crumble.

This society is at an end. What comes after will be interesting, but West Europeans will not determine the way the world works. You can be as "sensitive" as you want, but boys do not want feminising and resort to Lord of The Flies when it is rammed down their throats ad nauseam

[Sally Roberts]

" I think the world is Hobbesian and that the world you think is stable will crumble. "

You have a sad and cynical view of life - it clearly hasn't been very kind to you and I'm sorry about that!

[Effie]

Well done once more Graeme (I told you so last week) I can spot talent.
Just as a footnote I wish men would show more emotions, but I seem to have married a stiff upper lipped gent and bred them an all.

Please do not foget the history of the east end of London especially in and around Bethnal Green and the Bow Bells.

[Opinicus]

@Sally Roberts
But the world is Hobbesian. Society is a construct and requires clever and resourceful people to hold it together without which chaos will always intrude. Political entropy is all powerful. All societies, all empires collapse when the leaders of the society eventually drop their guard and lose the will to maintain the Society. This is not cynicism it is historical fact.

[Sally Roberts]

Jonathan - what an extraordinary comment! I think you clearly see me as some sort of would-be anarchist! I am certainly not advocating the end of society and the end of leaders - and frankly I can't understand quite why the topic has suddenly morphed into this....

All I did originally was congratulate Graeme on his sensitively-written article and suggest that men might perhaps be more in touch with their emotions than is often the case. I stand by every word I have said and I know that many people (in the Party as well as outside it) would agree with me. But then they would be the mature ones, wouldn't they?