Some observations on the International Men's Day debate that's just ended in the House of Commons 🧵
First up, I was one of the people who last year took issue with the focus of @NickFletcherMP in the same debate. Credit where due, this year he made the case really well for a national men's health strategy & a minister for men & raised loads of excellent & correct points. >
Quick personal opinion on this one @NickFletcherMP - I think the strongest argument against a MoM is that it implies a false equivalence to the role of the Minister for Women & Equalities. That is a fair & legitimate objection. So I think the full title >
should be Minister for Men's Health & Wellbeing & it should be a brief within DoH, & should have responsibility for developing & implementing a men's health strategy AND a male victims strategy. (I'd also have a separate ministerial brief for boys' education within the DfE.)
The biggest disappointment of the afternoon was with @UKLabour MPs. Not a single backbencher spoke or even, as best I could tell, turned up. (This isn't a swipe at Starmer et al btw, the situation is longstanding.) So not only did not a single Labour MP care enough to take part >
They sent Yasmin Qureshi, Shadow Women & Equalities, to represent the opposition (underlining the point about a minister being a health brief, btw) & offered less than zero. When asked directly whether the Labour party supports a Men's Health Strategy and/or a Minister for Men, >
SHE DIDN'T KNOW. She then read out a long litany of dreadful, shocking statistics about men's health outcomes & behaviours & then added "and this shows why it is so important to have a proper public health strategy for everyone... and that will improve men's health as well."
We often talk about men's health and welilbeing existing as a perennial afterthought in the corridors of power, but she literally used the sentence construction "everyone... and men as well."
The other point about the total absence of Labour backbenchers is that one (only one, tbf) Tory MP made some points about family breakdown which were (IMHO) ill-informed & reactionary. There was nobody there to pull her up & challenge her on it.
That's what happens when you surrender the territory of debate.
One final point, Virginia Crosbie (Tory for Ynys Môn) told the House that she had recently lost her brother to suicide, which puts all other contributions to this debate in their proper perspective. Deepest condolences to her.
Conclusion, lots of strong contributions from Tory, SNP & Ind MPs. I think this is probably the 4th (?) #IMD#InternationalMensDay debate & it feels like every year gets a bit more focused on constructive policy demands & meaningful material action & that is real progress.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ If there isn't anything happening near you, start thinking about what you can do to ensure that next year there is
>
3/ Have a read & a think about the case for a National Men's Health Strategy. There is a gender-specific strategy for women's health but not men's, despite men having worse health outcomes, shorter life expectancy, less healthy lifestyles & less support. menshealthforum.org.uk/strategy-case
First, let me say there is loads in here I agree with, most of the report is scraped from masculinities research by the likes of RW Connell (which I happily lean on heavily myself), and makes the case that boys are still socialized into restrictive & destructive gender scripts, >
especially cultures of violence, misogyny & oppressive hierarchies, and I fully agree that this can and must change. I also fully agree with the aspirations for gender equity & fully agree that the welfare & wellbeing of men & boys is fully interlinked & >
A thread of thoughts about this case, with lots of content warnings for sexual violence & abuse. > lbc.co.uk/news/horny-24-…
Firstly & most importantly, Imogen Brooke has been cleared by a jury who heard all the evidence & I didn't, so nothing I say is meant to suggest the jury got it wrong, I have no reason to say so. Nonetheless the case has thrown up some extremely important & noteworthy issues. >
First, a technical point. Brooke was not charged with rape as rape requires a penis. This legal distinction is hurtful to victims of this offence, who usually do consider themselves to have been raped. Legal academic Siobhan Weare has written well on this cambridge.org/core/journals/…
Even if there were any truth in this (which I v much doubt) I cannot conceive of any possible harm or negative consequence to this. Have you seen the shit that goes down in early years reading books?
Can't believe we're terrifying children with the thought that a tiger might come in at tea-time, trash the house & drink all daddy's beer.
A Cat in a Hat turning up when parents are out and throwing the goldfish on the floor?
"This bear is from Peru & likes marmalade sandwiches,"
"OK"
"This bear speaks in zen koans, likes honey and his best friends & a donkey, a piglet, a tiger and a kangaroo."
"OK"
"This bear likes to be known as 'they' instead of he or she."
"WAAAAAAAH!"