# The nine letters, and the send log Sent by UN for Men Too on 19 August 2026. Reply-by date named in every letter: 9 September 2026. Silence past that date is recorded as two dates and nothing more. Replies are published in full and unedited as they arrive. This file is the published record. Each letter appears exactly as it left, in the language it left in. ## Ludwig Boltzmann Institute *office.gmr@lbg.ac.at · sent 19 August 2026* Dear Professor Nowak, Professor Agapiou Josephides and Ms Ndour, I am writing from UN for Men Too, a campaign run by Manderådet in Denmark and MannsForum in Norway. We are not affiliated with the United Nations and say so on every page. We publish sourced material about gaps in international provision for men and boys, and we would like to put something to you before we write about it further. Reading the full Global Study alongside the note transmitted to the General Assembly, we found that several of Chapter 8's findings on boys do not appear in the note. In the volume: boys "often face discriminatory treatment" and are overrepresented "due to stereotypical views on the propensity of boys towards violent behaviour" (p. 257). Section 2 of Chapter 8 is headed "Discrimination against Boys" (p. 256). Most research in the field "primarily addresses cases of discrimination against girls, not against boys" (p. 259). Chapter 8's own recommendations ask States to "address the overrepresentation of boys in detention" by applying non-custodial solutions to boys "as it is more widely practised with girls" (p. 275). In A/74/136 we could not find any of that language, and the recommendations chapter contains the word "girls" once and the word "boys" not at all. Two questions, and an answer to either would be valuable: 1. Was the omission of Chapter 8's findings on boys from A/74/136 an editorial decision? We recognise that reducing 804 pages to 23 requires cutting a great deal, and that a summary cannot carry everything. 2. Is there any UN entity, mandate or process that currently owns that finding, in the sense of tracking or acting on it? If the answer is none, that is useful to know and we would report it plainly. We would publish any reply in full and unedited, and correct anything we have got wrong, prominently. Our corrections are published with dates at unformentoo.org/sources.html#corrections and include claims we have withdrawn against our own interest. If we have not heard by 9 September 2026, we will note in the article that we wrote on 19 August 2026 and had no reply by then, and nothing more than that. For completeness: our reading of Chapter 8 is that it is even-handed. It has a section on discrimination against boys and one on discrimination against girls, and we quote both. Nothing we publish argues for reducing provision for girls. The article is at unformentoo.org/boys-in-detention.html. Every quotation carries its page or paragraph number and both documents are linked in full. With thanks for the study, which is the source of all of the above, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org --- ## NGO Panel for the Global Study *web form, childrendeprivedofliberty.info · sent 19 August 2026* Dear Professor Nowak, Professor Agapiou Josephides and Ms Ndour, I am writing from UN for Men Too, a campaign run by Manderådet in Denmark and MannsForum in Norway. We are not affiliated with the United Nations and say so on every page. We publish sourced material about gaps in international provision for men and boys, and we would like to put something to you before we write about it further. Reading the full Global Study alongside the note transmitted to the General Assembly, we found that several of Chapter 8's findings on boys do not appear in the note. In the volume: boys "often face discriminatory treatment" and are overrepresented "due to stereotypical views on the propensity of boys towards violent behaviour" (p. 257). Section 2 of Chapter 8 is headed "Discrimination against Boys" (p. 256). Most research in the field "primarily addresses cases of discrimination against girls, not against boys" (p. 259). Chapter 8's own recommendations ask States to "address the overrepresentation of boys in detention" by applying non-custodial solutions to boys "as it is more widely practised with girls" (p. 275). In A/74/136 we could not find any of that language, and the recommendations chapter contains the word "girls" once and the word "boys" not at all. Two questions, and an answer to either would be valuable: 1. Was the omission of Chapter 8's findings on boys from A/74/136 an editorial decision? We recognise that reducing 804 pages to 23 requires cutting a great deal, and that a summary cannot carry everything. 2. Is there any UN entity, mandate or process that currently owns that finding, in the sense of tracking or acting on it? If the answer is none, that is useful to know and we would report it plainly. We would publish any reply in full and unedited, and correct anything we have got wrong, prominently. Our corrections are published with dates at unformentoo.org/sources.html#corrections and include claims we have withdrawn against our own interest. If we have not heard by 9 September 2026, we will note in the article that we wrote on 19 August 2026 and had no reply by then, and nothing more than that. For completeness: our reading of Chapter 8 is that it is even-handed. It has a section on discrimination against boys and one on discrimination against girls, and we quote both. Nothing we publish argues for reducing provision for girls. The article is at unformentoo.org/boys-in-detention.html. Every quotation carries its page or paragraph number and both documents are linked in full. With thanks for the study, which is the source of all of the above, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org --- ## OECD, Development Co-operation Directorate *contact form, category Development · sent 19 August 2026* Dear colleagues, I write from UN for Men Too, a campaign run by Manderådet in Denmark and MannsForum in Norway, not affiliated with the OECD or the UN. Our aid figures come from your own SDMX API, which we cite in preference to anything second-hand. Three questions that follow from each other, each answerable yes or no: 1. Is the DAC policy marker system the instrument that makes aid toward a policy objective measurable? Your own dashboard can state USD 70.8 billion a year for gender equality (2023-24 average) because that marker exists, so we take your documentation's answer to be yes. 2. Is there any instrument today by which aid targeting men and boys can be measured? We found none, and produced a first figure only by hand-reading 35,000 activity records. If we have missed an instrument, we will correct ourselves publicly and gladly. 3. If yes to 1 and no to 2: is aid targeting men and boys currently measurable at all? Three shorter factual questions alongside: 4. What is the process by which a new DAC marker is proposed and adopted? The nutrition, disability and disaster risk reduction markers all carry data from 2018, so the process is in recent use. 5. Has a marker for men and boys ever been proposed to the Working Party on Development Finance Statistics? If so, what happened to it? 6. Does the OECD publish any recurring report on outcomes for men and boys equivalent to its gender reporting? Again, if we have missed one, we correct. We publish any reply in full and unedited. If we have not heard by 9 September 2026 we will simply record that we wrote on 19 August 2026 and had no reply by then. With thanks, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org --- ## UN Statistics Division *contact form, unstats.un.org · sent 19 August 2026* Dear colleagues, I am writing from UN for Men Too, a campaign run by Manderådet in Denmark and MannsForum in Norway, not affiliated with the United Nations. We use your SDG API as a primary source and cite it directly. One closed question: Is there any SDG target or indicator, in the current framework, where men or boys are the population identified as disadvantaged? We have searched the framework, including the 2025 revision, and found none. If one exists we will correct our claim immediately and prominently. We publish any reply in full. If we have not heard by 9 September 2026 we will simply record that we wrote on 19 August 2026 and had no reply by then. With thanks, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org --- ## UN Women *media.team@unwomen.org* Dear colleagues, I write from UN for Men Too, a campaign run by Manderådet in Denmark and MannsForum in Norway, not affiliated with the United Nations. First, and on every page we publish: we do not propose reducing UN Women's budget or any provision for women and girls in any way. What follows is the opposite of an attack. Our argument is that UN Women works. It has a founding resolution (General Assembly resolution 64/289, 2010), a board, a reporting line, and USD 594.4 million in contributions in 2024 by its own annual report. And the machinery around it works: women's share of UN professional posts rose from 39.7 per cent (A/59/299, 2004) to 50.4 per cent system-wide (A/80/260, 2025) once parity became a tracked, reported target. Aid to gender equality is measurable, about USD 70.8 billion a year, because an OECD marker exists to record it. Mandates, budgets and tracked targets produce results. UN Women is the proof. For men and boys the UN system holds no equivalent at any level: no entity, no thematic special procedures mandate, no SDG indicator naming them as the disadvantaged group, no aid marker. Where anyone measures anyway: 493,456 of 727,043 suicide deaths worldwide are male (WHO Global Health Estimates, 2021); 81 per cent of homicide victims (UNODC, 2021); almost 93 per cent of prisoners (UNODC Prison Matters 2026); 94 per cent of children detained in justice, conflict and security settings are boys (A/74/136, paragraph 35). Three questions, each answerable yes or no: 1. Does UN Women regard its own record as evidence that dedicated machinery produces measurable results? 2. Does UN Women hold, or know of, any mandate, programme or budget line anywhere in the UN system whose intended beneficiaries are men and boys for their own sake, rather than as partners in outcomes for women and girls? If yes, we will link to it prominently and say we were glad to find it. 3. If yes to 1 and no to 2: would UN Women oppose the creation of such machinery for men and boys, provided it takes nothing from women and girls? We are writing to the Media Team as the address UN Women publishes for global enquiries. We publish replies in full, so this is, in the honest sense, a media enquiry. We publish any reply in full and unedited. If we have not heard by 9 September 2026 we will simply record that we wrote on 19 August 2026. With thanks, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org --- ## Committee on the Rights of the Child *via ohchr.org · sent 19 August 2026* Dear members of the Secretariat, I am writing from UN for Men Too, a campaign run by Manderådet in Denmark and MannsForum in Norway, not affiliated with the United Nations. We counted the Committee's two general comments on the child justice system. General comment No. 10 (2007) and general comment No. 24 (2019) together run to 24,043 words. The word "girls" appears four times across them; the word "boys" appears in neither. On the UN's own figure (A/74/136, paragraph 35), boys are 94 per cent of children detained in the administration of justice, armed conflict and national security, which is the system both documents govern. Paragraph 40 of general comment No. 24 names girls, children discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and children with disabilities. Every one of those groups belongs there and we would not remove a word. Three questions: 1. When the guidance on the child justice system is next revised, would the Committee consider naming boys in the discrimination paragraph, alongside the groups already named there? 2. We ask partly because another treaty body already writes that sentence. The Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 35 (2014), on liberty and security of person, lists who article 9 protects and begins: "girls and boys, soldiers, persons with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, aliens, refugees and asylum seekers, stateless persons, migrant workers, persons convicted of crime, and persons who have engaged in terrorist activity." The phrasing exists inside the system and was adopted a decade ago. 3. Is there a reason, which we may simply not know, why the child justice guidance takes a different approach from general comment No. 35 on this point? If there is a good one, we would publish it, because it answers a question we have been asking in public. We publish any reply in full and unedited. If we have not heard by 9 September 2026 we will simply record the two dates. With thanks, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org --- ## OHCHR, special procedures *via ohchr.org · sent 19 August 2026* Dear colleagues, I am writing from UN for Men Too, a campaign run by Manderådet in Denmark and MannsForum in Norway, not affiliated with the United Nations. Two factual questions we could not answer from the public record, and an answer to either would be reported plainly whichever way it goes: 1. Has a thematic special procedures mandate concerning men and boys ever been formally proposed to the Human Rights Council? If it has, we would value the document symbol so we can read what happened to it. If it has not, that is equally useful to know. Proposed-and-rejected is a completely different story from never-proposed, and we will not guess which it is in public. 2. OHCHR's explainer states there are 46 thematic mandates as of November 2025. Extracting the thematic mandates listing on spinternet.ohchr.org on 19 August 2026 gives 45 titles. Which is right, and what are we missing? We currently publish both figures because we cannot reconcile them. We publish any reply in full and unedited. If we have not heard by 9 September 2026 we will simply record that we wrote on 19 August 2026. With thanks, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org --- ## Norway, Barne- og familiedepartementet *via regjeringen.no · sent 19 August 2026* Til Barne- og familiedepartementet, Jeg skriver fra UN for Men Too, en kampanje drevet av Manderådet i Danmark og MannsForum i Norge. Vi er ikke tilknyttet FN. Ingenting under foreslår å redusere noe tilbud til kvinner og jenter, og vi sier det på hver side vi publiserer. Argumentet vårt er at maskineri virker, og at FNs egne tall viser det: kvinneandelen i FNs profesjonsstillinger gikk fra 39,7 prosent (A/59/299, 2004) til 50,4 prosent i hele systemet (A/80/260, 2025) etter at paritet ble et målt og rapportert mål. Bistand til likestilling kan tallfestes, omtrent 70,8 milliarder dollar i året, fordi en OECD-markør finnes som registrerer den. For menn og gutter finnes ikke noe tilsvarende på noe nivå: ingen enhet, ingen spesialprosedyre-mandat, ingen SDG-indikator, ingen bistandsmarkør. Der noen likevel måler: 493 456 av 727 043 selvmord globalt er menn (WHO, 2021); 94 prosent av barn i forvaring i rettsvesen, konflikt og sikkerhet er gutter (A/74/136, avsnitt 35). Tre spørsmål: 1. Hvilke av de 35 tiltakene i NOU 2024:8 er gjennomført, hvilke er under arbeid, og hvilke er lagt bort? En statustabell publiseres i sin helhet. 2. Støtter regjeringen opprettelsen av en OECD DAC-markør for bistand rettet mot menn og gutter, ja eller nei? Markørprosessen er i bruk: ernæring, funksjonsnedsettelse og katastrofeforebygging bærer alle data fra 2018. 3. Ville regjeringen motsette seg at det opprettes maskineri i FN-systemet for menn og gutter, tilsvarende i art (ikke nødvendigvis i omfang) det som finnes for kvinner og jenter, forutsatt at det ikke tar noe fra kvinner og jenter, ja eller nei? Vi publiserer ethvert svar i sin helhet. Har vi ikke hørt noe innen 9. september 2026, noterer vi bare at vi skrev 19. august 2026. Med vennlig hilsen, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org --- ## Denmark *ministry contact route · sent 19 August 2026* Dear colleagues, I write from UN for Men Too, a campaign run by Manderådet in Denmark and MannsForum in Norway, not affiliated with the United Nations. Nothing below proposes reducing any provision for women and girls, and we say so on every page we publish. Our argument is that machinery works, on the UN's own numbers: women's share of UN professional posts rose from 39.7 per cent (A/59/299, 2004) to 50.4 per cent system-wide (A/80/260, 2025) once parity became a tracked target. Aid to gender equality is measurable, about USD 70.8 billion a year, because an OECD marker exists to record it. For men and boys no equivalent exists at any level: no entity, no mandate, no indicator, no marker. Where anyone measures anyway: 493,456 of 727,043 suicides worldwide are male (WHO, 2021); 94 per cent of children detained in justice, conflict and security settings are boys (A/74/136, paragraph 35). Two questions, each answerable yes or no: 1. Does the Government support the creation of an OECD DAC policy marker for aid targeting men and boys? The marker process is in active use: nutrition, disability and disaster risk reduction all carry data from 2018. 2. Would the Government oppose the creation, within the UN system, of machinery for men and boys equivalent in kind (not necessarily in scale) to what exists for women and girls, provided it takes nothing from women and girls? We publish any reply in full. If we have not heard by 9 September 2026 we will simply record that we wrote on 19 August 2026. With thanks, Mikal Monslaup UN for Men Too unformentoo.org ---