school boys

The Men and Boys Coalition, the largest lobbying and campaigning group for men’s and boy’s issues in the UK, launched last month. With representatives from the EHRC and the Government Equalities Office in attendance, it had parliamentary blessing – possibly the first coalition representing male interests to get political blessing anywhere in the world.

While the launch signals a new and ambitious stage in the struggle to tackle suffering experienced by men and boys, it is also the culmination of many years of hard work. Needs-based groups such as the Mankind Initiative, CALM, Survivors UK and many others, have been working at the coalface of human difficulty and pain. The Co-founders Dan Bell, Mark Brooks, Martin Daubney, Ally Fogg, Dr  Ben Hine,  and Glen Poole have been tirelessly advocating to raise awareness in their wake. For them, such a coalition with social and political legitimacy must feel long overdue.

They will focus on areas where men’s needs are unmet. Domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse, these are all male problems but arguably women are more likely to be victims and this can eclipse the problems suffered by men. There are other areas of serious concern that are more male specific, such as education, suicide, and men’s shorter life expectancy. These issues are gaining  public awareness but they have not yet started to receive policy attention or financial support. Then there are problems of the most marginalised groups in society such as those in care, the homeless and those in custody, these people tend to go under the radar;  the fact they are more likely to be men isn’t recognised and they receive very little support.

The coalition will also draw attention to structural inequalities. Men have a less direct relationship with reproduction because they don’t get pregnant. This sets up patterns of path dependency where the female’s relationship with children is protected and promoted while the male role in reproduction is all but ignored. Fathers don’t automatically appear on birth certificates, they have no say with regard to abortion, no right to DNA testing without the consent of the mother, very few de facto rights in custody arrangements and inhuman levels of discrimination in family courts. The assumption that men are somewhat peripheral to reproduction affects the way men’s relationship to children is structured beyond the family – there are very few men in teaching and they tend to be all but invisible in the majority of childcare roles.

A vital role of the coalition is to address what is perceived to be the silence of men. We know that men are less likely to talk about their problems, they are less likely to seek help and less likely to complain. This means there is an absence of the male perspective from public consciousness, a lack of knowledge of men and masculinity; what men feel and what causes them pain.  If the coalition can act as a vehicle for the full range of male voices, men’s problems will no longer be invisible and the unmediated voice of men and boys can be heard.

More importantly, the coalition creates the opportunity for dialogue between women and men. Underpinning their whole ethos, is an insistence on gender inclusivity, a respect for the needs and problems of women and an emphasis on co-operation rather than competition between women and men. This is reiterated on their website, by their participating members, and by those who spoke at the launch. There is an assumption that those who are concerned about males do not recognise and respect women’s problems. This is a completely misguided assumption, but a frequent line of attack. The gender inclusive stance has been clear from the beginning. But the approach is much more than a political skin.

By emphasising co-operation rather than competition, a space will be created in public consciousness that will allow for the interdependent nature of women and men to emerge. Understanding and dealing with men’s problems will help to alleviate women’s difficulties. As feminists have pointed out, it works both ways. The man who is in employment rather than in prison could mean one more father at home. Protecting boys from being used as drugs mules may mean one sex trafficker less, further down the line. One father able to take paternity leave creates space for the more career-focused mother who wants to prioritise her work.

Feminism on its own has not produced happier women. A space that allows for the full range of male perspectives to be publicly articulated, and that encourages dialogue and understanding between men and women, could be one of the most important things that the Men and Boys Coalition could do.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Our contributors and editors are unpaid but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.


  1. I admit I had not heard of this movement at all before reading this article. I’m going to be honest and say I have mixed feelings about the movement. On the one hand I’m glad that a group of men have had the courage to stand up and point out the problems facing men and boys, but I am also very keen that this should not become a male equivalent of the feminism movement. Feminism has been hugely divisive, destructive, and one-sided. I hope this movement won’t become a vehicle for being anti-female in the way feminism is anti-male. Please let’s not stoop to their level.

      • Well said. Equilibrium is simply human nature. Men and women just being men and women. We are different (and in some ways dichotomous) in our behaviour but we work in SYMBIOSIS. Wrecking that natural symbiosis is what Feminism set out to achieve.

          • I don’t think it’s the biological principles that are the problem, it’s the idiotic mentality that insists two sexes is neither normal nor enough.

          • Indeed. The completely insane “blank slate” model, whereby human beings’ sex and/or sexuality (mislabelled as “gender”) is socially constructed rather than a product of biological chance once sperm has met egg.

            That book to which I linked is excellent as it is collates the researched neuroscience that clearly makes us what we are, but it also sheds some light on the last few enduring Feminist myths not popularly debunked. Even a lot of Western anti-Feminists are still insistent that women are systematically oppressed by men in certain places (Islamic and Hebraic cultures, primarily) but even that isn’t true.

    • I think inclusivity of the female and feminist perspective and dialogue with them is very important to the fact some of their founding members describe themselves as committed feminists so I really don’t think that it will become anti-female or anti-feminist. .

      • Including ‘feminist perspectives’ dooms this initiative to certain failure. You know as well as anyone that feminism is a female supremacy ideology driven by misandry. What place can that have in an initiative purporting to campaign on men’s issues?

        • They’ve had a strong taste of power and they won’t let that go without a fight. But for every femiloon there must be hundreds of ordinary women like me who rigorously oppose their warped and destructive idealogy.

          • Unfortunately femiloons (e.g. Alison Saunders) are at the heart of the Establishment, and have been for 30+ years.

          • I agree that the battle will be tough as feminist ideology has become so entrenched. But I believe there’s a broad spectrum of feminist views out there, but it’s just the hateful extreme that we all hear about, and I agree, there is no reasoning with that. To give real power and influence to men’s issues the right approach is to use the M&BC to give voice, not only to the grievances of men themselves, but also to the millions of women who also oppose extreme feminism and despise what it has done to the lives and prospects of their fathers, sons and brothers. So there has to be an inclusion of women’s perspective for it to achieve it’s aims, otherwise it will only succeed in ratcheting up the ‘war’.

        • Mike although I don’t think I have ever called myself a feminist I was not always so implaccably opposed to feminism as I am now (and even now I think it has helped say with flexible employment – which of course many might regard as a not good thing anyway – just a shame the cost was so astronomically high) – I have very mixed feelings about feminists campaigning for men’s issues – the disease can’t really be the cure – but I do believe in the power of education and if we just alienate feminists and give them excuses to hate us then they are completely lost and much less likely to learn or understand.

          • Belinda, you’re missing a key point. Feminists – at least those in positions of influence – already hate men and boys. I’m not aware of any prominent feminists today – anywhere in the world – calling publicly for an end to Male Genital Mutilation.

          • I agree with you that the disease cannot be the cure. So why include the disease with the attempts to cure?

            Feminists have not, will not – can not – be good for men nor boys. (They can’t be much good for women & girls either.) So they must be separated, isolated, and either cured or allowed to wither without support.

            Including feminists in an attempt to do well for men and boys can only harm those attempts. Sure, a properly-run coalition could talk at feminists (I’ve learned that they can’t be talked with) but it has to have the right focus first.

            Feminists will not be interested in learning, other than learning how to change their tactics to continue to undermine society so that Marx’s utopian dream society can come about .. just like it did in Hungary a hundred years ago, and proved what it could do in Russia.

            A ‘loose coalition’ that included none of the long-standing activists and advocates for men? Why? A new ‘coalition’ when network4men already exists: why? Was it really so much more important to include feminists than to include those who have fought for so long for men and boys? What, really, can come of that?

    • Fear not. It’s impossible. Men are not like that by nature. Feminism was actually codified by men, though. It’s ultimately anti-female as a side-effect of being anti-male, as you cannot war on one sex and it not affect both. Feminism is anti-human and simply uses women as weapons against men to divide society, and the reverse is not biologically or socially possible. Men will never fight or oppress women. Anti-Feminism is about fighting the lawless activity of the state, not women, and returning to a more natural mode of being, where women are not bullied into trying to compete with men on a tipped playing field.

    • I totally agree with you – see my various posts in this thread. The reason I’m an advocate of the Coalition is precisely because they have been clear that this will not be a male equivalent of extreme feminism’s poisonous doctrine. Rest assured, and have a read of the aims and mission of the Coalition. It is expressly written that: “The Coalition will NOT accept or work with organisations or individuals who are anti-women/girls and/or advocate removing resources from women/girls”.

      • But nobody is calling for ‘an equivalent of extreme feminism’s poisonous doctrine’. Feminism is sustained in part by gynocentrism, there is no ‘soil’ for such a male alternative to grow in.

        • Indeed. The human species is gynocentric biologically. Men are that way in erring toward servitude and self-sacrifice, women primarily in self-protection. Essentially, Feminism uses state force, in myriad ways, to unnaturally exacerbate the most destructive elements of human behaviour, teaching girls to be ever more selfish and demanding – and boys to lay themselves supine to feminine whim at every turn.

          I find that the very worst Feminists – or those hardest to budge – tend to be male Feminists.

  2. It’s good that the chaps are beginning to fight back but chaining their star to the ECHR might not be a terribly good idea given the outcome of the Referendum. Then there’s the observation that bloke rights have been in severe decline since we signed up to Le Project.

    • Any links to the ECHR are liable to stymie any real headway into change, seeing as the ECHR is inextricably linked to extreme Feminist EU ideals; the Istanbul Treaty for one. The EU was founded in the same quasi-Communist soil as Feminism itself was, back in the early 1800s. I suspect this coalition is going to wave some flags about recognising that men “can” be victims “too” but pushing more of the same old “good boy” mentality. Poole and Fogg aren’t bad guys at all, but neither have shown any real, deep understanding of what exactly is the root cause of the suffering of males, and indeed females as well.

      • Exactly. Men and women need to join forces to fight the injustice. The tide is turning despite the machinations of the EU Canute.

        • EU Canute! Made me chuckle.

          I concur, naturally, but the big problem for us is that it’s the youth who are the future and they are screwed. The whole point of a statist doctrine is to perpetuate it, so that while you pull apart the social fabric of mothers and fathers, as Feminism has, you must also indoctrinate the kids via formal education. My son (late teens) was always too smart to be duped and he’s had me as a guide to reality, but he’s a rarity. Most of his generation are utterly brainwashed. The kids in primary schools right now have no hope if the trends carry on the way they are. Even if we could sever all EU ties today and trash all of the EU-led legislation we have (which is more than most realise), it would probably take another decade or more to begin to stop the rot. While a Coalition for boys would be a fine idea, I doubt whether this is going to stave off the greater force to any noticeable degree.

          I try to remain hopeful and positive, but I sense something much worse drifting into view…

          • I don’t believe your son is a rarity. I have one just like him and he has friends who share his views. A lot of like minded kids actually got out of bed and voted Leave. Kids are naturally rebelious. Don’t be too quick to write them off just because the media focuses its narrow lenses on blubbing, brainwashed snowflakes.

          • I don’t write them off per se, really I don’t. I just understand human nature and the general trend of our society. Whole civilisations have collapsed in the same way ours has already gone. I really do hope there is a fight back and am remaining as hopeful as I can. I just fear that it’s going to take large-scale outbreaks of violence to do so, even if that does not originate from the likes of you or I.

            My son and yours are in a minority in understanding, and not being afraid to state, that 2+2=4. The twisted snowflakes are also a minority in their statist 2+2=5 worldview; but they are the loud and politically-motivated minority with the power of the state (and its inherent quickness to violence) at its back. In betweem is the larger mass of the general public who are happy to accept that 2+2=4.5.

            Anyway, I’m trying to be cheerful. Not doing a good job am I? LOLz

          • You underestimate the power of the media who give these little twerps a platform. But to be honest, to anyone with the wit to understand which seems to be the majority, they come across as ill-educated and ill-mannered and ill-prepared for life in the real world. The lessons will be hard.

          • I used to be a journalist and editor myself though not in mainstream news media, thankfully. I do understand the power of media in all their forms. The media does not represent the hard bottom line, however, for all its persuasive trickery; it’s the judiciary. Feminist judicial policy, despite being wholly unlawful to the point of treason, is the driving force within the legal system – and it looks to me like even criticising Feminism will soon become something for which you can be arrested.

          • Then colour me a radical anti-feminist. Being a normal female the femiloons are as much my enemy as my bloke folk’s.

          • I’ll be adding one to that total over the years.

            Regardless, the TV/print media pushback has begun and I don’t see it ending. As anyone with a younger kid knows, traditional TV channels (and I include Sky here) won’t be watched in future; if I ask my seven-year-old if he wants to watch CBBC, or CITV, he laughs at me. Rastamouse, for example, bewilders him. He’d rather watch DanTDM on Youtube.

            The power of the MSM will wane and the power of individuality will return, thanks to the internet. People will no longer be indoctrinated by TV because TV as we know it (and have known it) simply will not exist in the thousands of channel choices there are.

            In my view, the BIGGEST issue parents face in the UK is schooling. Schools are left-wing indoctrination camps led by marxists who don’t actually know they’re marxist, thanks to their own poor education, and anyone who doesn’t toe the line is ostracised.

          • The power of the media is already waning. Look at the shocks they have received recently.

            As for the schools, the power to combat that social engineering crap is in the hands of the parents. The ones that aren’t comfortable with it, that is.

    • I don’t have any hope of much from the ECHR though they are now including education as a key area. However it is their job and they do need to be held to account. As it is they spend time and effort on stuff that isn’t even in their remit.

      • There’s a reason why the NUTters don’t want the return of grammar schools. Meritocracy is a bad word. The term Critical Thinking is also banned from the NUTter lexicon. When you subvert education you subvert talent. When you subvert talent with social engineering and gender related lefty politics you get under-perfoming boys. It is a scandal that successive governments have allowed to slip under the radar.

  3. Belinda, there are few female anti-feminists in the world for whom I have a higher regard, so it pains me to see you associated with this doomed initiative, the creation of male feminists including Ally Fogg (Guardian writer) and Glen Poole.

    The disadvantages and associated poor life outcomes experienced by men and boys in the UK are the diirect result of assaults on their human rights by the state, through its actions and inactions, made worse by state-embedded feminists (e.g. Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions). If anyone should doubt the truth of this statement, I invite them to read our 2015 general election manifesto, which explores 20 areas in which the human rights of men and boys are assaulted by the state, almost always to advantage women and girls:

    Nowhere in the information provided by the coalition is there any recognition of the role of the state as the prime ‘actor’ in male disadvantaging, there’s no criticism of feminism as an ideology, nor feminists as a group or individuals, nor an explanation that male disadvantaging is the inevitable and predictable consequence of female advantaging. No mention that men pay almost 75% of the income tax which largely funds the social engineering initiatives which drive male disadvantaging – at the last count men paid almost £78 BILLION p.a. more income tax than women in the UK.

    The same male feminists are behind International Men’s Day (UK). I’d make the same criticisms of that.

    The lack of a moral compass of these people is indicated by the fact that in neither their website, nor the IMD UK website, is there any mention of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors – Male Genital Mutilation, ‘MGM’ – which the male feminists behind the coalition know very well is illegal in the UK.

    Might the coalition be of some use in gaining media exposure on men’s issues? Not so far, despite a parliamentary launch. Two of the three mainstream media references I’ve seen have been penned by two of the coalition’s members, Glen Poole and Martin Daubney.

    The people behind the initiative appear to harbour the hope that with their ‘softly softly’ approach, they’ll be able to influence the political class. Decade after decade, such hopes have been repeatedly trashed. If you want to see how the political class regards men’s issues, you only need to watch the recent International Men’s Day debate, introduced by the estimable Philip Davies (C, Shipley). Key points:

    – female deputy speaker in charge of proceedings
    – 150 minutes scheduled for the debate, reduced to 83 minutes by feminist MP filibustering at the end of the preceding debate (the speaker didn’t allow a proportionate extension)
    – virtually no support for Philip Davies, even from the government benches.
    – the debate was hijacked by feminist Labour and SNP MPs, one of whom – Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (SNP) – had the gall to state that every day is International Men’s Day.

    A video of the debate, with a timed commentary:

    If the coalition achieves anything, I’ll be the first to congratulate them. But all my instincts tell me this is a vainglorious fantasy which will achieve nothing, whilst wasting time by giving the illusion of action, and diverting people from the need to understand the real nature of the problem – the state, and state-embedded feminists – and acting accordingly.

    • There is space for many different approaches to tackling the hydra of feminism and it is important not to alienate feminists – you need to meet people where they are at and gradually pull them over.

      • “you need to meet people where they are at and gradually pull them over” … a sound piece of advice which has clearly not been taken by Jeremy Corbyn.

      • I co-founded the Coalition and I’m not a “male feminist”. Anyway, cheers for the support, Belinda. Glass half full, and all that

        • Martin, will you be criticising feminism and individual feminists in your future articles about men’s issues, and if not, why not?

          • Ok then, Mike, what would your answer be? What action are you taking? Surely the points you’ve made just reinforce the desperate need for the M&BC to raise these issues? You demand criticism of feminism – how is that likely to move the debate on? Antagonism will achieve nothing other than more firmly entrenching feminist views, it’s not going to change any minds, is it? And it will just keep the focus on feminism, which is contrary to what M&BC is trying to achieve. What will start the rebalancing of our society is countering the dominance of feminism with reasoned, well-argued points, aimed directly at policy makers, with intelligence and respect. Let’s show feminism up for what it has become, but let’s also try and wrestle back the debate onto equality and fairness, and away from petty point scoring, which is surely what we all want?

          • What feminism “has become.” With all due respect, Danny, there’s a key failing right there. Sorry if I am wrongly presuming regarding your knowlegde of Feminism, but…

            You must understand – truly must – that Feminism did not begin as a grassroots movement for equality, fairness or women’s rights. It began as a well-codified, top-down, sociopolitical cult used to advance hardline Socialism, forcing parity of outcome between civilians under the boot of an oversized élitist state. It’s never been anything else. There is no such thing as systematic male subjugation of females and never has been. It’s a biological, and thus sociological, impossibility. Pulling apart the symbiotic sexes is simply the most efficient way to achieve those rigid Socialist ends. Xenophobia, racism, classism and such are useful, but minor, tools compared to the machete of Feminism, which slices through all classes, races and such, right down the middle of humanity.

            Feminism waxes and wanes in “waves,” as we call them, but don’t get caught up in this idea that women were once genuinely deprived or oppressed by men and that Feminism won “battles” to correct this – and somehow the Feminist movement has gone “too far.” It was a statist-supremacist doctrine from the jump-off and still is. Ain’t nothin’ much changed in that respect since 1837 but the weather.

            There’s no such thing as natural equality in real life because every living thing is different. Thus, the only actual, social equaliser in any society is the Rule of Law. It is the systematic abrogation of this that is keeping profiteering Feminism as the umbrella policy of the state. Whiny, pampered, overprivileged dupes marching the streets and campuses, blathering on about “rape culture” or “patriarchy,” are not a palpable threat to anyone. Treasonous police, judges, ministers, chancellors and peers are – and I think you will need more than well-reasoned argument to chisel away at that class of sociopaths and cowards. They’re well-armed. Literally.

            I do commend efforts in seeking political debate where it counts, really I do, but much of the Coalition’s stance does seem to be planted on soft earth at the moment. Respect to those putting in the effort, always, but please get the facts straight and use the Law as the strong arm. Reason will not work because reason has been ejected from the state machine.

          • Feminism has never been about achieving “justice for women”; it’s always been a project that involved a transfer of power.

            From the early 1960s, the true aims of feminism have been concealed behind emotive rhetoric about “justice”. Even when this is understood, it will be very difficult to dislodge or modify institutionalised feminism.

          • “There is no such thing as systematic male subjugation of females and never has been.”


            I agree that the above may be true in our society, however. Even so, history can be rewritten, and I believe many femiloons are actively engaged in doing so.

          • To quote Zara Faris, hopefully accurately, ‘In traditional Muslim societies, very few women would exchange with men their combination of rights and responsibilities.” I don’t see feminists demanding Muslim women have the same responsibilities as Muslim men in such societies. To consider gender-typical rights without considering gender-typical responsibilities leads to a lack of insight. I refer you again to both videos, I can’t hope to convey numerous nuanced arguments in a comment.

          • No, sorry. I know how easy it is to jump there, but that is a side-effect of the broad Islamaphobia being ramped up for the coming Holy War – or whatever the f**k is about to go off that we’re supposed to get in on. It’s just another avenue for Feminist fundraisers to steal money. Western perception of Islam is about as accurate as our own history. It’s all bunk, as Henry Ford said. History is rewritten all the time. Our newspapers and online outlets are doing it as the events are happening.

            All of the female “suffering” and “subjugations” you appear to see in Islam all predate Islam and whatever may affect women affects men more and/or in greater number or in a worse manner. FGM and veiling, for example, began in the noble classes, both enforced and performed by women on women. It’s an intra-sex thing only. Men are called upon to enforce the whims of such matriarchal rules (familial and social) but by and large are deferent or shy away from it. Men may run societies, as in we do all the real work, but women rule them. It’s biology.

            Ideas like women not being able to drive in Arabia are again a trickle-down phenomenon from the upper tiers of women who insist that they are driven around like princesses, by men. Islam actually provides some amazingly thick roots in gynocentric history.

          • “All of the female “suffering” and “subjugations” you appear to see in Islam all predate Islam and whatever may affect women affects men more and/or in greater number or in a worse manner.”

            So because it happened before islam, it’s okay that islam continues this subjugation? If that’s what you’re saying, I do not agree with you. Show me the female imams in mohammedanism; the females that rule; islam is not gynocentric in any way, no matter how much you’d like to believe it or obfuscate their ideology.

            Whatever. My point here is wider, in that “men and boys groups” should not be anti-women. You cannot rail against MGM whilst ignoring FGM. It is not right.

            Let’s put it another way: if “meninism” becomes as loony as feminism, I want no part of it, no matter that such looniness might be the only way to put us on an equal footing.

            I hate feminism with a passion. I do not want us to become like them.

          • Thanks Danny. Decade after decade, “reasoned, well-argued points” have made not the slightest difference, feminists in politics and elsewhere have simply entrenched and increased their malevolent influence. Male politicians won’t criticise them, with the exception of two Tory MPs, Philip Davies and Karl McCartney. I refer you to my comment about the woeful response to the debate on International Men’s Day in parliament.

            Feminism is a disease in the body politic. It cannot be reasoned with, it must be frustrated as a political force, and I believe that is eminently possible in my lifetime (I’m 59). What action am I taking? Well, a lot of the actions of my colleagues and myself are on our website, and I’ll be standing against Theresa May in her Maidenhead constituency at the 2020 general election – almost three and a half years away. Campaigning there starts in eight days’ time.

          • Thanks for your reply, Mike, and I respect you for taking a stand, literally, in the election, and for your work in furthering the cause. I guess we all find a way of expressing our views that we’re comfortable with, and for me the M&BC approach fits. Your expression is through Justice for Men and Boys. I believe there’s room for both, and that we should all pull together to achieve our common aims. You’re right, there’s a heck of an uphill battle to be won, I’m not naive about that. And I think that the Coalition adds to the campaign, rather than diminishing it.

          • Danny, if I thought MBC added to the struggle for men’s and boys’ rights, I’d be a vocal supporter. But it’s not. It detracts from it. Its analysis of the gender politics behind male disadvantaging is feminist – i.e. complete BS – and it lacks the will and courage to fight the enemies of men and boys, who are in plain sight.

            Among its many flaws, MBC fails to recognise the implication of male disadvantaging flowing from female advantaging – how could it be otherwise? – and fails to call for a reduction in female privileges. Example off the top of my head:

            £350m p.a. spent on national screening programmes for gender-specific cancers. 100% of funding spent on female-specific cancers, although as many men die from prostate cancer as women die from breast cancer.

            Fathers and paternal grandparents denied access to their children and grandchildren following false allegation made by ex-wives.

            Domestic violence – men are at least 40% of victims, but as a class receive less than 1% of funding available.

            The education gender gap resulted from the replacement of O Levels by GCSEs in 1987/8, and has been with us for almost 30 years.

            40% of university students are male because 60% are female.

            Only 30% of medical students are male because 70% are female (and the state will get, on average, 2x the lifetime work output from a male medicine graduate, as from a female one).

            Fewer than 4,000 female prisoners out of 84,000, because of the shocking leniency of the courts towards female criminals. If men were sentences as leniently as women by the courts, five out of six men in British prisons wouldn’t be there.

            I invite anyone from MBC – or elsewhere – to point me to current prominent feminists willing to advocate for a reduction in female privileging, in the interests of gender equality, or for any other reason. Hell, they won’t even publicly advocate for an end to MGM!!! And MBC believes these damnable women (and men) can become our allies? It’s naive beyond words.

          • Reminds me of a (female) friend of mine, who wrote a few years ago. “The feminists say they want to be equal, I don’t, why would I want to aim low?” Although her context was that she wanted to be treated like a lady, not some idiot.

          • Even simpler support for shared parenting as in Oz. After all feminists go on about men and women being equally able to care for children. Equity in parenting would be right up their street!

          • Apologies, Mike, for my clumsy question “What action are you taking?” At the time I posted I hadn’t appreciated that you’re rather more active than just a fellow keyboard warrior…

          • I’ll criticise anybody and anything who/that warrants it, including your good self if necessary 🙂 But I’m more interested in positive action in Parliament to get inequalities addressed, no tit-for-tat heckling that means we’ll never get taken seriously, or indeed even get an audience with policy makers/changers.
            My (personal) number one goal is addressing the gender education gap, as boys like me (working class, coal miner’s son) are now bottom of education’s pile. I find that desperately upsetting. The politician who seems to care most about that issue right now is Theresa May. She has previously identified as a feminist. Does ideology mean we shouldn’t try and do business with her?
            Meaning these boys won’t get the help they so badly need? That’s nonsense to me.
            Anyhow, you have your way, and we’re trying ours. I wish you luck. Very best of British, and see you no doubt soon for a pint or three. Cheers Mike, Martin

        • Absolutely, Martin, it’s obvious you’re not a ‘male feminist’ from your writing. I’m concerned at the militancy shown today, the attitude that if “you’re not 100% with us, you’re against us”. It seems we can’t debate anything now without hostility. The M&BC is a bold attempt to change the discourse and make genuine progress for our society without crushing anyone underfoot, and I applaud you.

          • I think Mike is talking with his experience’s of taking on these feminazi’s. The media for one have thrown him to the wolves with their feminist bias.,

          • I think you’ll find that there are more people opposed to militant feminism than for it. Militant feminism degrades everyone who is not a militant feminist.

          • I think such hostility can be written down under some simple human emotions to be honest; jealousy, for one.

            Frankly I think any group that seeks to bring men and boys into the spotlight is worth supporting to some degree. Only time will tell if the M&BC is worth our support, but let’s give it a chance, eh?

      • “It is important not to alienate feminists.” In the sense it was important for black people in the US civil right movement not to alienate white people, presumably. Let’s make omelettes without breaking eggs, shall we?

        Feminists are the enemies of men and boys, they’ve never been ‘pulled over’, and never will be. What privileged group in history ever willingly gave up its privileges?

          • OK, there are exceptions to every rule. And what has been the response of feminists to a film which is sympathetic to men’s issues? Attempts to starve it of funding, and when that didn’t work, banning the film.

          • Belinda, I accept there are a growing number of women prepared to say they’re not feminists – usually privately rather than publicly, significantly – but the only feminists of the slightest importance are the radical feminists in positions of power. Their power and influence continues to increase.

            I’m increasingly inclined to see women who identify as non-feminists, whilst welcome, as virtue signalling, which takes little time or effort. How many of these women campaign to reduce the privileges of women and girls, a necessary precursor to reducing the disadvantaging of men and boys? Virtually none of them. With one or two honourable exceptions, they won’t even campaign with us to end MGM. Now MGM is an issue I’d like to see covered in an article on TCW.

          • I think you’ll find that many non-femiloons are rather busy raising children and helping their partners keep a roof over their heads. Many of them, myself included, have sons who are brought up to not be victims of femiloonism. We are fighting at ground zero so please don’t tar us with the virtue signalling label.

          • Thanks, but I’m talking about the feminists in positions of power in the state. They’re the ones doing so much damage, and I don’t see the coalition even mentioning their existence, let alone criticising their manipulations.

          • Let’s not lose sight of the fact that many of these state empowered feminists were voted into power by men, or employed by men, as well as women.

            I’m pretty certain the likes of Harman wasn’t the result of an exclusive female vote. Likewise my fermiloon MP, Cat Smith. She didn’t get my vote but I’m certain she got a percentage of the male vote.

            Having been linked to Fleetwood by the boundaries change we have men in the constiuency who will vote Labour whatever. It has little to do with being a cowed, p***y whipped bunch.

            Maybe it’s why femiloons tend to be hard leftists.

          • Well, feminism is an evil outcome of Marxism, so we shouldn’t be surprised that femiloons tend to be ‘hard leftists’. Cat Smith is awful, like so many products of Labour’s all-women shortlists. Jess Phillips, one of our Toxic Feminists of the Month, is an obvious example.

          • All women shortlists are an evil in themselves and should be banned for the sexist constructs that they are. It isn’t just Labour that like these things. Arch Quisling Call Me Dave voiced sympathy for them too.

          • I think he wore the tee shirt. Of course in fact it is indeed men who have actually implemented the feminist agenda. Even the all female lists for the labour party (and the arch quislings attempt at the same for the tories). As a first disproof of the feminist theory itself is that the “patriarchs” have it appears been rather enthusiastic in pulling apart their “class privilege”. One sees little sign of any diminution of this bumptious enthusiasm to look after women. As evidenced by a couple of high male police bods happily trashing their colleagues as almost universally corrupt sex abusers; on the basic of 300 “allegations” (100 or so officers) over 4 years for the whole nation’s forces! Of course didn’t even quote how many had been investigated or proven (though that is in the report) nor entertain the idea that not all the allegations were women alleging male abuse (because they weren’t). No “the patriarchy” regularly and with gusto chucks males under a bus in attempts to look good to women.

          • They needn’t bother. The only women they’d look good to are the ones who see them as useful idiots.

            Personally I prefer a bloke with steel in his spine, not custard. Patriarchal fe-men-ists will end up as a self-terminating biological dead end if they aren’t careful.

          • I think perhaps that feminist entreeism has been so successful because middle-class men espouse feminism as part of their courtship display. The main victims of feminism are men lower down in the pecking order, who are not of course of concern to male professionals.
            It should also be noted that for the upper echelons of society, it is better to have both men and women in professional level work as this means that well-heeled families concentrate the rich pickings available, and prevent the lower orders rising above their station.

          • Absolutely spot on. I recall the comment about pushing women onto Boards made by a Chair of such a Board, that it would make Board meetings “more convivial”. And of course however unfair the split of a substantial property and income, it is still substantial. But where the assets are few the man is destitute and where the promotion is in a low paying job every pound is important. The truth is, despite the occasional celebrity spat, feminist “virtue signalling” carries few penalties for those with no need or occasion to rely on Gov. or the things it funds. Richmond Park little disturbed. But Sleaford, well in such places one soon sees the destructive effects of “de-constructing” the family.

          • Agreed. I cancelled my membership of the Conservative party in the autumn of 2009 when Dave announced his intention to introduce AWSs.

          • If you go into any branch of WH Smith you will see magazines concerned with all sorts of topics.
            There is however one area of interest that seems to be missing. It is odd that despite feminism apparently fighting the terrible oppression suffered by 52% of the population, purely feminist publications such as Spare Rib and Everywoman have long since gone bust. If feminism were really popular, feminist magazines would fly off the shelves.

        • If funding and political credibility goes to men and boys issues – feminists I am afraid will be the first to jump on board. And then the real problems will begin.

          • So the answer is not to get funding and political credibility for men’s and boys’ issues? Feminists will certainly ‘jump on board’ anything the coalition might achieve.

          • No. The answer is to guard against it and articulate an alternative narrative. We can acknowledge that feminists are okay people but that feminism itself contains intractable problems such as the belief that men are by nature oppressive or bad or the quasi religious belief in an oppressive patriarchy, or that women are universally subordinated etc. Feminism could be seen as containing two things – a need to make certain changes to the position of women in a way that a majority (or minority?) of women wanted to see things change and then a horrible, unnecessary ideology which was designed to facilitate this process. This ideology – oppressive patriarchy and universal subordination and all that nonsense does need to be got rid of.

          • “We can acknowledge that feminists are okay people…”

            To turn a good person into an evil person takes an ideology.

        • “What privileged group in history ever willingly gave up its privileges?”


          Globally and historically, gynocentrism is everywhere, because men *love* women (blame evolution, not the troubadors). It’s why, until recently, women were *thankful* for (gynocentric) patriarchy, not in an existential fight to the death with it, shifting the gynocentrism out of the family into the law, so they don’t need to owe any man gratitude anymore: “we don’t need you, but we still want you” (feminist utopia in a slogan).

          Mike, I love so much of your work. I’m an anti-feminist like you, not a non-feminist. But in this thread I think we’re getting a friendly fire incident. Looking after vulnerable boys and men has priority over exposing feminism. Women’s advocacy should be everyone’s job, not feminists’. Men’s advocacy should be everyone’s job, not anti-feminists’. People *love* helping one another. They hate war. War against women is unconscionable. There are anti-feminist battles to be fought. You’re the man for the job and I’m with you. It has to be done, but it’s ugly stuff. It’s not for everyone.

          I hope you’ll find it in your heart to be thankful for the *hard* and skilful work, over *many* years, of those you are criticising. Nevertheless, you’re a champion. Keep up your great work with my humble thanks for the encouragement you have brought to many.

      • Feminists are already alienated and that’s how they like it. They did that on their own. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with how they feel as they don’t give a rat’s behind about anyone but themselves. Sod the feminists! They’ve had their own way for far too long.

  4. I know there are injustices which men suffer on account of their sex, but I don’t believe this lobby can achieve much in redressing grievances.

    Moreover, I wouldn’t want to be represented by a campaigning group that seems to be lifted straight out of an Encyclopaedia of Liberal Causes.

    • I was trying to find the right words to say why I wasn’t in favour an “Encyclopaedia of Liberal Causes” sums it up nicely.

      • A fundamental misunderstanding : this is about fighting the destructive forces of identity politics that have led us to have an ‘Encyclopaedia of Liberal Causes’, not supporting them.

  5. I’m afraid we need to take the news of this new coalition with a large pinch of salt, and a huge dose of scepticism. History has shown us that we cannot reason with feminists – they are too far indoctrinated into their ideology – and if they are invited to become involved in men’s initiatives, such initiatives are liable to be hijacked and neutered, if not completely taken over, by those feminists. Erin Pizzey will tell you that they even do this to their own..

    • Erin Pizzey is a great example of a feminist hurled under a bus by radial feminists in pursuit of their evil ends, in her case in 1971, 45 years ago. Hmm, these feminists haven’t been open to ‘education’…

  6. I’m very disappointed to hear the scepticism and defeatist negativity towards the Coalition, on these, of all pages. If you have doubts, please visit the website and read more about the aims. M&BC is definitely and explicitly not anti-women, but it most definitely is trying to claw back the political agenda from the current feminist dominance. Above all, the Coalition is trying to recreate a harmonious, balanced and loving relationship between the genders, and make sure that the concerns of men and boys are considered equally and with the same gravity and respect as women’s concerns. Equally, note, not ‘to the exclusion of’. With the greatest of respect to those who post on forums (which includes me, of course!) nothing is going to change by just sharing our views with other like-minded posters. The Coalition has been established to actually make a difference, to break feminism’s stranglehold on policy and funding, and to stop the escalating gender war. From reading these pages as often as I do, I would have thought the readers of TCW would be fully behind any initiative with these aims. So, please, open your minds, find out more, and get behind the initiative.

    • I hear what you are saying. Unfortunately I fail to understand what a support group, which is what you’ve described, will achieve against such a pernicious enemy. You are not going to win this fight with “respect”, “concern” or “harmony”. Remember what happened to Gandhi. You conflate defeatist negativity with the realism of human nature. Come across as weak and you will be stomped on. If you enter this poisonous feminist jungle best come loaded for b****.

      • Take your point about ‘defeatism vs. realism’, and that the poison may take more than reasoned debate to overcome. But we need to show optimism and belief here, not least for the sake of young men and boy’s future prospects, who must wonder what life holds for them in the future. It’s probably an idealistic view, but I’d hope we could achieve something without fighting hate with hate, and I’m not sure that even a ‘victory’ under those rules would leave us in a better place.

        • I wish you luck. You are going to need it in spades. It’s not just males, the feminists want to control us normal women too. Theirs is the politics of totalitarianism. It usually takes a bloody (not in a sweary way) war to nip it in the bud.

          I hope it doesn’t come to that.

          • I said ‘hope’ for a reason! Time will show whether or not progress is made. But I do think we should at least try and avoid a bloody revolution right from the start!

          • I hope not as I know of no “bloody” revolution that hasn’t ended up with one of those asymmetrical population charts. You know the ones that show the conflict ended up with a heck of a lot of dead men. It was interesting in one of those daft UN “Equality” reports Rwanda came feminist number one. Simply because the “genocide” had actually been “gendercide” and women were having to do “men’s” roles ’cause the men were dead. Perhaps someone knows of a revolution without a shedload of dead men ?

          • Well there is the so called sexual revolution that is still producing a shedload of disenfranchised men. It’s time it was stopped in its tracks.

            There’s hope that this can be done peacefully. Much to my amazement Parliament had a vote on Wednesday, voting overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50. It effectively kills the Supreme Court shenanigans dead in it’s tracks. Naturally the Nats voted against it.

            Maybe we can do the same with the femiloons.

          • To me a similar key moment would be the Gov. (of whatever hue) ending support for the Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy. Successive Governments have ratified this as they come in. indeed the feminists are not daft they make it their first demand. On the surface a benign attempt to make the world “safe and secure” for women and girls, it is in fact a hugely effective vehicle. It directs Gov. funding and policy in: Criminal Justice, Prisons. Social services, Housing,Family Courts. University Research, Education Policy at all ages. Policing, the CPS, NHS Patient Care, Grant Funding (including the National Lottery and other “licenced” lotteries) Remuneration and Employment Policy to name but a few. Over the years it has become a huge influence throughout all the operations of national and local Gov. It was a really clever manoeuvre as the Equality Act is studiously “gender neutral” and held forth some hope, however the early promise of its early “guidance” was completely subverted by the VAWG strategy. In my experience form local Gov. politicians very rarely read the policy documents they should. And I’m sure the VAWG isn’t read by the politicians who endorse it. Certainly not the Tories as if call me Dave had read it he’d realise it’s incompatible with even the palest blue.
            It is honestly explicit in its commitment to “deconstruct” social roles as understood today. A government which junked it would make a massive difference. But you see the problem, its so clever, who could say they want to end a “Violence Against Women and Girls” Strategy? For who in the wider public would understand that the strategy says husbands financially supporting their family is “violence”? It really is the epitome of a propaganda “big lie”.

          • One law for all. Violence is violence and should be dealt with the same for everyone, no exceptions. The PC travesty promoted by femiloons that is gender politics and identity politics is divisive Stalinist doctrine and has no place in a modern, civilised society. Possessing a middle “wicket” should not be an excuse to treat men more harshly than women. Or to demonise them as closet rapists.

          • You hit upon something resonant there. The *ahem* middle wicket is seen as a weapon, simply because of its protruding shape. What I suspect is that the weaselly beta-males in Government, those who are the quickest to pathologise other men, are jealous because they’re hung like Chinese mice.

          • The Velvet Revolution, Czechoslovakia, in 1989… although the name is rather apocryphal in my eyes! More like “Velvet Transition of Power”.

          • The UK nay very well need a revolution. We desperately need one in America. That’s why Donald Trump won the Presidency by a landslide. The man hating left wing, under dictatorship of the Obamas has ended. People knew there would be more of the same with Hillary Clinton and said “enough.”

            Surprisingly more women voted for Trump than did for Obama.

          • More white women, anyway (53%, I believe). Much lower among black and Hispanic women. I don’t know the overall figure.

          • This is a major human rights struggle, even if most people don’t yet recognize that. It surely WILL ‘come to that’ given the state’s investment in privileging women and giurlsat the expense of men and boys.

          • Okay thanks. But India did at least boot out the Raj – of course it would have been better if he hadn’t been shot. Quite a few Indians I know are not too condemnatory of the British in India – but that is a topic for another day – I am not sure how it relates to the topic in hand.

          • It is an example of how a peaceful movement, with the best of intentions, shouldn’t underestimate the factions radically opposed to it.

          • True. Ghandi’s approach in a Russian or Japanese territory would quickly have got him thirty years in a gulag or a bullet in the head.

        • What a delightfully phrased question!
          Gandhi won, of course!
          But that cannot be what weirdvisions had in mind. I presume she was thinking of his several arrests and imprisonment, and of course his assassination. His vision was not entirely realised either. South Asia separated along religious lines with much bloodshed.
          La Manif Pour Tous had readings from Gandhi at some of their mass protests a couple of years ago. Political action comes in so many different forms. M&BC is my preferred type: a non-partisan, grass-roots, direct action for the needy.

  7. “A space that allows for the full range of male perspectives to be publicly articulated, and that encourages dialogue and understanding between men and women, could be one of the most important things that the Men and Boys Coalition could do.”

    And Babe now has wings…

  8. I gather Belinda’s got a copy of my brand new book ‘SEX DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED: From DNA to Society — Purging Gene Copying Errors’ — on recommendation by Bonedagger here!
    It’s a ‘bottom-up’ from biology, cutting-edge holistic understanding of men/women: the first time anyone has properly attempted to put forward a truly integrated account of human sociality, utilising all the latest lines of evidence in theory re male hierarchy, female ‘personal network’, the very different in-grouping according to sex, and pair-bonding.
    The core argument is that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes.
    Explanation here has to be bottom-up, not top-down, because that is the direction of causation: all else is feedback, which in inherent in any system if it is to avoid breakdown. Culture – that is, the facility to have and behave in this way – could not have evolved unless its function is to feed back to and fine-tune the very underlying biology that gave rise to it. So the more complex the organism becomes, then the better it gets at being faithful to and expressing its biology. The notion that instead somehow we go off on a novel tangent and ‘escape’ biology is the very opposite of what happens.
    To deal with all the accumulated gene replication error, the ‘bad’ genes somehow have to be filtered out, and this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.
    The female contribution to this ‘genetic filter’ mechanism is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.
    With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to ‘marry out’ to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.
    Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman’s peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness. But although this is clearly all in the female interest, the male also gets something out of ‘marriage’: a more fertile partner than he would be able to acquire for ‘no-strings’ (promiscuous) sex. It’s cross-sex bargaining.
    The upshot is that there’s an underlying sex dichotomy, to be sure; but it’s perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.
    Best wishes
    Steve Moxon

      • I do hope so!
        — I’m not ‘Bonedagger’, if that’s what you imagine. He’s emailed me: apparently he’s in Nottingham. I’m a Sheffield guy.

          • And so it should.
            And I confirm: I am definitely Steve Moxon, and his good self ‘Bonedagger’ is somebody else entirely.

          • Steve, I’ve never seen the two of you in the same room… are we just supposed to accept this on trust?

          • Well, we’re planning to meet up, so if yer want to make it a threesome then yer can see fer yerself — and take the photey to prove it!

          • I can also confirm without fear of contradiction that I am not Steve Moxon and, if you can credit it, Steve Moxon is not me either.

          • If you, Mike and myself do ever end up in the same place, you should write a song about it. Something about “Patriarchy,” but sung to the tune of “It’s a Long Way To Tipperary.”

  9. “They have no say with regard to abortion”
    To be frank Belinda, they shouldn’t have any say because it would reopen the can of historical worms in which fathers got to decide on the life of the child over the life of the mother, also nature disposes of fetus over 60% of the time, anyway, it would be impossible to prove what was natural or assisted. While we’ve moved on from the level of maternity deaths from the 19th century, you need only look at current third world rates to see what the outcome would be from a reversal of available antibiotics. The idea that one gender should assume rights over the health and welfare of the other is really preposterous

    • Ok. But when a woman decides she wants to proceed with the birth, can men have the right to a DNA test to establish whether they’re the father? Can deliberate paternity fraud be criminalised?

      The situation for fathers is all responsibilities and no rights. The result is that men are opting out in increasing numbers.

      • Paternity fraud is already a crime, albeit not specifically – the same is true of many forms of fraud – under the Fraud Act 2006. There have been a few successful private prosecutions funded by men, the Crown has never brought prosecutions, although the state knows of hundreds of women every year who commit paternity fraud, because men demand (and pay for) DNA tests through the CSA, to prove they’re not the fathers of children when women say they are. This has given rise to the ‘slapper defence’, when a woman claims – sometimes genuinely – not to know who the real father is.

        The only compensation available for men, if they bring a successful prosecution, is emotional distress, and the highest award I’ve ever heard of in the UK was about £25,000. A man may have been tricked into believing he’s the father of a number of children over many years, and paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for their upkeep – and often the mother’s upkeep, let’s not forget – but the lying woman’s liability is restricted.

        Far more common than this form of fraud, however, is one Steve Moxon described as ‘oopsing’ in his excellent ‘The Woman Racket’ (2008). Women will cause contraceptive methods to fail – most offen by ‘forgetting’ to take the contraceptive pill (hence ‘oopsing’) – and the man will be in for a major financial liability towards a child he may not have wanted.

        • So really effective male contraception is the answer, he gets to decide when he wants to attempt to have children (there will cons as well as well as pros), and can choose to avoid that with partners he doesn’t want to.
          Those women, once they realise a certain form of leverage has disappeared, will be forced to entertain men as real long term partners rather than potential baby makers with on tap financial support.

  10. Well I do recall a previous Coalition for men. Probably
    longer ago than I think. So I hope this one has legs.

    I recognise much of what you say from the point of view of
    Warren Farrel. In effect his position was and is that much of feminist output
    and policy direction is hypocrisy because if gender is socially constructed, it
    is so for males as much as females with both negative and positive
    outcomes for males depending how well
    they fit the assigned role. For a coalition of service providers this is
    obvious as often you are trying to support males who have “failed” in the sort
    of stoic self-reliance that is core to the male role. And you do so in a
    context in which services are not supported precisely because the wider society
    has no patience or time for males who are perceived as failing.

    On such a point there should be support from feminists as it
    is entirely within their theoretical framework. That the reverse is frequently
    so shows the hypocrisy of many feminists. As Mr. Daubney recently pointed out
    this leads to both withdrawal of funds to charitable provision for male rape victims
    and re definition of male abuse victims as “girls” under the VAWG policy.

    As Belinda points out in her comments one of the problems is
    that this whole area has become so huge. With a consequence that people wrap a
    huge range of issues all in to one.

    As I see it your group is focussed on particular areas of
    life wherein public support as absent because of policy directions, such as the
    VAWG strategy, or Athena Swann etc. which mean the difficulties males
    experience are systematically ignored
    and marginalised. In fact your aims
    should be very much the business of the EHRC as it’s about the proper operation
    of the Equality Act and Equality Duty, to ensure that proper regard is paid to
    gender (not just females). In that context one can see that a Coalition makes
    sense as the outcome is simply the proper operation of the current law.

    There are others wanting to have a broader debate on wider
    notions of nature/nurture “masculinity” and so on, such as BAM. In that context
    I suppose I’m content for all sorts of spirited debate (which has always been
    there think of Paul and the early Christian church for instance) in which case
    the point I believe is to have the
    debate, but with all views.

    Then those focussed on the specific operation of the “state” really Gov. and its various forms (Civil
    Service, Local, Agency and Quango) to identify inequities and failings. Obvious
    examples being Criminalisation, Sentencing Tariffs, Child and Family Courts, mutilation
    of infants genitals, Housing Rules, positive discrimination as well as negative
    and so on. In effect the province of political campaigns.

    Plus others advocating novel or exclusive ways of living MGTOW.

    Hardly an exhaustive list of the possible areas for action
    but showing that there is “room for all” in the context that for all the above
    the place we are in know is that males are frequently not “on the agenda” let
    alone dismissed from debate. Probably a measure of how far there is to go is
    the recent Radio 4 programme “the men’s room” which decided that an expert was
    a feminist comedienne!

    Personally I think energy has to be focussed on that which
    is in the purview of politics. So that Law and Policy are Equitable and
    interfere as little as possible in peoples choices where they live in Amish
    simplicity or Grayson Perry flamboyance. Thus I personally concentrate effort on
    the Equality Duty and iniquities of the VAWG policy rather than wider debates.
    Possibly unlike other TCW commenters I’m not that bothered if in the future
    people lived very different lives, so long as there hasn’t been extensive intervention
    from “the state” to make this so.

    Equally I can see limited resources do make hard
    choices. So the fact that single young men are at the very bottom of any prioritisation
    for housing (through the operation of “points” and similar systems) is possibly
    understandable but should be acknowledged as reflecting a societal view of their
    resilience so that its clear charitable giving is required, Because their
    homelessness is as much a reflection of public policy choices as their own
    qualities (young women get additional” points” as “vulnerable” or “at risk”).

    • Young women get additional points for being unmarried mothers, lack of adequate birth control and an assumption that embryos are independently living, gives rise to the emotional and ethical concern about killing children, which is at the source of a lot of societies problems.
      Unmarried mothers going to the top of social housing lists has an impact on a lot of other people, including the young men who get them there.

  11. Feminists, being the astonishing bigots and sexists they are will, most assuredly, do everything in their considerable government backed and tax payer funded power to destroy The “Men and Boys Coalition,” and/or any other organization dedicated to the well being of males.

    • No Samantha, they won’t; since feminists comprise most of those forming this ‘coalition’ feminists are more likely to ensure it receives both funding and publicity. Feminists are highly unlikely to destroy a puppet organisation with a name so closely resembling that of their most voluble and vociferous opponent.

      • “Destroy” was the wrong word to use. It would have been more accurate of me to say “manipulate,” “hide behind,” or “use to their advantage.”

        • Some detail from their about page:

          “We will, where possible, assist members of the media to find relevant facts and research or signpost them towards professional experts on gender issues affecting men and boys.”
          Who is it that thinks men and boys are a ‘gender’ and not a ‘sex’?
          Who is it that has professional (i.e. taxpayer-salaried) experts on ‘gender issues’?
          Who is it that is convinced that they – and only they – have the ‘relevant facts’?
          Well, well, it doesn’t seem to be anyone who has so far demonstrated concern over the plight of men or boys.

          “The Coalition will not … Accept or work with organisations or individuals who … advocate removing resources from women/girls”
          So, nobody who has campaigned for equal pension rights is allowed; no-one who advocates that separated fathers should have more time with their kids is welcome; nobody who wants to end female quotas is permitted; no-one who wants males to have equal access in crowded DV shelters is wanted; (need I go on).

          Conspiciously absent, given the above quote, is ‘The Coalition will not … Accept or work with organisations or individuals who … advocate removing resources from men/boys’. You might imagine that’s obvious but such organisations or individuals are not excluded by the statement of the coalition’s aims.

          Now, who does that remind you of?

          • Remember the “studies” conducted to prove cigarette smoking didn’t cause cancer? These “studies” were funded by “experts” hired and paid for by the tobacco companies.

            The conclusion – cigarettes didn’t cause cancer.

            To me this “coalition” sound like much the same type of thing. – AKA there are no problems facing men and boys.

  12. Shouldn’t we describe most of those who call themselves ‘feminists’ as ‘female supremacists’? ‘Equality’ is really the name of a political weapon, not a moral imperative.

  13. Sadly we live in a world where emotion trumps reason, hysteria defeats calm. Men don’t emote (apart from a few celebs and vote-grabbers).

    I applaud the beginning (or restart) of this necessary balancing of thought. I just hope that the founders are thick skinned – they will get the whole venom of feminism against them (no doubt aided by the BBC), just as the eurosceptics did.

  14. We have to applaud this development. Even three years ago it was inconceivable. i appriciate why some may be a bit cynical, I am myself sometimes, but turning back the tide of 3rd wave feminism was never going to be quick or easy.
    We should not underestimate the parliamentary blessing. We may not see or hear them but believe me, the feminists will be seething. Power is slipping away from them like sand through your fingers.

  15. I support the formation of this Coalition. Whilst many people have been speaking out about
    issues facing men and boys as individuals, lone voices carry little weight. Consequently I
    welcome the formation of this Coalition – including, and particularly, its embracing of a broad spectrum of experience and opinion. It is essential for movements of this kind to have a broad appeal if they are to make headway and attract more than just very narrow support.

    • I understand when you talk of embracing a broad spectrum of experience and opinion but why did they miss out all – ALL – of the most experienced people who have been arguing for men and boys, and include some of the very people who have caused the need for those dedicated volunteers in the first place?

      Which men’s groups are invited to discuss women’s issues? Which men’s advocates are invited for their broad spectrum of experience to feminist coalitions?

      Sure, a group needs to discuss with such people, in time. It doesn’t need such people in its ranks, who have no understanding for the issues suffered by men or boys and even write articles convincing people how great they are, while having never done anything helpful.

  16. Well done ! This is an excellent initiative and long overdue. Boys, men and masculinity have been under heavy attack for decades and the victims have not just been the boys and the men but also women, children of both sexes and indeed families and the whole of society. I wish this new organisation every success.

    • The problem is that while some of the groups involved do good work at an individual level, far too many of them support the very laws and policies that have been attacking men and masculinity for decades.

      I can only wish this ‘organisation’ success if they get rid of the feminists like Belinda Brown and bring in those may individuals and organisations that have worked hard in Britain to highlight the issues so far.

      • I only know of one feminist in it – Jane Powell who heads up Calm. Also you can’t start checking people’s beliefs – we just have to keep drawing attention to what a destructive, damaging ideology feminism has been – Considerable academic and intellectual energy could go into analysing the damage feminism has inflicted on society and eventually people will be ashamed to be feminists. That is what I hope for. In the meantime actions speak louder than words and if it can draw attention to men’s issues – which it has done, and play a role in getting funding for men’s issues that seems a good thing.

        • Belinda, if you don’t consider Ally Fogg and Glen Poole feminists – their writings relentlessly reveal them as such, along with their hostility towards (and lack of support for) anti-feminist campaigners for men and boys – then you and I are living on different planets.

  17. The formation of a coalition that cares about men & boys has been needed for years. Many dedicated advocates have been pushing for it for many years – a recently deceased one starting as long ago as 25 years.

    It is therefore very regrettable that not one body that has made a poilitical difference for men and boys, or bringing any of the many issues forward to the public’s attention, was invited to join this ‘coalition’. There are, for sure, some people and organisations that have worked with boys at individual level and may have done some good. I don’t know: most of them have never been heard of before by the major national figures in the country.

    The pre-existiing network4men was not approached. Neither the organisation, nor – so far as I can determine – any single member of it was invited to hold discussions. Why so many people who have worked so hard to improve the lives of men and boys should be sidelined by some new group that appeared out of nowhere is still a mystery.

    This new ‘coalition’ (it doesn’t appear to be one, by my dictionary’s definition) seems suspiciously like something to deliberately keep the major voices distant from ever having a formal voice. Any individual or organisation who dares to disagree with government policies, or to argue aginst the ideological rot that is the root cause of problems many men and boys have, has not been invited. Not one.

    So, yes, a coalition was needed. It existed. But it didn’t mind if people pointed out that you can’t support men and boys if you only want to keep doing more of what is damaging them so much. Network4men also had people who who were part of organisations that actively disagreed with feminism, who showed proof that feminism is damaging to society, to women, but most expecially to men and boys. Believers in egalitarian principles of being fair to all, and giving everyone equal opportunities in life – and therefore who oppose feminism – have been kept away.

    If this ‘coalition’ is to achieve anything for men or boys as a collective, it will have to rid itself of members who can be shown to work against the interest of men or boys. It will have to rid itself of members who support any organisation that works against the interest of men or boys. It will have to open membership, and influence, to those who have worked hard and have solid, workable, practical policies to propose for the benefit of men, boys, women and girls. It could start by subsuming itself into the network4men or talking about a merger. If it won’t do that, one must ask why.

    If this new collective will not work for the benefit of men and boys other than to support the current damaging policies and discriminatory laws that deny men their human rights, it will just become one more monolith that those of us who are willing to criticise will have to fight against, as we seek a fair and workabke society for all.

  18. Well, what a load of feminist garbage this is. Yet again another state sanctioned feminist shop front that deceitfully states it exists for men and boys, but in reality it is only there to deal with the evil of manhood and the violence that men perpetrate on an innocent female population. Yada, yada, yada!

    I mean, this woman even admits this in her article. Typical views of a feminist with no common sense, logic or even a modicum of morality. She cannot even see the lies she is spouting are the very same ones that lead many men to suicide.

    Get your head out of the dirt Brown. Men DO NOT perpetrate the majority of DV. That is just another femtard factoid. Women ARE NOT innocent little flowers as you spout who are victims of the evil of men. In fact, there are 1,700 peer reviewed studies that will prove overall, women are much more violent than men are and are more prepared to use violence early on, whereas men do not.

    The one major point that those studies do make, is that there is gender symmetry when it comes to those who perpetrate domestic violence. Except to say that it is often the woman who hit first. So what does that tell you Ms. Brown about the bullshit that lies within your head on this topic?

    Over 80% of all child abuse in all western countries is perpetrated by mothers. You know, they are women. Where is it that these women are being locked up or at the very least losing those innocent children?
    It doesn’t happen!

    This group of femtard puppets in this doomed organisation that only exists to show the rest of Pommy Land that they are actually addressing men’s issues, is not only going to never help men at all, it will in fact end up making life a whole lot worse for men who seek them out for assistance. All it will do is see the suicide rate go up.

    • Watch a few YouTube videos about the most depraved male serial killers and rapists and you may see that almost all have in common a history of shockingly depraved abuse from their mothers or step mothers. We hear often of the violence of fathers and step fathers. I’ve read nothing that comes close to what some mothers do to their sons for years on end, yet the sons pay the ultimate price.

      • Yep, seen many of them, plus articles as well. There are just as many, possibly more, female serial killers around than there are men. We are just not allowed to hunt them down.

        Also, women, and I mean much more than 50%, are guilty of rape. Women rape men on a regular basis, but are never addressed as perpetrators, arrested and have their lives destroyed. No, they are lauded as ‘you go girl’ heroines.


        The other big dirty secret that is taboo and stats are never to be collected, is the number of mothers who rape their own children. As you have said, and I’ll expand on, there have been surveys done on prison inmates who are convicted of rape, where the man has, as you said, declared sexual abuse by the mother or another woman in the family.

        Yet these stats are nowhere to be seen!

        Knowing that in all Western Countries on this planet, women perpetrate between 70 and 90+% of all other child abuse, plus they murder more children than men, I am of the belief and are totally convinced that women will also rape their own children at a rate somewhere resembling the 70 – 90% and that it is indeed NOT men at all who behave like this in families, save for a small number of scumbag males.

        Most men in families will die protecting women and children. You will rarely find this attribute in women!

        Women will sacrifice anyone, including their own children, to attain a better hypergamous deal. Anything to get more money and luxury. They will abuse, rape, torture, then dump their husbands and their children, just to feed their lustful avarice for more!

        • You’ve just reminded me of the school chum who told me that his mother used to lift his bedclothes when she thought he was asleep. She used to go about the house naked, in a council house, and showed an interest in me, often inviting me to visit her.

          I’d forgotten that. I just thought her the usual sort of caring woman, I had not thought her a paedophile until now.

      • Well said. And that abuse sometimes leads to men becoming rapists in later life.

        In our 2015 general election manifesto (p.31) we pointed to a 1984 study – ‘Heterosexual molestation of children who later became rapists’ – carried out by American researchers (Petrovich & Templer) in which they discovered that 59% of convicted rapists in one American institution had been sexually abused as children by one or more women, sometimes their own mothers.

        The conclusion for future action is obvious, and we can be sure feminists (including those in the Men and Boys Coalition) will take up our suggestion for dramatically reducing the incidence of rape:

        Women should be taught to not sexually abuse boys.

      • Some apposite words:

        Infancy’s the tender fountain,
        Power may with beauty flow,
        Mothers first to guide the streamlets,
        From them souls unresting grow—
        Grow on for the good or evil,
        Sunshine streamed or evil hurled,
        For the hand that rocks the cradle
        Is the hand that rules the world.

        Woman, how divine your mission…
        For the hand that rocks the cradle
        Is the hand that rules the world.

        The above poem can be found in: Northrop, H.D. Beautiful Gems of Thought and Sentiment. Boston, MA: The Colins-Patten Co., 1890.

  19. Yet another typically gynocentric piece from The Conservative Woman and a lamentable piece at that (it has the odour of indiscriminate cut and paste from press releases about it). This cannot but alienate a good few men willing to give women the benefit of the doubt where advocacy of men’s rights is concerned and I think that a good thing: the more reasonable men are disabused of their misapprehensions about ‘reasonable’ women (surely an oxymoron) the better for men in general, even the ‘manginas’ Belinda cites as advocates of ‘equality’ for men; males – not men – who really don’t know what side their bread is buttered on. No one seriously advocating on behalf of men and boys would have anything to do with most of the men mentioned in this article and even fewer of the organisations forming the Men and Boys Coalition, almost all of which do all they can, at tax payers’ (72% men) expense, to create the disadvantages for men they claim to be ‘fighting’.

    None of that withstanding, no one thought it necessary to champion the rights of men and boys until Mike Buchanan did the unthinkable and founded a political party with no other aim than that. Now we have the Men and Boys Coalition, perhaps hoping to steal some of the thunder of Justice for Men and Boys. Do they think we’re that stupid?

    This article does little more than to reiterate that women have it worse and men would be happier were we to be more like them (victim blaming by any other name – you couldn’t get away with that in a rape case), which is blackly ironic given the tendency of authoresses published here to mock those women who complain in print or on broadcast media that there are no real men now.

    The authoress is to be congratulated for showing those men who thought her their friend that she is not and thereby advancing the cause of men’s rights one tiny fraction of one second of one minute of one degree of the circle men must trudge before sanity is restored to human affairs. More of this nonsense please Belinda.

  20. Men and Boys Coalition. The Government will give them a grant to build a garden shed or steer them towards Hislam and tell them to get on with it as the feminists won’t argue against that.

  21. I have been watching the comments stream to this article with increasing interest. Not because of its merits, it doesn’t have any. As ‘Mister Cis…’ says, a couple of comments below this one, it amounts to nothing more than marketing copy, announcing this new coalition, it has no journalistic merit whatever.

    In fact, I took issue with the headline the first time I read it. ‘At last a group that puts men and boys first’. There has been a group of people doing just that for a long time now: engaging in thought leadership and political as well as practical activity. These people have been taking the hits, putting in the heavy lifting, making the sacrifices, and some of them have been treading a very lonely path without seeking fame, or fortune. This headline diminishes these valiant people and it ill-befits its writer IMO.

    I have seen comments to the effect that working together in coalition is better than individuals going it alone, because groups have more power than individuals. I disagree. Groups inevitably suffer from groupthink – because they agree, they believe they are right – and that weakens them not strengthens them. Groups, especially coalition groups invariably acquire leaders who gain their power by forming gangs, seeking supporters to their particular cause, and then they seek to take over the direction of the group, conforming it to their own agenda. If that is resisted by other members, it all becomes so toxic, the coalition falls apart.

    I have seen comments from people, whom I know, or have met, and whom I have trusted hitherto, who say working together with groups who don’t share one’s perspective is necessary to bring critical mass to a movement, and overturn the pernicious effect of an ideology that has caused the train wreck of society in which we are all now caught up. Again, I disagree. A building needs a firm, integrated foundation upon which to stand, and so do movements. Coalitions don’t achieve that.

    I have seen the argument that coalitions bring unity. I believe they cause divisions by polarising people, as is becoming clear in this very situation. That will weaken the overall movement, not strengthen it.

    I have read people saying that feminism was once a benign ideology that got taken over by extremists, and to those people I say this with warmth but steely-eyed firmness: there is no such thing as as a benign ideology, and feminism is certainly not benign. It was invented by, practiced by, and promulgated by, extremists right from the outset, with an agenda whose outworking we are now seeing. Just read the opening page of my book Their Angry Creed and you will see what I mean.

    I have read repeated pleas not to offend the feminists, that we must seek to work with them and win them over. This is naivete born of an extreme aversion to confrontation. You cannot appease an implacable ideology. History has shown this over and over again. It will flow and ebb and eventually take you over. What is needed is confrontation, and the best example of that comes from Professor Jordan Peterson, that man who, on his own, is taking enormous risks with his career, his future, and his very freedom by bravely standing for truth in this most vicious ideological battle.

    I urge anyone reading this to invest just 25 minutes of their lives, today, and watch ‘Tyranny, one tiny step at a time – How ideology, group identity & collective guilt destroy societies’. It is here: and it is salutary viewing.

    Dr Peterson isn’t seeking coalition with like-minded individuals, he is taking a valiant stand, alone, fighting for something he truly believes in, using only the truth as his shield, and his gigantic intellect as his weapon to overcome the bigotry of what is going on. And he is risking everything. Now that is what I call leadership.

    Amidst all the namby pamby talk of coalitions and their benefits, beware of treating with the enemy is what I say. There is no doubt that there are some members of this so-called coalition who are ideologically feminist/progressive/LBGTQ/Green – whatever – and I for one suspect entryism into the MRA movement in this country, in order to divert it, soften it, eventually to emasculate it.

    These people – I shall not name them – have their own agendas, and they are hidden from view, which is the eternal strategy of the left. A time will come when having one’s name associated with such a group could prove somewhat difficult for those who now see it as a good thing.

    • “it has no journalistic merit whatever.”. It is what is called a POETS day copy. Wonder if she was off to anywhere nice this weekend.

    • I very much agree with the issue that feminism was ever a force for good, and have written on this topic over the past years. Likewise, the concept that it can be good to have feminists on the inside of an organisation working for society’s benefit (let alone specifically males) is flawed. Feminists either belong on the outside, in the cold, and sidelined, or being helped to recover from their illness through dialog and encouraging them to study outside if an ideological straight-jacket.

      On the point of coalitions, networks, groups, organisations, etc., I think they can be useful. Even Dr Peterson is praised as illustrating good leadership, but leadership of what? If there is no collective, there is nothing to lead. The more who follow a leader, the greater the effect that can be obtained by organising them.

      Even a small organisation such as the one I work for most of the time needs a financial expert, a technician or two, and two or three writers/researchers. That’s the minimum, without which we stumble. When we find groups around the world we can work with, we get involved (need more people) and it amplifies our impact. If a group doesn’t amplify our impact, we stop involving ourselves.

      That is the point of any collective. If it leads to more effective operation, it is good. If it leads to less effectiveness, it is not good.

  22. One of the premises of the coalition is that the government and state institutions will engage with it. One of the lessons we’ve learned at Justice for Men & Boys since we launched almost four years ago, is that even when the government engages with those campaigning for men and boys, it will not engage in good faith.

    This year the Dept of Health refused to allow us to give oral evidence to the inquiry on suicide, and the DBIS refused to allow us to give oral evidence to the inquiry on corporate governance (on the issue of gender diversity on corporate boards).

    Many of those associated with the coalition have been ‘campaigning’ on men’s and boys’ issues for many years. I invite them to inform us all of what concrete measures have been taken by the government in response to their efforts, to improve the lives of men and/or boys.

Comments are closed.