The Arguments Against a Ministry For Men
The goal has existed since some time last century. I first encountered the idea when I met Kerry Bevin, who has been and still is I imagine, passionate about the idea.
It had never found any political support before the current Conservative’s recent proposal, as far as I am aware apart from the Republican Party that existed in the early 2000s. Correct me if I’m wrong there.
While I’ve seen, and as we are seeing now, views on why we need a Men’s Ministry I don’t recall anyone expressing views against the idea until one comment in this recent post Ministry for men.
My ambivalence is possibly no more than like others who haven’t thought past; why should it even be necessary?
But when the idea surfaced the initial reaction from some commentators was, without explanation, we don’t need one.
That begs the question, if I thought about this a bit more what might be the reasons for adopting that position.
Help me out here. Why do you think some people would not want a Ministry for Men in the political arena?
Would the first problem be a conflict for the Ministry of Children.
As it stands at the moment both the Ministry of Women and the Children’s Ministry can adobe complementary views without having to contend with any male opinions.
Male politicians don’t want to deal with the potential conflicts. You could see this being a job for the nearest usual idiot in much the same way Michsel Cullen as finance minister created the revenue portfolio to distance himself from child support issues.
The party proposal would need to be accompanied by an individual who campaigned as that potential minister, I would think, to actually give the idea some credibility.
It might be simpler than that.
It’s still a growing problem, which could be expressed in terms of overseas situations that have developed ahead of ours.
These issues currently sit with other institutions like Corrections, WINZ and the Coroner’s Office.
That’s covenient for politicians rather than having a dedicated office with the political concern queuing at the door.
It would be quite a queue, and you could add in those that weren’t getting anywhere with the Human Rights Commission.
When you express it in these terms, I’m left with a question … Are women actually advancing in themselves or are men being crushed for the purpose of that illusion?
Do the adequate number of male politicians find it in their best interests ( as has long been the case) to ignore control or crush any real consideration of male issues.
And the comedy show of course is that you’ve got Feminists trying to own both positions;
Men are the problem
Feminists are here to save men.
And here we are slipping between the cracks.
Have a look at this ‘human rights’ decision.
Especially this bit.
Little must also address whether the general human rights situation in China suggests human rights – as defined under international obligations that New Zealand has committed to – are not valued or understood.
If human rights are valued in China, then the Court of Appeal said Little must be satisfied whether the rule of law in China is sufficient to secure those rights, as well as whether the judiciary is free from political control.
The decision of the court of appeal written by Justice Helen Winkelmann, who has since been promoted to Chief Justice, is another twist in the saga which has dragged on for nearly 10 years.
Speaking from the United States where he is a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, Kim’s lawyer Dr Tony Ellis said the Justice Minister faced a “difficult if not impossible task” to extradite his client.
“The lengthy judgment tackles the major human rights issues raised in terms of
international human rights law, and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in a very friendly
human rights way.
First tell us what you think a Ministry For Men will do
What changes will it create and it will require (Legal environment)?
Can it create the environment for safer communities
starting with the protection of the family unit?
And including the protection of human relationships against interloping and abuse by the state?
And including the protection of a child’s right to have access to both parents and not to one or the other?
And abuse of authority, expropriation and defrauding as in the case of child support?
WE can hold a public masturbation over nonsensical political goals and aims or we can focus on the realistic changes those promoting a ministry of men suggest such ministry will bring as an improvement in the lives of men.
If our research institutions have a functional approach to urgent issues but when did we last see something like this. Commercial conflict also;
A Massey University researcher is hoping his new study of the high suicide rate in the building industry will inform leaders and help break down barriers.
Andy Walmsley is interviewing more than 500 men in the industry to find out more about their wellbeing, their perceptions about seeking help and what barriers could be standing in the way of this.
Listening to ZB this morning, (they will be continuing the chat still), I heard that is was Mens’ Health Week, I did not know, they chatted to Dr L. Sullivan about getting to the doctor if your’e not feeling good, that a website Men’s Health Week has a 90 second health check guide, leading onto the host of the show saying that this was a strange period for Men, men being put down and so on.
The fact that our Men in the construction sector are committing suicide, is being looked into, is a great thing, the statistic that warrants this study coming from our suicides numbers in Men, it must be made such that this information is used to highlight Men’s lot, or not, in general and not let the media minimize/sideline the non construction worker suicides.
This is the sort of work a Ministry of Men could be doing, a voice, necessary until such a time whereby we can live as New Zealanders, happier, equaler, more patriotic.
I’m not surprised about this.
When men attract some degree of sympathy we get a bit of media attention.
The Conservatives raise the issue of a Ministry for men just before for Men’s Health Week, and the media responds.
I hate being negative but this gives the impression of chance. But it’s this week’s news. Next week we’ll be back to the same old same old.
#11,,,….did some one say media attention?….there is the momentum
and it was not chance, did any one even know it was Men’s Health week?,,, I thought there was a well off charity tasked with that realm of concern,, must have been too busy gettin new tattoos I guess.
I’m wondering if some parties would fear a Maori European confrontation of what position the ministry should adopt on certain issues?
some history implies this has always been true.
The argument is the same for women, why a Ministry.
The argument is it’s necessary, to examine women’s issues.
To gather information, to make better decisions.
When they see something, they can tell the public.
“Jo Cribb is a consultant and the former CEO of the Ministry for Women.”
So a relatively trivial subject, but with gendered conclusions.
“Theories to explain the differences in men and women’s view of their bodies focus on that women are more frequently confronted with ideal and unachievable bodies. Beauty is thought in Western societies as essential for women, optional for men.”
I don’t think that’s true, boys see firemen calendars as well.
Many boys have body image issues, that become real problems.
Obsessed with fitness, obsessed with there image.
Boys are subject to expectations, they are just different from girls.
I suspect in suicide statistics, it is a problem for males.
Those not measuring up, thinking there are not sexually attractive.
“Rather than scorn these fellows, thinking how brash they are showing off their enormous bellies, I have come to think maybe they have got it right.”
Geez, now there’s some casual sexism.
But you must give the author credit, it’s well said.
What would a Minister for Men say, what would be researched.
Would we see the bad outcomes, health issues for men.
It is not wrong, for women to have an opinion.
Funded by the Crown, tasked with study of women.
The media only publishing one opinion, is different.
Government making policy with one opinion, is different.
If it’s not necessary for men, it’s also not for women.