‘Infinitesimal!’ I had never heard that word until I was a fully grown adult, when I had it practically spat in my face. The speaker was a flustered former feminist friend of mine, who I knew from work. But at this very moment, I’m sad to say, she had become more feminist, than friend. Her eyes, which were usually calm and blue, were angry. Her lips were pursed, and white. Her shaking fingers clasped in a ‘this small’ motion, inches from my face. 🤏 “The amount of men who are abused is infinitesimally small George!” I was quiet. At the time I didn’t know the word – but I safely assumed she meant “fuck all!” So I sat and I watched my half drunk pint of beer sway ominously; gently lapping at the sides, as if we were all sat on a boat about to enter a storm. Of course I knew what she was saying was not accurate. I knew that there were millions and millions and millions of abused men out there. A number that was anything but ‘infinitesimal’. But I also knew that I wanted to finish my beer, rather than wear it. So I did the familiar routine: sit down, shut up, take a ticket and wait your turn. This isn’t about you. But the walk home made me wonder. I’d always admired feminism’s belief of ‘nobody left behind’, no matter how small the minority, or how few the number. I admired their work advocating for issues that affected tiny minorities of people, with the same commitment and conviction as any other. No matter how small, all were welcome, lifted up and given their space. But never men. No. Their problems were just too small, “infinitesimal” even. To be compared to far out freak accidents like lightning strikes, getting eaten by a shark, or meeting Christopher Hitchens. So why does a group that claims to advocate for total equality, so readily cover their eyes when asked to do that – but for men? It doesn’t make sense, not then, or now. So tell me, does it make sense to you? ~ 2018 Biennial Report to Congress Images by Giorgio Trovato from Unsplash

2023-01-27