this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
59 points (76.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43947 readers
685 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] charonn0@startrek.website 23 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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.

[โ€“] Kichae@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

[โ€“] charonn0@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't this basically the same as arguing that men don't deserve or need help?

[โ€“] peter@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[โ€“] charonn0@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] peter@feddit.uk -1 points 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

[โ€“] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, you're arguing that "all lives matter". You're missing the point.

[โ€“] charonn0@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No I'm not. And no I'm not.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)