Read
The evidence
The ask
Independent research, asking the United Nations for a second column in a ledger it already keeps.
UN for Men Too is independent research by Mikal Steen Monslaup. The lead began with Manderådet, the Danish Men's Council, and MannsForum, the Norwegian men's and fathers' organisation, and both are declared as lineage and interest; the work is the author's own. It is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the United Nations, and says so wherever it describes itself.
It exists because of a specific, checkable asymmetry. The United Nations maintains an entity, a convention with its own committee, a Sustainable Development Goal and thirteen days of observance addressed to women and girls. Each was built for documented reasons, and this campaign proposes reducing none of them. It says that verbatim, in three places: we do not propose reducing UN Women's budget, mandate or standing.
What is missing is the other column. No entity, office or named focal point in the system holds a mandate for the welfare of men and boys, and no goal or target treats them as a group falling behind. The consequence is not rhetorical. Outcomes that are already measured, and several of them are measured by the UN's own agencies, are never read as gaps to close, and what is not read as a gap is not funded, targeted or reported.
Every figure published here had to survive a hostile check before it reached a page. 356 claims survived and are published, each with its exact figure, its scope and a primary source. 162 more were checked and thrown out, including several that would have made this campaign considerably louder.
We do not print the discarded ones, because repeating a false claim in order to reject it mostly just repeats it. They are not hidden either: all 518, kept and discarded, travel together in facts.json with the reason each failed.
The research corpus is archived with a DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22073333 (Zenodo, all versions; version 1.3.0 is 10.5281/zenodo.22141707, published 28 August 2026, CC BY 4.0, sole author Mikal Steen Monslaup). The deposit ships the pull tools and checkers, so it re-runs without trusting us.
The evidence and the ask are different things, and we keep them apart. That men have substantially worse outcomes on specific measures is evidence, sourced above and checkable. That no dedicated institutional owner exists for those outcomes is evidence, checkable on the UN's own organisation chart. That a dedicated institution is the right answer is not evidence: it is the ask, a policy position this campaign argues for openly. Whether ownership beats embedding responsibility in existing universal bodies is a real research question, it is on the agenda page, and the machinery we build is how it becomes answerable.
Two rules govern the writing. Actions, not motives: we report what institutions did, funded, published and measured, and never what anyone secretly wanted. And additive, never zero-sum: nothing here asks for less for women and girls, and any claim that needed that framing to work was cut.
Where our evidence is thin, we say so, and we say why. Thin evidence and a settled question are not the same thing. The UN's own indicator on sexual violence in childhood is written to cover young women and men alike, and the comparable data collected under it covers about 68 low- and middle-income countries for women and about 12 for men, with high-income countries outside the count for both sexes. The indicator excluded nobody. The measuring did.
This follows the path the women's movement took, and says so plainly. Public funding, better measurement, more research, and institutions that carry the findings into policy. That route worked, it is documented, and there is no reason to invent a different one for the second column.
So the thing this campaign wants funded is the science that does not exist. Not a slogan, a list: the shared-care cohort that would have a baseline before separation, because not one of the thirty-nine studies reviewed in 2023 has one. The male module on the childhood sexual violence survey, because the UN's own indicator covers young women and men alike while the comparable data covers about sixty-eight countries for women and about twelve for men. The measurement study that would test whether attachment instruments developed on maternal caregiving measure fathers equivalently, which the largest meta-analysis in the field says has never been tested. The register linkage that would draw the actual hazard curve in the weeks after a separation is filed.
Each of those is answerable. None of them has been answered, and in most cases nobody was ever assigned to try.
With one commitment attached, and it is the important part. Research funded on this argument will report what it finds, including when what it finds is inconvenient for us. That is not a promise, it is already the record. This site publishes the Swedish paternity-leave reform that moved children's results the wrong way, next to the Norwegian one that moved them our way. It publishes the Dutch population registers covering 1.2 million children where children raised by same-sex parents scored higher, which cuts against any claim that a father is indispensable. It publishes that father-absence effects hold for school completion and behaviour and do not hold for cognitive test scores. A programme that only funds studies it expects to win is not research, it is procurement, and it would deserve the dismissal it got.
And it does not come out of anyone else's budget. Nothing here proposes moving a krone from research on women and girls. The complaint is not that the first column was measured. It is that the second one was not.
Every number is in the register, searchable by keyword, and in facts.json as one machine-readable file. Every correction we have made to our own published claims is dated and public in the corrections log, which includes the ones that were embarrassing.
If a figure here is wrong, tell us. We will check it, fix it, and add it to that log with the date and the reason. That is not a courtesy, it is the only thing that makes the rest of the record worth reading.
If you know a study, a judgment or an official document we have missed, send it here.
The number on the button is the campaign's only metric, which makes it the thing most worth attacking and the thing we can least afford to be wrong about. So here is exactly how it works and what we will do if it is manipulated.
Each tap increments one integer. Nothing else is stored: no name, no email, no cookie, no address. Separately from the counter, the site measures how many people read it, using Cloudflare Web Analytics. It was added on 17 August 2026, after the honest answer to how many people had read any of this turned out to be that nobody knew. It sets no cookie, does not fingerprint your browser and cannot follow you to another site. It is named here because a page that argues about what does and does not get counted should say what it counts. A request without a browser origin is refused outright, which stops the simplest scripted abuse. Beyond that, each network gets three taps an hour, identified by a salted hash of the network rather than the address itself, and for IPv6 the hash covers the whole prefix so rotating within it does not mint fresh allowances. There is a ceiling across all traffic as well, so no single burst can run away. The browser also remembers your own tap, which is a courtesy rather than a defence: anyone determined can clear it, and we do not pretend otherwise.
None of that makes the number unfakeable. A distributed attempt across many networks would get through, and we would rather say so here than discover it in public later. So the count is now recorded as a daily series as well as a running total, which is what makes a spike visible at all. A number that only ever goes up tells you nothing about when it moved.
If it is manipulated, this is what happens. We say so, in the corrections log, with the date and the size of the anomaly. If the total is compromised we correct it downward and publish the reason, exactly as we do with a wrong figure. We would rather show a smaller honest number than defend a larger one, because the moment this count is worth doubting, so is everything else on the site. If the abuse is sustained, the button gets a challenge in front of it, which costs a visitor two seconds and costs us nothing.
As of today, nobody. There is no grant, no institutional budget and no advertising behind this. Nothing on this site is sold: no course, no membership, no merchandise, no paywall, and nothing about you is sold or handed to anyone. The site does now count visits, using Cloudflare Web Analytics, which sets no cookie, does no fingerprinting and does not follow you between sites; it records the page, the referrer, the country and the kind of device, and that is the whole of it. The counter asks for one tap and stores one integer.
This runs on paid tooling, monthly: the domain and its mail routing, Cloudflare for the pages and the API, GitHub for the repository and the build that runs on every change, and an AI subscription that does the harvesting and cross-checking. All of it is paid personally. On top of that is months of research time, unpaid. An earlier version of this section described the cost as a domain and a few hundred kroner a year of hosting, which was true when it was written and understates it now. The full list, and what money would build next, is at Contribute.
The tooling is named rather than left to be discovered, and naming it lets the rule that matters be stated: no figure on this site rests on it. Harvesting and cross-checking are one thing, verification is another, and every figure published here was checked against a primary source by a person. That is how the errors in our own work were found and published.
If that ever changes, it is published before it is spent: who gave, how much, and what it paid for. That register is now open, at Contribute, and what money cannot buy, together with the full list of what will be refused and why. It was opened empty on 26 August 2026, which is the part that cannot be added afterwards. Two rules are fixed in advance. Money will never buy a claim, because every figure on this site has to survive the same check whoever is paying. And research funded on this argument reports what it finds even when the finding is inconvenient, which is a commitment the record already keeps: the Swedish leave reform that went the wrong way is published beside the Norwegian one that went ours.
What the campaign would spend money on is set out in section 03: the studies that do not exist. Not promotion. Measurement.
For press, research and institutional enquiries, and for corrections: contact@unformentoo.org. It is read by a person and it is the address to use for anything that matters. Also @Kairunen on X, or either organisation directly at manderaadet.dk and mannsforum.no.
The registered entities. Manderådet is a registered Danish voluntary association, CVR 41719273, registered 30 September 2020 in Det Centrale Virksomhedsregister. MannsForum is a registered Norwegian association, organisasjonsnummer 996534081, in Enhetsregisteret at the Brønnøysund Register Centre. Both were verified against the national registers on 20 August 2026. How this is funded is set out in section 06 and in full at Contribute.
Still being completed: a named contact with a title for each organisation, and the consultative status position of each with the UN Economic and Social Council, including the route being pursued where status is not held. This block stays visible until those are published. The three items that used to sit here, a role address on this domain, the registered entity numbers, and a statement of how this is funded, are done and are above.
Use the figures freely. Check them first, then cite the primary source rather than us. The film, the reel, the story and the press kit are in the press kit, and the submission document is the printable version of the whole argument.
unformentoo.org · independent research by Mikal Steen Monslaup, supported by Manderådet and MannsForum · not affiliated with the United Nations
If any number here is wrong, write to contact@unformentoo.org and we will correct it and publish the correction, dated.