Why do we only ever gender the bad things men do, and never the good? Crime data finds that men commit 79% of violent crimes, which seems enough to “gender” such a thing as “male violence”. Fine. But then why don’t we do the same for bystander rescues, which men perform at far higher rates (92%)? We, quite rightly, have moved to gender neutral terms like “firefighter” to make way for the heroism of the one in ten firefighters who are female. And yet, a far larger number of abused men, who are now 41% of all victims, are erased by our highly gendered frameworks of domestic abuse, that quite literally classifies them as “male victims of violence against women”. A man picks up a hose, and he becomes a “firefighter”. Whilst another man picks up a weapon and becomes a “knifeman”. Why? The fact is, men are the ones most likely to set the fire, but also, they are the ones risking their lives, kicking down your door, to drag you from the burning building. This story is only half told. We gender the ways in which men are privileged. And then erase their gender, and ignore them entirely, when men and boys fall behind in health, education, at work, or on the streets. So what has happened to our brave advocates of gender neutral language? And is this not a breathtaking example of hypocrisy at its very worst? What do you think? ~ Discussing with Sam from @lonelychapterpodcast Full podcast https://tinyurl.com/3sxd68ma

2026-04-13