"This is a conversation that necessarily involves some discomfort, especially on the part of women"
Yeah Richard, that's because the feminists you've made yourself beholden to HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR MEN AND BOYS. When exactly does it become incumbent upon you to WAKE UP and ACTUALLY DO what you claim to have a desire to do? You're not interested in playing a zero-sum game? THAT'S GREAT! HOW GOOD FOR YOU. Unfortunately, as comments like the aforementioned should have made abundantly clear to you, THEY ARE PLAYING A ZERO-SUM GAME AGAINST MEN AND BOYS... and you've only gone and made yourself the pawn of these institutions and their insipid and destructive ideological dogmas.
"In fact I think anyone that does not feel some discomfort about the conversation probably should not be in it."
Really? REALLY....? So if I have no discomfort or shame is declaring myself CONCERNED, merely CONCERNED, for the WELL-BEING of BOYS, I shouldn't be apart of the discourse or effort to redress those concerns? What exactly do you mean by this statement, seriously, having made a statement like that obligates you to ELABORATE and JUSTIFY such an inhuman attitude towards THE VERY PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TO SEEK TO HELP. WHY RICHARD? WHY SHOULD WE FEEL "DISCOMFORT" ABOUT RECOGNIZING THE POSITIVE VALUE OF HELPING MEN AND BOYS TO FLOURISH IN LIFE! WHY SHOULD I BE ASHAMED OF CARING ABOUT A BOY'S ABILITY TO HAVE A FUTURE WORTH PURSUING??? WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
It's become quite clear that your "initiatives" are going to be used by the dominant feminist institutions, who have LONG opposed ANY FORM of concern or consideration for men and boys (as ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ENEMY THEY REQUIRE TO JUSTIFY THEIR MONOPOLY UPON GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND SOCIAL POWER), to respond to the increasingly difficult to hide or deny degradation of male well-being by PRETENDING to be doing something about it; but let's be real Richard, it's business as usual, you and your organization are nothing more than a facade behind which these institutions, who have ZERO interest in doing anything but CONTINUING to pursue their desire to facilitate the further degradation of men and boys, can hide their true intentions and propagate their socially subversive agenda with impunity... only now, thanks to you, instead of using the protection of women and girls as their excuse, they'll be appealing to the pretense of compassion for men and boys as an excuse for the HARM they inflict upon men and boys. AWESOME! CONGRATS RICHARD!
"But the most important task at the launch stage is to set the right tone and adopt the right frame. It is vital to allay reasonable fears over distracting from or even displacing the necessary ongoing work on behalf of women and girls"
-- so men not because of men.
Men because of women, and provided that women.
As always the gynocentric view of the left where women take preferente.
The problem with men for the left is the influence of the manosfere. Nothing to do with decades of policies from the left (and liberals) AGAINST men.
Of course, men provided that they vote the left. They are now paying attentio to men because they are voting feo AFD, VOX or UK Reform. Again, not because of men.
The left dont care about men, but about men's vote.
And of course, amongst the Trustees of the new Instituye there are:
1. Women - have you ever see a man leasing a feminist organisation? This sounds like in Norway, where the Comission for Men was lead by feminists females.
2. And, of course, Me. Phil Collins "a former speechwriter for Prime Minister Tony Blair".
So, those Who have created the problems for men are now the ones trying to solve them...
No, better vote for UK Reform Who Will get rid of gender quotas, DEI and affirmative action than a new lefty organisation funded by Melinda Gates the purpose of which is dealing with "angry men".
By the way, the creation of a Mknistry for men and boys have been rejected by the Labour.
In Spain new gender quotas against males are being put in places while there is evidence that there is even a reverse gender gap in younger generations...
But the Will Reeves come and give us a "suicide programme for men" and we will be supposed to vote the left again...
Meanwhile the left continue to push for mass inmigration that leaves the salaries down and the house prices up. Destroying men in particular.
So, after destroying men with mass inmigration, removing factoring to China and feminist discrimination, now we need to say thank you for giving us a resesrch centre...
Labour still refuses to adrees the problem globalistd have created with men, and just focus on the narrative of Adolescence.
Absurd...
Never mind, Reeves. UK Reform will win shirtly and make more for men in 3 months that Labour has made in decades.
I'm all for this as long as the initiative includes considering trans people's issues, particularly as trans men have quite a dirth of research on them.
Keep breathing oxygen into the lungs of the ailing old man Liberalism Richard. Those of us who remember his heyday would selfishly like him to live a little longer before ‘the winner takes all’ takes over again.
Feminism doesn't say that men and women are the same!!
What have you been reading?
As you seem unable to see the disparities between the sexes one assumes you have similar difficulties perceiving class and race disparities too.
So I don't really anticipate anything beyond petty uninformed lashing out from men like you, you are legion and your ignorance is demonstrated in your lack of research and therefore understanding.
Domestic violence by women against children, is higher than that committed by men simply because most children are cared for largely by women.
I didn't say women were never violent. I said that male violence is a bigger, more pressing problem, for men too.
The high IPV rates amongst lesbians are not causally demonstrated to the best of my knowledge, but I would moot that the more pressure a relationship is under, the greater the likelihood of the occurance of IPV.
Lesbian mothers are the poorest demographic, lesbians have no social spaces and very little societal support.
None of which undermines my point that male violence, against everyone, the planet included, is a massive problem amongst humans.
It is curios that feminist claim at the same time that men and women are the same but suggest that males are more aggresive.
The biggest genocide ever is abortion. So, I guest, your point depende how you see and define as "violence".
In my view, killing 100 millions babies worldwide per years is an attrocity that exceeds any male violence (including WWII) by far.
On the other side:
1. So lesbian are violent because they are poor. Always an excuse. "Women are worst but... It is because of Pstriarchy oprresion". When men are better is "because of Pstriarchy privilege". You see the double standard?
2. I am not ecologist, bu your reference to the "men violence against planet" is odd. It seems that women are not consumers. The reality is that women buy more fast fashion than men, buy more homes in the US and even control 80% of the house purchases (and no, there are not 80% of super ecologist friendly purchases). So any agresion against Earth is made by both sexes roughtly equally.
3. Criminality rates for men have declined by half in 20 years For females have increased several times. In most offences (property, drugs) there is already "gender equality". So, again, violence by women remains unseen and unreported. It seems that women were not better, but just less free to commit crime...
A real world experiment is underway and your first point has been undermined. As childcare patterns have changed and custody settlements have shifted towards somewhat more equitable arrangements it has become possible to say that children are safer with their fathers than with their mothers. More time with dad equals lower risk of harm. The opposite of what would be predicted by your worldview.
Male aggression is as natural and healthy as a human heartbeat. It continues to be the main guarantor of safety for those of us who sleep soundly in our beds at night. What’s weird and unhealthy is the modern obsession with living life without experiencing harm.
In Australia our newly re-elected government has for the first time appointed a "special envoy for men's health". With this initiative in my own country, and with the UK's CPRMB and the US' AIMB, at last I see some better signs in the gender discussions being had.
Maybe our public policy debates are moving beyond the all-too-familiar "us and them" struggle that is so unhelpfully framed as, "feminism vs patriarchy".
Maybe at last feminism will be subsumed in a MUTUALISM where all genders work together for the good of all.
A week before election the threw 32 million towards men. Compared to the nearly 800 million allocated to women it felt very much like the scraps from the kitchen cutting board…
You are correct, it was a pre-election promise. Approx 1 week pre-election. An after thought. It was for the 25-26 financial year, same as the money for women’s health.
Not all the money included for women’s health was actually health related, although women would benefit from it all. James Nuzzo has more on it.
So don't anger the feminists & we may get some scraps from their table? Definitely don't mention their prejudice & discrimination. And for God’s sake don’t take that talk of equality seriously.
Uncle Tom’s like you are just adding to the problem.
Congratulations, Richard! Quite an accomplishment. Also, congratulations to the end of college tuitions with Cameron’s graduation from University of Tennessee this morning.
So watching women have sex for entertainment is an appalling new normal for boys, and everybody is having a giggle about it. Meanwhile, we struggle to answer the question: what’s wrong with our young men? Our society has utterly beclowned itself.
All so a few asshats could get a kick out of transgressing patriarchal norms.
You dont really need an institute to figure it out, unless the whole point is to gaslight us about the obvious and actual cause of the problem.
Interesting. You call boys watching women have sex for entertainment appalling male behavior. Do you think it's appalling that women post images of themselves having sex?
"This is a conversation that necessarily involves some discomfort, especially on the part of women"
Yeah Richard, that's because the feminists you've made yourself beholden to HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR MEN AND BOYS. When exactly does it become incumbent upon you to WAKE UP and ACTUALLY DO what you claim to have a desire to do? You're not interested in playing a zero-sum game? THAT'S GREAT! HOW GOOD FOR YOU. Unfortunately, as comments like the aforementioned should have made abundantly clear to you, THEY ARE PLAYING A ZERO-SUM GAME AGAINST MEN AND BOYS... and you've only gone and made yourself the pawn of these institutions and their insipid and destructive ideological dogmas.
"In fact I think anyone that does not feel some discomfort about the conversation probably should not be in it."
Really? REALLY....? So if I have no discomfort or shame is declaring myself CONCERNED, merely CONCERNED, for the WELL-BEING of BOYS, I shouldn't be apart of the discourse or effort to redress those concerns? What exactly do you mean by this statement, seriously, having made a statement like that obligates you to ELABORATE and JUSTIFY such an inhuman attitude towards THE VERY PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TO SEEK TO HELP. WHY RICHARD? WHY SHOULD WE FEEL "DISCOMFORT" ABOUT RECOGNIZING THE POSITIVE VALUE OF HELPING MEN AND BOYS TO FLOURISH IN LIFE! WHY SHOULD I BE ASHAMED OF CARING ABOUT A BOY'S ABILITY TO HAVE A FUTURE WORTH PURSUING??? WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
It's become quite clear that your "initiatives" are going to be used by the dominant feminist institutions, who have LONG opposed ANY FORM of concern or consideration for men and boys (as ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ENEMY THEY REQUIRE TO JUSTIFY THEIR MONOPOLY UPON GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND SOCIAL POWER), to respond to the increasingly difficult to hide or deny degradation of male well-being by PRETENDING to be doing something about it; but let's be real Richard, it's business as usual, you and your organization are nothing more than a facade behind which these institutions, who have ZERO interest in doing anything but CONTINUING to pursue their desire to facilitate the further degradation of men and boys, can hide their true intentions and propagate their socially subversive agenda with impunity... only now, thanks to you, instead of using the protection of women and girls as their excuse, they'll be appealing to the pretense of compassion for men and boys as an excuse for the HARM they inflict upon men and boys. AWESOME! CONGRATS RICHARD!
"But the most important task at the launch stage is to set the right tone and adopt the right frame. It is vital to allay reasonable fears over distracting from or even displacing the necessary ongoing work on behalf of women and girls"
-- so men not because of men.
Men because of women, and provided that women.
As always the gynocentric view of the left where women take preferente.
The problem with men for the left is the influence of the manosfere. Nothing to do with decades of policies from the left (and liberals) AGAINST men.
Of course, men provided that they vote the left. They are now paying attentio to men because they are voting feo AFD, VOX or UK Reform. Again, not because of men.
The left dont care about men, but about men's vote.
"the American Institute for Boys and Men, is to produce high-quality, non-partisan research" FALSE
It is funded by a globalist (Melinda Gates) +
It is lead by a lefty (Richard Reeves) Who has clearly possitioned himself against Trump and in favour of Kemala
And of course, amongst the Trustees of the new Instituye there are:
1. Women - have you ever see a man leasing a feminist organisation? This sounds like in Norway, where the Comission for Men was lead by feminists females.
2. And, of course, Me. Phil Collins "a former speechwriter for Prime Minister Tony Blair".
So, those Who have created the problems for men are now the ones trying to solve them...
No, better vote for UK Reform Who Will get rid of gender quotas, DEI and affirmative action than a new lefty organisation funded by Melinda Gates the purpose of which is dealing with "angry men".
By the way, the creation of a Mknistry for men and boys have been rejected by the Labour.
In Spain new gender quotas against males are being put in places while there is evidence that there is even a reverse gender gap in younger generations...
But the Will Reeves come and give us a "suicide programme for men" and we will be supposed to vote the left again...
Meanwhile the left continue to push for mass inmigration that leaves the salaries down and the house prices up. Destroying men in particular.
So, after destroying men with mass inmigration, removing factoring to China and feminist discrimination, now we need to say thank you for giving us a resesrch centre...
Labour still refuses to adrees the problem globalistd have created with men, and just focus on the narrative of Adolescence.
Absurd...
Never mind, Reeves. UK Reform will win shirtly and make more for men in 3 months that Labour has made in decades.
The left is over for men.
I'm all for this as long as the initiative includes considering trans people's issues, particularly as trans men have quite a dirth of research on them.
Keep breathing oxygen into the lungs of the ailing old man Liberalism Richard. Those of us who remember his heyday would selfishly like him to live a little longer before ‘the winner takes all’ takes over again.
And not a mention of the proliferation of male violence, and not just against women, against each other too!!
Surely addressing this issue is critical for the wellbeing of men and boys??
No?
Feminism doesn't say that men and women are the same!!
What have you been reading?
As you seem unable to see the disparities between the sexes one assumes you have similar difficulties perceiving class and race disparities too.
So I don't really anticipate anything beyond petty uninformed lashing out from men like you, you are legion and your ignorance is demonstrated in your lack of research and therefore understanding.
Try starting with
Man Made Language by Dale Spender.
Lesbian are more prone to violence in IPV context. Female crime has gone up while men has gone down.
Women kidnap more kids and Kill more kids.
Shall we start stoping the link between men and violence to start with?
Domestic violence by women against children, is higher than that committed by men simply because most children are cared for largely by women.
I didn't say women were never violent. I said that male violence is a bigger, more pressing problem, for men too.
The high IPV rates amongst lesbians are not causally demonstrated to the best of my knowledge, but I would moot that the more pressure a relationship is under, the greater the likelihood of the occurance of IPV.
Lesbian mothers are the poorest demographic, lesbians have no social spaces and very little societal support.
None of which undermines my point that male violence, against everyone, the planet included, is a massive problem amongst humans.
It is curios that feminist claim at the same time that men and women are the same but suggest that males are more aggresive.
The biggest genocide ever is abortion. So, I guest, your point depende how you see and define as "violence".
In my view, killing 100 millions babies worldwide per years is an attrocity that exceeds any male violence (including WWII) by far.
On the other side:
1. So lesbian are violent because they are poor. Always an excuse. "Women are worst but... It is because of Pstriarchy oprresion". When men are better is "because of Pstriarchy privilege". You see the double standard?
2. I am not ecologist, bu your reference to the "men violence against planet" is odd. It seems that women are not consumers. The reality is that women buy more fast fashion than men, buy more homes in the US and even control 80% of the house purchases (and no, there are not 80% of super ecologist friendly purchases). So any agresion against Earth is made by both sexes roughtly equally.
3. Criminality rates for men have declined by half in 20 years For females have increased several times. In most offences (property, drugs) there is already "gender equality". So, again, violence by women remains unseen and unreported. It seems that women were not better, but just less free to commit crime...
A real world experiment is underway and your first point has been undermined. As childcare patterns have changed and custody settlements have shifted towards somewhat more equitable arrangements it has become possible to say that children are safer with their fathers than with their mothers. More time with dad equals lower risk of harm. The opposite of what would be predicted by your worldview.
Male aggression is as natural and healthy as a human heartbeat. It continues to be the main guarantor of safety for those of us who sleep soundly in our beds at night. What’s weird and unhealthy is the modern obsession with living life without experiencing harm.
Utter balderdash.
In Australia our newly re-elected government has for the first time appointed a "special envoy for men's health". With this initiative in my own country, and with the UK's CPRMB and the US' AIMB, at last I see some better signs in the gender discussions being had.
Maybe our public policy debates are moving beyond the all-too-familiar "us and them" struggle that is so unhelpfully framed as, "feminism vs patriarchy".
Maybe at last feminism will be subsumed in a MUTUALISM where all genders work together for the good of all.
Maybe.
In Australia you have reelected a Government that has discriminated men for decades, including a neespaper with a Kid being labelled as toxic.
mens health? So now we are entitled even to health? Really? Do men still have this human rigth?
The people that have discriminated men for dacades has NO moral authority to deal with men now. Deal with that.
We dont want peonuts when they stole everything from men, including dignity and a human tratment.
Remeber: "Future is female" afer "killing all men".
Your vote has been pstetic to be honest. You just has voted the ones that destroyed men.
Our newly re-elected government also cut men's health spending to $0 in the last budget. Don't get too excited.
Men has new rigth to health? My goodness! After 20 years of discrimination now they give us a health programme. Thanks god!!
(irony mode on)
That's no good Neil. What country are you in?
Australia
See https://www.amhf.org.au/federal_budget_confirms_men_s_health_is_not_a_national_priority
A week before election the threw 32 million towards men. Compared to the nearly 800 million allocated to women it felt very much like the scraps from the kitchen cutting board…
That was a pre-election promise. There's no money yet....
And my bet is it will go to anti-male causes like toxic masculinity propaganda.
You are correct, it was a pre-election promise. Approx 1 week pre-election. An after thought. It was for the 25-26 financial year, same as the money for women’s health.
Not all the money included for women’s health was actually health related, although women would benefit from it all. James Nuzzo has more on it.
So don't anger the feminists & we may get some scraps from their table? Definitely don't mention their prejudice & discrimination. And for God’s sake don’t take that talk of equality seriously.
Uncle Tom’s like you are just adding to the problem.
Congratulations, Richard! Quite an accomplishment. Also, congratulations to the end of college tuitions with Cameron’s graduation from University of Tennessee this morning.
So watching women have sex for entertainment is an appalling new normal for boys, and everybody is having a giggle about it. Meanwhile, we struggle to answer the question: what’s wrong with our young men? Our society has utterly beclowned itself.
All so a few asshats could get a kick out of transgressing patriarchal norms.
You dont really need an institute to figure it out, unless the whole point is to gaslight us about the obvious and actual cause of the problem.
Interesting. You call boys watching women have sex for entertainment appalling male behavior. Do you think it's appalling that women post images of themselves having sex?
Yeah of course. And they’re doing what I’m saying. They’ve following incentives we’ve created. It’s psychic terrorism.
It’s appalling hetero male behaviour. It’s irrelevant for gay men. If you don’t see it’s appalling you’re sick.
Their target market is those boys and they know it. And everyone has a giggle.
Top notch. As a psychotherapist for men, and a girl dad, I’m all for this. Both/and.
This is not fantstic.
The people that have discriminated men for dacades has NO moral authority to deal with men now. Deal with that.
We dont want peonuts when they stole everything from men, including dignity and a human tratment.
Remeber: "Future is female" afer "killing all men".
This is fantastic!!!! How we can do to open a new one in Canada? I had this question pending foe you guys!
This is not fantstic.
The people that have discriminated men for dacades has NO moral authority to deal with men now. Deal with that.
We dont want peonuts when they stole everything from men, including dignity and a human tratment.
Remeber: "Future is female" afer "killing all men".
This is fantastic news! Thank you for all you are doing.