Mike Buchanan is wrong – the state is not ‘assaulting’ men

Sarah Osborn responds to a recent Backbencher article by mens’ rights advocate Mike Buchanan.

In his recent article, Men are Financing the State’s Assaults on Men, Mike Buchanan argues that the state is ‘assaulting’ men by giving preferential treatment to women.  This assertion relies on a false dichotomy between men and women, which not only ignores people who do not fit into the gender binary (those who do not identify as either ‘male’ or ‘female’), but is also based on the postulate of a world in which men and women are direct competitors.  In reality, many women are disadvantaged by the structure of society, but the rectification of this problem will benefit everybody.  Through allowing fifty percent of the country’s talent and intelligence to flourish, the UK economy will grow and more jobs and opportunities will be made available to all people.

In reality, many women are disadvantaged by the structure of society, but the rectification of this problem will benefit everybody.

Buchanan argues that as men pay more income tax than women, the state should spend this money in the interests of men.  The fact that men pay 72% of income tax is evidence of the structural inequality in our society.  As income tax is paid in proportion to earnings, this statistic illuminates the drastic disparity between the earnings of men and women and highlights just how much there is left to do.  Buchanan notes that ‘virtually nothing has been spent encouraging men into female-dominated professions’.  This is because female-dominated professions are primarily worse-paid and less desirable than their male-dominated counterparts.  Even within predominantly female jobs, men who do the same job earn more than women.  Moreover, intelligent men know that they are able to do female-dominated jobs such as teaching and nursing, but are often socialised out of these professions and into higher-earning careers.  Conversely, intelligent women have been socialised away from high-earning ambitious jobs and are often encouraged to fill more traditional roles.

Encouraging women to pursue careers in male-dominated fields is beneficial for everybody.  There are three principal reasons why fewer women than men pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers: cultural and educational factors to do with self-perception, lack of integration of women into STEM subjects at university, and systematic bias in the field.   Promoting STEM careers among women through incentives is not an assault on men, it is an attempt to rectify an important existing problem.  As a woman gets a new job, she does not necessarily cast a man out of his career and into unemployment.  The labour market is not static and the utilisation of the talents and abilities of half of the population will only stimulate the economy and create more jobs for everyone.

We can all agree that suicide caused by any motive is a great tragedy.  In his article, Buchanan uses the suffering of real people to imply that men are killing themselves because women are taking their jobs.  In fact, while it is true that the suicide rate among young men rose with the recession, the British Medical Journal stated that this was because ‘men are more likely to be the main earner in the family’.  In reality, it was women who suffered most in terms of unemployment in the aftermath of the recession.  It is unbelievable that in the twenty-first century, the average woman in the UK earns 15.7% less per hour than the average man.

Buchanan uses the suffering of real people to imply that men are killing themselves because women are taking their jobs.

It is clear that Buchanan perceives the success of women as a direct threat to men. Utilising the intelligence and talents of brilliant women does not detract from the lives of men, it simply improves society for the benefit of everyone.  Instead of focusing on boys and men, who continue to benefit from centuries worth of gender inequality, perhaps Mike Buchanan should consider improving the lives of girls and women (and the men who love them). Utilising the intelligence and talents of women does not detract from the lives of men, it improves society for the benefit of everyone.

Sarah Osborn is an undergraduate politics student and Secretary of Durham University Feminism Society.


  1. ALL women are amazingly privileged and advantaged in a social sense. They have incredible social capital and support networks where there is simply no male equivalent. Just being female means constant attention, countless invitations, daily freebies and instant credibility, where as a man has to meet lots of criteria and become an extremely cool dude just to get the most basic considerations and social validation.
    However, materialists only judge female value by earnings, which are always going to be less than men because women don’t even need a job to have a fulfilling life – hence they are less work focused and less willing to sacrifice leisure-time and family commitments to climb the career ladder… Men have no other options other than becoming dropouts.
    Giving preferential treatment to women in the workplace, education and training, puts men at an even greater disadvantage than they already have. When the state draws resources from men to give to women in the form of opportunities or child benefits – there is no reciprocation… Yet men are still expected to fulfil their traditional obligations of producers and providers. The man becomes nothing more than a worker-drone, disenfranchised from family life and his share of common humanity. This is why many men are withdrawing from interpersonal relationships and are more likely to be a member of the prison population or the homeless. And to add insult to injury, flawed ideological thinking sees all men as somehow aligned with the very few powerful men at the top and also the traditional oppressors of women – hence we have a ready-made self-righteous justification for the poor treatment of low-status males (and possibly, the majority of males today).

  2. Sorry but just saying that women getting jobs is good for all is nonsense. If they need deliberate discrimination of men to get them it is not equality and it is not benefiting all. In reality everyone but the elite was disadvantaged by society before the industrial revolution of the 20th century. Since the 2nd world war only women have benefitted. Women have full access to any career now but have structural advantages added to all laws made in the last 30 years to protect them from failure. Feminists are pushing for even more privileges based completely on lies, about DV, rape, wages, education, jobs, freedom of speech, due process in law, false allegations, family courts, state benefits, reproductive rights, false victimhood. Politicians who only ever support women’s demands. You are so privileged you have no clue what it is like for men. The number of women only agencies funded at least in part by the government is massive. For men ? virtually none.
    More men commit suicide because you and society do not care. If they are abused or disadvantaged by mothers, partners, the courts, in health funding, in parenting rights, in education, in poverty, in human rights no one cares and the government instead of helping them they blame the men themselves for allowing themselves to be abused. This is the opposite for women. Just go and learn about the real world and not your modern feminist dream land. They do not have the answer to equality, they are the biggest cause of inequality in the modern world. That is why men and women are starting to stand up to this and seeking true equality for all genders before the feminists completely destroy the world with their pure bigotry. Do not join them, they do not care about women. They only care about themselves and their ideology.

    • “If they need deliberate discrimination of men to get them it is not equality and it is not benefiting all.”
      Great point.

  3. “Through allowing fifty percent of the country’s talent and intelligence to flourish, the UK economy will grow and more jobs and opportunities will be made available to all people.”

    I note that there is no explanation of how exactly the act of specifically employing more women (as opposed to just emplying more people of any demographic) actually contributes to economic recovery and it’s a somewhat naive view of the world that says we can fix all our problems by simply employing more women. I’m fairly sure that if fixing the economy were as simple as just employing a bunch of women that businesses the world over would have done so by now.

    With such an amazingly naive opening paragraph, I’m afraid I couldn’t bring myself to read the remainder of the article.

  4. I wish Mike would stop arguing that men paying 72% of income tax is evidence, in and of itself, of discrimination against men. Ostensibly it suggests that men are hugely privileged in the workplace; just as Sarah notes.

    Sarah makes some good points, and this is because discrimination affects women too, just in different ways. Both Mike and Sarah seem to miss this in their respective arguments, with Sarah accusing Mike of making a false dichotomy between the sexes, but then proceeding to make the same mistake herself.

    Sarah says: “Buchanan notes that ‘virtually nothing has been spent encouraging men into female-dominated professions’. This is because female-dominated professions are primarily worse-paid and less desirable than their male-dominated counterparts.”

    Largely true, but Mike’s article does say that 60% of graduates are women, including circa 70% for doctors and teachers. Doctors are well-paid, and graduates, on average, are better paid over their careers than non-graduates. There are no campaigns aimed specifically at getting more young men into university, nor for getting more men into medicine or teaching. Since 60% of graduates are women, if women are under-represented in STEM subjects, they must be massively over-represented elsewhere.

    As Mike says, the education attainment gap was a problem in need of fixing when it advantaged men, but seemingly is not a problem when we have 50% more female graduates than male. Given that men and women have identical average intelligence, the education attainment gap is clear evidence of a failure to educate boys in ways they are most responsive to. The gap was caused abruptly over 1987/88 – the first two years of the GCSE, and has remained ever since. It’s not that we don’t know how to fix this – we’ve always known.

    Sarah says “In reality, it was women who suffered most in terms of unemployment in the aftermath of the recession.”

    If you follow the link it says that it hit men hardest at the peak of the recession but women are suffering more as we come out of the recession – just as Sarah says. However, right through the recession, even when it was hitting men the hardest (apparently), we had the Fawcett Society, Harriet Harman, et al, all claiming that it was hitting women hardest, and all of this was uncritically reported by the press. If there was ever a time when it was hitting men the hardest, it was never reported in the main stream press. Neither was the closing of the coal mines, steel works, and much of British manufacturing through the 80’s (by a women, incidently), ever reported as an assault on men, in the way that closing Civil Service positions is reported as an assault on women.

    Sarah ignores the Mike’s claim that unemployment is highest amongst men, and I believe this is especially true for young people. This was true before the recession and remains so.

    Sarah continues “It is unbelievable that in the twenty-first century, the average woman in the UK earns 15.7% less per hour than the average man.”

    Indeed Sarah, it is unbelievable because it isn’t true. You only get to that number by conflating part-time work with full-time work. Your own link says that gap is 10%. Other gender gaps in employment are:

    Men are 97% of workplace fatalities, and about two-thirds of serious workplace injuries (which is indicative of their greater numbers in inhospitable and unpleasant working environments);

    Men are about eight-times more likely to have a skill or trade;

    Men or more likely to be thrust into the position of full-time (and over-time) bread-winners when children come along, as mothers exercise their rights to be stay-at-home mums (remembering that most people are not in exciting professional jobs). In order to square the family budget, men will often leave jobs they like for better paid ones they don’t, etc. Their heroic efforts are evidence of men taking care of their families, not evidence of discrimination against women.

    We still have discrimination against women in all sorts of areas, something Mike never properly acknowledges and is one of a number of reason why I cannot support his party. However, Mike is no worse in this regard than mainstream feminism, including Sarah’s own argument here: basically they (she) refuse to acknowledge problems that are specifically or mostly experienced by men and boys and slip instead into a sort of unhelpful sibling rivalry.

    • Darren, thank you for your thoughtful contribution. I just want to comment on two things you’ve written:

      1. “I wish Mike would stop arguing that men paying 72% of income tax is evidence, in and of itself, of discrimination against men. Ostensibly it suggests that men are hugely privileged in the workplace; just as Sarah notes.”

      I’ve never argued that the income tax issue is ‘evidence… of discrimination against men’. It’s evidence of a number of things, some of which you touch on yourself:

      – men are more likely to go into higher paying professions. One of the reasons so many female-typical lines of work are poorly paid is that so many women want to do those lines of work, supply and demand leads inevitably to a downward force on wages.

      – men’s greater willingness to enter lines of work which entail downsides women don’t like to face e.g. working a long way from home, working in dangerous or unpleasant conditions… a current campaign to encourage women into engineering states that most of an engineer’s time these days is spent in smart offices, not on-site. What does that say about the work ethic of women?

      – men on average work longer hours than women, they’re more likely to work full-time and less likely to work part-time

      – men are more inclined to compete for better-paid jobs

      – because men struggle and compete to get the top jobs, they’re more affected than women by higher rates of taxation.

      In 2000 a world-renowned sociologist then at LSE, Dr Catherine Hakim, published her ‘Preference Theory’. Her research uncovered that while four in seven British men are ‘work-centred’, only one in seven British women is. Survey after survey says that while both men and women would prefer to work fewer hours if they could, the preference is higher among women, and a large proportion of working mothers would prefer not to be in work.

      One of the reasons I keep bringing up the 72% income tax figure is that the state assaults men (and/or boys) in at least 20 areas – details In our public consultation document, available on our website – and assaults women (and/or girls) in no areas. If women paid 72% of income tax you can be very feminists would be hollering from the rooftops for yet more state support.

      2. “We still have discrimination against women in all sorts of areas, something Mike never properly acknowledges and is one of a number of reason why I cannot support his party.”

      I’m honestly unaware of a single area in which women in Britain today are discriminated against – indeed the same could be said for the past 30+ years – can you explain what you mean by ‘in all sorts of areas’? Whenever I challenge feminists to substantiate such claims, they have to resort to misrepresenting inequalities of outcome (e.g. the proportion of MPs who are women) as reflecting inequalities of opportunity. I worked for the Conservatives (2006-8) and I can assure you that FAR more men than women are interested in a career in politics (even after Parliament has bent over backwards to accommodate women – shorter working hours, creches etc.) Numerous female MPs from the 2010 intake have said they’ll quit parliament in 2015.

      Thanks again for your comments.

      Mike Buchanan


      • Hi Mike,
        Thanks for responding. Re. income tax, my main complaint is that the statement, by itself, without explanation, invites the conclusion that men are hugely advantaged at work. If men pay 72% of income tax, then they must earn about 72% of wages, ergo there’s huge discrimination against women. Unless you’re going to follow this statement with a detailed, complex, explanation as to why you believe that men should earn 72% of income, which you rarely do, it sounds like an own-goal.

        Areas where women suffer discrimination:

        1) Women are much more likely than men to be judged by their appearance. Female news presenters have been sacked at age 50 because they’re not (apparently) attractive enough. Mary Baird received appalling abuse for not being pretty enough to tell us about the Romans. Commentaries about female politicians very often discuss how they look, not what they say. etc.

        2) There are too few women in politics and the judiciary. I’m ambivalent about the number of women in boadrooms as that gap might very well be due to women making different life-style choices. But this argument doesn’t hold for public office.

        We are supposed to live in a representative democracy – government by the people, for the people. That’s why it’s called the House of Commons. Anybody who believes that women have a different journey through life than men, and this clearly includes you because you’re often citing innate gender differences (Pinker siblings, Baron-Cohen, Hakim,et al), must therefore regard women as their own constituency in need of representation in some reasonable proportion to their number. Them being female should be a prerequisite for about half the seats in both Houses and on the Bench.

        If innate gender differences, not discrimination, are to blame for women’s lack of involvement in politics, then that provides its own justification to do something about it. If however there are no innate gender differences, then the lack of women is evidence of discrimination, and so that’s the reason to do something about it.

        3) Page 3 of the Sun and all else like it. I’m not against porn per se, but I am against it being normalised in daily newspapers for men and boys to read on the bus, around the breakfast table, at work and at school in full view of women and girls, and very often making disparaging remarks because today’s model’s boobs (whilst very nice by any objective standard) aren’t quite the right size or shape, etc.

        4) There are some professions and industries where women are discriminated against, as there are some where men are discriminated against. For women I know for sure, from inside knowledge, this includes comedy. I suspect it runs through other professions that attract alpha males.

        5) Unfulfilled careers and potential due to childcare commitments. Whilst I don’t agree with the standard feminist narrative on this, because women are free to make their own choices, etc., and they can choose, if they want, to throw themselves 100% into their careers rather than reproduce. Or they could choose a partner who’s happy to be a stay-at-home dad.

        However, the reality is that most women DO want children and DO want to be very hands-on parents, and yet we organise our society in ways that make it virtually impossible to reconcile these reasonable (actually – essential for our civilisation) wishes with an uncompromised career.

        If humans were a single-sex species that self-reproduced, we would never organise our society in a way that made it so difficult for us to do something that almost everybody wants to do – we would find a better way.

        This list is not, by any means, exhaustive.

        • Thanks Darren. Let me take each of your points in turn.

          (1) Appearance. Compared with men, women get a much larger payback from attractiveness. They know it, which is why they spend so much time and money trying to improve their attractiveness. The paybacks come in many forms. I recommend Steve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’ which explains that the male dominance hierarchy is based on power (in the modern era, usually money), the female dominance hierarchy by youth and attractiveness. As an example, I refer you to Bernie Ecclestone, Andy Murray… what rich or powerful man EVER struggled to get a female partner? Attractive women want the benefits that flow from attractiveness. Always have, always will.

          When female politicians have anything interesting to say, we hear about it. Ditto male politicians. What female politician ever got 10% of the ribbing about appearance that John Prescott, Eric Pickles, David Mellor etc, received?

          (2) ‘Too few women in politics and the judiciary’. No there aren’t, any more than there are ‘too few’ white sprinters in the Olympics 100 metre final:


          Far fewer women than men are interested in going into politics or the senior reaches of the judiciary. it’s as simple as that. Plus male-dominated parliament always favours women when it comes to legislation, and the male-dominated judiciary treats women far more leniently than men. More women in politics and the judiciary would lead inevitably to even more advantaging of women at the expense of men as we’ve seen in fields where women are present in big numbers e.g. the NHS and state education, both of which are mediocre and very costly to taxpayers.

          As far as ‘women in the boardroom’ is concerned, the government and big business (both male-dominated) are driving up te proportion of women on FTSE boards despite the evidence showing it will lead to financial decline:


          (3) Page 3 of The Sun. Are these models FORCED to take their kit off? Are people FORCED to buy the paper?And what about all the images of fit young men on the covers of magazines, e.g. Men’s Health? Are women so feeble-minded as to need protection from images, but men not?
          (4) I’m a big comedy fan and the simple truth is that far more men than women are great comedians. When it comes to the top of the profession, what women compare with Michael McIntyre, Peter Kay… too many to mention? You’re confusing inequalities of outcomes with inequalities of opportunities. Maybe someone should tell unsuccessful comediennes that they’re not being discriminated against, they’re just not… er… funny enough to cut it.
          The reality is that women constantly seek equal remuneration for less effort. So the winner of the women’s tennis at Wimbledon gets the same prize-money as the winner of the men’s game despite ticket receipts being much lower, and women playing about half the number of points. Where this linkage isn’t present, and remuneration is related to ticket sales, advertising etc., men far out-earn women (e.g. soccer).
          (5) Childcare commitments. Of course taking time off for childcare will impact adversely on a career. How could it not? We DO organise our society in many ways to compensate women for their choices, which is why the NHS is in such a mess, with legions of part-time female doctors (like all public services, 72% paid for by men). Men are never compensated for the choices they make, why should they be? Equally, why should women be compensated? Again, the narrative is relentless – women must be advantaged, and men disadvantaged. I refer you back to Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory.

          • I have read Steve’s Moxon’s book. I thought it was very two-dimensional and hopelessly simplistic. Your argument, as is his, is completely back-to-front and only serves to prove my point.

            If women’s good looks give them influence, then less attractive women have less influence. A woman who is considered unattractive will have no influence whatsoever. Although this characteristic will serve some women very well (young attractive women), it will be very bad indeed for others.

            The examples you give of men being judged on their looks are men with quite extreme looks, whereas women in general are judged on their looks.

            2) You haven’t engaged the crux of my second point at all; that a representative democracy demands that we are governed and judged by people representative of the people. The more you argue that women are innately different to men, the more compelling the argument to have women equally represented.

            I do not believe that there aren’t 300 or so women in the whole of the UK who are both capable and willing to be MPs – if the process by which we select MPs is not attractive to women, then we should find one that is.

            On other occasions you argue that we should find ways of educating children that boys find engaging, and ways of helping the mentally ill that men find engaging. Well. let’s find ways of recruiting parliamentary candidates that women find engaging.

            3) A woman has no choice over the newspaper purchased by another on the bus or in the workplace. Your argument is again, much too simplistic, as this is not an issue that is directly gender-transferable. Men do not have an equivalent to breasts. We would have to choose something that men are known to be sensitive to, let’s say their penis size.

            Imagine a world where a huge proportion of women were obsessed with the size and shape of men’s organs. Every day the image of a gifted male was presented just inside the front cover of the nation’s most popular newspaper.

            Every day females of all ages would take a look and very often pass comment. Despite the specimen being much more spectacular than most men’s, they would criticise even the slightest imperfection (because it’s cut, or not cut. or isn’t straight enough, etc).

            For our comparison to be complete, men’s vital statistics would not be kept a secret, tucked away inside their pants, but made manifest so that all could check and compare them at a glance.

            4) Comedians. The lack of women at the top of comedy is just as easily explained by discrimination as it is by lack of talent. However, I know it is because of discrimination because of have seen it at work.

            5) “Of course taking time off for childcare will impact adversely on a career. How could it not?”

            Agreed, and so therefore this is a disadvantage that women face. Let us see what we can do to minimise that disadvantage. I would start with: better childcare arrangements, longer school day with more clubs, etc. More flexible working. More father involvement linked to more father-friendly policies (equal parenting rights at divorce and no default assumption that the mother is worthy and the father a risk until proven otherwise, fathers having their name on the child benefit books, etc.)

          • Darren, very pushed for time, but a few thoughts. You’re increasingly coming across as a left-wing social engineer:

            “A woman who is considered unattractive will have no influence whatsoever.”
            No, she’ll be in the same position as the vast majority of men who have to work hard to get what they want in life.
            You seem to ignore what women want, and I don’t think you’ve taken on board the implications of Preference Theory. Women don’t want to work longer hours, they want shorter working hours, and to look after their own children rather than paying strangers to look after them.

          • Hi Mike,

            I’m not particularly left-wing and I’m certainly not a social engineer – I’m a real engineer. It is also clear that women are making different life-style choices, and this will explain at least some of the boadroom gap, pay gap and so on.

            Since women are being encouraged to select from a continuum of choice, why would we expect them to generally choose to do what men have been socially conditioned to do: leave full-time education then work full-time until they retire or die?

            I am irritated by much of feminism because it claims to be a force for gender-equality, but in practice the movement never campaigns for anything which especially affects men and boys: poor education outcomes, mental illness (leading to suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, rough-sleeping and prison), men’s relatively poor health outcomes, fathers’ rights, the particular problems faced by male victims of sexual and partner abuse (they’re even less likely to be believed and helped)

            In fact, far from including men’s and boys’ issues into their circle of concern, most of these issues are cause celebs for the women’s movement only insofar as they affect women and girls. The extent to which they affect men and boys is often denied or belittled. To argue that feminism is a movement for gender-equality is patently false: it is a movement for the improvement of female lives, and often at the expense of males.

            Unfortunately Mike, much of your party is the perfect inverse image of feminism. I so wish it wasn’t.

          • Darren, you couldn’t be more wrong about J4MB being ‘the perfect inverse image of feminism’. I can only think you’re not familiar with our key arguments, nor our proposals with respect to the 20 areas in which men and/or boys are assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions, as outlined in our consultation document:


            The American feminist Catherine Hoff Sommers outlined the key dividing line among feminists in ‘Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women’ (2000). She divided feminists into two camps, and I’ve never encountered a feminist who didn’t fit squarely into one of the other.
            EQUITY FEMINISTS (like CHS herself) believe in equal opportunities for men and women, equal treatment under the law etc. and recognise that the different choices made by men and women (e.g. line of work, hours worked…) inevitably lead to different outcomes.
            GENDER FEMINISTS believe in female supremacy, the relentless advantaging of women (and girls) at the expense of men (and boys). They’re driven by misandry.
            For 30+ years the only form of feminism of any political / economic / cultural significance In the UK (and across most of the developed world, so far as I know) has been gender feminism. It’s been the ruling ideology of the political and other classes throughout that time. The mainstream media is supportive of gender feminist narratives.
            Gender feminists care nothing for men and boys, as we’d expect. They think it entirely reasonable (indeed laudable) that although 40% of domestic abuse victims are men, and in most cases of unreciprocated DA men are the victims and women the perpetrators, there’s one place in a refuge for battered men for every 266 places for battered women.
            My party’s opposition is only to gender feminism, because it’s a supremacy movement driven by hatred of men and boys. The consequences of taxpayer-funded gender feminism can be seen all around us, in the destruction of the nuclear family, male unemployment, male suicide, poor educational attainment by boys… and much else. Indeed there’s barely a pillar of civilised society which these hate-driven women aren’t attacking. And who’s handing them power on a plate at every opportunity? Alpha males like David Cameron, who in autumn 2009 announced his intention to introduce all-women PPC shortlists. Along with many others I cancelled my party membership that day, and started work on my first feminism-related book, ‘David and Goliatha: David Cameron – heir to Harman?’

          • …and I’ve read Christina Hoff-Sommers’ Who Stole Feminsim. It’s as if you’re sending me these messages from my library (You’re not though – I’ve just checked).

            I agree with her, broadly speaking, about the two types of feminists and I enjoyed her book. Unfortunately equity feminists (sensible people) are hardly mobilised.

            I also agree that the state is damaging men and boys.

            But this debate started because you believe there are no issues in which women and girls are disadvantaged. I believe that both genders suffer discrimination, but differently.

          • Darren, there’s a reason equity feminists are ‘hardly mobilised’. They won all their battles decades ago. To be an equity feminist is akin to believing in breathing oxygen. The term has no meaning today, and the vast majority of women who term themselves feminists are doing little more than nervously showing in-group loyalty, which is a little pathetic if women want to be seen as individually strong and capable.

          • Sorry, pressed the wrong key there! You say:

            “You haven’t engaged the crux of my second point at all; that a representative democracy demands that we are governed and judged by people representative of the people.”
            It demands nothing of the sort, or we should insist that MPs have to be drawn equally from all cohorts (not just gender). So let’s have fixed numbers of MPs who are:
            – Welsh
            – stupid
            – one-legged
            – brown-eyed
            – gay
            A stupid one-legged, brown-eyed Welsh lesbian would of course be an immediate shoe-in.
            Many feminist MPs (e.g. Harriet Harman) have been perfectly clear their sole reason for entering politics was to advance women. In 2008 Harman introduced legislation allowing political parties to use all-women PPC shortlists for the coming 33 years. No mention of that stunt in the 2005 Labour party manifesto. These women trample on half their constituents.
            A representative democracy ‘demands’ that politicians and judges frame legislation and act upon it, equitably. At the moment both groups overwhelmingly preference women over men when framing legislation and passing sentences. I repeat that the state assaults men and boys in 20 areas (consultation document), women and girls in none, and you want MORE female politicians? The advantaging of women and girls at the expense of men and boys would only get worse.
            Few women want to be politicians, engineers, long-distance lorry drivers, sewage workers… they make CHOICES, and choices result in consequences. Some are welcome, some not. You’re call for women – not men – to be compensated for their choices. As far as I’m concerned there is no ‘problem’ needing to be ‘solved’ by social engineering.

          • Mike,

            Our parliamentary system does try to establish a reasonable balance of representation across the regions (that’s why we have geographic constituencies). As for a representative number of gay people and disabled people, ideally – yes. I don’t think that people with brown hair have a significantly different path through life than people who have different coloured hair, so no to that one.

            When I was getting divorced and had to fight to gain access to my son, the best judge I had was a woman. The male judges were all over-compensating – trying to understand what it is to be a woman. The female judge didn’t have to imagine what it’s like to be a woman, saw right through my ex and read her the riot act. So I’m not worried about having more women in power – provided they are representative of women in general, they can be relied upon to be honest brokers.

            It is very difficult to argue that men suffer disadvantage when the country is governed almost entirely by men. The assumption is that if men were bothered about something, they would change it. You and I both know that’s not true and men benefit nothing from being over-represented in parliament – if anything, I suspect they over-compensate and feel compromised on women’s issues.

          • Darren, I think there’s a better explanation for how men treat women than ‘over-compensating’, and that’s chivalry i.e. deference to women, which gender feminists exploit ruthlessly. We see it in the papers every day, stories of women being ‘under-represented’ in parliament, FTSE boardrooms… but nothing about the same phenomenon in sewage works, garbage collection etc.
            Few women work in the way your female judge did, but most male judges bend over backwards to privilege women. We recently published apiece about a women who’d defied 82 contact orders over 10 years, and suffered no consequences. The father was described as ‘an unimpeachable father’ yet had been denied access to his daughter (now 14) for 10 years. So far he’s spent over £100,000 on legal costs. The mother’s had mental health issues, substance abuse problems, had been found hiding knives in her handbags… Denial of access to kids is known to be a major driver of suicide among men.
            You’ll know from Moxon’s book that women display a far stronger in-group preference than men (feminist conspiracy theories notwithstanding – like so much else with feminists, a projection.) Over a 30+ year business career I saw this all the time.

            “It is very difficult to argue that men suffer disadvantage when the country is governed almost entirely by men.”
            It’s not difficult to argue, but it IS difficult to get people to accept the realities they see all around them, and they struggle to engage with the most compelling evidence.
            “The assumption is that if men were bothered about something, they would change it.”
            Men in most developed countries have no collective sense of identity or worth. Indeed society primarily accords them worth on the basis of the extent to which they’re willing to act as slaves – financially, in particular – for women and children.

          • I agree – the great paradox is the way that feminism has advanced by exploiting men’s paternal instinct and the patriarchy.

            The patriarchy is a hierarchy in which men have traditionally competed with other men. In this model, it does not behove powerful men to worry about disadvantaged men because the position of those men at the top is dependant upon other men being below them – that is the nature of hierarchies. They would worry about women because women were non-combatants – they simply married into the hierarchy as high as they could. They in fact were the the prize.

            This is still happening today. Powerful men, like Cameron, are happy to sacrifice the needs of lower-ranked men in order to improve their stock amongst women. These powerful men are unassailable – their own privilege is either not at risk by ceding benefits to women, or is even further secured. For instance: Let’s not worry about equal pay audits that remove bonuses for men who work in the wet and cold. We’ll cede this point because it won’t affect top-ranked men who work in air-conditioned offices, and it will be a vote-winner amongst women if we reduce the pay gap.

            Another example of a patriarch is Jon Snow – it’s as if he wants to be every woman’s daddy.

            Men should not fear the destruction of the patriarchy – on the contrary, they should demolish it themselves.

          • Darren, I’m sure you’re aware – from the books I saw in your library earlier today – that feminists accord a completely different meaning to the word ‘patriarchy’. They see it as the age old oppression by all men (as a class) of all women (as a class). This cornerstone feminist ‘theory’ makes The Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy ‘theories’ seem substantive by comparison.
            You make a very good point about Jon Snow. We publicly challenged Kat Banyard after Snow didn’t challenge her (on Channel 4 News) for coming out with the absurd claim that one in three schoolgirls faces sexual harassment ‘almost every day’. Needless to say, she never responded to the challenge. Let me know if you’d like me to post the link to the challenge, and the associated video, here.

          • Hi Mike,

            I’ll have to get on with earning some money today – that pay gap isn’t going to earn itself. However, I would be interested to hear if you believe that the Men’s Movement is, at it’s core, anti-patriarchy (and I mean in terms of the original Greek), whereas feminism has rode ashore atop a tsunami of chivalry (paternalism)?

            The gallant gentlemen who uncritically assist feminism are presumably aware that men are:

            97% of workplace fatalities,
            95% of the prison population (70% of whom have at least two diagnosed mental illnesses, about 30% have a reading age under 11 years, etc) 85% of rough-sleepers,
            80% of those with chronic alcohol and substance abuse problems
            75% of suicides (largest single killer of men under 35)
            Have special difficulty accessing help when they’re victims of Domestic Violence/Abuse (despite being between 30% and 50% of victims, they’re less likely to be taken seriously),
            Have special difficulty accessing mental health support. There is a National Mental Health Strategy for women but not for men (despite all of the above statistics)
            Have poorer health outcomes generally because health campaigns and budgets are less likely to be directed at men.

          • Continued…
            Only 40% of graduates,


            And having considered this list, the gentlemen say: so what! We’re more interested in the 5% prisoners who are female, keeping women off the streets, preventing the recent increase in female alcohol consumption, drawing attention to the fact that women are three-times more likely to attempt suicide – even though men are three-times more likely to commit suicide (we’ve finally found something that feminists agree men are better at than women – we’re nine-times better at killing ourselves- oh the irony), pretending that men aren’t genuine victims of DV/DA, supporting a National Mental Health Strategy for Women but not for men, and asking why women haven’t translated their triumph in education into equal pay (rather than asking why we’re failing to educate our boys and young men).

            All of this is very chivalrous: men and boys had better toughen up and look after themselves. Some won’t make it, but we can’t help that. It’s basically natural selection. Their approach to women is the complete opposite: they’re virtually infantised. Look after the ladies and keep them safe.

            Now returning to the men’s movement, they’re saying “sod this for a game of soldiers – we’re not doing it any more.” We’re not going to pluck homeless women off the streets and leave the men behind – we’re going to take the men too. We’re not going to require men to be especially stoic and not access mental health support – we want a National Mental Health Strategy for Men, including dedicated clinics and male-targeted campaigns – and we want as much resources for these as are currently given to the women’s equivalent. We’re not only going to focus on women being beaten-up by men, we’re also going to focus on men who are beaten-up by women. All of this is the polar opposite of the Titanic spirit.

            It seems to me that everything is upside down. The men’s movement are trying to dismantle the patriarchy as fast as they can, whilst feminism is making good use of the patriarchy whilst simultaneously bemoaning it.

  5. I think you’re all being a bit unkind to Ms Osborn. She didn’t explicitly mention patriarchy, rape culture OR Blurred Lines once. Go easy.

  6. Of course the heading says “Mike Buchanan is wrong” but you have hardly given anything to counter his arguments, instead you are ranting the same old feminist BS which is so much familiar to us. (and to prove your point, a load of feminist biased sources wouldn’t do much help either)
    The gender pay gap and the so called “systematic bias against women in STEMM” is debunked in so many levels but it is amazing that these feminists keep on repeating that over and over again.
    If we solely think of economy, why it is a problem that there are more men in those fields if they are more qualified. Why it is that we need to have 50/50 women representation if the job is done by whoever? Why don’t you fight for 50% garbage cleaner women? Do you only need the goodies but none of the badies?

  7. Sarah
    The problem for you feminists is your total lack of empathy for
    what it is to be a ‘man’, save to make that word a term of abuse, the plural of
    which, for you, describes a race who have an easy time running the economy and
    exploiting the poor souls who call themselves wo-men (oh, how you must hate the fact that over half the word that describes you is made up of the word that ‘exploits’
    You, amongst many of your sisters, see ‘society’ as being
    pretty much made up of little else than a collection of educational
    institutions and workplaces, all of which favour males at the expense of females.
    Just to say (and in case you hadn’t noticed) when you are a ‘man’,
    it is expected that you will do well in both institutions and that anything
    less than ‘success’ in either or both, is actually seen as a ‘failure’ because it’s
    supposed to be so ‘easy’ for you.
    Furthermore, for a ‘man’, what alternatives do you think there are for
    you, if you want to hold your head high?
    Even a staunch feminist like yourself, who has no doubt made
    sure they have surrounded themselves with similar-minded females, must have
    come across at least one of your gender who is prepared to admit that they have
    had an enormously fulfilling life outside the mainstream – maybe combining
    child-rearing and part-time working – and not feeling exploited financially or
    socially, by any ‘man’.
    Do you think that lifestyle would be an acceptable
    alternative to ‘men’?
    It would be really good for we ‘men’ to think that you
    wo-men have actually got some sort of inkling as to what it’s like on this side
    of the gender divide.
    By the way, just in case you haven’t come across the term
    Empathy – the feeling that you understand and shareanother person’s experiences and emotions: the ability to share someone else’s

  8. I am beginning to wonder whether men are killing themselves because they can’t take any more of this drivel. God, what puerile pooh. You, my dear little girl, have obviously swallowed the whole crock of s***t that goes round and round in the feminist echo chamber and finally ends up where it belongs – up the proverbial.

    Intelligent men don’t do female-dominated jobs eh? Maybe that’s because they are intelligent? And: women really are dominating certain professions. Yep that’s true. But what a staggering shot in your own foot this is. Your statement that men are socialised out of these professions – of course they are! Women are colonising the professions they like, those that suit their female traits, well. Duh! And men don’t get a look in. Why? Because women are keeping them out – Geddit? (What self-respecting man would want to work in an all female environment for god’s sake?) And, let me make it easy for you: those_professions_pay_less, See?

    And if men are socialised out of women’s work into higher earning careers? Great! It_is_women_who_are_doing_that – Duh! If you are so unable to apply such simple logic to keep you out of this sort of do-do, I wonder how you manage to tie your own shoe-laces (or are you still on the velcro straps maybe?)

    And you studying politics? God help us. I can tell you that if your were my student, I would be having a quiet word in your shell-like not only about your inability to apply critical reasoning (just a D for that I’m afraid), but also probably about your future. Have you considered stacking shelves in Tesco maybe?

    Oh, and there is just one other ‘gem of erudition’ (like NOT) it is “unbelievable” that in the 21st century, women earn less than men. OK? if it is “unbelievable”, then_it_is_not_believable. See? You are right! Top marks at least for this one.

    Apart from the fact that if you took just ten minutes to research it, you would find that most women choose work that carries lower pay. Then they take career breaks (you know, for children – are you old enough to know where they come from?), and they work more part-time anyway. Men, on the other hand are full-time, whole-of-life workers so_they_get_more_pay_rises_because_they_are_more_valuable_to_their_employer: all this accounts for the pay gap. (and, incidentally, there is actually a negative pay gap in women’s favour for part-time work – Now let me help you understand this, that_means_women_get_more_pay_per_hour_than_men_for_the_same_part_time_work – OK? (Check it out on the ONS – <<– Clue!)

    Infantile! Fail!

  9. This is UTTER GARBAGE. I regret wasting time reading this poor student’s piece. it just proves what she is, a student, and what students must do, study and learn -in time. is it any surprise she devastatingly fails to engage with Buchanan’s facts, repeat FACTS? one would think a politics student’s better skill ought to be a penchant for logical dialectics: if this is our politics students of today, I am seriously worried for the future.

  10. I think you’re the one stuck in a man/woman paradigm, Mike is not talking about women, he’s talking about how the ‘government’ disadvantages men.
    And for the record if women need that much pandering to use their ‘talents and abilities’ for the benefit of society then they are already a burden on society – plus, there are other ways to meet that end, for instance the government could make it so that the only way women can survive is to utilize their talents and abilities for the benefit of society by removing safety nets that currently exist(child support,alimony,welfare,etc.) of course it’s not a good thing for individual women, but since both the government and you already thinks that it’s okay to compromise the well-being of individual men and discriminate against them, for the ‘greater good’, it’s hardly unreasonable to do the same to women, and this method is less costing and would probably be more effective, after all women will most certainly work if the alternative is starving.

  11. If 90% of the cotton is picked by Black Slaves, then this proves that the White plantation owners are at a disadvantage? Good luck keeping the slaves in the field. MGTOW.

  12. Good grief, where to start?

    1. The ‘gender pay gap’ is wholly attributable to gender-typical career choices, longer hours, premiums for working unsocial hours, away from home, in unpleasant conditions… if women want the higher-paying jobs, nobody is stopping them.

    2. Women have flooded into some STEMM subjects such as medicine. They tick many of the ‘boxes’ women look for in jobs, unlike engineering. Large parts of the NHS is in crisis today because compared with male doctors, female doctors are more likely to:

    – quit the profession altogether

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

    – work in the least onerous disciplines e.g. general practise

    – decline to work in the most onerous disciplines e.g. A&E

    – decline to work unsocial hours

    – retire early

    Medicine is also well-paid compared with engineering, more secure, more pleasant working conditions, work is near where you live. So disinclined are women to pursue engineering as a career that female postgraduate students at Brunel are being bribed by an additional £15,000 grant SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR GENDER:


    3. It would take me an hour to discredit the other narrative in your piece, and I honestly can’t be bothered. In the past 4-5 years I’ve never encountered a gender feminist capable of a rational discussion, and from your piece above you won’t be the first exception. I’d rather engage with the majority of women and men who ARE capable of rational discussion.

    Mike Buchanan


    (and the women who love them)


  13. Seriously? The gender pay gap has been debunked since the 1970s. Find a new drum to beat (For a short, clear version I’d recommend the youtube video: ‘Thomas Sowell dismantles feminism in under 5 mins’ (the title is a bit bold I must admit)).

    I would also like to disagree with the reasoning behind the lack of women in STEM jobs. Reason being: Men and women are different!

    We are not brought into this would as blank slates for our parents/society/whomever to sculpt and mold, we’re animals and we all have certain (pre)dispositions. This may be attaching to a primary caregiver in the early stages of life, to finding a mate when we’re sexually mature, but we all have (on the whole) basic, inbuilt, programming to both survive, and survive as a species, this then develops into social behavior etc etc (lone wolves don’t tend to do as well as the pack so to speak).

    This has then led to the current situation of – more oft than not – women being in a social/caring profession or setting, and men in a… not social/caring profession or setting. As it happens men tend to seek power and influence; this gives social STATUS, which in turn gives better pickings of mates (from an animalistic point of view).

    How does one become powerful? Well they need to have influence over people, and what is the best way of doing that? Having resources. 100,000 years ago it was being the best hunter and being able to feed others, today it’s money.

    But I’ve gone off track! Ultimately men and women are biologically and thus neurologically different. They want and aspire different things (generally) and this leads to ‘B’ amount of one gender going into ‘Y’ field(s), and ‘A’ amount of the other gender going into ‘X’ field(s), because those fields either suit, or don’t suit, our inbuilt, genetic predispositions!*

    Anecdotal evidence:
    A family friend has twins: one boy, one girl. Both parents treat them exactly the same in every regard, makes an effort not to pressure them into being ‘macho’ or ‘feminine’ and buys them all the same toys, neutral cloths etc. Before they had even started school and so far have had minimal contact with the out side world, the mother buys both children a toy tool set (must admit, the 3 year old in me was damn jealous!). The boy starts whacking everything insight – either to destroy everything or an attempt to hammer them together I’m not quite sure – meanwhile the girl puts all the tools to bed.

    I know what you’re thinking! “One story doesn’t prove anything! (And your written English sucks!)” And you’ll be right on both accounts, and I do apologise; here’s a documentary I found a while ago that you may find interesting, or at least take you away from this post.

    *Yes I’ve used binary genders! Those who identify as another gender take up such a minuscule amount of the population it really isn’t worth it, they are, from a statistical point of view, anomalies (that is not to say that they are any less human or that they deserve any less respect).

    P.S. I should own up that haven’t read the AAUW report, the summary that was linked looked interesting but the actual thing is like a 100 pages long n/incl bibliography, contents, foreword etc! I’ll start now 😛

    P.P.S. “This is because female-dominated professions are primarily worse-paid and less desirable than their male-dominated counterparts” What, like being a front line soldier..? Sorry I don’t follow :/


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here