Get Mad

Jamie Lee Merrick gets mad mad mad after reading an anti-feminist website. Here's her furious response.

, 16 October 2002

“I took the advice of one reader of the F-word and went browsing

the UK Fathers and Men?s rights page (scary). This will make no sense to anyone who hasn’t read the manifesto and political thought of Brian Coeffic of the UK Fathers and Men?s rights page, so I urge you to look there first. I urge anyone who wants to get mad, get passionate and get alarmed to go visit, and witness this veritable mine of misinformation. There is way too much on the

?discrimination? page to ever answer all the ludicrous allegations and fiction, but I did some of the more obvious points.”

Dear Sir,

I read your web page with awed fascination at the amount of mis-information

and misinterpretation that is on it. At one point you claimed that women have

more lifestyle opportunities than men, which included staying at home to raise

their children and working part time/ raising their children part time. Where, how, and what prevents men from doing this? You also have quoted some figures

about MOD compensation for unfair dismissal (though that was not made clear) as

being £50m for 300 women. This is absolutely erroneous. It would work out at

£1666,000 per woman! Surely this sort of compensation would wipe out the MOD?s

annual budget?

How can you claim that law courts are discriminatory against men when it

comes to custody when you yourself assign a “nurturing?,”caring “role to

mothers/women? There is no doubt I agree that children suffer because of the

absence of a father, but they would suffer more from the absence of a mother

who is biologically closer and more intuitive to her child. Mother-headed (as

you call them) families tend to live in the poverty stricken inner cities due

to lack of alimony from their spouse. They, not men are the “new poor”, forced

to work and send their children to childminders in order to support them, or

else live on benefits. Yes men are very hard done by! Few fathers, who have

abandoned their children, have the time or effort to help educate their

offspring, hence the abandonment.

There is no country in the world where women earn more than men

The lack of male teachers in primary schools is evidently because of low pay,

which kind of ruins your theory that women are earning more than men. There is

no country in the world where women earn more than men.

From your website I would say you are extremely judgemental and prejudiced,

so there is probably no point trying to tackle the issue of abortion. But the

choice must ultimately be the mothers (and not to murder it as you say, how

after all can you murder a group of cells? By your logic every time a tumour is

removed a potential life is wiped out.) After all, she is the one who must

carry it for nine months and risk her life bringing it into the world.

Wrongly you claim that men suffer more from domestic violence than women,

this is horseshit, and also why there are more refuges for women, and

incidences of rape and sexual violence against women who are weaker physically

(as you claimed in your discrimination in the military article) therefore

unable to fight. You can’t have it both ways I’m afraid.

Although it is true to say that women are more aggressive than men. Which

bodes well for a soldier don’t you think? If you have ever seen a woman defend

her child from attack, you would never doubt that. Actually the study that you

referred to in Israel found that it was unwise to have women in combat because

they affected their male comrades much more when killed than men did. It seems

the men would stand over the bodies trying to save those that could not be

saved. Therefore the fault was the men not the women soldiers. As for the enemy

fighting harder to avoid the “shame” of surrendering to women, I would imagine

that the enemies of Israel would fight pretty hard anyway, knowing they had to

surrender to one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. I think they

would rather surrender to women, as they commit far fewer gross human rights

abuses than men.

women ran the country

both times while their men fought

Secondly how spurious is your argument in “Defence?? During the second (and

first) World War, there was a King, George the V on the throne, not a Queen!

How can you resent the wasteful sacrifices of so many brave and brilliant men

for their wives, sons and country, when you deny women the right to fight on

the front line? You completely ignore the fact that a) women ran the country

both times, while their men fought, running the munitions factories, working in

the land army and ambulance/WAAF services as well as nurses and VADs. Please do

not ignore their valuable contribution, which was all they were allowed to

make, in this country at least (although you ignore the fact that women worked

as spies, abroad risking their lives, and in the French Resistance. Also in

Russia where they helped to defend Stalingrad, and formed military defence

units.) Also b) that ALL the wars in History (including the

Falklands war, started by the Argentinean regime) have been started and

propagated by MEN. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt,

all men, all sent men to die by the millions on the battlefield!!!!!!!!! Where

is this simple fact on your website?

Why should women fight and die in a world that marginalises them and gives

them no power, political or otherwise? Your logic is extremely weird. Do you

propose to kill 2million Americans to balance those Japanese killed at

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Also aren’t you forgetting who watched their sons,

husbands, fathers and lovers go to battle and slaughter? Powerless to stop


Women may lack the physical strength of men, but they have greater overall

endurance, intelligence and ability to deal with the physical/mental stress of

combat situations. They are also “built better”, with greater skeletal strength

for childbirth and this is why they live on average 7 years longer than men.

Women also have faster reaction times (Gretch & Stiller 1996) this is why they

make better fighter pilots, astronauts and drivers,(which insurance claims will

back up). Also a higher pain tolerance, which makes sense as they have to give

birth. All of which would I say makes a better soldier.

Before the advent of Christianity, and its second-class citizen view of

women, women were tribal elders; grandmothers were revered as sources of tribal

wisdom. Women would also fight in hand-to-hand combat as Boudicia, of the

Iceni, proves. Some of the greatest pre-Roman/Christian armies such as the

Assyrians, Phoenicians and Amazons all had or were lead by women. Amazon women

warriors got pregnant and held their infant in one arm and a bow in the


I would rather have bullets flying at me than degrading comments

Being tough enough to fight a war and being disgusted at some derogatory

remark made by some sleaze ball are not mutually exclusive positions. I would

rather have bullets flying at me, than degrading comments by some sad prick.

Incidentally talking of the “culture of ones potential adversary”, Russia for

all its faults, embraced communism and with it equality when fighting. Women in

the Red Army fought side by side with their comrades, (as comrades not as

sexual objects) with great success, defeating the German army, one of the most

powerful and technologically advanced of its day!

As for the same training standards? Do they have the same training standards

in life? Do men face pain and harassment in the way women do? Hardly! If you

look at the statistics you quoted they aren’t so very dissimilar for men and

women. The only real difference is in the running times. If you examine the

projectory of women?s sprinters times for the 400m over the last ten years, it

has halved and continues to reduce whereas men?s have reached a plateau, with

only seconds shaved off.

I would have thought that the increase in divorces asked for by women, 75%

you quoted, would have demonstrated that women are as sexually adventurous or

“randy” and Mona Charen puts it, when the cultural barriers are removed, as

men, proving M.C. wrong. But, please what on earth does this have to do with

women joining the military? Or are women GIs supposed to be just as over sexed

as their male counterparts? How does it make one a better soldier? There is a

very definite line between normal behaviour and sexual harassment.

Yes females in the army, navy and airforce must face harassment from their

“sexual predator” drill sergeants, but if their drill sergeants were female and

their squadrons, also this wouldn’t be a problem. Similarly friendships can

complicate the line of command, but these are not limited to male /female

friendships. Disagreements between commanding officer and private are common

and have always been. Why should romantic love and sexual jealousy complicate

things in the military and not in the, ambulance service say? Rules against

fraternization would just be extended to between male and female officers. Just

because a new idea may complicate something, is not a reason not to implement

it, especially when the idea is good. That is also a very patronising view of

men and women to take, that they cannot go about their job professionally

without bringing sex and love into it!

It is true that men do more industrial work than women but women do much more

cleaning work than men, both domestically and professionally. I think the

“glass cellar” is imaginary. Women in the developing world take many more

dirty, dangerous jobs (including in the sex industry; it is absurd to say that

the number of men in prostitution even remotely matches the number of women),

because that is where the “wealth creating manufacturing jobs” have moved to,

overseen by the mostly male CEOs of large global corporations.

Women DO NOT now nor ever have got off “scott free” from

committing crimes. Tell me how can we have “chivalrous male judges” when only a

paltry 7.5% of reported rapes result in convictions? Now who exactly is walking

away scott free?

The statistics you quote reported rapes being false is

complete crap!

The statistics you quote about the number of reported rapes being false is

complete crap! 30% of convicted men works out at about five. Actually I’ll go

along with that, five men convicted each year are innocent. But 95 who walk

free are guilty. Funny that a male lawyer should find 212 “disproved

allegations” (which could mean anything), but still double that number were

proven, with 526 more “unsolved” so what your point? One in every two men

reported actually commits a rape? I wouldn’t crow too loudly over those stats

if I were you. It’s hardly overwhelming evidence of discrimination against men

if the British Justice system. The Eugene Karin study stated in a “small

community” 40% were false? Hmmm I wonder at the immense backwardness of that

community and the pressure it put on young women to withdraw or disregard their

allegations. Its hardly a fair test, when you consider the hassle that dogs

women who have been raped, in the legal system, patriarchal culture and in


I realise from your website alone just how prejudicial and narrow minded you

must be, the beliefs you hold are repugnant to men and women, trying to correct

them is probably a waste of time, but I determine anyway. You polarise the

issue of male (and female rights) and your view are nostalgic and patronising.

You quote highly unlikely figures, and obscure your sources. Feminism, in its

truest form isn’t about hating and deriding men, or ruling the world. It is

about equality, freedom, with opportunity for both men and women. I love many

men, —my father, my brothers, my cousin and uncle, friends and boyfriend, and

serious issues like suicide among young men merit illumination, petition, and

action. But you propagate misinformation, misguidance and half-truths, which

breed suspicion and hatred. It is time you read some feminist third wave

literature and stopped seeking to oppress both men and women by making them

enemies. Yes women should have freedom, yes they should have equality, in

rights in deeds in action, haven’t they after all lived the last thousand years

as second-class citizens? After all a race that oppresses another can never

itself be free. A good friend told me that……… and he was male.

Jamie Lee Merrick is 18 and is currently teaching English in

Mexico. Her next move will be to Guatemala, where she plans to investigate Human

Rights abuses with the GSN. On her return to the UK she hopes to study law at

Sheffield University. She says “I’ve always been a feminist and my mum, a

geographer, and my aunt, a professor of oncology, are both a big influence on

this. I was brought up to believe a woman is as good as a man and has every

right to equality and education.”

Have Your say

Comments are closed on this post


  • The F-Word on Twitter
  • The F-Word on Facebook
  • Our XML Feeds