Politicians can’t hear what men don’t say. An interview with Ann Widdecombe.

Feb 1

You might have seen her spinning fearlessly on BBC1’s Strictly Come Dancing in 2010 (she lasted 10 dazzling weeks), or disputing gender issues on Channel 4’s Celebrity Big Brother in 2018 (she almost won it), but what you might not have realised is that the Right Honourable Ann Widdecombe, former Minister of Parliament and former Minister of the European Parliament, is a passionate supporter of men’s issues, especially child access following family breakdown, and false accusations of sex crimes. Both of these issues have very serious mental health implications, with a large number of cases resulting in suicide. I had the pleasure of speaking with Ann recently about these and other related topics.

John Barry (JB): How did you get interested in men's issues?

Ann Widdecombe (AW): It goes back quite a long way. In 2005 for example I wrote a novel about parental alienation [called Father Figure] and that followed on from a couple of other articles in places like the Readers Digest about the unfairness of the way that men are treated, and in particular child access arrangements after divorce and family breakdown. Really at that time I was much in touch with a with an organisation called Fathers 4 Justice which was making quite a big impact at the time. Their methods were a little unconventional, dressing up as Robin and Batman and shinning up Buckingham Palace and all that sort of stuff. But sadly they were in Westminster in the Visitors’ Gallery and threw talcum powder at the Prime Minister [Tony Blair]. Of course everybody said that that could have been anthrax, and there was a screen erected for the first time ever between Parliament and the public. So they weren’t very popular but what they did do for the first time ever was have a massive impact on the subject. It was beginning to be much more discussed. I remember informal conversations in the House of Commons in the tea rooms and common rooms about the issue, and it was starting to penetrate.

But my first interest was child access arrangements. I think over time this built up into other things, in particular the terrible plight of men who suffered false allegations - and I stress false allegations. If allegations are true then they deserve all they get. But the false allegations are where the police will presume that the woman is a victim and the man is a perpetrator, and even refer to the man as perpetrator. This suggests that justice is not impartial. The police would go on believing unbelievable stories, and that warps justice. And that then began to build up on the child access issues.

“I feel very strongly that the pendulum has swung too far, as it always does, the swing from a very male dominated patriarchal society to a very, very female dominated society where men are now seen as the villains”.

And then of course as a woman I hated and despised positive discrimination. I believe that every single woman MP has the right to look every male MP in the eye and to say that she got there on exactly the same basis [as the men], and we now have quite a lot of women in the House of Commons who can't say that. So I feel very strongly that the pendulum has swung too far, as it always does. In this case it is the swing from a very male dominated patriarchal society to a very, very female dominated society where men are now seen as the villains.

JB: Why do so many people still think we need to ‘smash the patriarchy’, rather than realising that lots of men badly need help?

AW: If we don't hear about the issues then we simply don't understand them. Men are immeasurably weak as a collective when it comes to standing up for themselves. I was a women's libber in the 1970s - not in the 1990s when feminism became something different - and we fought tooth and nail and we got where we wanted to get to. But now that's completely changed to ‘women must have special privileges’. In the 1970s we poured scorn on that notion. I think it makes us look stupid and I think it's damaged women as well.

We all know what misogyny means. Ask any 11 year old and he or she will tell you. But how many people know what misandry means? For many people out there the word is not in our consciousness, so the counterargument is missing.

JB: So would you say that we need to simply raise the issues more in the public mind, in the media. What do you think about the notion that men are reluctant to defend themselves, especially against women, because men have traditionally been the protectors of women?

AW: Any changes that happened in history have been preceded by awareness but I think it's a symptom of what I called the ‘completed mission syndrome’. The problem is that there was a real cause for women to fight, and they won comprehensively. Similarly the gay movement fought until it even got gay marriage. But when that happens the proponents of that cause never say “we won, let’s go home now”. Instead of saying ‘we've won’, they look for further causes of dissatisfaction. I’m a great believer in saying ‘we’ve won’.

JB: Perhaps it's because when a cause becomes an industry the proponents can't give up on that because then they will lose their livelihood. So they will always tend to say ‘we still have a long way to go’. Maybe they have a mortgage to pay off. How do you solve that kind of problem?

AW: Giving up on any cause – the obvious example is climate change - would cause so much trouble in university departments, in terms of funding, so you always have to find a new way to justify carrying on. I'm not sure that you can solve this problem really. Occasionally a government might have the guts to withdraw funding because they think the job is done, but particularly in the current day and age , when political correctness is so powerful, actually saying ‘the problem now is for men’, will not be overwhelmingly popular.

“I see awareness as being the largest part of the battle. There will come a time when legislation is the key thing, but awareness must come first.”

Raising awareness is the big thing. If you went out into the street and you asked people to list 10 ways in which men are disadvantaged, some would um and ah for a few minutes and then many would say they couldn’t think of anything. I see awareness as being the largest part of the battle. There will come a time when legislation is the key thing, but awareness must come first.

JB: One reason we started the male psychology magazine is to raise awareness in academics and non academics. But it doesn't have the same visibility as me putting on a Batman costume and shinning up Nelson's column. What do you think are the most effective ways of raising awareness?

AW: Women's rights were trumpeted by MPs such as Harriet Harman, and other very vocal and eloquent advocates in the House of Commons. It's a question of gradually wearing away the view that women are always oppressed, and it is also about advancing by small steps awareness of the problems facing men. I think these were starting to get into public consciousness a few years ago with the public awareness of the false allegations during Alison Saunders’ time at the CPS. During the worst period, scandal upon scandal was occurring where police hadn't revealed evidence that would have helped the defence when somebody had made false allegations from the past. Add to that the number of scandals and high profile cases of people being acquitted and the accusers being proved to have lied. There was at that time a realisation that everything was weighted against men though the law should be absolutely neutral. When the issue seemed to die then the interest also died. I think it's a question of getting something going and keeping it going. You can't do this by Tuesday afternoon; it's got to be something that's done very steadily, but the more it is talked about and the more people advocate men’s rights the more subconsciously people will begin to assimilate the fact that this is an issue.

JB: I thought the CPS issue was reported in the media as a problem with the system rather than a problem for men. Would it help if we had more journalists who were conscious of men’s issues?

AW: I always give the example from the Bible of the importunate woman who was banging on the judge’s door saying “give me justice” over and over again. Eventually he answered the door and considered her case just to keep her quiet. I think we need to be importunate, say “no no no we won't be brushed off”. That's what the women did in the 1970s. But problems around false allegations have been ignored. For example in a case where 9 false allegations were made, the police didn’t connect the cases. When it was found the allegations were false, the CPS said that if women thought they wouldn’t be believed the genuine victims would be put off coming forward. So the problem [of false allegations against men] was linked to damage for women. Never mind the 9 innocent men, one of whom ended up in prison. That really incensed me at the time.

JB: I think we are very used to thinking of women as always the victims and men as always the perpetrators, so-

AW: Because we think of men as the stronger physically, which they are. But I’m not so sure they are so strong when it comes to standing up for themselves.

JB: Men don’t want to be seen as bullies, although you get the impression from some people that domestic violence is part of the patriarchal mission-

AW: Well men get beaten up too.

JB: They do. And I don’t know any man who admires men who beat up women. It’s like the saying “men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength. Women's greatest strength is their facade of weakness". When you are the victim you can forever ‘punch up’ – literally and politically – and feel good about it. You never have to worry you have done the wrong thing, because you are always the victim.

AW: I think that’s a good phrase about men’s strength being their weakness. If you go back a couple of generations men were brought up not just to not hit girls but to think that ladies were special. Certainly when I was a student, a man would always walk you back to your college. There was this attitude of respect, and I think this was destroyed by women themselves; they thought it was patronising because we thought we could do everything ourselves and didn't need men, and I think that destroyed something fundamental.

JB: Valentine's Day should be a reminder of how much men and women need each other and love each other and respect each other's differences, but probably a lot of people will look upon it as being deeply patronising. But how do we move things forward? Do we get more politicians on board....

AW: Look where the influencers are. Politicians are influencers, journalists and commentators are influencers, and to a lesser extent academia. But if you are thinking of public noise the first two are the best place to start. You need to find a sympathetic MP. If I were in parliament now, I would be raising an adjournment debate on this issue. I don't know which minister would answer but I would be raising an adjournment debate on this issue [or issues]. There are things politicians can do, other than writing letters to ministers that nobody ever cares about.

JB: What is an adjournment debate?

AW: An adjournment debate is interesting, it's literally a lottery for a debate at the end of every day, obtained by pulling names from a hat. Also the speaker one day in the week will select one. And if you go in for enough of them your name comes up eventually. The MP can stand up and raise the subject, and the debate is for half an hour. He or she can ask the minister [relevant to the specific issue] to reply, and each has 15 minutes. There is usually hardly anyone in the chamber at that point but if people write to their MPs they can ask them if they could be in the chamber for that debate - you might get a few. But everything is on the record. If you want to let the press know about your debate they might be interested, you can do a press release. There's always something you can do. You can have a meeting in parliament to which you invite members of parliament addressed by respectable members of the men’s rights movement. And that's how things start, and you have to do them over and over again and then you get a small step forward.

“I do not believe there should be a minister for women. … so I resist a minister for men. … We will have a minister for cats and dogs any day now”.

JB: Have you seen the APPG for Men & Boys? Should they take a lead on this?

AW: Yes. I haven’t seen what they have produced yet. APPGs can be very helpful in organising things if you have a bill going, or some other initiative in parliament, so that everyone knows about it, contacting MPs and all the rest of it. Also, they can keep in touch with the various organisations in the field. They are as active or inactive as the people running it.

JB: Sometimes the idea of a Minister for Men comes up, and-

AW: No.

JB: No?

AW: No. I’m so anti, it’s not true. I really am very anti. I do not believe there should be a minister for women. In 1993 when I was in the Department of Employment I was asked if I would be the minister for women, because I was the only woman minister in that department. I said no, absolutely not. First of all, it is fostering grievance. Secondly, it is fostering inequality because there is not a minister for men, and it shouldn't be necessary in any equal society. I refused to do it. What then happened was that the Secretary of State himself, a chap called David Hunt, very good naturedly took on the role himself. But of course he always delegated to me because he was always in cabinet and always doing other things. But I refused, and I resist the idea of a minister for men. I think there are too many splintered groups within society at the moment to have their own minister and I think a government that is working for the good of all does not need to divide up between men women and children… whatever it might be, so I resist a minister for men.

JB: But given there exists a Minister for Women, would a Minister for Men provide balance?

AW: What would provide balance would be getting rid of a Minister for Women. I don't think there should be one

JB: Which would be politically easier to achieve: getting a Minister for Men in or getting a Minster for Women out?

AW: Undeniably, getting a Minister for Men in. We will have a Minister for Cats and Dogs any day now. Undeniably creating a separate responsibility within a ministry for a new minister would be easier than removing one that is very emotive, but the braver option is to do away with it.

“Talking is so important. All the issues I have felt strongly about I have talked about. I don’t stay silent and then suddenly erupt when there is a debate, I talk about it. Nobody is going to be aware of anything unless you talk about it. Nobody.”

JB: One last question: do you have any advice to help redress some of the imbalances you have highlighted.

AW: Talk about the issues in your workplace. Talk about it amongst friends. Don’t make it your mission to bore on every single occasion, but talk about it quite openly – don’t bottle it up. Talk about the position of men, but not aggressively, not saying it’s all women’s fault. There are some organisations that are so anti-feminist that frankly I flinch back… bad message. Say ‘have you ever considered how things are weighted against men?’ Talk about whatever is in the press at the time. If it’s false accusations then say ‘well look, that guy was treated as the perpetrator right from the start. That can’t be right’. Just talk about it. I think talking is so important. All the issues I have felt strongly about I have talked about. I don’t stay silent and then suddenly erupt when there is a debate, I talk about it. Nobody is going to be aware of anything unless you talk about it. Nobody.

Concluding comments from John Barry
As you can see from this interview, Ann Widdecombe has all the qualities to make an excellent Minister for Men… except that she makes an excellent case for why we shouldn’t have a Minister for Men. Also, her point is well made that whatever improvements you want to see happen in government, it requires that ministers are made aware of the issues first. Change requires campaigning, and this requires a groundswell of interest, which requires people knowing about the issues, which requires people who know about the issues to talk about them. Like the title of Warren Farrell’s book, ‘women can’t hear what men don’t say’, it is essential that more people become aware of what is going on.

Ann Widdecombe has spent years championing issues that have very serious mental health implications, such as the ordeal of men who cannot see their children following family breakdown, and the anguish of men who are falsely accused of a sex crime), and we are very fortunate to have her showing the way forward to address and resolve these issues.

Biography
Ann Widdecombe is one of Britain's most popular and outspoken politicians. She was a Conservative MP from 1987 to 2019, when she joined the Brexit Party and became an MEP. She is a successful author, political commentator and entertainer. She recently hosted a documentary on men’s issues.

Scroll down to join the discussion

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.