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.

It was just an observation about how we frame different things in accordance with social narratives. Wasn't really trying to address your point.

Where did I say women shouldn't get to vote? 🤣

I mean, tis certainly an odd situation when the same people that complain about men not addressing their issues also protest against initiatives designed to help men address their issues.

In practice, that means women doing all the work whilst our issues are sidelined.

The ability to cooperate with the rest of the tribe is far more important than the ability to fight.

Even the best fighter can go down if his opponent gets lucky, as any martial artist will confirm. Cooperate to build a ditch and palisade around the village, and the enemy can't get to you or your kids to land that lucky blow.

All I can say is that I live in Dr Luke’s constituency and he has only very recently been trying to make himself heard.

IMHO this is just another PR stunt and this man has done NOTHING for the past few years to help local people (apart from recently posting pointless videos of himself parading down the ‘High Street’ and popping onto shops to make his presence felt). The only ‘good’ thing he’s done (though it didn’t make an actual difference) was to call out delay tactics of our borough council that saw us lose a much needed NHS diagnostic/day care unit within the town.

Then why why quote me?

No offence but you don't seem very knowledgeable on human history. I don't profess to be an expert but I know that groups in pretty much every culture have practiced/refined the art of combat. Samurais, knights, mongols, Filipino warriors, Persians, Africans tribes, Spartans etc etc.

Banding together won't guarantee victory if the enemy also band together and are highly skilled like the Spartans or are all wearing armour and chainmail. Digging a trench won't do much. Even massive moats and castle walls were scaled with purpose made ladders. Huge doors were knocked down with battering rams. Sometimes the enemy would just camp around the castle and wait it out until the occupants starved etc.

And yes any fighter can go down in a freak occurrence, but that in no way means it's not worth having skills.

How often do you think the average guy will get lucky with somebody like Mike Tyson or a pro MMA fighter? What about a few blokes taking on an SAS squad in the woods? Do you think it's likely they'll get a few lucky shots in?

And all those combat skills relied on group cooperation amongst the assailants. It's rarely about who punches harder, or even who has the biggest army, but about who is able to outwit, outflank, and outclass the enemy. This relies on thinking skills amongst the commanders and mutual trust and cooperation amongst the ranks.

that in no way means it's not worth having skills.

Did I claim it wasn't worth having skills? Don't make shit up and pretend that I said it when I didn't.

"The ability to cooperate with the rest of the tribe is far more important than the ability to fight" doesn't mean "it's not worth learning to fight at all". Read what I actually type.

I've not read all of the replies.

But if this is genuinely an attempt to support men with where they fit in a world that's changed, to support mental health, to support how positive masculinity can exist? Then I think it's a great idea.

If it's because "there's a women's minister so there should be a men's minister" then GTFU.

Sadly, I think it will be due to the latter that it's being raised. But... stay with me here for a second... what if that doesn't matter? And by having a minister for men, we can actually address some of the inequalities that harm both men and women? Around mental health stigma and provision? Flexible working so men can be there to be part of kids' lives? Just because it's being raised for a BS reason, doesn't mean it couldn't be used for good.

He says that the rationale for the women’s minister is that many important challenges are cross-cutting and thus can’t be adequately left to individual departments.

He says that if that logic is right then the same applies to men’s issues, which are also cross-cutting and important.

Of course that is a reasonable position to argue. Being affronted that it got 90 mins of Westminster Hall time because you disagree with the argument is authoritarian.

@Lemonthyme If it's because "there's a women's minister so there should be a men's minister" then GTFU.

Why? “We have bishops in the House of Lords, so we should ensure the Chief Rabbi and prominent Imams are there too” is a strong argument, even if you are against having a Lords at all.

I don't really see how you could have read my whole comment and picked that out. Just to be objectionable? I'm very clear on where it could bring benefit.

And as I'm an atheist, I see our representation of religious leaders in government as appalling. Just us and Iran I believe. Not a reason to increase it.

Well because I agree with the rest of your post, but disagree with that bit. I’m not just sorting posters into friend or foe.

Now you’ve explained your view which is interesting.

If there were a men’s minister but no women’s minister, would you also see the procedural parity argument for having a women’s minister as a bad one? You felt it was not just bad but so bad it merited a gtfu.

(I’m also an atheist, but think that a lords that included Christians bishops as of right but excluded other faith leaders would be a worse one. I think one can be an atheist and still see the value of having different important traditions represented in our second chamber. Obviously that should include atheist/humanist perspectives too).

No, because I suspect you're spoiling for a fight.

Women are much more likely to become victims of sexual crimes, are more likely to be in poverty, are more likely to be single parents. If you want to read about the VAST myriad of ways in which sexism has impacted women's lives, read "invisible women". PPE is a fine example.

There are experiences which are because of misogyny.

But some men on the internet, as you are well aware but are being obtuse about are not thinking of structural improvements to support removing the impact of misogyny on everyone but are doing so from a point of obstinacy. A knuckle dragging approach of "duh... there's a women's minister, why not a mens..."

So I suggested that could even be accepted, if that is the cause (much as I feel those men need to gtfu) and subverted for good.

But if you're just here to spoil for a fight I'm very disinterested.

I'm really not "spoiling for a fight". Not unless you just mean discussing. My opening gambit was to ask you why you held a view you'd expressed, and give what I felt was a counterexample. Is that really out-of-bounds?

There are a few different ideas here: i) should there be a men's minister (I don't have a strong view on this. Like you, I think it could do some good. I also think that additional layers of responsible ministers doesn't always help), ii) is the procedural parity argument persuasive?

I'm also not militant on that second one, but really interested in how strong the reaction from some posters is against it. Not just that it's unpersuasive, but that it's an affront ("Beyond belief", "pandering", "gtfu", "knuckle-dragging" etc., grounds to disqualify him from debate).

It's really not knuckle-dragging to say: "the argument for X is Y. Y also applies to this other situation Z, therefore maybe Y is an argument for Z too".

The argument for having a women's minister as a cross-government portfolio, is not just that there are serious issues to address, but that they are cross-cutting across portfolios. The MP's argument is that mens issues are likewise cross-cutting (e.g. suicide, abuse, your example of supporting positive masculinity, are not single-department issues).

That's not saying other issues that have cross-departmental ministers portfolios are unimportant or less important. It's odd, to me, to react as if it does mean that.

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…

By that token VAWG is handled by the justice minister.

Well, I still think 50 men will beat 50 women or children in unarmed combat regardless of tactics in the majority of cases. Of course there are many 'what if' situations though.

Being 'able to fight' is a somewhat ambiguous term because when talking about armies it comes down to the ability to work together rather than solely individual skill. However this still counts as their 'ability to fight'.

You said that 'the ability to fight' is less important. You didn't appear to be talking about an individual's ability to fight being less important than a group's ability to fight through tactical coordination because the examples you gave were about building trenches and avoiding fighting.

I maintain that an army of spartan warriors will likely beat an army of expert trench diggers.

I think we're largely in agreement here, and the percieved disagreement has been because I define "ability to fight" more narrowly than you.

You didn't appear to be talking about an individual's ability to fight being less important than a group's ability to fight through tactical coordination because the examples you gave were about building trenches and avoiding fighting.

Modern warfare tends not to look like 50 men lined up to do unarmed combat against 50 other men, or women, or children. Defence is an important part of combat, including during attacks. Trivial example: armouring an aircraft in the right places (the engines) defends it from being shot down during a raid, massively increasing both the likelihood of the raid being successful and the likelihood of the aircraft and crew returning to base in a fit state to fly again. Even in terms of ability to fight, physical strength isn't always key. Some of the best Soviet snipers were women and women also served in the Red Army as tank crews.

We aren't living in the days where combat looked like "Ugg strong, Ugg have big club, Ugg win fight". That's not to claim that physical strength doesn't ever matter, but that, in modern warfare, it matters less.

If the expert trench diggers have grenades that they can lob from the safety of their trenches, my money is on the sappers.

Fair enough. On a side note, though, I think the Ukraine war has confounded quite a few people's expectations. People assumed any modern war between relatively developed countries would all be drone strikes etc, but the Ukraine war has featured a huge amount of 'boots on the ground' fighting in the streets type of engagements.

You still have to send people in to occupy territory.

Ukraine has also showed us that access to resources is important. Whether Ukraine stands or falls will depend on whether we keep sending them weapons.