MPs just debated having a Minister for Men

[NotDarkGothicMama]

Conservative MP Dr Luke Evans had 1.5 hours of Parliamentary time today to debate his idea of having a Minister for Men and Boys. He reckons women have a minister, so men should too.

Link to what he has to say about it: drlukeevans.org

I'm sympathetic to the cause of men suffering from MH issues. I think it's beyond belief though that precious time has been wasted pandering to yet another man making something for women about himself.

Nicola Sturgeon would be up for that!

This is not a surprise, 'mens rights and mental health' have been oppressing women more and more

On the face of it I'm not seeing the problem. Do you think it's going to take something away from women and girls? Or that the kind of problems that men and boys are facing are not worth addressing? Or something else?

I think that the problem is the way he's framing it as "women have something men don't have and that's not fair". It's possible to talk about men's MH without making it about women somehow having more rights/representation than men.

I watched the video. He gave a list of reasons why he thought such a role is necessary and there being a similar role for women was just one of them. It's a fairly obvious comparison, surely? Would you have been happier with the idea if he hadn't mentioned women at all?

I think it naturally feels a bit like a slap in the face because it’s obviously a reaction to women and girls having a minister.

The minister for women and girls was created because Parliament and government itself was originally set up for men and is still male-centred as society is male-centred and because WG face the very serious issues of discrimination and VAWG (as well as the female-unique conditions of pregnancy, birth and maternity). VAWG especially is perpetrated by men against WG… the position was created to give those who are struggling for equal and safe treatment from the oppressing sex to have their sex-based struggles represented.

What sex-based struggles are men and boys facing that is specifically because of their sex and not their other intersecting identities (class, race, religion, sexuality) and that isn’t being addressed elsewhere? Mental health is handled by the health minister…

Now of course I think government should help men and boys I just don’t see how a specific minister would help with that… they could create spaces for the treatment of men and boys mental health that exclude women I suppose… that one issue could be managed by the health minister though. It’s an interesting topic. But the argument for it does seem to, on the face of it, just be ‘I want one because they have one’.

Oh good.

Somebody needs to sort them out.

I don't know the detail of the debate, but I don't think it's a terrible idea. There is a lot of work needed on what it is to be a man, toxic masculinity and MH.

Sorry, I am male and a huge feminist - (see some of my other postings on here!) but I don't see the issue with this - if there is a minister for men that has no bearing on any other ministerial role - so I am not sure how it is or isn't related to their being a minister for women...

arguably you have a minister where there is a sizeable portfolio to deal with - there is absolute clarity in the value in having a minister for women - no-one needs spelling out all the various issues that can and should be tackled...

but none of those are impacted by or linked to having someone who deals with the sizeable portfolio of issues around men...

So, one doesn't affect the other.
But is it needed...

I think probably the answer is yes - there is a lot of evidence around mental health issues / crime stats / educational shortfall / etc. which would suggest that having someone with a portfolio which focused on solving some of those issues might generally be a positive for society not just the men / boys involved...

let us also consider it from a 'females perspective' would it be helpful to women if there were to be a focus on solutions for male mental health issues? we see a higher percentage of men getting into crime stats - is that worth focusing on?

nothing in society is isolated, but any minister's job is to raise society as a whole, from one specific angle - so having a men's minister is not about advocating for more pubs showing football / opportunities for MAMILs to ride around on bikes / promoting weird and wonderful hobbies which the wives can't discuss on mumsnet - it is to look at the same set of issues that impact us all, but from a specific angle - that should benefit all.

I disagree, it doesn’t take anything away from women to have a minister for men.
I’m sure if there was a minister for men and not women that women would frame it in the same way but flipped.

Your perspective seems quite antagonistic and unnecessary imo.

I listened to an interview with - I assume - Luke Evas, when this was initially proposed a while ago and it made sense. The issues boys and young men are encountering and turning to questionable online help needs good Government policy to comeuppance with better sources of help.

It strikes me more as a reaction to the the attention on the toxic manosphere, Adolescence etc.

Yes, there is a huge issue with VAWG being perpetrated by men. So why not have someone who has a remit to look at what's going wrong for/with men and boys, and what we can do as a society to fix these endemic issues? Is the low educational attainments for many boys a causal factor? Is the desperate state of child and young adult mental health services in the country making it harder to nip these problems in the bud?

That was my thought! Are they going to staff all the services with men too? That'd be fucking impressive.

Well people want men to do better as thry call it so will men just do better because women tell them too? Does it really work like that

Women have a minister but instead of women thinking maybe this may help men do better they dont want that they want ro be special and only have their own?

There are very real issues at the moment that are affecting men, and especially teenaged boys. I think it would be valuable for it to be a specific ministerial brief in government.

Addressing the influences on young men, and MH issues in men, will ultimately benefit women, so I don't see a problem. In fact as the mother of daughters and GM of DGDs I'd very much welcome it.

@akkakkand @GasperyJacquesRobertsyou make good points that if it doesn’t take away from women and girls then why not have one. I agree with that - especially with the treatment /help with crime and violence or mental health of men.

You also both mention education shortfalls… boys get the exact same educational opportunities as girls. Do you suggest that boys are given more resources and / or financing than girls for their education? Because that seems to be taking us back a bit to when girls got less education and opportunity than boys did… the fear is that we lifted WG up to get them equality but now MB want to be lifted… further up again possibly? I suppose that would be the worry for me.

I think I am happy for MB to get a minister because you both made a good point about it addressing societal issues and being for the greater good as a whole. I just worry that it will result in WG being stomped on as MB climb up the ladder again.

There is a spectrum of what a man can be:

• toxic masculinity
• the healthy mid-section of a man confident in being male - but not seeing that as a ticket to selfish / boorish / toxic behaviour - an equal to women - and supportive to men and women - etc. etc.
• at the other end emasculated as the only solution to toxic masculinity

The problem is that we have too many role models at the top end of that
too many suggestions that the only solution is the bottom end
and very few good role models or ways of bringing up boys to be that middle section...

yet, most of us will know boys and men who are content in themselves - supportive to others / don't see themselves as superior / fathers who put time into their children on an equal basis / who put their wives first / who balance their use of time to be fair across a family / etc. etc. - but there is no general understanding of what this means - what does it mean to be a healthy version of a man (equally good question for women) - if we could start to understand that more in society, then we could look at what influences take people towards or away from that model...

I think it’s a reasonable idea. I think we should look at the way we have constructed our society and how well it works for different groups and how we could modify it to work better for different groups. Equality impact assessments were meant to help with this but have failed miserably.

There are issues for boys and men. It’s very clear our education system. Especially in early years, is suited more to girls than boys.

I think we should look at this.

I'd be ok with this, so long as they sort it out themselves and not try to slide into stuff already set up for women - or expect women to run it.

your worries are valid - and ideally would not be ignored, but it is possible to hold in parallel:

• a regard for those valid concerns
• a need to still resolve issues that are apparent...

when it comes to something like education - we have to be very careful to break out of this age-old habit of saying that it is for one or other group... we need to be looking at all groups (ideally we make it work for every individual but policy can never be that granular)...

there is no need to alter anything that is being done for girls, in order to offer more to some boys - and much as there have always been some girls who succeeded, but many didn't so there was a need to address the balance (e.g. in STEM etc.) so this is not about all boys at all - there are many cohorts of boys going through schools where the current system works well for them - but there are some very blunt stats around about the failing groups in education and currently it appears to be mainly a cross-over between poorer sections of society / white / male - if you happen to be born as an impoverished working class white boy, your chances of getting to higher education are low

Experimental OfS analysis (based on modelled probabilities) shows that 97 per cent of 18 to 19 year old white British young males who received free school meals are in the group that are least likely to enter higher education.

The analysis also shows that 91 per cent of white young males from IMD (index of multiple deprivation) quintile 1 areas and 84 per cent of white young males from POLAR quintile 1 areas are in the group least likely to enter higher education.

https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/equality-of-opportunity/effective-practice/white-british-males-from-low-socioeconomic-status-backgrounds/

None of that need affect programs which work with girls who need to push through the many barriers to achieve their potential - but alongside that there is a clear need for someone to be tackling some cohorts of boys...

Role models are incredibly important. A lot of kids, particularly poor ones, grow up with fathers who are either entirely absent or just drift in and out of their children's lives.

If you're a boy then your most obvious role model is going to be your own father. If he's a disinterested waste of space then what does that say about you? And who are you going to pick as an alternative? Andrew Tate et al?

I actually think this is a very good idea.

I’m a now retired teacher and the Andrew Tate type stuff is a big problem.

Absolutely - the obvious people filling those spaces are:

• teachers
• sports coaches
• youth leaders

but there is so much more room in that space

Well, good. Male mental health is in the toilet at a societal level, causing them and us untold
violence and misery and destruction of lives.

Why would it be a bad thing for someone to have a remit which focuses on that?

I don't have issue with this and think it is a good idea.