============================================================================ UN FOR MEN? THEY WROTE IT DOWN IN 2004. ============================================================================ Strasbourg says a state must make contact actually happen, not merely order it. Norway's mandated guideline for those cases never mentions it. Neither, it turns out, did the United Nations, after writing down in 2004 that men and boys face discriminatory barriers. One week, from Arendalsuka to a document nobody was given. By Mikal Monslaup with Claude (Anthropic) Kairunen on X Rickmyrolls on Reddit The reporting, the reading and the conclusions are mine. Claude did the searching, the counting, the checking and much of the drafting, and argued back when a claim was thinner than it sounded. Every figure here has a primary source you can open, because neither of us is asking to be believed. First published: 17 August 2026 (2026-08-17T00:20:23+02:00) Canonical: https://unformentoo.org/un-for-men-2004.html IN SHORT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Under Article 8 the state has positive obligations. Not only a duty to leave families alone, but a duty to take real steps so that ordered contact actually takes place. Thirty-five Strasbourg rulings say so (https://artikkel8.no/). * Norway's mandated guideline for expert assessment in exactly these cases, issued by Bufdir in 2022, mentions Article 8 0 times. The European Convention 0 times. The European Court 0 times. Positive obligations 0 times. * While digging into whether anyone above the national level carries that duty, I found agreed conclusions from March 2004 (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/agreedconclusions/Agreed%20conclusions%2048th%20session.pdf) in which the UN records that men and boys sometimes face discriminatory barriers and practices. Adopted by consensus. Endorsed by ECOSOC. * It was reviewed once, in 2007 (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw51/panel_summaries/Panel%20on%20Men%20and%20Boys%20SUMMARY%207%20March.pdf), where the room said resources should go to programmes for men and boys as well as for women and girls. In the 19 years since that review: 0 entity, 0 focal point, 0 indicator. * Handed to Google's Gemini on the night of publication behind a prompt I wrote to fail it, the model called the article misogyny, the manosphere and a pipeline to extremism. Asked whether it had read it, it answered “You caught me”, read it, and concluded it is “fundamentally an audit of legal frameworks”. The label arrived before the reading, and did not survive it. * Nothing was promised in 2004, so nothing was broken. An obligation was written down and given to nobody. That is the same shape at both levels, and it is the whole of what this asks to change. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01. MONDAY, ARENDALSUKA What happened, and why a week of Norwegian politics is where this starts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arendalsuka is where Norwegian politics goes for a week in August to talk to itself. I went on Monday the tenth with six questions and a box of equipment. The questions are an audit. Under Article 8 of the European Convention, a state does not discharge its duty to family life by staying out of the way. It carries what Strasbourg calls positive obligations: it has to take real steps so that contact it has ordered actually happens. The handbook I co-edit (https://artikkel8.no/) puts it in one line. The state has a duty to make sure contact actually takes place, not only to decide it on paper. "The state has a duty to make sure contact actually takes place, not only to decide it on paper." -- artikkel8.no, a handbook of 35 European Court of Human Rights rulings ARTIKKEL 8: SIX QUESTIONS The audit I took to Arendalsuka. Each question tests one of the state's positive obligations as Strasbourg has defined them. 1. Er tidligere tiltak evaluert mot om samvær faktisk fant sted? 2. Har saken hatt reell fremdrift de siste månedene? 3. Tar myndighetene egne initiativ, eller avventes partene? 4. Er beskyldninger i saken undersøkt konkret og med oppdatert grunnlag? 5. Møtes motstand fra den andre parten med forsterkede tiltak, ikke med passivitet? 6. Er sterkere virkemidler vurdert, dokumentert og tatt i bruk ved behov? Enough answers of No and the case is one Strasbourg has repeatedly held to be a failure of the state rather than of the parent. The rulings behind each question are at artikkel8.no (https://artikkel8.no/). Yes. Uncertain. No. Anyone can run it on their own case in five minutes, which is the point. [EVIDENCE] The bag. The equipment for showing the six questions was inside it, and so were the car keys. Source: Photograph supplied by the author https://unformentoo.org/assets/article/bag.jpg On the first day my bag was stolen, with the equipment in it. The car keys were in the bag, so the car is still in Arendal and I went home on the bus. The insurance does not cover it. We were not the only ones. Agderposten put the total taken from the tents at 100,000 kroner, and other stands were hit the same week. I have no idea who did it and no basis for saying why, so I am not going to guess at a reason. The relevant fact is narrower than a motive and harder to argue with: the equipment was gone, and what happened next is the part this article is about. [AGDERPOSTEN] Front page, Arendal, August 2026 "Tyveri fra telt for 100.000 kroner" Theft from tents totalling 100,000 kroner The newspaper covered the week's thefts from the stands and put the total at 100,000 kroner. The headline is quoted here; the newspaper's photograph is not reproduced. It showed the MannsForum stand the six questions were shown from, with the artikkel8.no address printed on the counter. The picture belongs to Agderposten and a campaign page is not the place to help itself to a press photograph. Source: Agderposten, Arendal, August 2026. Headline quoted; photograph not reproduced. I can see where the AirPods are. I could see them a few minutes ago. The police told me that too many people live in that building for them to do anything, and that I should go and knock on the doors myself. [EVIDENCE] The tracker, the evening this was written. It is my own screen, unedited apart from two things: the map is blurred and the street line is covered. People live there, and none of them has been shown to have done anything. What is left is the part that matters. A device, located, twenty-four minutes earlier, two hundred and seventeen kilometres away. Source: Screenshot by the author, 20:34 https://unformentoo.org/assets/article/tracker-blurred.jpg I am aware of how that reads next to six questions about whether the state takes its own initiative or waits for someone else to act. I am not going to make the comparison for you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02. THE GUIDELINE THAT NEVER MENTIONS IT The document that decides these cases, searched term by term. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- When a Norwegian court needs a case assessed, it appoints an expert. How that expert works is governed by the Veileder for sakkyndig utredningsarbeid i foreldretvistsaker etter barneloven, issued on 22 September 2022 by Bufdir on commission from the Ministry of Children and Families, with input from a district court judge. I read it in full and searched it. SEARCHED IN THE MANDATED GUIDELINE Six terms, searched in the document that tells a court-appointed sakkyndig what to look at. The count is the number of times each appears in 1,362 lines. artikkel 8........................ 0 EMK, as a word.................... 0 EMD, the Strasbourg court......... 0 menneskerett...................... 0 positive forpliktelser............ 0 konvensjon........................ 1 line 588, on the Convention on the Rights of the Child Veileder for sakkyndig utredningsarbeid i foreldretvistsaker etter barneloven, 22 September 2022, Bufdir on commission from the Ministry of Children and Families. 1,362 lines, searched in full. A careless case-insensitive search for emk returns seven. All seven are inside the Norwegian word fremkomme. That is the kind of number this piece is trying not to publish. It does reach for human rights once, at Grunnloven section 104 and article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on a child's right to be heard. That is a real obligation and it belongs there. But the convention Norway is actually judged under when contact is ordered and never happens is not in the document that tells the expert what to look at. Someone will say the enforcement standard belongs in guidance to courts rather than to experts, and that is a fair argument. I am not claiming anyone removed it. I am saying that the duty exists, that it has been spelled out by the Court in thirty-five rulings, and that the working document for these cases does not contain the words. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03. THURSDAY NIGHT What I built when I got home, and what it is for. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I came home from Arendal with no equipment and a question I could not put down. If the national guideline does not carry the duty, does anything above it? I started digging on the Thursday evening, the thirteenth. What I built over the following days is a register. Every claim men's advocates make, chased back to a primary document. Not a news article about a study, the study. Not a campaign infographic, the dataset. Most of it did not survive. I kept what I threw away and published that too, because the discarded pile is the only proof the surviving pile was checked. Monday 10 August: Arendalsuka. Six questions, a box of equipment, and by the evening no bag. Thursday 13 August: Started digging. If the national guideline does not carry the duty, does anything above it? Friday 14 August: The register goes up: every claim chased to a primary document, with the discarded pile published beside it. Friday to Saturday: Taken to r/AskFeminists (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/) and r/NeutralPolitics (https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/). Two other subreddits remove it for stated procedural reasons. Sunday 16 August: A chatbot handed the page mentions a document from 2004 I had never seen. There is also a song. It comes from the same place all of this does: watching what men around me were carrying and finding no language for it, plus a lifelong interest in music and nowhere else to put the two together. I wrote the lyric a while back about the double standards men live inside, and turned it into a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrF0uWVLCNk) when I started posting about this. It is the least evidential thing on the site, and the reason the rest of it exists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04. THE ROOMS MOST LIKELY TO SAY NO Taking the argument to the rooms most likely to take it apart, including one that judged it without opening it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A number is not an argument. An argument has to survive people who want it to fail. So I took it to r/AskFeminists (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/) and to r/NeutralPolitics (https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/), and tried r/changemyview and r/geopolitics. The last two removed the post: changemyview on a Fresh Topic Friday timing filter, with an apology and an invitation to repost, and geopolitics because text posts are normally disabled there. Neither was censorship and I am not going to pretend it was. "The things you are interested in that affect men more strongly are not really a part of what the UN does. We know a great deal." -- The strongest objection I met, on r/AskFeminists. The commenter is not named. My answer was that the World Health Organization runs global suicide prevention, the ILO exists for workplace deaths and UN-Habitat for homelessness, so not what the UN does is simply wrong. Countries do count male deaths. No body anywhere is mandated to act on the pattern. And the same argument had already told me that male suicide is driven by masculine norms, then that those norms will not change. That cannot be right in both directions. The entire framework of institutions pushing norms is built on norms moving when institutions push them. Honestly? Nothing came back that changed the argument. What came back, more than once, was an instruction: stop complaining, go and be political, do what women did. That instruction is correct, and it is the only reason this article exists. The reply I am proudest of was to that one. Go be political is the instruction I had already followed. Norway ran a government commission on men's equality because people organised for it. The UN pathway is mapped: one member state, one resolution, the same route Canada took for the Day of the Girl Child in 2011. You are not watching whining. You are watching step two. WHERE IT STANDS TONIGHT - The r/NeutralPolitics thread passed 15,000 views, on the post's own reach panel, which Reddit shows to the author of a post and to nobody else. I cannot see other posts' numbers and I am not going to claim a ranking I have no way to check. - NeutralPolitics is heavily moderated. Every answer has to be sourced. - That is the part worth sitting with. In a room where you may only answer with a citation, the answers did not come, because for most of these questions there is nothing to cite. Which is the argument, arriving by accident, in a forum built to prevent exactly that kind of argument from being made carelessly. [R/NEUTRALPOLITICS] Reach, the post's own panel Views: 15k A subreddit where an answer without a source gets removed. The question drew fifteen thousand views and no source that contradicts the record, because the record is the only place it exists. Source: r/NeutralPolitics, viewed 16 August 2026. Reddit's own rounding. https://unformentoo.org/assets/article/np-reach.jpg Then I ran the test myself, and made it as unfair as I could. Late on the night this was published I handed the article to Google's Gemini behind a prompt written to fail it, and watched what came back before it had read a word. Nobody stumbled onto this and nobody independent ran it. I built the least friendly reader I could reach and pointed it at my own work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05. TWENTY-EIGHT WORDS Twenty-eight words the United Nations adopted in 2004, and gave to nobody. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, while testing whether a chatbot handed my own page could argue the case better than I can, it mentioned a document I had never seen. "The Commission recognizes that while men and boys sometimes face discriminatory barriers and practices, they can and do make contributions to gender equality in many capacities." -- Agreed conclusions 2004/11, adopted 12 March 2004, endorsed by the Economic and Social Council [EVIDENCE] Page 147. Paragraph 2 is where the United Nations wrote down that men and boys face discriminatory barriers and practices. It was adopted by consensus and endorsed by ECOSOC, and no entity, focal point or indicator was ever assigned to it. Source: Agreed conclusions of the Commission on the Status of Women, 2004/11 (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/agreedconclusions/Agreed%20conclusions%2048th%20session.pdf) https://unformentoo.org/assets/article/csw48-para2.jpg New York, 12 March 2004. The Commission on the Status of Women, forty-eighth session, adopted by consensus. Endorsed by the Economic and Social Council as agreed conclusions 2004/11 (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/agreedconclusions/Agreed%20conclusions%2048th%20session.pdf). It is not a charter for men. Paragraph 6 is a long list of what governments should do to involve men in equality for women. Paragraph 5 insists that resources for men and boys must not compromise resources for women and girls. The acknowledgement sits in a subordinate clause inside a sentence about what men can do for women. Paragraph 7 told every entity in the UN system to act on it. Nobody was told to own it. TWO TEXTS OF THE SAME PARAGRAPH Advance unedited version, headed 12 March 2004 as adopted ""The Commission recognizes that men and boys, while some themselves face discriminatory barriers and practices, can and do make contributions to gender equality in their many capacities."" Source: ac-men-auv.pdf on un.org (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw48/ac-men-auv.pdf) Endorsed and published by ECOSOC [the endorsed text] ""The Commission recognizes that while men and boys sometimes face discriminatory barriers and practices, they can and do make contributions to gender equality in many capacities."" Source: Agreed conclusions 2004/11, page 147 (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/agreedconclusions/Agreed%20conclusions%2048th%20session.pdf) Most differences between the two are house style. This one moves the meaning: from some men and boys themselves facing barriers, to men and boys sometimes facing them. The endorsed wording is the weaker of the two for my argument, which is why it is the one quoted throughout. This site published the other version for a day and corrected it. Three years later the Commission looked in once, on 2 March 2007 (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw51/panel_summaries/Panel%20on%20Men%20and%20Boys%20SUMMARY%207%20March.pdf), and its own participants said adequate resources should go to "all gender equality programmes, those specifically targeting men and boys as well as those targeted to women and girls". Not instead of. As well as. I have looked for a later review and cannot find one. WHAT THE CLAUSE GOT INSTEAD - Father and paternity: 0 mentions across the 234 SDG indicators (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global-Indicator-Framework-after-2026-refinement_Eng.pdf). - Indicator 16.2.3 on sexual violence in childhood: written for both sexes, measured in about 68 countries for girls and about 12 for boys (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-16-02-03.pdf). - UN Women, by contrast: 594.4 million dollars in contributions in 2024 (https://www.unwomen.org/en/annual-report/2025) and around thirteen observance days a year (https://www.un.org/en/observances/list-days-weeks). - 81 per cent of everyone murdered in 2021 was male (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/Global_study_on_homicide_2023_web.pdf), and 493,456 men killed themselves (https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death) that year, about 56 an hour. The indicator excluded nobody. The measuring did. Meanwhile the other column got built, and for reasons that hold. UN Women reported 594.4 million dollars in contributions for 2024 (https://www.unwomen.org/en/annual-report/2025). The calendar carries around thirteen days a year for women and girls (https://www.un.org/en/observances/list-days-weeks). About one in three women alive (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women) has experienced sexual violence, roughly 50,000 women and girls a year (https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/femicides-in-2024-global-estimates-of-intimate-partner-family-member-femicides-en.pdf) are killed by a partner or relative, and 56 per cent of murdered women died at the hands of a partner or family member against 11 per cent of murdered men (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/GSH23_ExSum.pdf). That last figure cuts against things I have said myself. It is true. I am not asking for a krone of it. What the 2004 clause got instead is visible in what gets counted. Father and paternity appear zero times across the 234 SDG indicators (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global-Indicator-Framework-after-2026-refinement_Eng.pdf). Indicator 16.2.3 covers sexual violence in childhood for both sexes on paper, and about 68 low- and middle-income countries for girls against about 12 for boys (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-16-02-03.pdf) in practice. In 2021 81 per cent of everyone murdered was male (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/Global_study_on_homicide_2023_web.pdf), and 493,456 men killed themselves (https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death), about 56 an hour, which outruns every murder on the planet combined at 52 (https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2023/December/fifty-two-people-lost-their-lives-to-homicide-globally-every-hour-in-2021--says-new-report-from-unodc.html). A newly separated man's odds of suicide are 4.82 times a married man's (https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000482), highest in the weeks right after. The indicator excluded nobody. The measuring did. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two levels, one shape. Strasbourg has said thirty-five times that ordering contact is not enough, that the state has to make it happen, and the Norwegian working document for those cases does not contain the words. The United Nations wrote down in 2004 that men and boys sometimes face discriminatory barriers, told its whole system to act on the document containing that line, reviewed it once in 2007, and gave it to nobody. Neither is a broken promise. Nothing was promised. In both cases a duty was written down and no one was made answerable for it. What is missing is an owner. One office. One focal point. One line in a ledger, and indicators that turn a male outcome into a gap somebody answers for instead of a number nobody was asked to collect. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT - The register keeps growing, and every correction to it is dated and published. - The six questions go to the follow-up process for Norway's government commission on men's equality, NOU 2024:8. - The UN route is one member state and one resolution, the same path Canada took for the Day of the Girl Child in 2011. - There is no budget and nothing to donate to. The next step is witnesses, not funding. I went to Arendal with six questions and came home on the bus. This is what I did next. Every figure here is in the register (sources.html) with its exact value and primary source. If any of it is wrong, tell me and it gets corrected with the date on it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE DOCUMENTS THIS RESTS ON ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ECOSOC agreed conclusions 2004/11 The role of men and boys in achieving gender equality https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/agreedconclusions/Agreed%20conclusions%2048th%20session.pdf Moderator's Summary, CSW 51 Interactive dialogue to evaluate progress in the implementation of the agreed conclusions on the role of men and boys in achieving gender equality https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw51/panel_summaries/Panel%20on%20Men%20and%20Boys%20SUMMARY%207%20March.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everything above rests on documents and screenshots. These are the ones that did not fit the story but belong in the record. [GOOGLE] AI Overview, for the query is there un for men "No, there is no dedicated “UN Men”." 16 August 2026 Google's own summary answers the question in one line. The campaign's page is the first organic result beneath it. Source: Google, 16 August 2026 https://unformentoo.org/assets/article/google-ai-overview.jpg [CHATGPT 4] The same model, two questions "Asked why a man hits a woman, it answers that there are no acceptable reasons. Asked why a woman hits a man, the same model offers self-defence and poor communication skills." Screenshots by the author The post carrying both has 94,000 views Where this started, a year or two before any of the rest. Source: ChatGPT 4, screenshots by the author https://unformentoo.org/assets/article/chatgpt-pair.jpg [TIKTOK] @unformentoo · Creator "We want @UN for men too, not only for @UN Women!" 9h 1 like NOTICE: Community-flagged comments - These comments were flagged by our community as potentially offensive or disturbing. View with discretion. TikTok flagged this comment, from the campaign's own account, as potentially offensive or disturbing. The comment asks for a UN for men too, not only for women. Source: TikTok, @unformentoo. Per the author's account from inside the app. https://unformentoo.org/assets/article/tiktok-flagged.jpg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE NOTES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Both UN documents were downloaded and read in full on 16 August 2026 before a word was written about them: the 2004 agreed conclusions (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/agreedconclusions/Agreed%20conclusions%2048th%20session.pdf) and the 2007 moderator’s summary (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw51/panel_summaries/Panel%20on%20Men%20and%20Boys%20SUMMARY%207%20March.pdf). Both URLs contain encoded spaces and break if a copy-paste step decodes them. * Two texts of paragraph 2 exist. The advance unedited version on un.org, headed 12 March 2004 as adopted, reads "men and boys, while some themselves face discriminatory barriers and practices". The text ECOSOC endorsed and published reads "while men and boys sometimes face discriminatory barriers and practices". Most differences between the two documents are house style. This one moves the meaning. The endorsed version is quoted here, and it is the weaker of the two for this argument. This site published the other wording for a day and corrected it. * The Bufdir guideline counts come from extracting the full PDF and searching it. A careless case-insensitive search for "emk" returns seven hits, all of them inside fremkomme and fremkommer. Searched as a word it returns zero. The document does cite Grunnloven section 104 and article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the child’s right to be heard. * Homicide figures: UNODC Global Study on Homicide 2023, page 56, for 2021, with the relationship breakdown from the executive summary (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/GSH23_ExSum.pdf). * Suicide figures: WHO Global Health Estimates for 2021, 493,456 male deaths of 727,043. The hourly rate is that figure spread across the year, set against UNODC’s own published 52 homicides an hour. * The separated-men odds ratio is Wilson et al. 2025 (https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000482), 75 studies across 30 countries. It is an association, not a demonstrated cause. * Coverage on indicator 16.2.3 applies to low- and middle-income countries; high-income countries are outside the comparable count for both sexes. * UN Women contributions are the 2024 figure from its own annual report. Contributions received, not a budget. * The count of about thirteen UN observance days for women and girls is mine, from the UN list of international days (https://www.un.org/en/observances/list-days-weeks). The UN does not publish that total. * Threads are linked at subreddit level rather than by permalink, and the commenters in them are not named. * The account of Arendalsuka, the theft and the police response is my own. I have not published the tracker location or any address. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOFTENED OR OMITTED FOR ACCURACY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * {"wanted":"The UN promised men and boys an entity in 2004 and broke its promise.","published":"It recognised something in 2004 and gave that recognition to nobody.","why":"Nothing was promised. Paragraph 7 tells UN entities to act on conclusions about engaging men in women’s equality; it does not undertake to build anything for men. Call it a broken promise and the first reply is show me the promise, and that reply wins."} * {"wanted":"The UN has done nothing for men and boys since 2004.","published":"Work on the document’s main theme carried on. The acknowledgement itself got no entity, focal point or indicator.","why":"Programmes engaging men in women’s equality exist and are funded. The bigger sentence is false and hands a critic a free win."} * {"wanted":"Bufdir removed human rights from the guideline.","published":"The counts, and the one place human rights do appear.","why":"There is no evidence of removal, and a reasonable person can argue the enforcement standard belongs in guidance to courts rather than to experts. The counts are the claim. The motive is not mine to hand out."} * {"wanted":"My posts were suppressed for their subject.","published":"Two subreddits removed the post for stated procedural reasons, and my own screenshots show it.","why":"changemyview removed it on a Fresh Topic Friday timing filter, apologised and invited a repost. geopolitics disables text posts generally. Calling that censorship would be refuted by my own evidence."} * {"wanted":"The police refused to help because of who I am.","published":"What I was told, which is that too many people live in the building and I should knock on the doors myself.","why":"I have no idea what drives their resourcing and I am not going to guess in print."} * {"wanted":"Men are most of the violent dead, so the money is in the wrong place.","published":"The figures, with the relationship breakdown that cuts the other way printed beside them.","why":"Zero-sum, and incomplete on its own terms. Printing one number and not the other would be a choice, not a finding."} * {"wanted":"Losing contact with your children drives men to suicide.","published":"The odds ratio for separated men, and that risk peaks in the immediate aftermath.","why":"Wilson and colleagues report association, not causation. This site published a related claim wrongly once and corrected it."} * {"wanted":"The rooms I posted in accepted the argument.","published":"That nothing came back which changed it, and that the instruction to go and be political was the useful thing.","why":"That is my judgement of a hostile thread, and I say so as a judgement. The strongest objection I met is printed in full above so a reader can decide for themselves."} ============================================================================ This document is generated from the same source data as https://unformentoo.org/un-for-men-2004.html. If the two ever disagree, the page is the one that was rebuilt last; both are regenerated together. ============================================================================