Minister for men.

So, Nick Fletcher (conservative MP for Don Valley) has recently suggested a minister for men. This seems like a fairly reasonable idea, after all, Kemi Badenoch is currently minister for women, so why shouldn't men have their own MP who can focus on issues relating specifically to men?

Personally, I'm not a fan of this kind of identity politics, its all very left wing ideology and is always going to promote discord rather than harmony. After all, why not a minister for black people? or a minister for Christians, or how about a minister for the elderly? Where would you stop? A minister for trans people? That could get interesting, but you will inevitably get starkly overlapping needs, its the third rail of identity politics, its where the controversial theory of intersectionality collapses in on itself, because the root of all this is fundamentally flawed.

Men have unique issues, but not all men are the same, promoting women as part of all-women shortlists (as The Labour Party love to do) doesn't affect men at the top of the pyramid, it doesn't hurt the wealthy men, the upper class men who have lived in a world of unimaginable wealth compared to the rest of us. It does hurt the working class man though, and of course, the poor people who usually vote Labour are now forced to vote for someone who may not be the best pick for the position. They have a female candidate simply because she is a woman.

Or who could ever forget Jess Phillips openly mocking Philip Davies when he suggested men's issues could be debated in Parliament? And that was 8 years ago!

Women (and I mean women on the far left) just don't want to admit that the working class man is more and more being left behind in todays society. If this isn't bad enough, not only do women not care, they actively want to shut down the voice of anyone who does. This is activism, this is ideology, this is very much like; Well its not very much like, it IS fascism! And its not going away anytime soon.

Martha Gill at The Guardian has regurgitated all the usual far left tropes in her latest article

Men don't need a minister, women have already covered that for them

Because as we all know, feminism works for men really, really well.

But the meat of her argument remains the same, women need a minister because "patriarchy" Gill has what she wants and doesn't like the idea that the vast majority of men in this country who are disenfranchised might get a voice, but this is flawed logic.

Why do we see the likes of Andrew Tate at the forefront of the ongoing culture war in the battle of the sexes? Because men (particularly young men and boys) have nobody to guide them, the very few who do speak out are quickly derided, ridiculed and every attempt is made to shut them down. We see this regularly with the likes of Jordan Peterson or even Warren Farrell. The truth is, most young men will not see feminism as equality no matter how much feminists try and push the idea onto them.

In her article Gill even suggests that a minister for men will only hurt women

"Rather like appointing a minister for levelling up and levelling down"

No, its not rather like this at all, but Gill also includes a link to the current gender pay gap, a pay gap that exists principally because women take lots of time off when they decide to have children. Of course, its completely up to women if they want children or not, nobody is forcing them to become barefoot and pregnant for a decade or so. This is a womans individual choice, if she chooses to bear children and then take on the lions share in raising them, then this is her problem and hers alone. 

And lets not forget another simple truth. A LOT of women like the idea of being a stay at home mum, certainly a lot more women like the idea as opposed men wanting to be a stay at home dad. Of course, there is nothing wrong with either, we all have the choice to make, just make sure you pick the right partner and have the relevant conversations.

The most incredible part of Gills article is at the end. In summing up she claims that what men actually need is feminism and they already have that covered.

Good luck in selling that idea, its been around for 50 years and is being increasingly rejected among men.

"The need to get men into the caring profession, and tackling misogyny"

"This is exactly what feminists have campaigned for, they want men & boys to curb their misogyny"

According to Gill, men do not have problems, they are the problem, if only they could somehow be fixed!

In what will surprise absolutely nobody, Martha Gill is a feminist who cut her journo teeth as a lobby columnist for the far left Huffington Post

 Andrew Tate is laughing all the way to the bank