Men are financing the state’s assaults… on men

Mike Buchanan, Party Leader of Justice for Men and Boys, argues that the state advantages women over men.

Men pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK – women only 28%. British men collectively paid £64 BILLION more income tax than women in 2012/13, yet the state relentlessly assaults the interests of men: never the interests of women. In our party’s public consultation document, we list 20 areas in which the state – though its actions and inactions – advantages women (and/or girls) over men (and/or boys).

Feminist politicians and civil servants systematically advantage women at men’s expense, but the mainstream media rarely report on the extent of their manipulations, and it can be difficult to ‘join up the dots’. Let me attempt to join a few of them up for you.

Feminist politicians and civil servants systematically advantage women at men’s expense.

Two-thirds of public sector employees are women, and women use the ‘positive action’ provisions in the 2010 Equality Act to preference women over men when recruiting and promoting, where women are ‘under-represented’. While men could conceivably be preferenced over women on the same grounds, they never are.

Men and boys have been disadvantaged by an increasingly feminised education system. Then they’re disadvantaged in entering certain employment fields by government initiatives, and grants directed to institutions which preference women over men when recruiting and promoting staff (for example research institutions).

30+ years ago, the fact that the majority of university students were men was deemed ‘a problem to be addressed’ by feminists and other left-wing social engineers, who were then (as today) found in key positions in government, in all political parties, and throughout the civil service. The secondary school system has become ever more feminised. In 1970, 45.4% of secondary school teachers were women; the proportion had risen to 62.3% by 2010.

The secondary school system has been manipulated to advantage girls over boys, and 60% of undergraduate students today are women. Why is this gender balance not ‘a problem to be addressed’? Because gender equality was never the motivation for increasing the proportion of female university students. Gender equality narratives are smokescreens for feminists’ quests for female supremacy, driven by their misandry (the hatred of men).

Four out of seven unemployed people are men, and as I have previously highlighted, unemployment is known to be a bigger driver of suicide among men than women. The single largest cause of death of young men in Britain today is suicide. It would be perverse for the government to spend taxpayers’ money encouraging women into historically male-dominated professions, yet that’s exactly what’s been happening for decades, whilst virtually nothing has been spent encouraging men into female-dominated professions.

Let’s consider women studying STEMM subjects – science, technology, engineering, medicine and mathematics. Huge sums of taxpayers’ money have been spent encouraging women into studying STEMM subjects and choosing STEMM careers. However, few women return to STEMM careers after having children, possibly an indication they weren’t happy working in those fields, and were happy to leave them?

For a long time, there have been sustained efforts to drive up the proportion of women in medicine, and 70% of medical students today are women. It costs £250,000 – £500,000 to train a doctor. Large parts of the NHS are in crisis today, partly because compared with male doctors, female doctors are more likely to:

–          quit the profession altogether,

–          work part-time, whether or not they have children,

–          opt for the least stressful lines of work, notably general practice (50% of GPs today are women),

–          decline to work in the most stressful areas, notably A&E,

–          decline to work unsocial hours,

–          retire earlier.

It’s been estimated that the NHS gets around half the number of working hours over a career from the average female doctor, compared with the average male doctor. One highly predictable consequence of the influx of female doctors has been a slump in the staffing capacity of the NHS, a problem which has been ‘solved’ through the recruitment of large numbers of foreign doctors. Many of these doctors are drawn from poor countries which financed their training, and which can ill afford their absence.

There are fields where the government’s efforts at driving women into formerly male-dominated lines of work almost beggar belief. While women have entered medicine in large numbers, few have chosen engineering. Some of the reasons are obvious. Compared with medicine, engineering is:

–          less well paid,

–          less secure (private sector),

–          more likely to entail working in unpleasant conditions,

–          less flexible working hours,

–          less human interaction and appreciation from patients / clients.

Legions of taxpayer-funded social engineers are driven by the delusional conviction that men and women are intrinsically the same. They ignore gender-typical preferences, and always seek equality (or superiority) of outcomes for women. We come to the ultimate manifestation of their thinking. At Brunel University, female postgraduate engineering students are eligible for an additional £15,000 p.a. grant solely on account of their gender. The grant is worth considerably more than the annual gross income of a person working full-time on the minimum wage. Male-to-female transsexuals (and those ‘in transition’) are also eligible for the grant.

At Brunel University, female postgraduate engineering students are eligible for an additional £15,000 p.a. grant solely on account of their gender.

So there we have it. Female students have to be bribed to do the course, while male students don’t. Does anyone seriously imagine these women are motivated to work as engineers? For every woman who does the course, a man is denied a place. Let’s remind ourselves that unemployment is the single largest cause of death of young men.

It’s not only the government which seeks to drive women into male-dominated professions at the expense of men. Professional bodies are pursuing the same objective. Some months ago my party publicly challenged Nick Baveystock, director of the Institution of Civil Engineers, over the matter.The vast majority of ICE’s members must surely be men. Our challenge remains unanswered.

It’s often claimed we ‘need’ more female doctors, engineers, company directors etc. – but do we? I leave you with a link to a video which explores an intriguing question:

If we ‘need’ more women in boardrooms, do we ‘need’ more white sprinters in the Olympics 100 metre final?


Mike Buchanan is a former business consultant, writer, publisher, and men’s human rights advocate. He’s the leader of the political party Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them). He also leads two associated campaigns, Anti-Feminism League and Campaign for Merit in Business. He can be contacted by emailing


  1. Thank you for this Mr. Buchanan.
    I am concerned about men’s rights and the lack of attention paid to them by the government and the media. These issues can no longer be dismissed or shouted down with shaming or distraction tactics. I am not persuaded by the counter arguments shown below.
    I will be donating to you organisation.

  2. I’d like to discuss a few points about this article.

    Firstly, the statement that 72% of income tax is paid by men, compared to 28% by women is not elaborated at all by the author, yes there is a link to a website, but such a statement (the reason why I clicked to read the article in the first place), should be expanded upon in the text itself.

    Second, the idea that ”women use the ‘positive action’ provisions in the 2010 Equality Act to preference women over men when recruiting and promoting” is a pretty strong opinion, but that is all it is. Where is the evidence of this? I can’t find any. The same applies to the idea that one of the reasons why 50% of GPs are women is because it is a ”less stressful line of work”. Is this supported by experience? The same applies to women working in clinical roles in A and E and their declining to work unsocial hours. I have personal experience of working in a busy A and E and I can tell you one thing, it most certainly is a ‘less stressful line of work’. Opinions do not equate to facts.

    Third, the author mentions that over 62% of secondary school teachers are women, but considering the support for biological determinism surely this would be something the author supports? As the author states in a comment on this article ”men are better at something’s, women at others”. Would this not mean women are somehow suited to teaching, so the high percentage of women in teaching roles would be good. The cake may look nice, but you can’t have it all.

    Forth, the issue of suicide amongst men, especially young men (and I would expand upon this to say mental illness such as depression as well) is a serious issue that I believe does not get the attention (clinical or policy wise) it deserves, but to link this to women in education or the work place requires a huge twisting of logic, ‘feminism’ is not responsible for suicide amongst men, and whilst unemployment can be a major contributing factor to mental illness it is but one of many. To reduce such a serious issue to such simplistic causes does not help anyone.

    I won’t discuss the issue of nature versus nurture, others have done this, but either way the examples used in the article do not convince me in any way of the merits of the influence of biological determinism.

    I have left out criticism of such sentences as ”gender equality narratives are smokescreens for feminists quest for female supremacy, driven by their misandry (hatred of men)” as this is borderline conspiracy theory.

    • Yeah, these things need to be looked into more deeply doesn’t it?Would be quite a lot easier if there was a Ministry for Men’s Affairs or some other government institute specializing on men’s issues.

    • I’m in agreement with Rebecca, but would like to add something about the “anti-social” hours that women refuse to work and the fact that they are more likely to not return to work following the birth of a child. Many of these criticisms can be attributed towards social expectations of women. I suggest that were men considered “selfish” and “bad parents” for working after having a child that the same trend would be seen with men. This post-child gap could be easily closed by fostering a culture where men are held equally responsible for child care. I would expect a movement that says it is so concerned about father’s rights to be on board with this idea, but alas, I’ve never seen a MRM discussion (or so much as an article) about how the two issues intertwine. If you really want to change the landscape of the workforce and encourage women to utilize their education, why not start where it can achieve one of your major goals? Could the answer possibly be that the MRM movement is more concerned with upending feminism that they don’t seek solutions where feminism also benefits? The MRM as a whole needs to figure out what’s more important – spreading antifeminist rhetoric or looking for valid solutions to the issues you purport to organize against.

      • Could the answer possibly be that the MRM movement is more concerned with upending feminism that they don’t seek solutions where feminism also benefits?

        Typical feminist. Will never acknowledge that feminism has serious faults. Instead puts on a smoke and mirrors show to deflect attention.
        Guess what.. if there is an infection of the body, the way to recover is two-pronged. 1) fight the infection 2) keep the body fit in general.
        Feminism is the infection that needs to be fought.
        And Keeping the body fit corresponds to men making the internal changes needed to relieve themselves of the outdated provider/protector role. Rest assured that men are quietly doing #2 as well. Thats why there are more and more 30+ women going childless and husbandless, and asking “where are the good men to bail me out in marriage”.

        • ^ Typical MRM poster. Will never acknowledge that all men are not inherently flawless and that his “movement” has some serious issues.

          • You disgustingly advocate collective punishment of all men for the actions of a few sociopaths, while conveniently ignoring the fact that feminist law and social policy enables and encourages such sociopathic behavior in women while denying good men redress against the gross injustices women are encouraged to commit.

      • “This post-child gap could be easily closed by fostering a culture where men are held equally responsible for child care.”

        You would have a lot of support in the MRM for this. The problem comes from the feminist organizations, which have fought bitterly to preserve a system where a mother has unilateral parental authority, and any man who demands his half of that pie can be summarily ejected from the household and the life of his child(ren) using feminist theories such as primary aggressor as a justification.

        Men in family court are presumed to be lesser parents at best, abusers at worst, thanks to feminist lobbying and literature. The man is then reduced to literal slavery (he works, his disposable income goes to an ex who does not grant him the authority he pays for, he may as well call her “massa”)

        • I have no idea what brand of feminism you’re referring to, but it certainly isn’t anything universal or even mainstream. The feminists I read, listen to, network with and learn from all agree that life is better for everyone (mom, dad and kids) when dads have an active role in childrearing. I could easily point you to several feminist organizations that even do work to discredit the “deadbeat dad” stereotype ( is the first one that comes to mind) because it hurts women when they are forced to raise children alone. I won’t say that that kind of feminism doesn’t exist, but it is not something that many feminists agree with, and I think that most modern feminists are more focused on stopping child marriage and promoting the availability of birth control than keeping men from raising their children. You speak of alimony, but alimony is, at its source, anti-feminist. Feminists think that women should be independent, and alimony, obviously, flies in the face of that. It’s an outdated and unnecessary hold over from the days when women could not re-marry after divorce or earn their own income, and has no place in a society where women have every opportunity to support themselves. I certainly agree that men’s issues are a thing that needs to be addressed, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the way the MRM addresses them. For example, instead of fundraising and campaigning for shelters for abused men, the MRM focuses on how much money is being spent on shelters for women. Instead of focusing on the way that rape culture further damages male survivors of sexual abuse (by congratulating them for being abused in many cases) they deny that rape culture exists. There are literally boys right now being told they should be happy that a female teacher raped them – and your movement denies the existence of rape culture! I think the MRM is focused on some very worthy issues that need immediate attention from society. Currently though, you have a movement dominated by extremists like ROK and AVFM where every productive idea is countered by an article explain how to “Crush a Girl’s Self-Esteem” or articles that teach men that women over 30 are useless pieces of garbage.

          • Forget about MRAs.. ex-feminists like Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy,
            Erin Pizzey, Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers themselves have exposed
            how rotten feminist theory, propaganda and actions are.
            for e.g Donna
            LaFramboise’s 1996 book Princess
            at the Window: A New Gender Morality

            Chapter 3, Laframboise criticizes the feminist double standard, which
            minimizes any problems men may have. Behind this double standard is the
            belief that because of the patriarchal power structure, men, in
            comparison with women, really do not have any problems after all, they
            are the privileged ones. If this is the case, Laframboise wonders why
            about five times as many men as women commit suicide. Also, what about
            the fact that women, on average, live longer than men?..
            In Chapter 6 she discusses the men’s movement and
            its implications for feminism. Here Laframboise discusses the problems
            men have to face because of how men’s roles are stereotyped, and she
            encourages feminists to be more understanding of the problems dealt men.
            In Chapter 7 she states that feminists have used biased statistics in
            their analyses of male power

            So basically feminists have leveraged the same chivalrous nature of men, esp those in power, to pass damaging laws and social policies on ordinary men. And now you act surprised when there is a backlash?
            And your mainstream feminism is dominated by garbage that intentionally conflates PUAs like ROK with the Mens Human RIghts Movement.
            Not to mention garbage like National Organization for Women that precisely does the opposite of what you claim with regard to child custody.
            Fall 2012 Newslatter
            on Page 1, Intro:

            This Special Report of the NOW Family Law Ad Hoc Advisory Committee focuses on the destructive ability of abusive parents (usually the father) – aided by fathers’ advocacy groups or fathers’ rights groups – to deny the protective parent (usually the mother) custody of minor children. Discussed in this issue is how abusers deny custody, and the damage it causes to a half million or more children exposed to continuing physical, psychological and sexual abuse.

            There you go.. the abusive parent is usually the father and the protective parent is usually the mother.
            Anti-Science and Anti-common sense as well.

            WHEREAS, the term Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was created by the psychiatrist, Richard Gardner. It is used as a tactic in courts by litigating attorneys as a defense strategy for batterers and sexual predators that purports to explain a child’s estrangement from one parent, or explains away allegations against the estranged parent of abuse/sex abuse of child, by blaming the protective parent;

            THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Organization for Women (NOW) denounces Parental Alienation Syndrome and recommends that any professional whose mission involves the protection of the rights of women and children denounce its use as
            unethical, unconstitutional, and dangerous.

          • The brand of feminism i’m referring to are the institutional feminist organizations, professors, etc who are crafting public policy like the national organization for women. They have been quietly and successfully heading off needed family court reforms for DECADES. You can’t swear off your leaders as “radical”.

      • Here’s the thing, issues raised by the MHRM has been raised by individuals before but they were shutdown by several groups, one of were feminist groups, so it goes without saying that to address men’s issues you have to get rid of groups that get in the way – it just so happens feminism is one of them.

  3. I think you are in dire need of some education as to the state of scientific literature on the effects of hormones and brain structure on preferences… Of course there are differences between the sexes, but are you seriously suggesting that these play a bigger role than the different environments (in terms of play and social setting) that male and female children are exposed to?

    I accept that we don’t understand nearly enough about the brain to make these kind of calls with any certainty, and so that women are simply less good at male-dominated tasks is a valid hypothesis. But you haven’t even given a moment’s consideration to the fact that the upbringing a female child receives is so different from that received by a male child.

    Children aren’t born with an innate sense of which toys to accept and which to reject, which clothes and outfits to choose and which tasks to go about. All of these things are shaped largely by upbringing, and anyone who has seen family members raise both male and female children can surely spot the differences. Is it not conceivable to you that this could also explain why women are less likely to pursue STEM subjects than men for example, and thus should be examined as an equally valid hypothesis to innate difference? Look at the women who have done exceptionally well in chess for example (The Polgár sisters): they received similar upbringing to what parents of male children who wanted to raise a chess champ would and do administer, and they fared better than most competitive men in their heyday. Children play with what you direct them to play with and if more young girls were shown a chess board not a cookery set I don’t think it’s inconceivable that we’d have a female Kasparov within a few generations.

    I completely agree on the point that quotas etc are not the answer and are completely counter productive, but in (rightly) lashing out at government initiatives you’re ignoring the structural sexism in our society (and yes I accept that this affects men as well)

    • Studies have been done to show that human children and other primate young do have a preference for male/female toys without any input from adults. Hormones in the womb do have an affect on the brain which is not necessary same for each gender, hence the variation of ability in each. However a large enough sample does show hard wired differences in the genders as a whole. As per your chess sisters example, exceptions do not make the rule. Because Einstein was a genius does not make all Germans geniuses.

    • Robert, you’re trotting our a social determinism model which is long past its sell-by date. The ‘blank slate’ theory of the brain is as dead as the dodo. Neuroscience is showing ever more differences between male-typical and female-typical brains. I could point you to a number of books to illustrate the point, or just this very recent one:

      Decade after decade rolls by, and social determinists like you come out with gems like, ‘… if more young girls were shown a chess board not a cookery set I don’t think it’s inconceivable that we’d have a female Kasparov within a few generations.’ ONE woman in that league… not inconceivable? ‘Within a few generations’? What, 100 – 150 years? Well, you’re not going to be proved wrong in your lifetime, are you?
      Psychologists have for many years known that young females show a marked interest in faces, and young males a marked interest in objects, from the earliest time they can demonstrate a preference, well before social conditioning could be expected to have an effect. Attempts to make male infants more interested in faces, or female infants more interested in objects, have always failed.

      How to put this simply? Men and women are different. Men are better at some things, women at others. Always have been, always will be. Denial of this patently obvious reality might keep countless otherwise unemployable academics in comfortable livelihoods (which is why they’ll stick with the denial, regardless of the weight of contrary evidence), but it won’t change the reality. So as long as the men who pay 72% of income taxes in the UK keep them in those comfortable livelihoods, they’ll be OK.

    • There is no female Mozart (or a Garry Kasparov) for the same reason there is no female Jack The Ripper – Camille Paglia
      Women have been musicians for centuries/millennia, yet there is no great female composer. Why? Same for painting.
      Blacks were most certainly in dire situations via slavery, yet there are numerous black male composers of music. Why?
      I am an Indian living in the US. My country was devastated by centuries of British colonialism. And that devastation is compounded by natural problems such as immense poverty, population 10 times denser than US, superstition, No Renaissance/Religious Reformation etc. Surely women in the 1st world are better placed than Judith Polgar of Hungary, who is in turn better placed than any man from India. And yet India has produced a world Chess Champion in the form of Viswanathan Anand.
      Psychologist Roy Baumeister has explained things very well in his 2010 book ‘Is there anything good about men? How cultures flourish by exploiting men’.
      Why did women even need to be great acheivers (or great destroyers), when they could rely on a proxy.. a man in the form of a husband.. to fill the provider/protector role, in exchange for their sexuality and reproductive ability?
      Women have it made. Men set about trying to tame Nature and conquer it. Women just need to latch on a man and “tame/conquer” him via sexuality and other manipulation tools.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here