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

Asklemmy

43821 readers
1152 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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
[–] OptimusPhillip@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As an American whose only knowledge of UK government comes from sporadic episodes of Politics Unboringed, my first thought would be to replace the Minister for Women with a Minister for Gender Equality. They would have all the powers and responsibilities of the Minister for Women, and also gain any powers and responsibilities that a hypothetical Minister for Men would need.

  • If there is a need for a Minister for Men, then that need is met by the Minister for Gender Equality
  • If there is no need for a Minister for Men, then the only thing that changes is that the Minister for Women has a new, less controversial title

Sounds like a win-win to me, but again, I'm a dumb Yank lol

[–] david@feddit.uk 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm afraid that Minister for Gender Equality is far, far more likely to be attacked as woke by the right than Minister for Women.

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] xeddyx@lemmy.nz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I'm unware of "woke" culture (or political terms such as right or left), but why would having a Gender Equality title be the target of attacks? A title like that should also, in theory, cover people who are transgendered, non-binary, intersex etc, so pretty much everyone in the country should be included. I'm not sure why "woke" people would take offence to this? Are they a gender that doesn't fit in any of the currently established genders or something? Wouldn't "woke" people also benefit from any decisions made by this minister, so why would they be offended?

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would be attacked as woke, not by woke.

[–] 520@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So fucking what? Every little thing you propose will be attacked as something by some group. Then, if you're executing it correctly, they'll get bored and move on.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Chill. They did not understand the term. I clarified a bit. I did not state if it is good or bad.

[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Ah, right, sorry. My bad

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago

No, the right wing attacks anything that's "woke". A ministry of gender equality would be labeled "woke" and attacked by the UK's right wing.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's because they don't actually want equality, they want to maintain the status quo which is a power imbalance in favour of men.
A "minister for men" plays in to the false idea that men and women are equal and therefore a having only a "minister for women" is "unfair".
A "minister for gender equality" (so essentially what we have now, since the full job title is "minister for women and equalities") would still rely on acknowledging that there is gender inequality, and that doesn't feed in to the victim fantasy those who are fighting for this bullshit are trying to satisfy.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that is a good idea.

Men and women are different in some fundamental ways, and so equality is the wrong answer. Equal means either putting tampons in the Men's restroom, thus wasting money - or taking them away from women who need them.

It is really hard to make any other statement about how men and women are different. Even making a claim backed by clear facts (hormones make men stronger than women gets some people mad) is controversial. As such I do not want a minister who because a dual mandate can focus on just one. A minister of gender equity that only focuses on Women's issues is not doing the job, but that is an easy thing to do anyway (and the most likely result given that men socially often cannot admit they need help), but a minister going the other way and focusing on men's issues is also bad. By making them separate we can better track budgets, and if they are not equal force justification/discussion of why that should be.

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tampons 100% belong in all bathrooms.