Mike Buchanan is a men’s rights activist, who in 2012 launched The Anti-Feminism League and Campaign for Merit in Business in defiance of prevailing feminist and gender parity ideology. He registered his political party Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) – J4MB – in February 2013 and fielded candidates in the 2015 election. J4MB hosted the second International Conference on Men’s Issues at Excel London in July 2016 in association with A Voice for Men.

Kathy Gyngell: What turned you into, and when did you become, a men’s rights campaigner?

Mike Buchanan: For many years prior to the global economic slump over 2008/9, I had made a good living as an independent business consultant, including an assignment with the Conservative Party (2006-8). In 2009 it was very difficult landing new assignments, and a rare opportunity of a public sector assignment turned up, which was well within my comfort zone. I was interviewed by a huge angry woman, and was soon out of the door. I was later told by the agency which had put me up for the assignment that she was a radical feminist who’d never been known to hire a man, and would prefer to hire an incompetent woman rather than a competent man; that she interviewed men so she could deny bias, and was always able to find something in the successful woman’s CV to justify her selection. Then in the autumn of 2009 David Cameron announced his intention to introduce all-women shortlists for prospective parliamentary candidates for the ensuing general election. I was one of many party members to cancel my membership as a result. In 2010 I published my first book on gender politics, David and Goliatha. On the front cover there’s a cartoon by the late Martin Honeysett. The ‘David’ of the title is David Cameron, ‘Goliatha’ Harriet Harman. I became a full-time men’s rights activist in February 2012, when I launched my political party, Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) – J4MB

KG: Why did you make J4MB a political party? Why did you think this necessary?

MB: The reason is that the major assaults on men’s and boys’ human rights have all stemmed from the actions and inactions of the state, even though men pay almost 75 per cent of the income tax which largely funds the state. Included in these is denying fathers access to their children following family breakdowns, which in turn is a major cause of male suicide – the male/female suicide differential following divorce is now more than 10:1. The lifetime differential has risen from 1.7:1 to 3.5:1 over the past 30 years, and suicide is now the leading cause of death of men in all age bands below 50 years of age. The government doesn’t give a damn. If it were women ending their own lives in such numbers, it would be a cause célèbre and a huge amount of taxpayers’ money would be invested in an effort to address the crisis and reduce the numbers. In our 2015 general election manifesto we identified 20 areas where the human rights of men and boys are assaulted by the actions and inactions of the state, almost always to privilege women and girls. Yet there is not one area in Britain today in which the human rights of women and girls specifically are assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions. Not one. Women and girls in the UK – and across most of the world – now belong to a highly privileged class, yet for the most part they cannot see it. Women’s appetite for privilege appears insatiable, and radical feminists deliver them ever more privilege. As an organisation we have to challenge the state, because the state is the key problem, and what better way to do it than through a political party? UKIP changed the course of British history because it took the form of a political party, forcing David Cameron into offering a referendum on EU membership. Had UKIP been, say, a charity, it would never have achieved its objective.

KG: In what ways and why do men and boys now get the thin end of wedge?

MB: Male genital mutilation, ‘MGM’, is a key example. It is illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. We’ve just protested over two days outside the Conservative party conference in Manchester last week, for the third year in succession. We’ve also protested about the inaction of the police/CPS with respect to the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors. It not only breaches UN and EU human rights conventions, but it is as unethical as female genital mutilation, ‘FGM’. In fact MGM is even more injurious than most FGM, but people struggle to accept this can even be possible. While females are treasured, males are treated as virtually sub-human – as devoid of feelings. Yet MGM always leads to physical damage. How could it not? The result of the procedure is to reduce the pleasure adult men get from sex. It also sometimes leads to psychological damage and suicides, yet again the government does nothing to protect these unfortunate boys and no criminal prosecutions have been brought. Secondly, we believe that the education system is biased towards girls and against boys and has been since the replacement of O-levels by GCSEs in 1987/8. I also recommend this article on discrimination against boys in the education system by the leading British blogger William Collins, who will be speaking at the fourth International Conference on Men’s Issues being held in Birmingham next July. Thirdly, something that has received public attention is the gender bias in cancer treatment. Despite growing awareness, more men die from prostate cancer than women die from breast cancer. This is hardly surprising since both the gender-specific national screening programmes are for women (breast cancer and cervical cancer), not for men. Were it women rather than men who had prostate glands we suspect that all the objections made against a national screening programme for prostate cancer would evaporate. Finally, the government continues to threaten major businesses with legislated gender quotas, and businesses are under constant pressure to put more women on their boards, regardless of whether they are as qualified as the best-qualified male alternatives and regardless of the evidence. We have taken our campaign on this to Parliament.

KG: What do you think is needed to remedy these inequities – what immediate changes would you like to see, legislative and otherwise?

MB: I’d like to see MGM made specifically illegal, in line with FGM (1985 Act).

KG: You have taken a deliberately combative stance against radical feminists such as Laura Bates, eg publishing your ‘awards’ to the ‘lying feminist of the month’. Do you worry that calling them out like this puts off people who otherwise accept your analysis of the social and economic marginalisation of men and the feminisation of society?

MB: I don’t worry in the slightest. Not one feminist has ever denied that the statement(s) for which we gave them their award was a lie. I was on This Morning with Caroline Criado-Perez (three-times winner of our award) when Phillip Schofield asked her why she’d won it. She laughed and said, ‘Because I lied!’ The problem here is something called ‘gynocentrism’, which is the societal obsession with the wellbeing, happiness, and comfort of females only. Because people are unwilling to hold women to account in the way they’d hold men to account, women in general – and feminists in particular – can get away with monstrous lies. Feminist narratives are one or more of the following – baseless conspiracy theories, fantasies, lies, delusions or myths.

KG: I have heard you described as ‘meninists’ (the mirror image of feminists). Are you not in danger of falling into their competition of rights, identity politics trap?

MB: I know of no serious men’s rights activists (MRAs) who would describe themselves as meninists. There are two theories about how the term originated. One is that it was a projection by feminists, unable or unwilling to understand why there will never be a male equivalent to feminism. The other theory, that it was a spoof invented by men. Men’s and boys’ human rights are assaulted in the UK today in many areas, while women’s and girls’ human rights aren’t. Of course there’s a ‘competition of rights’. Men’s and boys’ rights are assaulted because women and girls are privileged. To end the assaults, we need to end the privileges. It’s as simple as that.

KG: Inequitable divorce settlements apart, isn’t marriage still the best way to bridge the ever-widening gulf between men and women created by feminism and restore interdependence where conflict was?

MB: Why should inequitable divorce settlements be ‘apart’? They’re at the heart of the problem, along with denying fathers access to their children. Society is expecting men to continue being self-sacrificing slaves, which feminists have made them, through their manipulation of the state and the justice system. That’s why so many men are turning away from marriage and fatherhood. Fix the system, end the assaults of men as husbands and fathers, and men may return to their historical roles. Then again, many will not. And society in general – and the political class in particular – will have themselves to blame, for treating men as sub-human for so long.

KG: Isn’t MGTOW (the acronym for ‘men going their own way’) a politics of despair to the point of self-destruction?

MB: No, it’s a perfectly rational response by men to the dangers of intimate personal relationships with women, when women abuse state-sanctioned power to destroy men’s lives in the courts, whether it’s through onerous divorce settlements, denial of access to children following family breakdowns, or false sexual assault or false domestic abuse allegations, which are often in order to get legal aid.


  1. Two more areas (posted simply for information (and with my wife’s permission)) 😉
    “A woman is protected against discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity during the period of her pregnancy and any statutory maternity leave to which she is entitled. During this period, pregnancy and maternity discrimination cannot be treated as sex discrimination. You must not take into account an employee´s period of absence due to pregnancy-related illness when making a decision about her employment.”

    “Breastfeeding is now explicitly protected, and needs to be brought to the attention of the providers of e.g. our catering services, or any on-campus retail outlets.”

  2. Mr Buchanan

    It’s often said, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

    Men and boys (with the approval of schools) are putting on lipstick, skirts and tights.

    They are gaining access to all women’s meetings, swimming, showering and toilet facilities – and the proposal for all-women train carriages are a non-starter.

    Indeed, even the Iranian women’s football team has nine male players!

    I hear even clergy are excited about the future possibility of a male-female Archbishop of York marrying a female-male Archbishop of Canterbury.

    • “…[T]he future possibility of a male-female Archbishop of York marrying a female-male Archbishop of Canterbury….”

      “That’s something different!”, said the Bishop to the Bishop…

  3. If men are to be excluded from the process of bringing up children shouldn’t they also be excluded from paying taxes for anything to do with bringing up children, such as: the cost of state schools and childcare; and the medical costs associated with having children and children’s health?

    Sooner or later someone (far more influential than me) will start asking this awkward question. In a society in which fathers and mothers, and extended family such as grandparents, uncles and aunts, all have a part to play in bringing up kids there is an emotional as well as practical interconnection between wider society and parents. This in turn means that the majority of people are happy to pay taxes to support parents and children.
    It should be noted that since Victorian times the age at which people start work has gone up; the years spent in education and of course its cost, have increased dramatically; and medical care has both improved and become more costly. All these things mean that parents are heavily dependent on support from others, especially via impersonal support from the state.

    In a world in which parenting was the sole preserve of single mothers, those choosing to have children would amount to under 50% of the population (women form about 52% of the population but a significant proportion of women never have children). These parents would rely very heavily on the state, which in turn would rely on the taxes of society in general. A minority of the population would therefore owe its existence to the taxes paid by others, whilst at the same time the emotional links between wider society and children would be weak to non-existent.

  4. The Church has not given the right lead, by following Holy Writ and forbidding women to be ordained to the presbyteriate. This is quite clearly forbidden by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.

  5. “Then in the autumn of 2009 David Cameron announced his intention to introduce all-women shortlists for prospective parliamentary candidates for the ensuing general election.”

    That bit of genius gave us Louise “Loony Lou” Mensch as a Member of Parliament, so any criticism of that absurdity is fine by me. All the same, Mike Buchanan seems far too evasive, although possibly not intentionally so, to be totally convincing. Look, for instance, at the way he avoids Kathy Gyngell’s perceptive question about marriage. I don’t entirely get the impression that he understands the point she is making, but his answer is irrelevant to the question asked.

    • I think he answered it fine.
      Mgtow are simply walking away, that does not make it the politics of Despair but common sense.
      Woman, government, business and the media sooner or later are going to have to answer a really simple question What’s in it for a man to fight for his country when it treats him like a disposable asset.
      What makes the government think these men are not just going to walk away? Shame? That’s been tried already, and only works if you value the opinions of others who see you as subhuman.
      What really is in it for him to marry, settle down, when he’s treated like an object of derision with little or no rights?
      John F Kennedy said ‘ Don’t ask what your country can do for you….’ these men are now asking
      ‘ Why not?
      What the hell is in this for me?’

      • No, you are missing the point, as Buchanan did. Marriage comes first. You can’t be divorced, if you haven’t been married in the first place. Why not fix marriage, before campaigning about divorce?

          • You said “Why not fix marriage, before campaigning about divorce?”

            My question is; how?

            Sorry if you think that such a simple question is stupid, but even stupid questions sometimes have to be asked.

          • Dear Owen, AKM is right. Imagine that a particular make of car used to be reliable, but since a redesign of the engine it is now notorious for seizing up and causing catastrophic crashes left right and centre. Would it then be stupid to ask the manufacturer to rectify the problem before you consider buying the car? Would you be persuaded to buy the car anyway despite the irrelevant little glitch with the engine, because it still has nice bodywork and comfortable seats?

            That may not be a great analogy, but I hope it makes the point. Getting married now carries a similar risk. You have an enormously high chance of getting divorced, and divorce carries an enormously high chance of losing your home, your money and meaningful contact with your children; but only if you are a man. Therefore the very act of marriage is a high risk venture for a man. That is what needs to be fixed.

  6. Not all men, just white western cisgender men.
    You know, the one’s who have provided the protected, free and pampered society that these WWW’s (White Western Women) enjoy!

  7. I see bake off have engineered their perfect lineup.
    White gay Man.
    White Woman
    Black Man.
    Now it doesn’t matter who wins they are covered.

    • I happened to glance at Bake Off by accident last night (was at a relative’s house) and was wondering how an apparently able-bodied white male had made it onto the lineup. You’ve cleared that one up for me, thanks!

  8. I remember Jess Phillips laughing, in the House of Commons, at the notion that men might be unfairly treated. She, like many in our society, must learn the merits of true equality – to be gender/colour/sex/etc blind to all and to treat issues as just that. Issues regardless of the aforementioned.

        • Hello feminist solutions, still getting your knickers in a twist about the idea that men may need help? Try not to worry your pretty little head about things like that.

          Do you still need that one-way ticket to Canada, like when you promised to leave the UK after the Brexit vote? Am still happy to organise the whip-round.

        • Assertive and confident? No. She’s admitted to being permanently anxious. Her brash front is nothing more than an act. Successful at what? At not representing half her constituents? At being very vocal about female victims of domestic violence, while having nothing to say about male victims? Her maiden speech in the House of Commons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpMedhtx8M&lc=z12ns14yitnyjrvc423gsdf4fkuiyrk13 was surely the most woeful such speech in the history of parliament.

        • Men aren’t intimidated by assertive confident successful women. This is the usual projection by people who are intimidated by assertive, confident, successful men. They assume others to be as delusional, paranoid and narcissistic as they themselves are.

        • I like confident women with a brain. I don’t like fat, dumb Jess. Her husband is probably the only man intimidated by such a nonentity.

        • I have no problem with confident and assertive women – my fiancee fits that description perfectly! I have a problem with people, like Ms Phillips, who find true equality a joke and who thinks that male suicide is a laughing matter. There are many women in society who respect the merits of true equality and seek to help everyone based on the issues that threaten and damage their lives. Jess Phillips is a virtue signalling neo-feminist who is only out for herself.

        • Someone has left the pigsty door open and it has got out again.

          I bet it was the non-existant boyfriend who is in Canada but is not, being unable to resist the ‘senior manager’ who earns more than anyone and her fragrant personality!

    • It’s a good wheeze to deflect from her own misandry by calling it anti-misogyny.

      Antifa do the same sort of thing. A lefty trait.

  9. Perhaps he and CW should next set their sights on the appalling Allison Saunders, our chief prosecutor who seems utterly determined to tilt the scales of justice away from men accused of sex crimes.

    Anonymity for complainants and the naming of the accused (with an invitation for all to come forward and enjoy the rewards of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (e.g. Ted Heath)) has now been followed by the controversial ‘coaching’ of prosecution witnesses. And in her latest misandristic attempt to see men imprisoned, the pre trial investigation of defendant’s character and online wittering has been sanctioned. Frighteningly, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is seemingly being replaced by a desire to put enough dirt in front of a jury to convince them, despite any evidence, that he was ‘likely to have done it’.

  10. Life and careers have inevitably become tougher for men since the mass entry of women into the workforce at all levels since the 1970s and it could not have been otherwise. The world of work had to be feminised to meet the requirements of female difference and women given advantages through positive discrimination to ensure they made fast progress in promotions. A key unmet demand, one made not only by feminists, is that women should not be penalised professionally because they are mothers and carers, roles which prevent them competing with men at work on an equal footing. Sooner or later, this will be fixed in women’s favour, no doubt creating another male grievance. Some of the modern equality has been enforced by law, some by the pressure of militant feminism using media and politics to shame society into giving way and some by female career choices in fields where it is easier for women to get their way such as public sector bureaucracy which is committed to best practice. Demands for female equality have given rise to the advent of quotas in all sorts of areas which has since spread to minorities and have limited the prospects of White men. The huge amount of noise made by young feminist women who have not been matured by marriage and motherhood has tended to distort our perceptions of what has happened and what are the consequences. Some men resent the increased competition from women, the fact that women’s view of the world is different from their own and sometimes prevails politically and socially and especially the law’s apparent favouritism towards women in family matters. As far as the latter is concerned, the question is who should be financially responsible for the fallout from a failed marriage when the wellbeing of children is concerned, the parents themselves or everyone else via the state? The state has come down in favour of husbands remaining responsible for the women they married and the children they fathered. With half of modern marriages ending in divorce, no other solution was pragmatically possible even when it is unfair as it sometimes will be. The answer is not rights for men which would be to play the numbers game that they criticise feminists for. It is for men to adapt to new social circumstances that are not going to change and to think harder about how they want to co-exist and compete with women in future.

    • Men ARE adapting but you probably won’t like it. MGTOW, red pill, MRA, etc. These are just the start.

    • “The state has come down in favour of husbands remaining responsible for the women they married and the children they fathered…” And no right-thinking person would oppose parents being made responsible for their children. So, why is it that the state allows 600k single mothers (in the UK) to have children and then get a free living from the taxpayer?

  11. I have a lot of respect for Mike Buchanan, even when I do not entirely agree with some of his suggestions. He is a gutsy fighter against heavy odds and has been a voice of sanity in a world of madness. But the whole subject of the marginalisation and demonisation of the male sex in the western world, and how men have reacted to it, is a massive one, and far too big to encompass in either the above article or a mere comment on a website like this. But I will toss in a few thoughts.

    Firstly the fact of such marginalisation is proven beyond argument, despite the regular, even routine, denials that come from many sources. When you stand back and look objectively at the evidence, it is very clear. In nearly all measurements of the most important aspects of our lives, from birth to death, women are faring significantly better than men. By design. Whether it be life expectancy, education, healthcare, parental rights, marriage and divorce, victimisation through crime, disparate sentencing for the commission of the same crimes, the burden of taxation and priorities in government spending, women on average come out well on top. You can see the same picture repeated over and over. And yet this picture remains invisible to so many. The favourite argument for denial is of course that a small percentage of men have great power and form the majority of those on the top rung of the ladder. Hence we are invited to conclude that the male sex as a whole is doing just fine; in fact more than fine. So no man either needs or deserves anything more. The shutters come down and the blindness takes over.

    Secondly, men are their own worst enemy when it comes to accepting this imbalance. I find many of the worst misandrists are men. They buy into the feminist narrative wholesale, and have no compunction in throwing other men under the bus if it wins them the approval of women and reinforces their prejudices. One example: the most virulent and aggressive proponents of male circumcision that I have ever encountered, are all men. Why?

    Thirdly, I have yet to find anyone outside the MGTOW movement who shows any real understanding of what it really is. But of course that may be down simply to the fact that they do not want to face up to the realities of why it exists, why it is growing, and the vital but unseen part that the mainstream plays in its creation and continuation.

    Fourthly, it is easy to dismiss the “male backlash” as the wild rantings of a bunch of extreme misogynists who cannot bear to lose their patriarchal privilege. The second part is of course piffle; men have no privileges to lose, or if they ever did, they were lost generations ago. But the first part has some justification: MRA websites feature many angry men saying nasty things about women. This obscures the underlying truth that there is much for men to be justifiably angry about; but lashing out at the female sex in general does no good either for the male cause or for getting to any meaningful understanding of how things have to change. But equally, MRAs have lots of intelligent comments and important ideas, and are in fact often far ahead of the mainstream in their constructiveness. For example MRAs were drawing attention to and discussing solutions to the growing male suicide rates, the poor performance of boys in the education system and the dangerous blight of divorce laws, years before the rest of the world woke up to them. If they had been listened to instead of being ignored or attacked, much grief could have been avoided.

    Fifthly, I disagree that forming a political party to fight for men’s rights is the best way to go. The J4MB party got absolutely nowhere in the 2015 election, and this was highly predictable. Single-issue parties, especially when the issue is highly emotive and controversial, tend to flop, and flop badly. The same happened to the Womens Equality Party in the last election. It sank without trace. A pressure group can be effective without forming a political party. Look at the Fawcett Society. It is only a small group of extreme feminist agitators; but it has influence way beyond its strength or its merits. Whenever any gender issue arises, the mainstream media flock to its doors to hear, and publicise, its opinion. Even though that opinion is as predictable as night following day: men are always perpetrators and always in the wrong, and women are always victims and always in the right.

    The above comments all share a common thread: the innate imperative of men to protect and nurture females above all else, even to the point of extreme self-sacrifice; with the other side of the same coin being the competitiveness that leads men to be just as likely to kick other males out of the way as to lend them a helping hand when needed. This is exactly what male-dominated governments do: bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of women, while shunting men and boys to the margins. This is why feminism has been so successful: men do not have the stomach to fight women, particularly the loud and aggressive ones. It is far easier to cave in under the belief, or hope, that it helps women so it must be the best thing to do. Feminists know all about this male weakness, and take full advantage. So do non-feminist women. It is why parliament is still overloaded with weak male MPs, despite women having more votes than men. Because women know that those weak, compliant males will always give them what they demand.

    Can it change? Unlikely, despite the best efforts of the Mike Buchanans of this world. Keep on trying, and a few small gains may result. But it will be a continuous hard haul. Meanwhile, I recommend men do take the MGTOW philosophy seriously. No, not the “shun all women” concept which may be the popular image but is not what it is really about, but following directly what the words actually say. Go your own way and form your own society, one which keeps the insanity of the rest of the world at arm’s length. It is far from impossible, and can yield real dividends without having to wait for the rest of the world to either catch up or implode.

    • “The favourite argument for denial is of course that a small percentage of men have great power and form the majority of those on the top rung of the ladder.” And in quite a real way helping the feminist agenda along contributes to the continuation of those men’s power. As has often been observed on this Blog. Despite celebrity divorces and splits etc. the truth is that the top rungs of society are still observably “conservative” in their choices and lifestyles. As one CEO observed on the push for female board members, “the meetings will be more convivial”.
      The effects of the privileging of women and demonization of males is acutely felt by those males not at the “top”. When “celebs” divorce there are homes a plenty to share. Not so when the only asset is a small family house. Should a captain of industry get accused of domestic abuse for his wife to get legal aid he can still fund his lawyers. When a man gets evicted he finds he has “null points” on the council’s priority list for the meanest emergency flat. And the money paid my some in fruitless attempts to get the courts to enforce their own contact orders can only be spent if its there. Even down to the “equal work” audits that boost the pay of female clerical staff while reducing the pay of binmen, gardeners and drivers.
      I think the truth is that all too often the men who lose out are already society’s “losers” , those ordinary guys getting by. For the well off I’m sure its true, its all more convivial, the things that Mike talks about are almost uniformly much harder hitting on those males who simply don’t count.

    • Thanks Paul. We had a higher proportion of the votes cast in 2015 than the predecessor of UKIP got in its first election. And we had exactly the same number of MPs elected in 2015 as UKIP has managed in any general election. Ahem. But UKIP changed British history, all the same.

      I see nothing incompatible with being MGTOW (as I am) and being an MRA. MGTOW is surely part of the solution, but only part.

  12. The generation now at school will be the first to live their lives with virtually no social conservative influence whatsoever – with no prejudice about gay marriage, to whom it is absolutely normal and commonplace for mothers to be working and earning more than men.

    Progressive Feminist Socialism is the future!

    History is on OUR side.

    Suck on that, conservatives.

    • You have only a limited time. All your beliefs and programmes will be done away with when Sharia law is imposed.

    • Alexandra Kollontai, Bolshevik daughter of a Tsarist general and a Finnish heiress, would have no doubt said the same thing (Kollontai was looked on with favour by Comrade Stalin – she was one of the few early Bolsheviks not be be either shot or deported to a labour camp during the Purges).

      What other treats will the abolition of ‘social conservatism’ bring? Abhorrence of murder is a ‘social conservative’ view (Comrade Stalin would have agreed with this – after all the construction of a socialist paradise required the liquidation of ‘counter-revolutionaries’). The desire for a consistent, fair legal system based on the presumption of innocence is a social conservative view. The desire for democracy is a social conservative view.

      Suck on that, European Citizen/Girrlpower/The Future is Female.

    • History shows no examples of successful socialism or feminism – in fact it is a marker for the impending demise of a civilisation. It is a cultural imposition of ideology that is just too far from basic human norms – it is just not sustainable.

    • No it won’t. It was never to be so. Feminism is to weaken and distract society. The way of Europe is to be UN agenda 21 and UN agenda 2030. That mandate ‘sustainable’ cities with ‘sustainable’ populations. There won’t be enough people about for your idea of a Europe. You can’t depopulate and keep feminist utopian lies. The men that are left won’t buy the lies and will look at the feminists who played their role with a measure of disgust you can’t even begin to imagine.

    • I would suggest you google ‘Generation Zyklon’. The irreligious right is far more terrifying than the religious right. And making something a counter culture always makes it less successful!

      Oh, so I suppose if “commonplace for mothers to be working and earning more than men”, the mythical pay gap is just that mythical? Or representing lazy women correctly getting paid less.

  13. 100 years ago, most people believed a woman’s place was in the home.

    Now, thanks to Feminism, women’s equality is firmly entrenched, especially in the under-60s.

    Through a comprehensive educational and media programme, we can, must and will mould the beliefs of future generations in order to extinguish reactionary beliefs such as racism, misogyny and homophobia. That is the duty of schools and parents.

    Already we are seeing the fruits of our labours in the fact that most people, especially the under-30s, are now overwhelmingly pro-gay marriage. Something that was unthinkable even 20 years ago. We have witnessed a sea-change in attitudes towards homosexuality.

    • Misandry – common in women, and universal in feminists – is this a ‘reactionary belief’ which needs to be ‘extinguished’?

    • Excellent for women that they have acquired their equality. Now when will it be men’s turn?

      And please do not give me any guff about how men have always had it, or better. They haven’t, and they don’t have it now. The above interview is just the tip of the iceberg of how men are routinely disadvantaged. Women have escaped from the kitchen; but men are still chained to being walking wallets, sperm donors, emotional punchbags and convenient scapegoats for everything bad that happens.

      It will take a hell of a sea-change to break down those attitudes. But until that happens, there will be no equality worthy of the name.

    • You haven’t mentioned taboos about zoophilia or dogging – shouldn’t these be the subject of re-education by the revolutionary cadres? And if not, why not? Group 5ex in public places and intimate relations with our furry friends are ‘unthinkable’ to most people today but couldn’t there be a ‘sea-change in attitudes’ to these things in future?
      If not, why not?

    • ” extinguish reactionary beliefs”.
      Hi Kate, been missing you. I don’t often post on this site nowadays but glad to see you are still about. You should start your reducation with learning some history. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Your Maoist type phrases, when actioned, led to the deaths of millions of people.

    • Many boys are being brought up in (female) single parent households ,in schools with no male role models and feminist leaning teaching ( which any one with a semblance of free thought can see contradicts itself into sexist hypocracy ) the result of this is generations who will be far more prone to resentment and misogyny in fact we have not lived in a misogynistic society at all but in future we are likely to given the treatment of men and boys. We need to see mens issues addressed for anyone to believe in equality which so far has only considered one side of the equation to not do this will give rise to a real backlash that so far there has not been . It says alot that Milo Xiannopolis gets most of his fan mail from 10-12 year boys that should serve as a warning that mitigation needs to start now .

      • If you don’t stop UN agenda 21 and UN agenda 2030 being carried out, where they literally mandate depopulation to create ‘sustainability’, then, on the bright side we will still never live in any sort of society where the people that live in it get to decide anything. Most of us, and none of our children will ever see it.

    • And pile them high at Arras.
      And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.
      Shovel them under and let me work.
      Ten years later and the passengers ask “What place is this?”

      My name is grass. Let me work.

  14. I’m male and don’t feel under assault. Hearing wimpy men whingeing about their lot like the above makes me ashamed of having a Y chromosome. Mike Buchanan needs to grow a pair.

    • Guess what? This isn’t about how you feel. It’s about the systematic assaults by the state’s actions and inactions on the human rights of men and boys, almost always to privilege women and girls. If you’re OK with those assaults, just say so. It’s about fathers denied access to their kids, then killing themselves because of unbearable emotional distress. It’s about suicide being the leading cause of death of men in all age groups under 50. It’s about male babies’ genitals being mutilated in the name of religion or culture, and the state doing nothing to stop it, despite it being a crime. And it’s about the other 18 areas explored in our 2015 manifesto. Your shaming tactics are water off a duck’s back, and unworthy of this site. The shame should be yours, not mine.

      • The Spartan male underwent agoge without whimpering and whining. We live in a civilised civic society governed by secular law where men, women, children and even animals have rights enshrined in said law. If you can live in and cope with life cosseted within such a civilisation then wimp seems a perfect and modern term to use to describe you. Man up for goodness sake. You are self-engineered victims.

        • If everyone had equal rights, and, more importantly, so-called gender-neutral laws were enforced equally, I don’t think anyone would have a problem. But, if you look around you, you will see that is far from being the case, and it is, invariably, females who get special treatment. And, moreover, it is getting worse, largely because small-brained Neanderthal males are letting it happen.

        • Our 2015 election manifesto explored 20 areas where the human rights of men and boys are assaulted by the actions and inactions of the state, almost always to privilege women and girls. There are no areas in the UK today where the human rights of women and girls specifically are assaulted. And your answer it to ‘man up’? You are a perfect illustration of why the state can get away with these assaults. Men will not fight for their rights. Well, some of us will. We’ll fight for your rights even if you won’t.

          ‘Governed by secular law’? Tell that to the men whose genitals were mutilated when they were babies, despite MGM being illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

      • Hey Mike what do you think UN agenda 21 and 2030, and the actual reality about how it is being implemented? Such as the liverpool care pathway, or whatever they have taken to calling since it got a lot of bad press? Not to mention all the dodgy ‘political charities’ that are being funded to push these agendas around not just the UK but the world. That cadbury foundation and rowntree foundation? The 1984 like talk of the mostly labour Fabian Society?

    • If you dispute any of the points Mike makes why not do that? Ad homs such as ‘wimpy men’ say alot more about you than Mike.

    • You are just proving Mike’s point. Read William Collins on The Empathy Gap.

      When women complain, everyone rushes to help them.
      When the streets are full of male homeless, when male suicides are going through the roof, people like you say “grow a pair”.

      One day you might find you are the victim of paternity fraud, like one in 20 fathers in this country. If that happens, you will wonder why everyone is so callous towards you and no one listens. Remember, you need to grow a pair.

      Or maybe you will lose your child in a custody battle. Who cares? Grow a pair. Man up.

      Maybe you’ll find yourself flat on your back in a cancer ward, dying of prostate cancer that would have been caught much earlier if spending on men’s cancer treatment was anything like the level it is for women’s cancer treatment. Who cares? Grow a pair.

      Maybe you’ll be a victim of a false accusation of sexual assault. Society will turn its back on you. Who cares? Grow a pair.

      When they come for you, don’t be surprised if no one helps.

  15. Bloody hell. I agree that feminism has caused a lot of damage but I think this guy is going too far, particularly with ‘MGTOW’. This society will not be able to sustain itself if we continue much further down this path.

  16. Leading UK feminist Julie Binder has openly called for all men to be put in concentration camps and then be shot.

    They mean it

    • Yeah, but she is a weak fat pig who cannot run more that 10 yards.

      How is she going to put me in a camp? I’m bigger, stronger and more intelligent than she is.

      • They expect the state to do it. After all the men who work for the state won’t be the ones being put behind bars.

  17. The destruction of boy’s education is of particular interest to me, since I see the effects every day with my students. However, I don’t think MGTOW is a better solution than a restoration of marriage, civic duty and national identity.

    • Morgan, I’m fully with you on education. As for marriage, until reformed, only a man who is naive or stupid would consider it. We’re building an awful lot of unhappiness and loneliness, and I think it’s mostly for women.

      Marriage is a terrible deal for men, unless they are exceptionally lucky.

      • Marriage within good culture (like traditional Christian culture) has led to many longlasting, successful marriages. All hope is not lost. The destruction of marriage and family over the last 40 years by mediocre people in want of self-importance is the cause. But those who have kept their cultural/religious traditions have suffered the least.

      • They do get a bit uppity when their body clock starts to remind them to breed. That’s when the middle finger of the MGTOW is at it’s sweetest.

Comments are closed.