Should there be a UK Minister for Men?
Should there be a UK Minister for Men?
A UK Member of Parliament recently suggested that there should be a Government minister for men which would presumably do similar things to the existsing minister for Women.
This has thrown up a series of heated discussions on social media about whether this is part of the 'backlash' against feminsm, or whether there is a legitimate need for wider support of men's issues.
As a man who believes that there are legitimate issues disproportionately affecting men which should be addressed, what I really want help in understanding is the opinion that men don't need any targetted support.
I don't want to start a big argument, but I do want to understand this perspective, because I have struggled to understand it before and I don't like feeling like I'm missing something.
It’s a disingenuous argument. The MP is from the Conservative Party, i.e., the right wing arsehole party.
You may have noticed how the Right Wing Playbook has been imported from America. Increasingly, when things aren’t going politically well, they’ll have a look at the Playbook and pick a Culture Wars trope. This is one such instance, intended only to divide.
How is supporting men's mental health and advocating for them in ways they are often overlooked (such as in single fatherhood) bad?
which would presumably do similar things to the existsing minister for Women.
So very little then?
There shouldn't even have to be a Minister for Women!
Yes, that would be nice in an ideal world there would be no issues which affected one sex more than another, but we are not in a perfect world.
I'm afraid this doesn't really help me understand the view that men's problems aren't as worthy as women's issues.
It isn't about "worthiness" it's about power balance which is still in favour of men literally everywhere.
Appointing a "minister for men" would be like appointing a "minister for abled people" to "balance" the fact that there is a "minister for disabled people", completely ignoring the reasons we have that minister in the first place - the vast imbalance that already exists in society.
Having a women's (and equalities, a part those fighting for this bullshit conveniently like to drop from the title) minister isn't an imbalance it is an attempt at trying to gain a balance that hasn't yet existed in our modern societies (as oppose to "female superiority" which is another bullshit strawman those for this nonsense have made up).
This whole thing is a monument to male entitlement - never mind why something isn't centred around them, everything must be, no matter what!!!
Exactly. It’s the same with any diversity and inclusion push at any level. It exists because the current system favours a specific group of people. If we can put down any prejudice and hire people for their work and passion and account for people with less privilege. It exist still because we still do it. But also it exist now to try and right a wrong.
A minister for men is to do what? We had our time in the sun for the entirety of human existence while pushing women down. Men are at risk of losing anything. The shit men are I hope.
I'm not British, but it would seem reasonable to me to have both. Men have issues too; and one of them is the social stigma attached to even acknowledging that fact or seeking help. People who pooh-pooh the idea might be doing so because of that stigma.
Here's the thing, though: Whenever you have a position like "Person for Group", that Group is being singled out for a reason.
And that reason is lack of representation.
To put it another way, so have a Minister for Women is a tacit acknowledgement that the others operate as if men are the default person. All of the other ministers are Ministers for Men.
It's not just about lack of identity representation though. The lack of representation of men's gendered issues is very much apparent in our society, and it is through holes like this that people like Andrew Tate gain significance, which also harms women.
It doesn't seem like UK women are lacking in representation imo. Plenty of women MPs and ministers.
As an American whose only knowledge of UK government comes from sporadic episodes of Politics Unboringed, my first thought would be to replace the Minister for Women with a Minister for Gender Equality. They would have all the powers and responsibilities of the Minister for Women, and also gain any powers and responsibilities that a hypothetical Minister for Men would need.
- If there is a need for a Minister for Men, then that need is met by the Minister for Gender Equality
- If there is no need for a Minister for Men, then the only thing that changes is that the Minister for Women has a new, less controversial title
Sounds like a win-win to me, but again, I'm a dumb Yank lol
I'm afraid that Minister for Gender Equality is far, far more likely to be attacked as woke by the right than Minister for Women.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I'm unware of "woke" culture (or political terms such as right or left), but why would having a Gender Equality title be the target of attacks? A title like that should also, in theory, cover people who are transgendered, non-binary, intersex etc, so pretty much everyone in the country should be included. I'm not sure why "woke" people would take offence to this? Are they a gender that doesn't fit in any of the currently established genders or something? Wouldn't "woke" people also benefit from any decisions made by this minister, so why would they be offended?
I don't think that is a good idea.
Men and women are different in some fundamental ways, and so equality is the wrong answer. Equal means either putting tampons in the Men's restroom, thus wasting money - or taking them away from women who need them.
It is really hard to make any other statement about how men and women are different. Even making a claim backed by clear facts (hormones make men stronger than women gets some people mad) is controversial. As such I do not want a minister who because a dual mandate can focus on just one. A minister of gender equity that only focuses on Women's issues is not doing the job, but that is an easy thing to do anyway (and the most likely result given that men socially often cannot admit they need help), but a minister going the other way and focusing on men's issues is also bad. By making them separate we can better track budgets, and if they are not equal force justification/discussion of why that should be.
The official position is Minister for Women and Equalities.
And the easy answer to this Tory troll is that (middle-class, white) men already dominate political, economic and social life. Everything is filtered through the eyes of people like them, they don't need a special platform to get their viewpoint across.
But, this is a lot like March 8th (International Women's Day) being full of plaintive cries of "why isn't there an International Men's Day?". There is an International Men's Day and it is a very good thing. It makes sense in a way that "why isn't there a white history month?" does not.
There are many points of similarity and difference between the various forms of prejudice. And one of the things that makes sexism unique is that prejudice against women inevitably creates a mirror prejudice about (if not intentionally against) men. If being feminine means having emotions other than rage, men are allowed to experience only rage. If being feminine means caring for others, men are not allowed to care for (or about) others.
While there are certainly forms of feminism which are anti-men (most notably the transphobic strain currently getting more attention than it deserves), feminism is fundamentally as important for men as it is for women and the issues facing men exist precisely because of the history of subjugating women. Women's rights are not in tension with men's rights (unless you mean the demands of damaged and damaging men who insist that they should have the right to rape women and keep one at home as a sex doll, housekeeper, incubator and child minder).
This article is not perfect but it does make the broader point well: If I Admit That 'Hating Men' Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?:
Part Four: A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On
Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.
Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.
If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?
Thanks for your comment, it's certainly one of the better considered ones in this thread!
There are many points of similarity and difference between the various forms of prejudice. And one of the things that makes sexism unique is that prejudice against women inevitably creates a mirror prejudice about (if not intentionally against) men. If being feminine means having emotions other than rage, men are allowed to experience only rage. If being feminine means caring for others, men are not allowed to care for (or about) others.
How do we distinguish between legitimate grievances that men may have and the more reactionary/politically divisive. Whenever I hear the above argument, it strikes me as dismissive of legitimate issues and it feels dismissive of my experiences.
In order to affect real change, do we not need to move past dismissing the problems raised by one gender? Isn't it more likely that we change people's behaviour by acceptance of their viewpoint rather than telling them they're just being difficult?
feminism is fundamentally as important for men as it is for women and the issues facing men exist precisely because of the history of subjugating women
I agree with you here, but I think it's also important to take note of the fact that feminism is a fairly broad church so the idea that there is one 'feminist perspective' which cares about men too is, to my mind, undermined by the negation of the importance of men's issues I commonly see.
I don't know if we need a "man minister", but UK really needs men shelters to offer safe spaces for people suffering from domestic abuse. Because there are none right now. And the best way out of an abusive relationship for men today is... Suicide.
I have never heard of a feminist...
- ...pushing for more equality/fairness in custody-cases
- ...being against showing men in a stereotypical bad light in ads.
- ...being against alimony payments or fairer judge decisions
- ...being against prison-rape jokes
- ...speaking up for falsely accused men (Till Lindemann, Jonny Depp and so on)
- ...being against dangerous work emvironnments or bad work conditions or bad jobs in general
- ...pushing for more mental health support for men
- ...being against men-only military draft.
It all being part of the patriarchy is maybe true if you want to look at it in this perspective. But I am of the opinion that most of those points would not majorly improve even if feminists would have total political control for the next 10 years.
Because feminists stand up for the rights of women. Which is totally important and good. But will not automatically improve the lifes of men, because its not the aim of most feminists.
Feminists do this literally all the time.
That is so untrue that it's clear you're speaking in bad faith. The only people I know against prison rape are feminists, the 'anti feminists' are all about "lets hope he drops the soap" jokes.
It's women who have fought for equal rights in the military, not men, and they've taken frontline roles by force.
"Falsely accused men" is not the same as not convicted men. Jonny Depp admitted being physical in court, Till Lindemans case was dropped for lack of evidence, this is super normal in cases of sexual assault because unless it was filmed, evidence is a really tricky thing.
I have never heard of a feminist…
…pushing for more equality/fairness in custody-cases …being against showing men in a stereotypical bad light in ads. …being against alimony payments or fairer judge decisions …being against prison-rape jokes …speaking up for falsely accused men (Till Lindemann, Jonny Depp and so on) …being against dangerous work emvironnments or bad work conditions or bad jobs in general …pushing for more mental health support for men …being against men-only military draft.Literally every feminist advocates for all of these.
There should be minister for equality. Dividing is making more conflicts.
Strictly speaking, the existing role is the Minister for Women and Equalities, covering more than just equity for women. They should just drop the "women" part and continue under the more general auspices of Equalities.
There should neither be a minister for men nor a minister for women
Because if there is then the calls for a
- minister for non-binary and intersex
- minister for the jewish
- minister for seniors
- minister for POC
- minister for car-lovers
And so on.
The only solution would be a minister for gender equality. Or social equality. And then there has to be a check, what issues this minister is working on improving.
To advocate for men's services like mental healthcare, regular healthcare, and things like that. And by regular healthcare I mean the stigma around going to the doctor, not access. To advocate for men who've been abused physically, emotionally, sexually etc? Yeah. I'm all for that.
Some people are making a slippery slope argument. That then we would need one for each other gender identity etc. And you know what. We should have those too. If you're not trans there is a limit to how much you can understand (not empathize, but understand) the challenges that face trans people. Same thing with men, and with women. And everyone should have equal representation and advocacy. Does.it seem bloated? Sure. Does it seem like the kind of thing that might get out of hand? Or might be taken advantage of, or might end up devaluing the authority of the ruling body? Maybe. But it's better to attempt equality and equity and fail and then try again than it is to not attempt it because it's "problematic.
I don't know what the female counterpart does in this role. I don't live in the UK and so I had to imagine what a person in the role of Woman's Minister would do. What their duties would be. And then translate that to something that a Men's Minister would do. And what I came up with (as a woman) was very telling to me that I don't know a lot about the challenges men face in society. But I do know that toxic masculinity and the taboo of seeking both mental and other types of healthcare exist. And I would love to see someone attempt to fight those at a government level for the benefit of citizens the way so many governments want protect women, and their rights (laws against rape, sexuql harrassment, sexual assault, programs both government and private to benefit battered woman, healthcare services that include abortion and family planning and so on).
Here's a question for people who do live there, especially the ones who say the representative in this role doesn't do anything. What are they supposed to do? Would there be consequences of that role was eliminated?
You know what, yes I'm on board with this, let's have a minister for everyone!
This entire gender discussion is just to engage people and make them care about politics.
No different than social media algorithms designed to make people angry so they engage.
Keeps the peasants fighting and arguing about pointless things. My advice to people in this thread is to ask yourself if the rich owners actually cares about your gender and what they can do to make you feel better.
Keeps the peasants fighting and arguing about pointless things
"Pointless"? Really? What doesn't affect you directly is "pointless"?
My advice to people in this thread is to ask yourself if the rich owners actually cares about your gender and what they can do to make you feel better.
I assume you're aware that people can care about more than one thing at the time.
Otherwise, nobody could do anything until the hunger of children in Africa is totally erradicated, right?
Seems like a smart idea. Minister of women focusing on issues specifically women face and miniter of men for specifically male issues. Seems like an alright idea
Yeah, there are most certainly issues that seem to be more man specific in the world today, higher suicide rate/male mental health (not saying women don't have mental health issues or minimising them, it just seems to be an issue more significantly impacting men ATM), toxic masculinity, even dealing with a perceived lack of power/impotence in society and obviously men's health issues.
Just so long as it doesn't become one of those weird "mens rights" women bashing things.
At some point yes. The lack of tackling men's issues is not due to a lack of representation. Roles like this are specifically about opinions that are not being heard or represented before the creation of the role. Once the need for other roles presents itself, those roles will be created as well. Well... after the need has presented itself for so long that it has gained enough traction to actually have a chance of the idea surviving the proposal. And then only a few more short decades.
It's similar, though not the same, to specifically increasing diversity on purpose in business. The counter argument that hiring "the best candidate blindly" would be a better strategy misses that diversity adds it's own value. The person who is almost as qualified, but brings a background not currently represented in the company does indeed bring more value. It is understandably seen as inherently unfair, but it wouldn't be so valuable if we weren't coming from such a staggering lack of diversity. So the fix to historical unfairness, is a bit more unfairness but in the other direction. If it works, there will be no reason to focus on it eventually. It will just be normal.
My reading comprehension is too low to understand what you're trying to say. Can you do a tl;dr?
Right wing politician claiming to care about men's rights and sexism? Sure. This is just another attempt to distract people from the real problems within the government. There should be a single social equalities minister, which is what the role already is, really. It just so happens that misogyny is literally everywhere in the world and that men (as a man myself) are advantaged in numerous ways. Imagine being a woman in Pakistan.
There are some social stigmas and problems from cultural beliefs, such as the idea 'men don't feel' and other bs, but in truth anyone with a brain realises how invalid these arguments are. What we actually need is better education and access to information, so people don't fall into this shit in the first place and can see through the flaws of people around them and not follow into conformism blindly. If anything, the idea of having a male counterpart is just serving to further the divide by continuing to separate people based on superficial qualities. If you really want to end sexism, you need to treat people as equals regardless of sex, and to get others to do the same. It will require lots of activism to do so because far too many people hold discriminatory beliefs towards both sexes that they are taught from a young age and hold emotionally rather than logically.
From what I have observed, so many people claiming to care or talking about 'men's rights' really just have a victim-complex and are very emotionally immature. It's all too often the same people who cry about women being bitches or being shameless onlyfans models. For all the problems women face, it's barely even comparable. That isn't to invalidate sexism against men, but just to mean that they are not even nearly close in terms of discrimination experienced.
You're basically saying that the issues that men face in society is negligible when compared to women, and then go on to give an example of a war ravaged state.
I don't understand how anyone with a brain upvoted this
Men are a serious fucking problem, and it’s time an elected official took ownership of the issue and dealt with it decisively.
When Ken wants a Minister to compete with Barbie
There are such a thing as right arguments made by the wrong people. And also such a thing as deceitfully underhanded intentions.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of a Minister for Men. There are several things wrong with who suggested it.
If thar were the case, what sorts of duties would such a position entail?
I don’t know about UK. In Germany, unmarried fathers are systematically discriminated against. Custody, alimony and financial support from the state are setup all with the mindset that the mother takes care of the children and the father makes financial support. There’s no equal rights there, this is the assumed default. Deviations have to be explained again and again for taxes, child allowance, retirement subsidies and and and. In cases of doubt the money goes to the mother, and there is no arbitration other than going to the courts.
The other thing that comes to mind is the dealing of the police with domestic violence. Whenever anyone calls the police for domestic violence, the police automatically assumes the man is the offender. Even if the man was the caller, it’s he who is taken into custody. This is systematic discrimination.
Do they have shelters and low income housing Just for men? How about custodial rights for divorced men. All the things they have just for women.
Only if the selection of the minister is based on a public vote. A male cat will be filling the seat in no time.
Women have a minister to support women's issues in the government. Men get to walk the streets of major cities at night without fear, and get respect and good pay in their careers. As a man, I feel like I'm getting the better end of the stick, even without ministerial support.
Women have been systematically pushed down for thousands of years, and now they have systems to help bring them back up. It's like being upset someone else gets crutches, because you'd like support too. I mean, sure, wear comfortable shoes, but you don't need support as much as they do. I look forward to the day nobody need crutches.
When you look at support for things such as physical/emotional/financial abuse against men then it's painfully lacking which can be devastating. This alone is a lot more widespread than you may think. Whether this warrants a minister is another question but there are areas which desperately need attention and it's unfair to say just because women get the shitty end of the stick in general that men are not in need to support too.
There are some US states where young women make more money than their male counterparts...
Specifically "young" women, who are more likely to go to and graduate from college. But lose that edge as soon as babies enter the picture.
nooo that would be sexist /s
I'd say theoretically yes. But don't make it two, make it three or you'll again exclude people.
But that minister then has do do their job properly and not just hate on feminism and try to make their lives difficult and do some culture/gender war.
If you want to do it properly find out first how many things there are to do regarding gender. And if maybe one person can work on gender issues. It seems unlikely to me that you need so many people for one topic. Only have many people if it's impossible for them to simultaneously work for men and women.