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.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/reactions-pour-in-as-mp-renews-calls-for-official-minister-for-men-356501/

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.

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Kichae@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • 520@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Big P@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s arguing that the rest of the ministers are either consciously or subconsciously making policies that gear more towards men and this role is supposed to be a way to ensure that a woman’s perspective is included. Kind of like having a security engineer at a software company

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That still is basically saying that men don’t need or deserve any help. But stats like suicide, homelessness, and incarceration rates suggest otherwise.

            In the UK, according to my extensive 3 seconds on google, men are nearly 3 times more likely to commit suicide; 5 times more likely to become homeless; and almost 24 times more likely to be incarcerated.

            • Big P@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No not really. You’re assuming that the ministers role is to help women and not help men when in reality it’s to, as I said, try to ensure the perspective of women is included