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.

Here we have the typical contradiction....

Feminist 1: "If men are gonna moan about their issues then they should do what we've done and address them".

Feminist 2: "OMG, how dare they do what we've done? International Men's Day! Minister for Men! The bloody cheek!"

Among other things, a minister for men could research why men are over represented in crime stats, why they appear unable to contain violet impulses etc. It could consider how to keep men out of prison and address their behaviour towards women.

Massive generalisations incoming….
I read an interesting article about the lack of men on the dating scene. Apparently their needs are met by hook up apps, and they tend not to be proactive about looking for more. Their behaviour tends towards destruction of things that are actually beneficial for them- if I remember correctly they do better when they are partnered, whereas women do better single!

Currently many men don’t seem to work at creating a healthy balanced life. They often expect women to do the healthy balanced bit- facilitating them. It would be good if men were taught independence and self care.

And this. We want men to sort their shit out. Have at it, lads. Just don’t expect women to do it for you.

I’d welcome this. The only thing is the women’s brief is Women and Equalities. That might need thinking about if there is a men’s brief.

If we are going to have a minister for men can we have a government capable of defining men and women first please? That way we can at least ensure we won't get a male in each position.

If it was to change attitudes with education from a young age so the Andrew tates of the world were seen for what they are.
Boys being educated that violent porn and extreme sex acts are not normal nor pressure put on girls/women to do so.
Domestic violence is never excusable.

I'm sure there are many more issues that men need to understand and it has to start somewhere.
But what it can't be is a look what they're getting that we're not.

I suspect a large part of this may be down to evolutionary factors. Prior to the last couple of hundred years we had millennia where the world was a much more violent place.and life expectancy was much lower. Mammals don't evolve particularly quickly so it's unlikely men evolved with longevity as a key driver.

It's likely that most people today are here because somewhere in their distant bloodline there were men that successfully fought to survive. We can't say for sure that the human race would've survived so long if men had been less violent and testosterone driven.

To some degree it's better if both sexes work together to achieve their goals IMO. If men flat out refused to entertain the concept of equality we'd be pretty screwed in all honesty. Who holds the most power has always ultimately come down to who can win the fight, whether it's a physical fight or one fought with guns and bombs.

I think it's a great idea. Thinking about men's needs and problems as a distinct thing rather than just treating them as the needs and problems of the "default human" will be good for men and women.

Because nothing can be discussed about women without men butting in and talking over us. As if men don't already have enough privilege,power and attention.

It’s a Westminster Hall debate. They exist to test ideas. It’s a long way off happening.

In the 1970s when 2nd wave feminists were fighting for Women's refuges and Rape Crisis lines, marching for equal pay, equal job opportunities, laws against rape in marriage, against VAWG, reclaim the night, men were just getting in the way, and still are. They will turn out in millions to protest wars in far off countries, but complete silence about the epidemic of VAWG. Because women don't matter.

Is this actually true though?

I remember when a councillor raised the possibility of a day to talk about male suicide etc and a feminist councillor basically sat there laughing and rolling her eyes until she was asked what was so funny. Her response was something like "oh it just makes me laugh. I'm sat here surrounded by men. Every day is men's day."

I highly doubt any of the men surrounding her were homeless veterans or drug addicts etc. I struggle to see the reverse situation happening. The man would be crucified!

Seems her argument was that the homeless/suicidal men can wait until she (a privileged individual by comparison) has equal representation in her political day job.

Intersting question.

Do you know any councils where a male councilor could truthfully say he's sat there surrounded by women?

I think there should be a minister for men. There are certain issues that are more relevant to men and having a minister looking into the correct support seems wise?

Well, you have to consider who will be the ones sent off to fight those wars? Also that there is much more violence perpetrated against men than women, which isn't the fault of the non-violent majority of males who are just getting on with life trying to support their families - anything that happens to them will likely impact their family too.

I watched an interesting debate the other day about voting rights. I went in with the attitude that the guy was talking shit and who was he to question who should vote.

I ended up not entirely agreeing with him but thinking he did have a point. He asked the question whether the groups who will be most impacted by a decision should have more say in that decision, mentioning the fact that only men have to sign up for the mandatory draft/selective service in the US.

His question was whether it's ethically right that somebody should be able to vote in a politician that might start a war when they won't be one of the people that has to go and risk their own life fighting said war.

Interesting question.

So you are suggesting that male politicians and voters shouldn't be part of decisions about pregnancy, fertility, abortion, birth control, domestic violence, provision of early childcare and various other topics that only or predominantly impact women?

No, I can't say I do. But that doesn't mean it won't benefit suicidal men to have increased visibility of their issues.

The biggest stress factors for men, repeatedly identified by studies and charities, are apparently financial/work stress and the fear of failure to provide for their family. Not issues relating to toxic masculinity as many would have us believe.

I think this makes it arguably a gender issue and I'm often sceptical when a poster justifies her decision to work part time with the argument that "my hubby loves his job". I think a lot of men feel like they have to fulfil the provider role and society seems to believe this too as men are statistically much more likely to be divorced when being the lower earner or a SAHD - a dynamic which is less pronounced the other way round.

I’m not seeing the issue, rights go both ways - alternatively get rid of the minister for women. We can’t demand fairness and special treatment

I think women should lead the discussion of things that affect their bodies.

I think most women feel the same way. I remember the absolute meltdown when Labour introduced 'Lily' Madigan as their minister for women.

Actually I think the work / stress / failure thing is toxic masculinity.

It's the idea that a man should be able to do this stuff and is a failure in the eyes of the world and his loved ones if he isn't.

In some men, that feeling of failure turns outwards into anger against the family who make these "demands" on him (actually his projections of his own self image), and we get DV, in some cases family annihilation.

In others, it turns inwards into depression and suicide.

Toxic masculinity is toxic for men as well as women.

Oh, and the reason lower earning or SAHD's are more likely to be divorced could equally well be that some of the men within those numbers are the cocklodgers who contribute neither financially nor domesticly, who wives eventually get sick of carrying.

Could this not work both ways?

What would you call the non-working women with high earning husbands who don't work and have cleaners etc? There are plenty of these types in the upper middle classes.