Ally Fogg is a mangina and a hack at The Guardian, and should need no further introduction to followers of this blog. From time to time (since the launch of the public consultation exercise for the J4MB 2015 manifesto) he’s criticised J4MB and myself, I’ve criticise his blog pieces, life goes on. His bio on his blog Heteronormative Patriarchy:
Ally Fogg is a UK-based freelance writer and journalist, whose day job includes a weekly column on Comment is Free at www.guardian.co.uk [where ‘thoughtcrime’ comments are routinely deleted by the paper, including comments on MGM] and miscellaneous scribbles elsewhere, mostly on issues of UK politics and social justice. This blog is dedicated to exploring gender issues from a male perspective, unshackled from any dogmatic ideology. [OK, righto!]
Ally is often accused of being a feminist lapdog and an anti-feminist quisling; a misogynist and a misandrist; a mangina and a closet MRA, and concludes that the only thing found in pigeonholes is pigeon shit. He can be contacted most easily through www.allyfogg.co.uk or @allyfogg on Twitter.
Anyone who accuses Fogg of being an anti-feminist, a misogynist, or an MRA, must surely be without the power of critical thinking, so is (ironically) probably a feminist too.
Time and again Fogg – in common with Glen Poole, another mangina – has denied being a feminist, yet his output leaves nobody in any doubt that he is. Fogg and Poole hold in common the ridiculous feminist position that male disadvantaging isn’t the natural and inevitable consequence of female privileging, claiming “it’s not a zero-sum game” or some such equally ridiculous guff.
I was interested to read at the start of one of Fogg’s recent blog pieces On the psychology of domestic violence the following:
Just before Christmas, Dr Ben Hine gave a public lecture in London entitled ‘Challenging the Gendered Discourse on domestic violence.’
The lecture is now online in two parts, totalling about 90 minutes, and if you are interested in the social psychology around domestic violence it is absolutely essential viewing. I’m a big fan of Ben & his work, we’ve collaborated in bringing together the Men and Boys Coalition and generally I think we couldn’t be much closer together on the same page, politically.
Dr Ben Hine is a psychologist, a publicly self-identifying feminist, and a fellow founding member of the Men & Boys Coalition, along with other manginas (including Poole). Hopefully one day Fogg and Poole will have the courage of their convictions and ‘out’ themselves as feminists, publicly. I don’t think anyone will be the least bit surprised, if and when they do. But in the meantime Fogg’s comment about Dr Ben Hine, that, ‘we couldn’t be much closer together on the same page, politically’, will have to suffice.
This morning Fogg published a new piece, Being Philip Davies. He refers to a debate in which Philip Davies spoke yesterday, and sneers at the heroic man in a similar manner to that used recently by Poole. The following caught my eye:
Despite Davies’s intervention, the motion passed. The nature of backbench legislation is that it is unlikely to become law, but in any case, here’s a very brief plan of action. Between now and the bill’s second reading on 24th of March, I’ll get together with colleagues at the Men and Boys Coalition and suggest we write to Nusrat Ghani, offer our thanks and full support for this important measure, and ask her to ensure that the wording of the bill is explicitly inclusive of male victims. I would very much hope this is something on which we could trust to the support of LGBT charities and campaigns, and also the support of organisations working with victims of family and relationship violence, particularly in South Asian communities. If Ghani and other MPs do wish to explicitly exclude male victims from these measures, let’s put them in a position where they have to spell that out and justify it.
What we have here is a fairly clear example of where lobbying for male victims can be straightforward, winnable and the right thing to do.
I wish Fogg’s initiative well, but you have to wonder why he’s proposing to write to the MP on this particular matter, after saying himself that ‘The nature of backbench legislation is that it is unlikely to become law’. Is this just a token gesture, then, so the MP can go along with what he suggests, giving the impression of engagement, but having precisely no real-world impact? Writing to MPs on the deeply sexist nature of The Istanbul Convention would make far more sense, as others have done.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
