Recently, a 16-year-old activist sent this following letter to Lord Henley.

Dear Lord Henley,

My name is Reece Wilkes age 16 years old. I write to you to express my concern over the lack of a Minister ensuring the welfare of equality for men (A Minister for Men). I wrote to Lord Northbourne on the 28th January about my concern over this matter and received a reply stating that he has “sent a copy to the relevant Minister” and will let me know when he gets a reply. I never received a reply. I decided that I would then write to Lady Amos and got a letter back stating that she has “passed my letter to Harriet Harman (Minister for Women and Equality) for a reply”. I never received a reply. Since then, I have sent letters to a number of Peers (In the House of Lords) and have had no reply. I did however, send a letter directly to Harriet Harman and later received a reply from Angela Sealy - from the Government Equalities Office. I found the reply very insulting, demeaning and lacklustre indeed. The letter was just a copy of an e-petition reason for why there was not going to be a Minister for Men, produced in 2007. The only difference between the letter I received, and the e-petition reason (available on the internet) was that the letter I received was addressed to myself. Also, the bulk of the letter was comprised of inequalities affecting women; proving that they did not take careful consideration to all of which I mentioned in my previous letter.

I have to say as a 16 year old, not only do I feel disillusioned with politics already but that I have wasted my time writing my letters to a number of individuals in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, as they appear to not care about the opinions and views of a young individual like myself. I find it rather hypocritical that I am being ignored; as from what I have seen on YouTube, Peers want the views and opinions of young individuals, like myself, and equally they appear to want to get more young people interested in politics. I am therefore confused as to why my call for a Minister for Men is being neglected, abandoned all without any consideration. So I am left writing to you Lord Henley, for your support on this. Is there a need for a Minister for Men? The answer to this question, in my mind is yes. Simply because of a range of inequalities affecting men in the 21st century; of which I will explain further in this letter.

The government’s own statistics reveal that 1 out of 6 men will suffer Domestic Abuse/violence within their lifetime. In addition, new statistics suggest that men in their early 20s are MORE likely to be abused by their partner than women the same age. Furthermore, the government and other connected organisations continuously produce campaigns, leaflets etc, for female victims and ignore men. Plus I have discovered that three times more men than women commit suicide, of which the government has done very little to try and rectify this Gender Suicide Gap. Official statistics also highlight that boys are also at a disadvantage when it comes to the educational system in this country where women surpass men at every facet of education, right from primary school up to university level. The government’s own statistics reveal that the attainment of young boys such as myself in schools will be much lower than in comparison to girls; however the government have not shown much interest in this issue as it so rightly deserves, whereas if it were happening to women there would be an outcry and the current Minister for Women - Harriet Harman would use it as another bias, cherry-picked justification for her job. Equally, Gender Studies at university predominantly focus on women’s issues and Feminism but precious time is taken to study men’s issues. Furthermore, I am continuously seeing courses such as Women’s Studies but I have not ever seen Men’s Studies as an option to study at university. How is this equality? Moreover, the government has proposed through the Equalities Bill, put forward in parliament last June to enable an employer to be legally allowed to discriminate over gender. Harriet Harman’s exact words were “firms should be able to choose a woman over a man of equal ability if they wanted to”. As far as I am concerned there is nothing “Positive” about “Positive Discrimination” as it merely moves one problem to another party (in this case men).

Each year, nearly 35, 000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and more than 10, 000 men die from the disease. It is obvious that not enough funding and research is put into this nor not enough publicity, then in contrast to breast cancer. This again, surely is evidence that a Minister for Men is much needed. Furthermore, recent statistics show that men are 60% more likely to be diagnosed with cancer and are 70% more likely to die from any types of cancer than women (The Gender Health Gap?). Recently, I was reading an article stating that men need to “become more health conscious”. Article like these really irritate me as they demonstrate a lack of understanding about men and the NHS. I have read stories where men who have been referred by their GP to a specialist for Ultra-scan screening (checking for testicular cancer) but have been turned down and told that they will have to wait well over 6 months for a scan as there is a queue. The man in this particular article stated “I am certain that if I were a woman who needed my breasts scanned, I would have been put straight to the front of the queue”. Additionally, in relation to men’s health the government brought into force the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2003, protecting girls/women from genital mutilation. I believe this Act discriminates against boys/men because male circumcision is legally allowed to happen to a baby for religious reasons without his consent when there is no medical basis supporting the procedure. I therefore, propose we have a Male Genital Mutilation Act of 2010, which will grant the protection, security and safety for male babies and children in the UK. I am astounded that a baby/child can be cut into, bleed and have a perfectly, healthy and normal functioning part of his anatomy permanently removed – completely without his consent. Some cases have resulted in complications and deaths and removal of the genitalia. This surely goes against basic Human Rights. This issue especially, seems to be overlooked as insignificant, trivial and inconsequential. It is therefore, time that this very issue and others like it are brought out into the open, as it appears by law, that our government and consequentially our society endorse it.

It’s not just our society but also the government in this country, which is to blame. Last July in the House of Commons, in Prime Ministers Questions Time, Harriet Harman was filling in for the Prime Minister and stated to William Hague that the main reason she wouldn’t become Prime Minister is because there “Aren’t enough airports in the country for all the men to flee”. I must say, as a 16 year old I am disgusted, astounded, and sickened by this apparent double standards and the clear lack of professionalism, integrity and appropriate statements she has exercised and spoken. This women is not only Minister for Women and Equality but is Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Privy Seal, Leader of The House of Commons and many more, and yet she has the audacity to come out with such an absurd reply at a time when hundred of men have died in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. and many more are fighting for their lives. I would have immediately complained about this but it appears that there is no complaints procedure for the general public. If a man were to stand up and say something along the lines like that against women, that individual would be looking at disciplinary action and he would be very lucky to still have a job. I am thus so totally bewildered.

Our society in general and especially the media is equally, to blame, (mainly because the government and politicians allow it!), as it has developed a bias towards women and a lack of consideration of the ‘True Representation’ of men. I am persistently seeing advertisements, which make men out to be “dumb”, “stupid” or always needing a woman there to tell the man how to do a certain activity. For example; The Oven Pride advert that ridicules men as idiots, incapable of performing simple tasks. The advertisements standards watchdog has ruled that this is allowed to happen to men, but not women. To be honest Lord Henley, I could go on for hours and hours about the inequality and injustice facing the many men in the country and within our modern society. It is just recently that the government has removed a clause from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill 2008 (which I presume will become law this October), which obliterates the ‘Need for a Father’ and replaced it for ‘The need for supportive parenting’. The government removed this clause claiming that it is discriminatory to lesbians and gay individuals. How on earth is this sentence “discriminatory” to gay and Lesbians? If anything, its actual removal is discriminatory to every single father in the United Kingdom because it belittles them, it publicly demeans the role of the father and degrades them. Its removal is additionally discriminatory to children as it is depriving them of a ‘Male Role-Model’ and to have the right to be brought up, with both a mother and a father. The activity of the government, of removing this clause and many other issues proves that the government could not care less about what is in the ‘Best Interests’ of children and is more concerned with what is in the ‘Best Interests’ of lesbians and gay individuals. It is time the government stops seeing fathers as an accessory but as a necessity. When the removal of the clause was announced a sociology professor was noted for saying, “The people who will really be disadvantaged will be children and that the effects of this will start to be apparent in many years to come”. I myself, as a child completely agree with him. Another aspect which really frustrates me is that no politician and indeed no form of the media give any consideration to that the Gender Pay Gap may be largely down to the governments own policies (e.g. Increasing Maternity Leave etc) and the fact that women are ‘allowed’ to have more time out of work than men when a child is born; as it appears that we have a very sexist government which thinks men should just work and work and women should just be child carers. I believe the Gender Pay Gap can be easily eradicated; by creating and reforming laws which moves to a more ’Gender Neutral’ Parental Leave. However, this government seems to be doing everything in its power to not go down this route consequently resulting in women being paid less and men not being allowed to spend enough time with their children. In addition, a Minister for Men could also push for more Paternity Leave (As the current 2 weeks is unjustifiable and immoral) and as the government are already considering making Maternity Leave a full year. More consideration needs to be equally, given to the fact that mothers automatically have rights to their children as soon as they are born whereas fathers can only gain rights through three activities:

1.) Being married to the mother at the time of birth of his child.
2.) Signing the Birth Register with the mothers consent (currently a father cannot go to the Register Office by himself and sign in his name but a mother can sign in her name on her own).
3.) By going to court.

I’m sure you understand Lord Henley, that this current state of Family Law is nothing short of draconian and completely unjustifiable in the 21st century. Here is an example of such injustice; right round the corner from my house lives a Lady; a Lady who has not been allowed to see her granddaughter for over 13 years. Her son (the father) has not seen his daughter for 13 years as well and has been denied access not only from the mother but also from this so-called “Justice System”. Yet even to this day he has had to pay child maintenance, and has currently paid well over £70, 000 in maintenance. Situations like these, where individuals are being denied access is happening to thousands upon thousands of men and grandparents. Official statistics reveal that in our society; and in previous years men only have a 7% chance of gaining custody rights to their children. Yet this current government could not care less. It refuses point blank to accept that such a problem exists. Even if the government does acknowledge only a small portion of the argument they will use a common phrase, which irritates me. This particular phrase is; “We need to do what is in the best interests of the child”. I find this common phrase, even as a child myself rather ironic as reputable scientific research has proven that the “Best Interests” of a child is best served with frequent, equal and continuous contact with both parents after a divorce/split, and all of this, what the government are saying conflicts and contradicts the paragraph above (The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill of 2008) and also specialists (professors) in the field. It is because of very issues like these, I personally believe that the government and opposition should appoint a Minister for Men to represent men, as a gender, as women are currently being. I have already done research into appointing a Minister for Men; for one of my qualifications, and the overwhelming majority of the public agree with me on this matter. Currently there is no specific representation for men, no voice, and no substance to challenge and include issues, which are gender based in parliament; in relation to men.

An argument which has been put to me against a Minister for Men is that women are under-represented in parliament so a Minister for Women is needed. I personally, as a 16 year old see this as a farcical of an argument, as it diverts from the real issue at hand: women have a Minister in parliament, therefore they have an individual paid to represent them and support them. Men do not have this and it’s clear that no man in parliament is specifically in parliament for men's rights.

I hope that I have demonstrated to you Lord Henley, that men face inequality in our 'modern society'. All of these issues and many more, are why I feel a Minister for Men should be appointed within government and in Her Majesties Loyal Opposition. I also propose the creation of a Men’s National Commission to advise the Minister for Men on the many areas which needs to be addressed. The issues mentioned above are only branches of inequality existing against men, however there is a whole tree of issues, which currently disadvantage men in our 'modern society', and are being clearly ignored by the Labour government. If I were to go into them in detail, I would be writing for hours. I would like to write more to justify my case, but I am trying to keep my letter as short as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Reece Wilkes (Age 16)