This site's most popular ever post (link) was two years ago when a Minister for Men manifesto was published (see left).
This week, Mark Brooks, posted an article on the hugely popular independent Conservative web-site, Conservative Home, outlining why one is needed. It sparked off a fair old debate.
"In an ideal world, there should not be a Minister for any gender because Ministers should be Ministers for everyone, however we are where we are."
Agree 100%. We don't really want a Minister for men, but teh creation os a Minister for Women combined with all the disgusting misandry of this government has made the creation of such a position an absolute must.
It woudl take a whole election cycle to just begin to undo some of he damage done, then perhaps anotehr 5 year to actually start working on equality for men and making rela progress.
Posted by: John Kimble | Friday, 01 May 2009 at 01:32
Well said John Kimble. In Conservative circles (see comments on Mark Brook's article), a key reservation about having a Minister for Men is the cost given that we already have a bloated government bureaucracy. It's a valid argument, but only up to a point. I think such a role could potentially bring enormous cost savings / productivity gains for the country as a whole. The post need only be kept for as long at it takes to dismantle the extremely divisive, corrupt and anti-competitive legal structures that feminists have brought in and which are taking their toll on society and the economy. We need to move to having laws "by all for all", not laws "by special interest groups for special interest groups". To get there though, we need a heavy-hitter reformer at top level of politics.
Posted by: mike | Monday, 04 May 2009 at 06:46