I understand why Martha Gill considers the idea of a minister for men “insulting”, when society remains dominated by male power and women bear the brunt of gender inequality (“A Tory MP wants a minister for men. How about one for white people, heterosexuals and the upper classes?”, Comment). However, her preferred analogies are surely no less insulting. Perhaps a minister for the upper classes would indeed make sense if the upper classes were more likely to die prematurely from all comparable causes at every age; if the upper classes were 19 times more likely to be in prison; six times more likely to sleep (or die) rough on the streets; three times more likely to die a death of despair through suicide; or if we had learned just last month that the largest ever recorded quarterly rise in young people unemployed and not in education or training was comprised entirely of upper-class children.
While it is true that women have unique health concerns and are the majority of victims of sexual and abusive violence, there is a women’s health strategy for England and a strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, and ministers to oversee both. There are no equivalents for men.
