Quantcast

«

»

Oct 13 2013

The stupid, the hypocritical and the downright evil: A response to Justice 4 Men and Boys

Earlier this year, Mike Buchanan, a British Men’s Rights Activist, announced the formation of Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) a political party which he hopes to be standing in the 2015 general election. The announcement was enough to generate a small flurry of media reports, including an interview on BBC Woman’s Hour.

Several people approached me at the time, either suggesting I should write a reaction piece for the Guardian or inviting me to blog about it on other sites. I declined. To be blunt, I was less than impressed by the idea and saw no particular reason to add to whatever publicity was already afloat. If I’m honest, I was kind of hoping that if we all ignored it, it would go away.

Jump forward to October, and J4MB has yet to go away, and Mike Buchanan has personally approached me a few times, by email, Twitter and blog comments repeating an invitation to offer feedback on his policy consultation document. Since Mike (I’ll assume we’re on first name terms) is invariably well-mannered and polite, even when I’m quite rude to him, it seems churlish to continue to ignore him. So, belatedly, I’ve agreed to share my thoughts on his idea.

It would be safe to say Mike and I are not really on the same page, politically. We are scarcely on the same planet. I endured my political blooding in the East of Scotland through the 1980s. I joined picket lines and rattled cans to support striking miners in Fife and Stirlingshire, and watched entire communities being sacrificed on the altar of monetarist, free market ideology. I watched as men and boys, (and the women who love them), had their lives, their futures, their families destroyed, first by dogma, then by drugs, despair and depression. Through much of the 1990s, I worked for the Big Issue in Manchester, trying to help an entire generation of homeless young men and boys (and a few women too) cope with the personal legacy of those policies, amplified by devastating cuts to benefit entitlements from 1988-90 that had left them desperate and destitute. If there is one person I hold more responsible than anyone for the myriad problems still facing men and boys (and the women who love them) it is Margaret Thatcher. Mike Buchanan gleefully describes that woman as his political idol.

To underline the point, Mike Buchanan has also said that where there is not a J4MB candidate available, he might encourage supporters to vote for UKIP instead. I would sooner have my gizzards ripped out through my gullet than cast a vote for that malodorous sack of racists, xenophobes, homophobes, misogynists climate science denialists and unrepentant National Front alumni. As I say, Mike Buchanan and I are not exactly on the same page.

Then there is the very notion of a party for men and boys. While I am deeply immersed and engaged in male specific gender issues, a factional interest party is pretty much the polar opposite of where my gender politics are at. I believe men’s and women’s welfare, prosperity, fulfilment and happiness are entirely interlinked and interdependent. As soon as you begin to set one at odds against the other, as if it were a zero sum game, you have lost me. I would, incidentally, say the exact same if anyone suggested a feminist political party to represent women and girls (and the men who love them.)

With all that out of the way, I’ll turn my attention to the actual proposals put forward by J4MB in their consultation document. First thing I notice is what is not there. There are absolutely no proposals to address the most important issues facing men and boys today – underemployment and unemployment, especially among working class and ethnic minority men. There is no solution offered to the savagery of the globalised neoliberal free market which has deprived working class men of the industries and culture that once offered respect, identity and pride. The two specific problems listed by J4MB which disproportionately affect working class men are homelessness and suicide rates. These are the two areas where Mike Buchanan has failed to come up with a single idea for policy, even by the ninth revision!

Of the policies that are here, there are twenty of them, mostly simplistic one or two line ideas, accompanied by various snippets of background information. To be fair, there are about three of four of them which are not entirely stupid, hypocritical, ill-informed or ill-advised. I’ve mostly skipped those for length. As for the rest? Well….

1. Legislation:  The government should ensure that future legislation and guidance doesn’t discriminate against or disadvantage men and boys, either directly or indirectly. Anti-male discriminations in existing legislation and guidance should be removed.

 So far so good.  I have no objection to an explicit commitment by government against discrimination, although it is worth pointing out that this already exists in law, under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, particularly the provisions on the Public Sector Equality Duty. So this is a bit “I demand you fly this plane to Cuba / But we’re already going to Cuba / Oh.” If there’s a problem here, it is that lawyers and politicians cannot always agree on what discrimination is in practice, and whether, for example, a law to prevent discrimination is a form of discrimination. For example, the Sex Discrimination (election candidates) act 2002, which allows all-women shortlists, is actually non-gender specific. It would also allow all men-shortlists if they were required to rectify an anti-male discriminatory situation in a party. There’s nothing in this proposal to address that dilemma.   There are deeper issues with the background notes.

Whenever there are gender biases in legislation and guidance, or in state provision of services, they invariably favour women and/or girls at the expense of men and/or boys. This is a particular assault on men as taxpayers – 71.2% of income tax in the UK is paid by men, and only 28.8% by women. British men collectively pay £64 billion more income tax annually than British women.

It is trite but necessary to point out that the majority of income tax is paid by men because men earn the great majority of total income. What is being said here is actually much more insidious and dangerous than that. The logic appears to be that parliament should legislate in favour of those who pay the most tax, as if political representation were a purchased privilege. This flies in the face of all principles of collective democracy. By this logic, parliament should not legislate to help or protect the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, or anyone else who is paying less into the national coffers. It is not just women who should be appalled by this extreme Randian thinking.

3. Education –
a) The government should work towards a target of gender balance among both primary school teachers and secondary school teachers.

I agree with this. The lack of male teachers may not be the biggest issue for boys in education, but getting more men into teaching would be no bad thing for many, many reasons. To do so we would need legislation, programmes and guidelines designed to create this ‘desired’ gender outcome.

b) The government should repeal legislation, terminate programmes, and withdraw guidelines designed to create ‘desired’ gender outcomes.

Oh. I think I see a slight problem here.

The background notes to this section say: “The government shouldn’t be in the business of social engineering. Children and young adults should be left alone to study whatever subjects they want.” Getting more men to train as teachers in order to produce desired educational and social outcomes is about as clear a case of social engineering as one could ever imagine. Hypocrisy, much?

But wait. It gets better.

4. Employment.
a) The government should cease funding employment-related initiatives which are designed to discriminate in favour of women and girls and/or discriminate against men and boys, either directly or indirectly, in both the private and public sectors.

b) The government should adopt recruitment policies to work towards a target of 50% male/female employees in the public sector

So J4MB wants to implement employment-related initiatives designed to discriminate in favour of men and boys in areas where they are under-represented, while simultaneously abolishing programmes for women and girls in areas where they are under-represented. I repeat, hypocrisy, much?

5. Family support.
a) The government should set a date after which state support will not be provided for women having new babies which they are personally (or with the support of a partner and/or others) unable to care for financially.

 b) The money saved by the foregoing action will fund tax allowances for married couples.

The wording of this suggests the plan is to remove all state support to families who need it, while continuing to provide it for those who do not. This may just be sloppy drafting, but the part that is clear is what matters. J4MB wish to drive single mothers and their children into Dickensian destitution, starvation and homelessness. There is no appropriate phrase to describe such an idea other than this: It is pure evil.

6. Marriage and divorce
The government should introduce compulsory prenuptial agreements for couples planning to marry. Couples who cohabit but don’t marry will be deemed to have signed a standard prenuptial agreement on the day they first cohabited. After taking account of the reasonable accommodation needs of any children involved, the division of assets will be in line with the relative earnings of the two individuals following the date of marriage (or first cohabitation), and individuals will retain the assets they owned on the date of their marriage (or first cohabitation)

Now this is just weird. After a bunch of downright terrifying libertarian whackjobery, we now have the idea of bringing rigid, almost Stalinist state intervention into our most intimate and personal of relationships. It is also a non-solution to a largely imagined problem. A large majority of women (and indeed men) suffer significant financial hardship as a consequence of divorce, as a raft of research demonstrates. The fantasy of avaricious ex-wives living in luxury on the paycheque of their ex-husband is (at least outside of Beverley Hills) little more than a sexist myth

7. Domestic Abuse

The government should ensure that resources directed towards victims of domestic abuse / violence (‘DA’) are allocated taking full account of the relative numbers of male and female victims of DA, and the need for children to be in a safe environment.

With one change of word, I would agree with this. Resources should not take account of relative numbers, but of specific needs. That is not the same thing. A large proportion of nominal victims of domestic abuse, as counted in the BCS/CSEW for example, (whether male or female) neither want nor need intervention and support. Those who do should get it, but it is not a numbers game.

9. Paternity fraud

a) The government should introduce compulsory paternity testing for all babies, at birth, and both parents informed of the result of the tests (verbally and in writing) within a week of the babies’ births.

Woah, Stalin is back. Get yer nose out of my relationships, Uncle Joe (and Uncle Mike.)

b) The government should only require men to have financial responsibility for a child if he’s previously signed a legal declaration (witnessed in a solicitor’s office) that he’s willing to support a child who results from the sexual relationship in question.

You what? It’s not clear if we’re talking all men here, including those married and co-habiting, but let’s be generous and assume it is aimed at fathers who are not currently in a settled relationship with the mother-to-be. It’s also not clear whether this legal agreement is to be signed prior to childbirth, or prior to conception. In either case this proposal is to make paternal child support entirely voluntary. If a woman is pregnant and not of extensive independent wealth, and her boyfriend refuses to commit to supporting the child, what is she meant to do? Remember, J4MB have already promised to remove all state benefits. So she has the choice of raising her child in absolute poverty or an abortion. But wait…

19. Abortion law reform

The Abortion Act (1967) should be amended to remove the right  to have elective abortions on the grounds of increased risk of  injury to mental health if the pregnancy isn’t terminated. There’s  no evidence to support the claim that abortion reduces the risk of injury to mental health. These grounds have been misused to  offer women ‘abortion on demand’, which wasn’t the stated intention of the Act when it was introduced.

It is true that as a historical quirk of British abortion law, in order to secure an abortion a woman must demonstrate that proceeding with the pregnancy would damage her physical or mental health. Around 98% of abortions in the UK are granted under these grounds, and virtually all of those are on grounds of mental health. The sensible thing, as recommended by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and others, would be to amend the law to offer abortion on demand. What J4MB are proposing is the abolition of abortion rights in the UK, for all but a handful of cases.

I appreciate your patience in reading this far. This has been a long blog. There are still some other proposals which are variously trivial, ill-judged or unspecified, but I’m losing confidence that the the contents of my stomach will remain in their rightful place. Let me highlight just one final proposal, which should tell you everything you need to know about J4MB

16. Retirement age

The government should set the ages at which men and women are entitled to receive the state pension, at levels which ensure men and woman can expect to draw the pension for the same number of years.

My eyes drifted over this on the first few readings, assuming it would be recommending equalisation of retirement age (already legislated for, of course). Then I read it more carefully. What is being suggested is that women should be forced to work four to five years longer than men before being allowed to claim their pensions, as punishment for stubbornly refusing to die on schedule.

My first impressions of Justice for Men and Boys was that it was a bit of a laugh, a bit of a joke, and the people behind it were probably a little bit silly. Having carefully gone through their proposals, I have revised my opinion slightly. I’m not laughing any more. Of course they have as much chance of winning votes as I have of winning the Olympic 100 metres, and that’s worth a giggle, but it remains depressing that there are people around, in whatever numbers, who have such contempt if not hatred for women (and especially single mothers) that they would seriously propose some of these ideas, and distressing that audience-chasing media platforms are willing to give them a broadly uncritical platform.

 

500 comments

6 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Mike Buchanan

    Ally, thanks for taking the trouble of writing this, it’s much appreciated. I hope people take the trouble to read the whole of our document, as you’ve commented on nine of the 20 proposals (at some length, however, so that’s not a complaint). Quite a number of your criticisms, it has to be said, rely on misrepresenting our positions. For example, on family support we’re not saying support should be taken from existing single mothers, but:

    “a) The government should set a date after which state support will not be provided for women having new babies which they are personally (or with the support of a partner and/or others) unable to care for financially.”

    You spin this into the following narrative:

    “The wording of this suggests the plan is to remove all state support to families who need it, while continuing to provide it for those who do not. This may just be sloppy drafting, but the part that is clear is what matters. J4MB wish to drive single mothers and their children into Dickensian destitution, starvation and homelessness. There is no appropriate phrase to describe such an idea other than this: It is pure evil.”

    The state is a very poor father, so why should taxes (72% paid by men) support the ‘choice’ of women to have babies they cannot support? Successive government have assaulted the nuclear family for decades and the misery wrought – to men, women, and children – is incalculable.

    I hope we meet one day. Do let me know if I can contribute any material to your good self or anyone else at the ‘Guardian’.

    Mike Buchanan

  2. 2
    CaitieCat, in no way a robot nosireebot

    I’d vote my leftist heart out for a progressivist party, but I wouldn’t be interested in a feminist political party, despite being quite thoroughly and happily feminist. Like you, I don’t believe the problems can be segregated; fixing things for one gender will require changes to others, for all combinations that might take. Progressivism, social justice, equality, these are the things I look for in a political party.

    I am, actually, most fortunate in living in a country with an honestly leftist major party (Canada’s New Democratic Party, who for instance when ruling Ontario in the mid-90s, tried to pass an omnibus bill to grant same-sex spousal benefits in all government interactions; sadly, the premier put away the party whip, and it failed by only a few votes). Currently, we’re the Official Opposition federally, having had a sparkly good election last time, save only for the Honourable Harpertron 5000* (current resident of the PMO) taking a slight majority in the House. :/

    That election was, in fact, the first time in my life I cast a vote for a candidate who won their riding, in not-quite 30 years of voting. Now, if we could only get the bloody Tories out…

    * MP for Uncanny Valley.

  3. 3
    Ally Fogg

    Mike[1]

    If you feel I have misrepresented you, despite quoting your exact words throughout, feel free to explain what your actual position is.

  4. 4
    Mike Buchanan

    Ally, you make a fair point about using my words. The point I was trying to make was that people could come away thinking, ‘That evil man wants to withdraw support for single mothers’ when we wish to set a point in time after which single motherhood will not be a ‘lifestyle option’ financed by long-suffering taxpayers. We have far too many cases like the following, where even after being convicted of fraud, the woman received no punishment:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/why-are-women-above-the-law/

    Might a homeless person in London be more deserving of the accommodation than a single woman (on a good income) who miscarried, so didn’t need a council flat in the first place?

  5. 5
    mildlymagnificent

    There are absolutely no proposals to address the most important issues facing men and boys today – underemployment and unemployment, especially among working class and ethnic minority men. There is no solution offered to the savagery of the globalised neoliberal free market which has deprived working class men of the industries and culture that once offered respect, identity and pride.

    Thank you, thank you, a million times thank you.

    I know some people used to be a bit scornful about the idea that men (or women for that matter) need the validation of gainful employment, but they’re wrong if they’re still around. A regular job with a pay check (that isn’t an insult to the time and effort you’ve put in) is one of the best ways to gain self respect, social support and display individual responsibility.

    People telling others that the reason they’re hard done by is those nasty bossy feminist women are diverting attention, mostly unconsciously but sometimes aware of what they’re doing, away from the fundamental problems in modern industrialised societies. Inequality. Between those who can and those who can’t get jobs.

    And if you can’t get a job it’s not the transfer of businesses and activities into automation locally or to people working overseas, oh no. No sirree, not at all. It’s the fault of those uppity feminist women or those nasty not-like-us immigrants. Look over there.

  6. 6
    Ally Fogg

    ‘That evil man wants to withdraw support for single mothers’ when we wish to set a point in time after which single motherhood will not be a ‘lifestyle option’ financed by long-suffering taxpayers.

    As was quite clear in the OP, you are proposing to withdraw all benefits not from existing mothers, but from future single mothers.

    Or are you going to argue that if you remove all benefits, women will magically stop conceiving?

    The way they do in, say, Sao Paulo or Manila or all the other societies around the world where there are no benefits and the poor simply stop breeding…. oh wait, no, I mean where there are no benefits and the streets are filled with destitute starving women begging on the streets with their children or scavenging from rubbish tips.

  7. 7
    Mike Buchanan

    @ mildlymagnificent

    PUBLIC SECTOR
    1. Two out of three public sector workers are women.
    2. Four out of seven unemployed people are men.
    3. Unemployment is a bigger driver of suicide among men than women.

    The Equality Act (2010) allows public sector organisations to favour women over men when recruiting. That clearly makes sense.

    PRIVATE SECTOR
    The government continues to bully major companies (through quota threats) into appointing more women onto their boards, despite being well aware of the evidence that will result in corporate financial decline (as we – Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com – explained to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries at some length):

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

    Yes, that clearly makes sense too… why, this damned patriarchy!

  8. 8
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Why on earth should taxpayers fund the lifestyle choices of women they don’t know, and who are unable (alone or with a partner or family) to support a family? We know the life outcomes for children in such circumstances are poorer than in nuclear families – for the state to incentivise single motherhood, whilst not supporting nuclear families, is an insane direction of travel. It’s also a direction of travel nobody – taxpayers or otherwise – ever has the opportunity to contest at general elections, because all the main parties are going in the same direction, to some utopia devoid of nuclear families. Germaine Greer was making it perfectly clear 40+ years ago that as a Marxist she wanted to see the family destroyed.

  9. 9
    mildlymagnificent

    Errrk. I just read 5a and 19 one after the other – clunky fingers on keyboard.

    Let’s get this straight. You’re a single, widowed or divorced woman who may or may not have existing children.

    Now I’ll demonstrate that I can do the hard-cases-make-bad-law two step just as well as others do (see comment #4).

    1) A not well off woman is raped and gets pregnant. I presume she’s not entitled to consideration for abortion and nor will she be entitled to any support for the resulting child.
    2) Similar woman uses contraception which fails for some reason. (Usually oral contraceptives fail when people don’t realise that a one-day-wonder gastro infection is enough to eliminate one or two days doses so the whole month of taking tablets is ineffective. Ovulation can occur at any point thereafter.) She also is entitled neither to abortion nor to financial support.

    Bloody outrageous. Dickensian doesn’t begin to cover it.

  10. 10
    mildlymagnificent

    We know the life outcomes for children in such circumstances are poorer than in nuclear families

    So the best thing to do is to ensure that such families are even worse off than they are now. And we also make it harder for women to have an abortion if they themselves foresee that they are unable to bring up a child appropriately.

    Or have I missed something.

  11. 11
    Mike Buchanan

    Women have had virtually infallible contraception for 40+ years. Why would a woman become pregnant if she foresaw she was unable to bring a child up? Easy. She’s responding to incentives. She knows she can lean on the taxpayer to fund a flat etc etc. She doesn’t need to rely on men as partners – it might take some effort to sustain a relationship, sod that for a game of conkers – she can rely on men as taxpayers. The state will mug men on her behalf. How could anyone possibly object to that? Oh, hold on…

  12. 12
    Alan

    Ally, you are correct in your comments that it was a long blog.
    I began to get a little bored around 4) Education if I recall correctly, by that time it looked more like a misinformed idealogical destruction piece rather than a logical (polite) comment.
    I say misinformed because I’d suggest that you have never, personally, researched nor experienced the anti-male legislation that has been put in place across Western societies which destroy families, marriages, .. and hope.
    Destroying marriages is actually being funded by what one researcher called “One Stop Divorce Shops” and what our government calls “Charities” or “Women’s Shelters”.
    90% of divorce initiated by women yet most domestic violence initiated by women.
    Why would that be? Seems simple to me, women are financially attracted to divorce whilst any male who is subjected to DV and who is the main bread-winner and has children can only accept this abuse.
    Why again? Because if he dared to to a “shelter” IF there were any, then he’d almost certainly lose his home, children and most of his life’s work.
    You don’t believe me? Then you haven’t been in, or researched, the bias against men in our justice system.
    So carry on criticizing as a right-wing reactionary plot.
    Strange that, considering the J4MB party appears to be targeting Conservative marginals.
    Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, though.

  13. 13
    Ally Fogg

    Mike 7

    The Equality Act (2010) allows public sector organisations to favour women over men when recruiting. That clearly makes sense.

    No, this is untrue. The equality act allows employers to make very limited “positive action” appointments on behalf of members of a group of people who share a protected characteristic.

    If an employer (whether or not a public sector employer) felt that their recruitment policies were actively discriminating against men, the Equality Act clarifies in law that they would be allowed to choose a man over a woman (all other qualities being equal) in order to redress the discrimination.

    In other words, the Equality Act actually provides the legal protection for public sector employers to take the precise steps you want them to take.

    On a more general point though, you were arguing the other day that the reasons why there are more men than women in politics is purely down to individual preferences – more men than women want to work as MPs.

    Personally I think it is a bit more complicated than that, as I explained in the other thread, but I do not understand why you apply one set of standards to one part of the public sector (political administration) and a completely different set of standards to other parts of the public sector (eg teaching or working in a library)?

    Surely, by your logic, the reason there are more women than men in teaching is perfectly simple: More women than men want to become teachers and are prepared to work the hours required, and make the sacrifices necessary. There is no ‘problem’ that needs to be solved

  14. 14
    mildlymagnificent

    1. Two out of three public sector workers are women.
    2. Four out of seven unemployed people are men.

    And that proportion of unemployed men will be changed – how much – by changing the proportion of women in the public service?

    The simple fact is Ally’s point about the devastation of the job market by forces much larger and much more powerful than women in council offices. Whole industries have been destroyed in Britain and those industries employed mainly men. As it happens, a lot of those jobs would now be obsolete because of changes in technology and in public tastes – but if those employers hadn’t shifted lock, stock and barrel overseas, people who still worked there could have transferred or retrained into new products and activities as the employers moved into those areas. The employers abandoned their workforces to penury and misery at the hands of heartless governments and you want to blame women for the results.

  15. 15
    Ally Fogg

    Why on earth should taxpayers fund the lifestyle choices of women they don’t know, and who are unable (alone or with a partner or family) to support a family?

    Because it is better for us all to live in a society where everyone is protected from destitution and starvation, where we agree a collective responsibility for the welfare of everyone in our society and where we value compassion and humanity over selfishness and greed.

    Next question?

  16. 16
    mildlymagnificent

    Women have had virtually infallible contraception for 40+ years. Why would a woman become pregnant if she foresaw she was unable to bring a child up? Easy. She’s responding to incentives. She knows she can lean on the taxpayer to fund a flat etc etc. She doesn’t need to rely on men as partners – it might take some effort to sustain a relationship, sod that for a game of conkers – she can rely on men as taxpayers. The state will mug men on her behalf. How could anyone possibly object to that? Oh, hold on…

    And when the virtually infallible contraception produces the statistically predictable occasional pregnancy, why should abortion not be available as the fail safe back up

  17. 17
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Why is being a woman a ‘protected characteristic’, given most public sector workers are women, and most unemployed people men? Because that’s how the state works at every opportunity – pro-women, anti-men.

    I’ve never heard of the public sector using the Equality Act to increase the proportion of men in any field. If you have any examples, I’d love to hear them. I’m told some primary schools try to recruit male teachers but the culture is apparently so toxic for men, few men want to go into the field.

    I’d suggest there are more sacrifices involved in being, say, an MP, than a teacher or librarian. Apart from anything else, public services which have become very feminised (medicine and education being obvious examples) are ineffective, inefficient and mediocre. Still, the thumbscrews on taxpayers can always be turned a little more to pay for all these social engineering exercises, can’t they?

  18. 18
    Ian Tyes

    Ally – You are showing your feminist sensitivities and mis-guided patronising loyalties! You clearly do not understand enough about the existing system to realise that Mike is trying to redress the existing unfairness and institutionalised anti-male discrimination towards a more balanced equality position. Why for example should 100% of benefits, tax credits and all the related ‘winnings’ from parental separation go only to one parent over 90% of the time to the mother, even where time (and hence costs) are shared equally? Do you not accept that removing the 2-child cap on child tax credits in 2003 has contributed to the increasing birth rate since then? Some of Mike’s policies are targeted towards a fairer situation and a more balanced economy (than the £120 billion/year deficit we currently have)?

    It is a crying shame that men like you feel the need to defend to the death an utterly unfair anti-male system which discriminates against men in every area of society and you fight so hard to retain that unfairness, presumably because you have somehow benefitted or been hidden from it. I can only speculate on how long you would stay in your job if you were prepared to condemn the current system and actually bothered to examine the real evidence and concluded like I have done that many of Mike’s proposals are aimed at bringing about a much fairer system where men and women could work together, stay together and enjoy each other’s company without the need for extremist feminist policies as under the last 30 years of anti-family anti-children anti-male governments.

  19. 19
    Ally Fogg

    Alan [12]

    I’m sorry, but I find it hard to respond to wild scattergun generalisations.

    Pick out something specific I say. Tell me why you think I am wrong or you disagree, then I’m happy to discuss it.

  20. 20
    Mike Buchanan

    The day the Left comes up with an alternative to capitalism for generating wealth is one I look forward to.

  21. 21
    sarah00

    Mike @8,

    You ask why we should help women to support their families. Surely we do it for the same reason that we have an NHS and other safety nets – we’re part of a society and it benefits us all to take care of each other, if only for the selfish reason that it means we can be helped in times of need.

    Women do have access to contraceptives but the pill isn’t for everyone and can have side effects (plus can become ineffective while on antibiotics). There are other options but all have a balance of costs and benefits, and nothing other than actual refraining from sex is 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. But why are you putting all the responsibility and consequences on the woman? Last time I looked men were required to make a baby, yet your seem to be putting all the blame for unplanned pregnancies on the woman. Where’s the male responsibility? You seem very concerned about men being cuckolded but where’s the concern for the women whose partner runs off leaving them holding the baby?

  22. 22
    Gjenganger

    @Ally Fogg 15
    Hear hear!

  23. 23
    Ally Fogg

    Why is being a woman a ‘protected characteristic’, given most public sector workers are women, and most unemployed people men? Because that’s how the state works at every opportunity – pro-women, anti-men.

    “Protected characteristic” is simply a legal term – it means a characteristic from which one has statutory protection from discrimination. So gender, race, sexuality etc are protected characteristics, being a Manchester City fan is not.

    “I’ve never heard of the public sector using the Equality Act to increase the proportion of men in any field. If you have any examples, I’d love to hear them. I’m told some primary schools try to recruit male teachers but the culture is apparently so toxic for men, few men want to go into the field.”

    No, neither have I. But that doesn’t change the fact that if you were to campaign for positive action to redress imbalances in the public sector, it would be the Equality Act that would allow you to do it.

    I’d suggest there are more sacrifices involved in being, say, an MP, than a teacher or librarian.

    I’m not so sure about that. I would go through the list of members interests, check how many MPs have second, third, even fourth jobs on company boards, with charities, running their own businesses etc etc etc. I doubt you’d find many teachers who could afford the time or energy to do that.

    Apart from anything else, public services which have become very feminised (medicine and education being obvious examples) are ineffective, inefficient and mediocre. Still, the thumbscrews on taxpayers can always be turned a little more to pay for all these social engineering exercises, can’t they?

    First of all, the one tier of public services which are not feminized are the higher echelons of management, which still tend to be predominantly male, even in professions like teaching and, certainly, the health service. Secondly, I actually dispute that the public sector is any more ineffective, inefficient and mediocre now than it was when the professions were overwhelmingly male (there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary).

    Finally, careful now, I think your misogyny is showing.

  24. 24
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Thanks, but why would women need ‘statutory protection from discrimination’ when they already outnumber men 2:1 in the public sector? In the sector where merit and hard work are most important, men outnumber women 2:1.

    Disappointed to read, ‘Finally, careful now, I think your misogyny is showing.’ Come on, you’re smarter than that.

  25. 25
    Ally Fogg

    Thanks, but why would women need ‘statutory protection from discrimination’ when they already outnumber men 2:1 in the public sector?

    Because the law is not restricted to the public sector and is not restricted to women.

    Here are what the official government guidelines say:

    The Act protects people from being treated less favourably because they have a protected characteristic.The relevant protected characteristics in employment are:

    • age
    • disability (see page 10)
    • gender reassignment
    • marriage and civil partnership
    • pregnancy and maternity
    • race (including ethnic or national origins, colour and nationality)
    • religion or belief (including lack of belief)
    • sex
    • sexual orientation

    Positive action applies to all these protected characteristics. Positive action provisions mean
    that it is not unlawful discrimination to take special measures aimed at alleviating disadvantage or
    under-representation experienced by those with any of these characteristics.

    It’s not all about teh womenz, you know.

  26. 26
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    We’ve done a lot of pieces on the disastrous impact on patients and taxpayers of the feminisation of the NHS. Herewith a piece by a leading commentator:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/melanie-phillips-on-female-doctors/

  27. 27
    Alan

    You may wish to read this, Ally.
    Just one of hundreds of stories detailing the anti-male society.
    As an aside, I contributed to a research on “Male recipients of Domestic Abuse” very recently.
    After, I suggested my own experiences were atypical. The Dr was as surprised at his “findings so far”.
    He tells me that in 10% of DV where males were victims, physical or mental harm was the significant factor.
    The other 80% cited was the “False Allegations” and “Financial Abuse” perpetrated and/or supported by State anti-male legislation. If you ever go through a divorce and or falsely accused you will know all about that..
    My experiences were typical and normal, apparently.
    I’ll send you a copy of that final report when it is published next year.
    In the meantime: That’s not what the Woman’s Aid posters show you, is it??

    http://mensenews.org/domestic-violence-articles/item/67-domestic-violence-home-and-work-cannot-be-two-different-worlds?.html

  28. 28
    Thil

    >If a woman is pregnant and not of extensive independent wealth, and her boyfriend refuses to commit to supporting the child, what is she meant to do?

    I would imagine mike would suggest she should have practiced abstinence in the first place.

    incidentally I think parents should be able to demand DNA tests on their kids at anytime, and be allowed to cut off child support in exchange for loosing any parental rights

  29. 29
    Ally Fogg

    When you’re pointing me towards Melanie Philips, Mike, you’re not likely to win me over.

  30. 30
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Thanks, but it always IS about ‘teh womenz’. There are legions of people (mostly but not only women) advantaging women over men in the public sector (and increasingly in the private sector). I’ve never heard of anyone in the public sector preferentially trying to recruit men. Men know that if they challenge this direction of travel, it will be career suicide for them. A number of our supporters and donors remain anonymous precisely because they fear losing their livelihoods if their identities were revealed.

  31. 31
    Ally Fogg

    Thil [28]

    I would imagine mike would suggest she should have practiced abstinence in the first place.

    I’m sure he would. And I’d point out the spectacular success of abstinence policies in producing mini baby booms wherever they have been tried.

    incidentally I think parents should be able to demand DNA tests on their kids at anytime, and be allowed to cut off child support in exchange for loosing any parental rights

    They have that right. My objection is to imposing them on people whether they want them or not.

  32. 32
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Haha thanks, I knew that re Melanie Phillips.

  33. 33
    Ally Fogg

    I’ve never heard of anyone in the public sector preferentially trying to recruit men.

    Well this took me all of about a second and a half to find on Google

    Teachers:
    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jul/12/primary-schools-male-teachers

    Nurses:
    http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice/clinical-zones/district-and-community-nursing/more-male-and-mixed-race-health-visitors-wanted/5048260.article

    Public sector childcare:
    http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1034801/new-twist-male-recruitment-drive

  34. 34
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Thanks Ally. So efforts are being made to attract men into very low-paid (minimum wage or close to?) lines of work which they’ve traditionally eschewed. Hmm, how might that work out? A male friend says he thought of going into primary school teaching until a woman told him that in terms of attracting women, he may as well have a T-shirt printed with, ‘My clothes are contaminated with Polonium 210′.

    I did a piece not long ago on the ferminisation over the past 40 years of the state education system (both the primary and secondary school sectors). The title and the first few paragraphs relate to the feminisation of the NHS:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/david-camerons-absurd-medical-policies/

    40 years ago there were no ‘Classroom Assistants’. Why are they needed now? Answers on a postcard, please.

  35. 35
    Thil

    @Mike Buchanan

    if a single women has kids and is then made redundant (perhaps because her employer is trying to hire more men) should she get benefits because she had a study income at the time of conception?

    why do you believe the nuclear family is a good thing to the existent it should be fanatically encouraged more than other forms of family unit

    if a married couple have a baby they cannot afford should they not get money in the someway a single parent wouldn’t if she got pregnant without a steady income.

    what do you suggest should be done for the children who’s parents gave birth to them regardless of a lack of income? nothing? taken into care? What, it wasn’t their fault remember?

  36. 36
    Thil

    “steady” not “study”

  37. 37
    Ally Fogg

    Alan [27]

    With all due respect, I’ve been writing about male victims of domestic abuse and the problems they face for close to 20 years now. Just search through the ‘abuse’ tag on this blog or Google my name and you’ll realise I’ve given the topic a fair bit of thought and attention.

    That provides no kind of justification for some of the rancid proposals under discussion in this thread.

  38. 38
    Ally Fogg

    Mike [34]

    So efforts are being made to attract men into very low-paid (minimum wage or close to?) lines of work which they’ve traditionally eschewed

    Hello? Welcome to the public sector!

    These two thirds of public sector jobs that are filled by women and which you are so obsessed with, what the hell do you think those people are doing? The vast majority don’t all earn £40k as diversity consultants, whatever you might have read in the Daily Mail.

    Why do you think women only pay 29% of the nation’s income tax bill? In large part because the jobs women do are low paid, low status jobs in the public sector!

    Meanwhile, the higher you go up the promotion and salary ladder in the public sector, the more likely the jobs are to be filled by men. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18187449

    Do you want more men working in the public sector or not?

    If you do, accept that the jobs they take will overwhelmingly be low pay and low status because that’s what most public sector jobs are like – ESPECIALLY those which are dominated by women at present.

  39. 39
    Kevin Robson

    Hi Ally. I’m sure first names are OK here?

    I know you may not like it that I am not picking a specific issue to discuss with you, but people engage in debate in different ways whilst still adding to it.

    You know, when you said, “…a factional interest party is pretty much the polar opposite of where my gender politics are at. I believe men’s and women’s welfare, prosperity, fulfilment and happiness are entirely interlinked and interdependent. As soon as you begin to set one at odds against the other, as if it were a zero sum game, you have lost me”, I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with you. I think it is fair to say that in this statement you will find a resonance with a lot of folk.

    What is important it for us all is to examine our positions constantly and not become too entrenched in, and blinded by, our own political dogma to the point where we miss the point. My point is that for all the reasons given here, and many more, feminism has set women against men in our society, politicising gender, demonising and disadvantaging men, pathologising maleness in boys, and dividing us along the fault line of sex. In my humble opinion (and I know this is echoed by many people, male and female) it has divided our society and damaged it irreparably.

    It has also divided women in our society. Marriage, for example. It is still used by the middle classes but has been destroyed in those people at the other end of society. Those women who have and continue to benefit from feminism’s leaven in our society are the middle-class, well educated women who have colonised the media, many or our eminent social institutions and our governments to engineer society to suit themselves, not women as a whole. The most obvious example of this is the issue of women in board rooms. If ever there were an anti-socialist faction on nice little earners, then there is one; women GPs too. £250,000 cost to society to train a doctor to go part time early in her career and use that enormous investment to furnish a life-style decision. Sisterhood seems to have its limits when privilege and money beckon n’est ce-pas? ‘Twas ever thus.

    It is natural that you perhaps don’t see things like this because of your background and political stance. Feminism is after all an essentially left-wing, Marxist family destroying, marriage destroying ideology that has used entryism to infiltrate the Labour movement and subtly install its tenets to the extent that it has replaced inclusive socialism with another ‘ism (I know, a lot of ‘isms, but ‘isms mean schisms). It is intriguing to me that you use Stalin as a bete noir, but many people (maybe a good half of society?) see Marx and Stalin as in the same camp.

    Surely cooperation, fairness and compassion is what we all need – and to work together, men and women alike to better our society and do the best we can to live out what can be a miserable, slavish life as Marx said. Why don’t you help polish the J4MB policy document? You might do a lot to mend the rifts in our society that are damaging us all.

  40. 40
    PaulF

    Look Ally, I like you and your journalism a great deal. In many ways, I think you’re one of the best columnists out there in the British media. Yet I would have to say that Mike’s politics give me far more hope for change than your own. Why? Well because he attacks the injustices facing men and boys directly, without mixing this with all kinds of appalling metropolitan media clichés about supposed male power and privilege.

    In truth, many of these attempts to define this ‘patriarchal layer’ of society constantly fall down under scrutiny, except when you look at the 0.01%, who do not represent anyone in particular but themselves. Like for instance, when you suggest in one of the posts here that male graduates were innately privileged as a group, by virtue of being male graduates as opposed to female ones. When you look at this in detail, it just doesn’t stack up: male graduate unemployment is higher, and if you look at subject areas like the arts – especially art and design – there is no real advantage at all. I would challenge you to tell one of these male graduates, struggling with student debt, struggling to get on the housing ladder, struggling with crappy, part-time, non-graduate work, that the fact of their being male gives them an intrinsic advantage, and see if you can do so in good conscience.

    It strikes me that Mike’s politics come directly from the heart. He might get it wrong sometimes. (I don’t happen to agree with the policy on single mothers). Yet he fights passionately for what he believes in. What he does not do is play games with intellectual theories, or parrot the received wisdom of a governing elite.

  41. 41
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    So men should become primary school teachers while women flood into well-paid secure roles e.g. in medicine? 70% of medical students today are female, even GPs earn an average of £104,000 p.a., and it costs £250,000 to train each doctor. Well, to be more precise, it costs male taxpayers £180,000 and female taxpayers £70,000. Sounds good to me.

  42. 42
    jemima2013

    Mike has also sent very polite messages to the Everyday Whorephobia blog (I am one of the admins) and we have had similar problems with the rest of his policies, even whilst his views on sex work are pro decrim.

    Sex work does not exist in a vacuum though, those polices which target vulnerable women and would push them into poverty are so harmful it is hard to see his support for the decriminalization of sex work as for the benefit of the workers, who tend to be on the whole. women trying to escape poverty .

  43. 43
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg 29

    Mike (I think he wouldn’t object to first name terms with mr either) posted a link to a short speech given by a certain Mr Paul Elam and described it as evidence to back up a claim he earlier made.

    I Enjoy engaging with him for two reasons, firstly as you pointed out he’s polite and secondly, he’s actually active. He’s doing something.

    I think Mike Buchanan is more Godfrey Bloom than Paul Elam though (that’s meant as a compliment).

    Despite being labelled a feminist and a misandrist on this blog (and a “fucking idiot), the truth is that I would wholeheartedly, shamelessly and proudly support any policy that reintroduced heavily state subsided, male friendly, heavy industry into the communities torn to shreds by the odious policies of 80s Tories. Quite frankly, I’d take a functioning, working class patriarchal society, complete with main male breadwinner, over desolate towns and estates with no economy, or prospects of recovery. It breaks my (black and cynical) heart to bear witness to the implosion of once contented, if politically incorrect, societies.

  44. 44
    CitymanMichael

    Ally, I have read some of your work and have found you to be pro-men to a degree. This piece against J4MB is not balanced. Mike has made proposals to redress some of the discriminations against men and boys, recognising that men & boys are struggling in modern UK against systems which treat them as disposable. I would have expected you to counter his proposals with your own suggestions which might have more chance of suceeding, but instead you have simply critisied them.

    Perhaps you do not realise how bad things are, perhaps you do not believe how bad things are. You really should help instead of taking the easy route. Perhaps you are afraid of what may happen in your journalistic career if you are seen to help men & boys justice.

  45. 45
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Ally, a point of information. Contrary to the first sentence in your piece, J4MB doesn’t ‘hope’ to be standing at the 2015 general election, we WILL be standing. We’ve only been around for seven months but we already have funding in place for four candidates. I’ll be standing in the picturesque seat of Bedford & Kempston, while Ray Barry of the Equal Parenting Alliance – itself a political party – will be contesting the equally picturesque seat of Wolverhampton South-West for us. We plan to field 30 candidates in 2015, funds willing, and we’re targeting the top Conservative marginals because under David Cameron the party has been at least as anti-male as the three preceding Labour administrations, and that’s saying something.

    Should anyone wish to contribute to our campaign to fund the fifth candidate, I invite them to do so:

    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-j4mb-raise-gbp-1-000-to-fund-its-fifth-2015-general-election-candidate

    Thank you.

  46. 46
    carnation

    @ Cityman 44

    You write “Mike has made proposals to redress some of the discriminations against men and boys, recognising that men & boys are struggling in modern UK against systems which treat them as disposable. I would have expected you to counter his proposals with your own suggestions which might have more chance of suceeding, but instead you have simply critisied them.”

    Ally Fogg is well aware of the challenges faced by men and boys, so much so that the Guardian employ him to write about this issue, amongst others. As Mr Fogg pointed out in his article, he believes unemployment and welfare cuts are the major issues facing men and boys. He has also pointed out that he believes that the type of polices promoted by Mr Buchanan would make things worse for the majority of working class men and boys (and women and girls).

    Ally Fogg did not just decide to write this article, he was invited to, on many occasions. He accepted the invite and, to give him his due, Mike Buchanan thanked him for his efforts.

    “This piece against J4MB is not balanced.”

    Opinion pieces about polices the writer disagrees with are generally balanced against them. That’s fairly easy to understand, no?

    ” I would have expected you to counter his proposals with your own suggestions which might have more chance of suceeding”

    Ally Fogg is a journalist, not a registered political party.

    “instead you have simply critisied them.”

    Mike Buchanan asked him to.

  47. 47
    Nick diPerna

    “I would, incidentally, say the exact same if anyone suggested a feminist political party to represent women and girls (and the men who love them.)”

    But we already do have 3 feminist political parties: Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. Ally Frogg’s solution seems to be more socialism, but it is socialist redistribution of wealth and opportunities that is the main problem here, which will always prioritise women and children over men, who are biologically expendable. Ironically, men would be far better off in a genuine free market situation of positive sum trade. Stop confusing capitalism with corporatism.

  48. 48
    carnation

    There seems to be, amongst the MRA sympathetic, an understanding that Warren Farrell’s theory of the disposable male is widely accepted. It is not, not outside of the micro world of MRA blogs. So please, stop treating it as fact.

  49. 49
    Lucy

    Mike: “We’ve done a lot of pieces on the disastrous impact on patients and taxpayers of the feminisation of the NHS. Herewith a piece by a leading commentator”

    But not on the disastrous impact of the masculinisation of politics, business, academia, science, engineering, media?

  50. 50
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Nick diPerna

    A good point, well made. I had exactly the same thought when I read that sentence, but thought I’d leave someone else to make the point. A recent example. Women were already over-represented in the Cabinet before the latest reshuffle. All Dave has done is to extend that over-representation yet further. He admitted to Allison Pearson (Daily Telegraph) that he’d fired at least one highly competent (male) minister in order to shoehorn in a woman. In July we predicted he’d increase the over-representation of women:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/david-cameron-is-about-to-increase-womens-over-representation-in-the-cabinet/

    Whenever given the opportunity, Dave happily stabs men in the back. It’s little wonder Harriet Harman smiles at him benevolently during PMQs… I refer people to the cartoon on the cover of ‘David and Goliatha: David Cameron – heir to Harman? (2010)’:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Goliatha-Cameron-Heir-Harman/dp/0956641628/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381695065&sr=1-1&keywords=david+and+goliatha

    The book’s out of print but almost all the content (and more) is in ‘The Glass Ceiling Delusion’.

  51. 51
    Lucy

    Having been through the application process for primary school teacher training I can reassure everyone that colleges are taking active measures to recruit more men. One man applied in my group of applicants and you could tell they were thrilled he was there, he inevitably was selected. I can’t imagine what he could have done for there to have been a different outcome.

  52. 52
    Tom Martin MRA

    Opposing routine paternity testing for every newborn sounds Luddite. Sticking your head in the sand is not going to establish who the real father is.

  53. 53
    MrFancyPants

    Kevin @39:

    feminism has set women against men in our society, politicising gender, demonising and disadvantaging men, pathologising maleness in boys, and dividing us along the fault line of sex. In my humble opinion (and I know this is echoed by many people, male and female) it has divided our society and damaged it irreparably.

    This sounds disturbingly like you are saying that if women had only kept quiet and maintained the status quo, then society would not be “divided … and damaged.” What you fail to recognize is that a society wherein women were systematically discriminated against already was damaged and divided–you just didn’t know about it.

  54. 54
    Lucy

    “Couples who cohabit but don’t marry will be deemed to have signed a standard prenuptial agreement on the day they first cohabited. ”

    So people who choose not to marry, in no small part because they don’t want a legal relationship with their cohabitee, should have a marriage-like contract imposed on them?

  55. 55
    Lucy

    “Opposing routine paternity testing for every newborn sounds Luddite. Sticking your head in the sand is not going to establish who the real father is.”

    Because adults can’t manage this for themselves if they want to?

  56. 56
    flaneuse

    Ally, I don’t know if this is Mike’s position, but the American right usually sees adoption as the solution to the structural problems of mothers who are unable to terminate a pregnancy and have no access to financial support from the state, the father, an employer or other family members of friends.

    It is actually a reasonable solution, in that it means the state and the father are not responsible for a mother and child and nobody actually starves to death, as long as you don’t have a problem with poor parents having their children forcibly removed from them, or think that “give up your child or you will both starve to death” is meaningful consent.

  57. 57
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Lucy

    It’s not a matter of adults not managing this for themselves, it’s a matter of women deceiving men, and those men then working 20+ years to support a child who isn’t biologically his own. We wouldn’t expect a woman to do that, so why do we condone a man being deceived into doing so? It’s just one of countless double standards where men are treated as barely human, their only value resting in their utility to women and children.

    Earlier this year, in a response to my FoI request, the CSA revealed that it had around 500 cases a year of women claiming Mr X was the father of a child, when a paternity test – instituted at the insistence of Mr X – proved he WASN’T the father. My hunch is that most men assume a child is theirs, when led to believe so by a woman. Paternity fraud – including attempted paternity fraud – has long been a criminal offence in the UK. The number of women convicted of the crime is predictable to anyone with a grasp of gender politics – 0.

    Another form of paternity fraud is covered in the consultation – women becoming pregnant after covertly frustrating contraception, e.g. ‘forgetting’ to take the contraceptive pill. We even a link to an article by a prominent female journalist confessing to trying to get pregnant in her bathroom with the contents of her two ex-husbands’ used condoms (neither of them consented to this, needless to say). Let me know if you want me to post a link to the piece here.

  58. 58
    Lucy

    “Why on earth should taxpayers fund the lifestyle choices of women they don’t know, and who are unable (alone or with a partner or family) to support a family?”

    Because those women are investing their time, skills and money in your future pension and social care at no small for very little recognition or remuneration. Women who raise the future generation shouldn’t be depending on the good will of a single man, or the caprice of the Cabinet, it ought to be enshrined in law that they receive a good salary for it. The same way men for generations received salaries for performing public duties in the military or the church or in education, etc.

    It’s a really unfortunate attitude that having children is a lifestyle choice for women. What kind of society expects women to make that choice, one who’s economic system is geared up for men’s lifestyle choices I suspect.

  59. 59
    mildlymagnificent

    43 carnation
    I happily label myself as a feminist and I also would

    wholeheartedly, shamelessly and proudly support any policy that reintroduced heavily state subsided, male friendly, heavy industry into the communities torn to shreds by the odious policies of 80s Tories. Quite frankly, I’d take a functioning, working class patriarchal society, complete with main male breadwinner, over desolate towns and estates with no economy, or prospects of recovery. It breaks my … heart to bear witness to the implosion of once contented, if politically incorrect, societies.

    Things didn’t happen here in Australia in quite the same explosive, overt, assault on the working class way, but the impact on men (and their families) who would dearly love to be working class has been pretty nasty in many places.

    44 CitymanMichael
    Whoever thinks “male disposability” is a real thing and has anything to do with gender politics hasn’t looked at economic policy generally or industry policy in particular.

    The main groups that have treated working class men as “disposable” are employers, economists and politicians. If you’re in Britain and you still want to blame a woman, blame M Thatcher. She started it and she revelled in it.

    various Mike Buchanan
    I might have missed it, but I don’t see you addressing those couple of comments of mine suggesting that having abortion available for women who don’t want to burden their own families or the community at large with children they know they can’t afford to raise would be a better thing than having a blanket ban on abortion.

    I don’t mind waiting if you’re thinking about it. Just a reminder that they’re there.

  60. 60
    carnation

    @ Kevin 39

    MRA theory sets men against women in our society, politicising gender, demonising and disadvantaging women, pathologising femaleness in girls, and dividing us along the fault line of sex. In my humble opinion (and I know this is echoed by many people, male and female) if it is not ignored it will divide our society and damage it irreparably.

  61. 61
    Juan Voet

    As a man and parent if a boy I totally disagree with J4MB. The whole thing is built on a false premise i.e. that women get a better deal than men. This is patently nonsense as women earn less than men, own less property, are subjected to more verbal harassment and physical abuse. Need I go on? As far as I can see J4MB has more to do with returning Britain to a situation where paternalism rules and women and girls have no rights and are condemned to spend the rest if their lives being financially dependant on men.. If this is the sort of world Mike Buchanan wants to live in, may I suggest that he emigrates to Afghanistan where I’m sure he will find things much more to his liking.

  62. 62
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Juan

    You have clearly not read our consultation document. Please do so before attacking me. This isn’t about taking rights away from women, it’s about giving men human rights in a system which assaults them in so many areas. The British state assaults men (and boys) through its actions and inactions (our document details 20 such areas) and the state doesn’t assault women (and girls) in even one area.

  63. 63
    Kevin Robson

    Mr FancyPants @53

    ” feminism has set women against men in our society, politicising gender, demonising and disadvantaging men, pathologising maleness in boys, and dividing us along the fault line of sex. In my humble opinion (and I know this is echoed by many people, male and female) it has divided our society and damaged it irreparably.”

    “This sounds disturbingly like you are saying that if women had only kept quiet and maintained the status quo, then society would not be “divided … and damaged.” What you fail to recognize is that a society wherein women were systematically discriminated against already was damaged and divided–you just didn’t know about it.”

    Does it? Interesting point. What I was really saying was simply that feminism is undoubtedly a political ideology, and it has divided society along the fault line of gender. I suppose what you are saying is that because of the systematic discrimination that women have suffered (and I suggest this is an argument by assertion. Presumably you are talking about the old canard of The Patriarchy?) then it is OK for women to get their revenge? If so, where does that get us all? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

  64. 64
    Lucy

    Mike: “I’ve never heard of anyone in the public sector preferentially trying to recruit men. ”

    Schools launch drive to recruit male teachers
    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/jul/12/primary-schools-male-teachers

    Research project aims to help recruit and retain more male teachers in primary and early years education
    http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/education/news/2012/12/male-teachers.aspx

    “Latest data from the Teaching Agency (TA) shows more men are becoming primary school teachers. The number of male trainee primary teachers has increased by more than 50% in the last 4 years and has grown at 5 times the rate of women…The TA is launching 2 new services to assist men to train to teach primary”
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-numbers-of-men-teaching-in-primary-schools-but-more-still-needed

  65. 65
    Kevin Robson

    Lucy @58

    Lucy, are you saying that women should receive a state salary for being mothers?

  66. 66
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Lucy @ Allly

    Thank you both for pointing me to these materials which I shall read with interest. I think it worth noting, however, that the female:male teacher balance in primary schools is about 8:1 – less in secondary schools but still a strong majority are women. The female:male gender imbalance has to become quite obscene before it’s seen as a problem in need of addressing.

  67. 67
    Lucy

    @Mike

    “It’s not a matter of adults not managing this for themselves, it’s a matter of women deceiving men, and those men then working 20+ years to support a child who isn’t biologically his own. We wouldn’t expect a woman to do that, so why do we condone a man being deceived into doing so? It’s just one of countless double standards where men are treated as barely human, their only value resting in their utility to women and children.”

    Because relationships are personal and the people in them are adults. If a man or woman believes a paternity test is necessary or desirable, they will arrange one. What right does a government to impose one? Does it occur to you that some couples may prefer to smooth over or ignore infidelity, or couples may decide it would be more detrimental to know?

    “Earlier this year, in a response to my FoI request, the CSA revealed that it had around 500 cases a year of women claiming Mr X was the father of a child, when a paternity test – instituted at the insistence of Mr X – proved he WASN’T the father. My hunch is that most men assume a child is theirs, when led to believe so by a woman. Paternity fraud – including attempted paternity fraud – has long been a criminal offence in the UK. The number of women convicted of the crime is predictable to anyone with a grasp of gender politics – 0.”

    So if 500 men requested and obtained a paternity test why do they need the intervention of the government to enforce one? What you are proposing is blanket government monitoring of the population to catch a tiny minority of “offenders”, hugely anti-libertarian. Snooping into people’s bedrooms and relationships is the stuff of theocracies and single party states.

    “Another form of paternity fraud is covered in the consultation – women becoming pregnant after covertly frustrating contraception, e.g. ‘forgetting’ to take the contraceptive pill. We even a link to an article by a prominent female journalist confessing to trying to get pregnant in her bathroom with the contents of her two ex-husbands’ used condoms (neither of them consented to this, needless to say). Let me know if you want me to post a link to the piece here.”

    How would paternity tests address this?

    Surely the way for you to address this would be to urge men not to leave contraception to their female partners. Unless one of your other policies is to have routine hormone testing and intercourse licenses for women of child-bearing age?

  68. 68
    Lucy

    @Kevin

    “Lucy, are you saying that women should receive a state salary for being mothers?”

    I’m saying that if we are accepting an economic model where men (and now women) receive salaries for performing other necessary and integral activities of social rather than direct economic benefit (such as being a soldier or priest), then it would be entirely consistent to pay women for motherhood and child rearing, as well as other caring duties they undertake.

    It is simply a trick of history that we have a system that remunerates activities that occur outside the domestic sphere and not those that happen within it. When I say “trick of history”, I of course mean “sexist social policy”.

  69. 69
    CitymanMichael

    @59 mildly magnificent

    It is not working class men who are disposable in the western world – it is all men.

    Some examples.

    Family courts where fathers are ousted from their children’s lives – just work to pay maintenance, even for children who are proven not to be theirs in some cases.

    In the prison system where men are given much higher custodial sentences, and then only in cases where men are in court, much more likely than women for the same offense.

    Homelessness, where men make up something like 95 percent

    funding for cancers – prostrate cancer gets less than 25 percent of the funding as breast cancer which kills around the same number of people.

    Jobs, where positive discrimination is always in women’s favour.

    Domestic abuse, where there are thousands of places in shelters for women and a handful for men, even though home office statistics show that men are similarity afflicted by abuse from female partners.

    The above are only some examples where men are treated as disposable. But the western world is starting to waken up to these discrepancies and thank goodness for people like Mike Buchanan who highlight these issues. And pity for others who either cannot or will not open their eyes to the discrimination that men and boys face.

  70. 70
    Mike Buchanan

    My thanks to Angry Harry http://angryharry.com for alerting to me to this piece from over a year ago. The crisis in the NHS has only got worse in the interim, and will get even worse, because spineless politicians won’t address the root cause of the crisis – the relentless feminisation of the NHS over 30+ years:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9549262/Part-time-women-doctors-are-a-risk-to-NHS.html

  71. 71
    mildlymagnificent

    then it would be entirely consistent to pay women for motherhood and child rearing, as well as other caring duties they undertake.

    And then it would also be entirely consistent to inspect “workplaces” and to counsel paid workers on “performance indicators” or objectives. We’d finish up with that system the French used to have to encourage larger families. (I don’t know whether they do the same now. As I understood it, it was one of those populate or perish style policies. They felt they needed to encourage large families after so many men were killed in war.)

    The state paid generously the costs of child rearing and more for more children, but that also meant that social workers had the right to inspect homes to check that children had shoes, and blankets on their beds, and went to school regularly. Aaand they could stop the benefits if specified standards weren’t met. Consistent isn’t always an unalloyed virtue.

  72. 72
    mildlymagnificent

    Domestic abuse, where there are thousands of places in shelters for women and a handful for men, even though home office statistics show that men are similarity afflicted by abuse from female partners.

    Similarly afflicted? It’s one thing to say that the numbers of men with abusive partners is the same as for women. That could well be true even if I don’t know the research to back that up.

    But the effects are not the same surely. As far as I know, the number of women murdered by abusive partners runs at about 2 per week in Britain. I’ve never heard of anything similar for abused men.

  73. 73
    Mike Buchanan

    @ mildlymagnificent

    You might be interested in the 21 ‘key facts’ about DV in our consultation document (link below). It includes the murder rates. We don’t ‘cherry pick’ data to suit our arguments, unlike feminists. It’s one of the reasons we’re moving forward rapidly. Feminists have no rational counter-arguments, only shaming tactics, which are rapidly losing their effectiveness:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-consultation-exercise-2/

  74. 74
    Kevin Robson

    @lucy 68

    Fascinating. So what would be the pay scale do you think? And would that be considered a rewarding (I mean in terms of self-actualisation) career path for a woman?

  75. 75
    MrFancyPants

    Kevin @ 63:

    I suppose what you are saying is that because of the systematic discrimination that women have suffered … then it is OK for women to get their revenge? If so, where does that get us all? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    You are misinformed. Feminism is not about “revenge”. You would do yourself a favor to learn more about modern mainstream feminism, rather than basing your opinions of it on hearsay or the kneejerk reactions of socially conservative men (and some women!) who feel threatened.

    (Trolling elided from original quote)

  76. 76
    Paul

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Until today i was blissfully unaware of J4MB .And if in his article Ally has accurately represented your views on a number of issues then J4MB is not something i could support.

    Men and boys do face discrimination on account of their sex on a number of different fronts.Our exchanges on the previous thread regarding the issue of women and girls being treated more leniently than men and boys even when their behaviour is just as bad is one example of that. But i seriously question the judgement of anyone who views Margaret Thatcher as some sort of political idol. And who may decide that the interests of men and boys are best served voting for Ukip. Additionally i can’t take seriously the idea of a political party that exists solely for men and boys.It would never get off the ground.

    I believe that equality between the sexes has got to be seen to cut both ways.And that neither sex are entitled to any special treatment. So a women who’s abusive to her male partner has got to be treated the same as a man who’s abusive to his female partner. Male victims shouldn’t be expected to take it on the chin and be treated like wimps if they complain. And in the case of the boy and girl fighting on ‘ Educating Yorkshire” which you highlighted on yesterday’s thread BOTH should have been disciplined and sent to anger management classes. It was absolutely wrong to treat the girl more leniently purely on account of her sex.

    I’m not denying that middle class men can and do face discrimination on account of their sex. However i believe that working class men get it worse and on a greater number of fronts. I also believe that women from all backgrounds can be just as guilty as men of encouraging and rewarding those very masculine attributes which we’re told are problematic. Hardly surprising therefore that growing numbers of males are questioning the confusing and sometimes contradictory signals they get from females.And i also believe that women and girls can and do get away with more than men and boys and that needs to change.Feminists after all have been absolutely right in challenging those double standards which favour males -eg ”boys will be boys” -so those which favour females have got to be challenged as well.

    My perception of where we are at the moment in society is that a lot of women from all backgrounds don’t want equality with men they want the best of both worlds as and when it suits them.So obviously there needs to be some sort of consensus between the sexes as to what we mean when we’re talking about equality between men and boys on the one hand and women and girls on the other. For equal but different should never translate into giving one sex any sort of built in advantage over the other. Both sexes should have equal treatment and equal outcomes.

  77. 77
    Mike Buchanan

    @ MrFancyPants

    The only significant form of feminism in the UK for the past 30+ years has been gender feminism, a female supremacy movement driven by misandry. Should you doubt this, I recommend you read Swayne O’Pie’s ‘Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism’ or a selection from our list of 50+ recommended books:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/recommended-books/

  78. 78
    Kevin Robson

    MrFancyPants @ 75

    I was trying to do you the courtesy of engaging with your ideas and am always happy to do so if you want that. I don’t want to engage in, or suffer ad hominem stuff though. This is too important a subject and the debate needs to be raised if it is to go anywhere. FYI I believe I am very well informed, but thank you for your advice.

  79. 79
    123454321

    Ally,

    Allow me to tell you something in plain old simple English. I am a man and I am sick of being ignored. I am sick of hearing how bad women have it in this country when in actual fact they have exactly the same opportunities as men and probably live safer lives as a result of being afforded greater protection. The amount of media attention that women get is grossly disproportionate and way out of context. Feminism has completely brain-washed the public (via the media) into believing that only women can have it bad. This trend is relentless in its pursuit to indoctrinate our society with the notion that women’s rights is unparalleled in terms of social importance and now it appears we’re in a rut which is bringing significant harm to men and our young generation of boys.

    I’m sick of hearing about women on boards, no, seriously I am, and I can pretty much guarantee that there are millions of men who feel the same. There are far too many do-gooders (usually either feminists, white knights or people just a wee bit dense between the ears) who are too scared to stand up for the principles of merit. I’m sick of hearing about how the government should support getting more women on boards when I don’t hear a single thing about getting more women to do some of the other important jobs, which, incidentally contribute to 98% of workplace deaths! The term ‘cherry-picking’ springs to mind!

    I’m fed up of hearing about violence against women when there is FAR more violence against men in today’s World. I’m sick of hearing about female genital mutilation without reference to male genital mutilation. And I’m sick of politicians and their ‘female friendly’ policies, which quite frankly are wearing thin. I’m also sick to death of every other advert demonising men, making them look like idiotic morons or sexually objectifying them in an age which, apparently, sees this as acceptable. I’m sick of reading about how lads’ mags should get banned whilst no one contemplates the damage that wrestling mags may have on young boys and it’s unbelievable how zero reference is made to the plethora of underaged shirtless boys there are in girls magazines who are plainly there for the pleasure of girls. I’m sick of how the news reports disasters as comprising of ‘women and children’ . Can you imagine tomorrow’s headlines as: “Disaster strikes. Over 150 killed including 40 men and children”? I thought not! The list goes on and on…

    Actually, I’ve come to realise that indeed the pendulum has swung so far the other way that it’s now stuck in the freaking ceiling, held there by a bunch of hypocritical, selfish, self-centred, bigoted, illogical feminists and white knights who are holding it up by the skin of their teeth. It’s time to let go and set that pendulum ticking again because things have already got way out of hand. I read your first couple of paragraphs and this is what made me put pen to paper:

    “To be blunt, I was less than impressed by the idea and saw no particular reason to add to whatever publicity was already afloat. If I’m honest, I was kind of hoping that if we all ignored it, it would go away.”

    Let me enlighten you – it won’t go away. Mike is doing a sterling job and he’s representing millions of men like me who are sick of reading, watching and listening to feministic trash that does more harm to society than good. I am all for equality and equal opportunity, I believe that men and women are of equal importance and should be afforded equal rights and protection. it’s just that enough is enough and the petty little game that most political parties are playing whereby they pander to women in the hope to get their votes has become as transparent as glass and is highly offensive.

    And in a nutshell (because I haven’t even scratched the surface) that’s why a hell of a lot of men will probably vote J4MB or UKIP.

  80. 80
    MrFancyPants

    Mike @ 77:

    The only significant form of feminism in the UK for the past 30+ years has been gender feminism, a female supremacy movement driven by misandry.

    “Gender feminism” is a nonexistent fantasy dreamed up by Christina Hoff Sommers that is largely ridiculed outside of fringe elements. If you want your candidates to present any kind of showing in 2015, much less win, I recommend you not push that absurd angle.

  81. 81
    MrFancyPants

    Kevin @78:

    I was trying to do you the courtesy of engaging with your ideas and am always happy to do so if you want that. I don’t want to engage in, or suffer ad hominem stuff though. This is too important a subject and the debate needs to be raised if it is to go anywhere. FYI I believe I am very well informed, but thank you for your advice.

    I used no ad hominem debating technique, nor did I insult you. I pointed out that you are misinformed, which you are. There are any number of “Feminism 101″ websites online through which you can, at your leisure, read and learn from. A good place to start would be this one. If you were willing to spend a few hours reading and thinking, you would be much farther down the line of actually being informed and would almost certainly overcome the patently untrue notion that feminism is about “women getting revenge.”

  82. 82
    Mike Buchanan

    @ MrFancyPants

    I recommend that any person inclined to believe your assertion reads ‘Who Stole Feminism? How Women Betrayed Women’ (1994) for a sterling account of the yawning chasm between equity feminism and gender feminism. Many of the 50+ books on our recommended books list also have a lot to say on this subject, including my own three humble offerings.

  83. 83
    Nick diPerna

    @ carnation “There seems to be, amongst the MRA sympathetic, an understanding that Warren Farrell’s theory of the disposable male is widely accepted. It is not, not outside of the micro world of MRA blogs. So please, stop treating it as fact.”

    There is plenty of biological and empirical evidence to support this. Warren Farrell was not the first to suggest male disposability.

    One man can technically impregnate 1000s of women, especially when the ‘daddy state’ is there to support them; so which sex is more important to preserve? Do the math…

    Also, see how willing men are to self-sacrifice on the front line, engage in dangerous sports, or do dangerous jobs for less pay than women. Biology precedes culture and politics, which then go on to reinforce it.

  84. 84
    H. E. Pennypacker

    First I’d like to say that this has made for interesting. I’ve always steered clear of this brand of MRAism and only read or watched things by the more sane end of people advocating for men or criticising the current mainstream of internet based feminism. I now have more sympathy for people who take MRA to be synonymous loony, paranoid reactionary.

    I do, however, wish to question the idea put forward earlier in the thread that male disposability is widely rejected outside MRA circles and has no bearing on discussions of gender. That males are socialised in many societies to engage in life-threatening violence is accepted by a huge number of people including many feminists. In fact most feminist critiques of the military I have read are underpinned by the idea that military service is/has been presented as a uniquely male activity.

    To pick an interesting example there is a pretty large body of literature on the valorisation of self-sacrifice for queen and country amongst the British upper classes the second half of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. This was a very explicit aspect and goal of public school education and was probably the most common theme in anthologies of poetry aimed at schoolboys in this period. What is most striking is that often these poems did not valorise victory in war as much as dying for the cause.

  85. 85
    Kevin Robson

    MrFancyPants @81

    Once again thanks for your proffered advice. Yes I know about the site you linked to. Frankly I just glaze over at feminist stridency and dogma. I’ve heard it all before. As I said earlier I believe I am VERY well informed and somewhat past the 101 stage. Shall we just agree to differ on this one and leave the discussion do you think? I don’t wish to be rude but it really isn’t going anywhere after all and I’m sure you’ve got a lot of advice to give to others? No need to respond, honestly.

  86. 86
    flaneuse

    I always wonder where MRAs think the balance *should* have stopped. When we got the vote? When we got the right to take out loans and mortgages without a husband or father to sign for us? When we got the right to refuse sex with our husbands? When it became illegal to grab our boobs or arses just because we worked in the same office as you? When a man and a woman doing the same work were legally supposed to be paid the same, rather than the woman automatically getting paid less? When a woman who had been a victim of a sexual attack by a man was going into an organisation staffed overwhelmingly by men and examined by men, who hadn’t had any specialised training on how to treat victims of sexual assault or what that might be like?

    I always hear this stuff about “feminism has gone too far”, but I’ve never heard an MRA be clear on exactly what point was right. If they acknowledge that there was discrimination against women in the past – and some of it was awful – what situation was about right? If there was a point where society was roughly fair to both men and women, when was it and what did it look like? It would be really helpful if they could be clearer, so I could understand exactly what they mean by equality of the sexes, and what my life would look like if they had their way.

  87. 87
    Mike Buchanan

    @ flaneuse

    There never was a point where society was roughly fair to both men and women. Men and women historically had complementary roles and co-operated. There’s informal power, which the majority of women have always had, and formal power, which only a minority of men had. Thanks to feminism women now want all the formal power too, and men – politicians in particular – are busy giving it to them, regardless of the consequences for the vast majority of men, women, and children.

    The issue of society relentlessly advantaging women over men was powerfully outlined in a book first published 100 years ago, ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ by Ernest Belfort Bax. It’s downloadable at no charge through this link:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/the-fraud-of-feminism-1913/

  88. 88
    Nick diPerna

    @ flaneuse

    Sarcasm isn’t helpful. The ‘right balance’ would be when neither sex gets preferential treatment in all matters of law, legislation, employment, divorce and state funding.

    Women were indeed discriminated against in the past, but so were men in other ways. Propagandists cherry-pick only the parts of history that suit their ideology and ignore the rest. It’s called confirmation bias or myside bias.

    You seem to be attempting to justify male exploitation by demonising men who died years ago. Every exploitative movement needs a ‘legitimising ideology’.

  89. 89
    MrFancyPants

    Mike @ 82:

    I recommend that any person inclined to believe your assertion reads ‘Who Stole Feminism? How Women Betrayed Women’ (1994) for a sterling account of the yawning chasm between equity feminism and gender feminism.

    You’re using the same rhetorical technique as christians who, when asked how the events described in the bible can be known to be true, point to the fact that the bible says they are. Backing up your belief in the fringe/ridiculed concept of “gender feminism” by pointing me to the person who invented the term and her acolytes is not going to be effective. There is no serious support for the idea in mainstream feminism. Frankly, Mike, you are the first MRA supporter I’ve encountered who does appear to be an activist for changing inequitable laws rather than just carping about women & feminism, and I’ve encountered dozens over the last few years. That being said, that you resort to quoting CHS and her discounted notions of “gender/equity” feminism tells me that despite that, your activism is rooted in misogyny. I wish you luck in getting more equitable laws passed, albeit hopefully not at the expense of other people. This is not a zero-sum game, nor do you have to try to make it one.

    Keven @ 85:

    Very well. I will merely point out that when you say things like this:

    Frankly I just glaze over at feminist stridency and dogma. I’ve heard it all before.

    …that you are betraying a bigoted mindset that goes a long way towards explaining exactly why you are misinformed.

  90. 90
    Fibinachi

    No, I am fairly confident flaneuse is not attempting to justify male exploitation. That would be a terrible, terrible thing to justify.

    What is being done is asking the question – when someone complain that “Feminism has gone to far!”, when exactly do they mean? Was it the votes? Or the mortgages? Or the protection against assaults?

    All those things, remember – votes, loans, reprensentation by law, assumption of ability to own property, capacity to be a legal entity, so on, so forth, where already in place for men. So… when was too far? What spot should we roll back to? Ally Frog has already pointed out that the the laws cited to be anti-male are, in their wording, not. And people have given examples of those who attempt to recruit more males in positions cited to be “female dominated”.

    Everyone suffered in the past. Most people suffer in the present. The question still remains, if you claim that “Feminism has gone too far”; where exactly has it gone to far, and how would you rectify it without – this is the important bit – also, as some of the proposotions of the Justice 4 Men and Boys do, accidentally (And I choose to believe this is an accident) leaving room for the crass return of exploitation, suffering and legal disenfranchisement of people?

  91. 91
    mildlymagnificent

    Men and women historically had complementary roles and co-operated.

    So why did we need the Married Women’s Property Act in 1882? I don’t see much evidence of “cooperation” between those who proposed and those who resisted women’s suffrage in Britain. It took legislation in 1970 in Britain to state that people who did the same work should get the same pay regardless of sex despite the obvious fairness of such a concept. Or was it radical to think such a thing?

    It took until 1991(!) for rape in marriage to be stated by legal authorities as definitely criminal in Britain. At least in the colonies we managed this amazing feat in 1976 in South Australia – first in the world. Not really a wonderful example of “cooperation” or “complementary roles” when you think about it.

  92. 92
    John123

    Two weeks ago I listened while a man gave an interview on BBC Radio Lancashire. He decided he wanted to be a primary school teacher and passed the courses. He had applied for more than 50 teaching jobs and only had about 10% bother to give him an interview. He still does not have a teaching job, the main reasons given, lack of experience(new teacher here), he would disrupt the (female) staff culture, risk to the children because he is male(women abuse children too), or blatent sexism to his face. He can see that he is not wanted by the mostly female staff with no regard to men being under represented, or being a role model for the male children, or a different style for the female children. The message he got was male teachers were just not welcome full stop, so he has wasted his time and money. I am sure the BBC can be contacted to see if he wishes to talk to any other journalists to confirm this. Not so much a glass ceiling, more a brick wall.

  93. 93
    Mike Buchanan

    @ mildlymagnificent

    Thank you. It’s not possible to make sense of the history if you look only at rights. You also need to look at responsibilities. In Victorian times, when wives incurred debts they (and/or their husbands) couldn’t settle, their husbands alone went to debtors’ prisons.

    The history of feminism has always been one of demanding more rights for women while not expecting them to take on responsibilities. The differential treatment of men and women by the (male-dominated) justice system is but one example of this. Women are treated as barely more responsible than children for their actions, and feminists say nothing about this anomaly.

    Men have historically had more rights than women in order to be in a position to meet their greater responsibilities (particularly to provide for families). It’s even true in the developing world, both historically and to the present day, as Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) and Zara Faris, a young Muslim woman, have convincingly outlined:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/girlwriteswhat-were-women-historically-oppressed-are-they-now-in-developing-countries/

  94. 94
    Mike Buchanan

    @ John123

    Thank you. In an earlier comment I wrote that I’d heard the culture in primary schools was ‘toxic’ towards male teachers, thank you for confirming the point. I believe about a quarter of the children in the UK today are brought up by single mothers (up to 75% in some deprived areas in Liverpool,Newcastle etc.). Most of these kids have no interaction with their fathers, mainly because of how the justice system works, not ‘feckless fathers’. The kids go to primary schools with no (or very few) adult male role models. Is it any wonder there’s been an explosion in the numbers of children with psychological problems? Surely not.

  95. 95
    mildlymagnificent

    The history of feminism has always been one of demanding more rights for women while not expecting them to take on responsibilities.

    Don’t be ridiculous. I was there.

    I’m old enough to be one of those women who had to fight tooth and nail for the “privilege” of undertaking financial obligations like leases and loans without a male guaranteeing or co-signing the contracts. (Yes, I am old. But my memory won’t be failing me for another 20 years yet if I follow the usual path of my family.)

    And you are seriously advancing Karen Straughan as a person whose ideas are worthy of more than a moment’s notice?

  96. 96
    Fibinachi

    @Mike Buchanan:

    May I interject something here, regarding the statement: “Thank you. It’s not possible to make sense of the history if you look only at rights. You also need to look at responsibilities. In Victorian times, when wives incurred debts they (and/or their husbands) couldn’t settle, their husbands alone went to debtors’ prisons.”?

    Why did men have that responsibility?
    Was it because most money, work and favor accrued to the male heir / breadwinner / worker and because of default assumptions within the marriage? Could it be that the default assumption was that when women accrued debt, they did so to the household, on account of rarely having legal reprensentation of their own (let alone the financial individual power to manage debt). After all, when men are the assumed heads of the household, and the household inhabitants accrue debt… that is the man’s fault and his responsibility. The women are just a wifely attachment, chattel, a bit of a bonus to that situation (Albeit a bonus that might spend money unwisely).

    Grant them the ability to be legal entities on their own, with their own financial means, and you’ll suddenly find… today, a guy in a relation rarely goes to jail because of the debt of the girl he is dating, or the girl he has married. To suggest this would make most listeners ask you “Whatever for? Debt applies personally!”

    The notion men being put to jail for their wives debt is somehow the same as a voting rights act or a marriage rape law is, and pardon my french, laughable. Laughable. It is not, and has never been the same. One assumes men control everything, and is at fault for the actions of others – the other grants people the same ability to influence their lived lives.

  97. 97
    MrFancyPants

    Karen Straughan associates herself with groups that have been called hate groups by the SLPC, and rightly so. That alone should disqualify her “ideas”.

  98. 98
    mildlymagnificent

    He decided he wanted to be a primary school teacher and passed the courses. He had applied for more than 50 teaching jobs and only had about 10% bother to give him an interview.

    Unemployed teachers in the UK? So he’s joined a club with 38,000 members – also looking for jobs, some of them with bags more experience than he has.

    This item is from early last year, but even if things have improved since then it’s still pretty bleak.

    Since 2007, teacher unemployment has more than doubled in the UK – from 16,000 to 38,000. That’s 8.6 per cent of the total workforce.

    And for new teachers, the picture is even bleaker. In England, 21 per cent of those who completed training in 2011 still hadn’t found a job by January 2012. In Scotland, 12 per cent failed to find work.

    http://newteachers.tes.co.uk/content/job-prospects-nqts-brighten

  99. 99
    Mike Buchanan

    @ mildlymagnificent

    Thank you.

    “And you are seriously advancing Karen Straughan as a person whose ideas are worthy of more than a moment’s notice?”

    Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) is probably the most important commentator on gender politics in the world today. Feminist commentators look utterly pathetic in comparison, and the smart ones know it.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

  100. 100
    Mike Buchanan

    If you mean A Voice for Men http://avoiceformen.com, you’re wrong. The SPLC hasn’t denoted them a hate group. This has been said so often I can scarcely believe I’m writing this comment. My response to people who believe AVfM is a hate group is consistent. Subscribe to the site for a month, and learn the truth.

  101. 101
    MrFancyPants

    Mike, saying the opposite doesn’t make it true. The SPLC called AVfM a misogyny site.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites

    Unless “misogyny” means something else in the UK than elsewhere in the world, that makes it a hate site.

    Regarding Karen Straughan, I would wager that almost nobody outside of the tiny MRA/MGTOW circles even knows who she is. Her wider recognition in “gender politics” comes almost entirely through regular ridicule of her by people like David Futrelle. She is a fringe radical with nothing interesting to add.

  102. 102
    Dani Wells

    Some points about workplace deaths and safety policy. It was socialist feminism in many cases that took on that task. A few feminists who did things like construction work were seeing men taking many risks while working and other men who cheered them on. They realized it was men’s machismo that was contributing to workplace death/accidents. Also, these feminists brought in unions for all workers.

    In short, these feminists educated men on how unsafe they were working due to their need to be ‘manly’. (patriarchy). Once educated and unionized the safety of these jobs improved rapidly. The woman organized with unions and their workplace to ensure people weren’t taking risks that could seriously hurt or kill them.

    Thank you feminism.

  103. 103
    Mike Buchanan

    @ MrFancyPants

    I invite people to read the entry on AVfM and make up their own minds:

    “A Voice for Men is essentially a mouthpiece for its editor, Paul Elam, who proposes to “expose misandry [hatred of men] on all levels in our culture.” Elam tosses down the gauntlet in his mission statement: “AVfM regards feminists, manginas [a derisive term for weak men], white knights [a similar derisive term, for males who identify as feminists] and other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not consider them well intentioned or honest agents for their purported goals and extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would clansmen [sic], skinheads, neo Nazis or other purveyors of hate.” Register-Her.com, an affiliated website that vilifies women by name who have made supposedly false rape allegations (among other crimes against masculinity), is one of Elam’s signature “anti-hate” efforts. “Why are these women not in prison?” the site asks.”

    Being ridiculed by David Futrelle must surely amount to a ‘badge of honour’ for a MHRA. If I ever get find some spare time, I’ll try to get ridiculed by him too haha!

  104. 104
    Dani Wells

    Mike says

    “Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) is probably the most important commentator on gender politics in the world today. Feminist commentators look utterly pathetic in comparison, and the smart ones know it.”

    She isn’t actually important. MRA’s prop her up as important but she’s just as dull as the rest of you. I’ve offered to debate her several times and she always turns me down. I’ve seen her comments on popular media sites and they are rife with inaccuracies.

    For example, she actually put forth the idea that women in the late 19th century were allowed to work the way women are today. She then did one of her tricks where she put a link to a site where ONE woman was allowed to work in a trade job (and subsequently highlighted on this site because of it) and didn’t explain in her comment that this was RARE and only due to the fact that men took pity on this poor girl and ALLOWED her to work in the trade.

    It’s this kind of dishonesty that she’s known for. She even called for feminists to debate her. I stood up. She declined.

    She’s just as WRONG as you are. She just uses a bit more fancy language.

    She’s

  105. 105
    MrFancyPants

    Mike, bear in mind that Paul Elam and AVfM until very recently had a longstanding public call for men to engage in acts of physical domestic terrorism. That’s the kind of website you’re promoting here, and using to promote your own agenda.

    Despicable.

  106. 106
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Dani Wells

    Are you having a laugh? 126 of the 128 people who died in workplace-related incidents in 2012 were men. Thank you feminism. It’s about time we had gender equality with respect to:

    - workplace deaths
    - suicide
    - state spending on gender-specific cancers
    - custody of children
    - treatment by the justice system
    - employment in the public sector
    - genital mutilation

    And many more areas. 20 of them in our public consultation document.

  107. 107
    MrFancyPants

    So you’re back to your talking points. Fine, Mike. You’re not very convincing when you promote misogyny web sites, pseudo-intellectuals like Karen Straughan, and theories like “gender feminism” that have been broadly rejected.

    Good luck getting those points you just mentioned resolved. I agree with some of your broader goals. However, knowing who else you associate with, were I to have the right to vote in your candidates’ elections, I would vote against them.

  108. 108
    Mike Buchanan

    @ MrFancyPants

    In two years of following AVfM I have encountered no misogyny. Ask yourself, if it were misogynistic, would they have so many ‘Honey Badgers’ (female anti-feminists) contributing? Off the top of my head (and I’m tired) Karen Straughan, Alison Tieman, Della Burton, Diana Davison, Janet Bloomfield…

    There’s a tsunami on the way. You’re on the beach, thinking you can stamp your feet, and stop it. Good luck with that fantasy.

  109. 109
    Fibinachi

    And what, if you would, will this “tsunami” do when it washes over us? What is it composed off? What will it clean away with a rush of metaphorical water?

    What will it destroy – for tsunamis do destroy?

  110. 110
    MrFancyPants

    Mike, I’m surprised that I even need to point out that gender does not correlate to politics. There is a long history of women acting against their own interests and in misogynistic, hateful ways. Your own Karen Straughan attests to that fact. That you can’t see any misogyny on AVfM is a testament to your powers of confirmation bias, nothing more; you explain away or trivialize what you don’t like to see.

    The fact is, AVfM is a marginalized, barely followed hate site that is largely run by one man. When Paul Elam passes on, AVfM will disappear. He has already lost multiple former allies through his dictatorial leadership style; the website does not represent a movement, it is just a reflection of the will of an aging sexist.

    Regarding the tsunami that you think is coming, I think you have an inflated idea of the size of your “movement”. When calls for organized protests go out, it is rare to see more than a handful of beleaguered, angry MRA’s actually appear and take part. This is not a sign of a vital and growing movement, it’s just a bunch of angry men (and a few angry women) feeling helpless at a world changing rapidly before their eyes, and doing some small thing to push back against that change.

    Note a promising sign, Mike. I’ll have my beach blanket right at the shoreline, thanks.

  111. 111
    mildlymagnificent

    Workplace deaths and injuries. Have a good look at the 1993/4 to 2012/13 table here. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm

    One thing I remember from a health and safety training course far too many years ago now was similar to Dani Wells observation above. Someone suggested that all this safety malarkey getting in the way of “getting the job done” was due to women entering previously male workplaces and insisting on changing it to suit themselves. The trainer pointed out that it wasn’t the fact that they were women that they instigated changes. It was that they were new eyes on old problems. I suspect also that in trades type jobs they were more recently trained than the average workers at a given workplace so they were also more likely to have “new-fangled” ideas, like safe practices, that the more experienced blokes were unfamiliar with and often quite hostile to – like the classic example of limits on lifting heavy items.

    (And when the trainer went through the ghastly details of some injuries and the pointlessly silly ways they occurred you had to agree.) A friend of mine, a woman, white collar worker, visited a few workplaces on a study tour overseas she was horrified. Who on earth thought it was sensible or advisable (rather than criminally negligent) to assign a bloke to work a particular machine in a factory where the. last. three. people. who’d done that job had been killed while operating that specific machine? And it was a unionised workplace! She was also amazed to see abattoir workers blithely wielding boning knives without metal mesh gloves. And in a country that wasn’t a third world hell-hole, it was a country she’d previously thought was very much like Australia.

  112. 112
    MrFancyPants

    Meant to say in that last one, “does not correlate strongly”. Obviously there are some weak correlations between gender and politics. That being said, most women seem to find misogyny repugnant; obviously, some don’t. People have different motivations, some women are motivated to side with misogynists against other women. This is not a huge newsflash.

    Also, last line should have been “not a promising sign” rather than “note a promising sign.” I, too, appear to be tired.

  113. 113
    davekendall

    As soon as you begin to set one at odds against the other, as if it were a zero sum game, you have lost me.

    I’d agree with you on that.

    I would, incidentally, say the exact same if anyone suggested a feminist political party to represent women and girls (and the men who love them.)

    Actually, it looks like there is a feminist political party starting up in the UK. They aren’t exactly like J4MB though. For example, those men and boys include “the women who love them”, while The Feminist Party is a women only space. Because nothing screams “equality of the sexes” like actively excluding one of them…

    According to their Facebook page, The Feminist Party “plan to re-engage in active fundraising, campaigning and recruitment towards the middle of 2014.” It’ll be interesting to see what kind of support and media attention they receive if they actually put that plan into action. I’ll be amazed if there isn’t at least one fawning puff piece in the Guardian or New Statesman by the end of next year.

    Looking at who’s involved, I’d bet that their policy platform ends up steeped in the mainstream feminist moral panic over “sexualisation”. Being a political party will simply give them new ways of pushing the puritan agenda that dominates the feminist lobby, i.e. campaigning against sex in the media (lads’ mags, page 3, raunchy music videos, etc.), demands for anti-porn internet filters, pushing the Swedish prostitution model, and so on…

    As a social libertarian, those authoritarian policies are when feminism has “gone too far” for me, especially when feminists often fail to back them up with solid evidence. Not that I consider MRAs to be much better, especially considering the number of religious conservatives/traditionalists among their number.

  114. 114
    mildlymagnificent

    the puritan agenda that dominates the feminist lobby

    Well, that was certainly true of the first wave feminists of a century ago. And there were a fair few among the second wave who stuck to the line that more women in more positions of authority would make the world a better, kinder, gentler place – which was shot down pretty promptly once people got to know Thatcher along with Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi and Sirimavo Bandaranaike among others.

    In roles of less authority, women’s “moral nature” – lifted straight out of 1st wave feminism but warped beyond all sense by combining it with Freudian nonsense – would improve family, workplace and community life if it were given more chance of expression. The mainstream claims in the 70s that women were equal to men in their capacity for good and evil, sense and nonsense, hard work and idleness, modest decorum and vulgar lewdness managed to get swamped by the competing extreme claims of the rad fem separatists and the “sex-positive” libertarians. Which is probably the explanation for the weirdly incoherent insults that used to be hurled at us – I could never understand how I could be both frigid and promiscuous, a slut and a prude. I still can’t.

    I do think the sexualisation of childhood is a problem. Funnily enough because I had my own children in the early 80s when toys were still just toys. Lego and Fisher Price and Tonka and most other products for littlies were in bright primary colours and focused on age rather than sex, not exclusively sickly pink for girls and military camo for boys and never the twain shall meet. Play kitchens were in white or popular decorator colours, just like the real thing, rather than the ghastly pastels or lolly colours they seem to be restricted to now.

    And I just loathe having to shop for gifts for my sister’s grandchildren (her kids are 10 years older than mine). For both boys and girls, I find the clothes deeply horrible and the toys and puzzles deeply problematic. For different reasons for each, but horrible nevertheless. The only way to escape this is to move up market, a looong way upmarket – but when you’re buying for four at once, that’s a pretty big drain on the pocket. Almost makes me want to take up sewing to make clothes myself, but that’s not so much of a cheaper option as it used to be, though I’ll reconsider once my own kids start producing.

    I’m not in the UK so I’m not so sure about those specific proposals you’re talking about. My own feeling is that “openness” about sex and sexuality has been taken as license for the worst kind of prurient lewdness. Having said that, I think the solution is more openness – particularly about sexual relationships. Sex is not just porn, it’s not anything like porn. Talking to your (prospective) sexual partner about what is and isn’t acceptable in terms of ev.er.y.thing. – from time and place, to contraception, to specific activities, to what does/n’t happen during menstruation, to what partners can and can’t ask of each other – clean your teeth, yes, do ask and don’t get huffy if you’re asked – get plastic surgery, no, don’t ask but be prepared to talk sensibly if the partner raises the topic themselves. And if either of you is reluctant or unwilling – then that’s it for the time being. No coercion, no “persuasion”, no threats, no “if you really loved me”, nothing.

  115. 115
    MrFancyPants

    Looking at who’s involved, I’d bet that their policy platform ends up steeped in the mainstream feminist moral panic over “sexualisation”. Being a political party will simply give them new ways of pushing the puritan agenda that dominates the feminist lobby, i.e. campaigning against sex in the media (lads’ mags, page 3, raunchy music videos, etc.), demands for anti-porn internet filters, pushing the Swedish prostitution model, and so on…

    Your bias is not at all apparent here, is it?

    As a social libertarian, those authoritarian policies are when feminism has “gone too far” for me, especially when feminists often fail to back them up with solid evidence. Not that I consider MRAs to be much better, especially considering the number of religious conservatives/traditionalists among their number.

    Translation: I want to do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want. I demand evidence for assertions that I don’t describe, but only vaguely reference in passing. MRAs would be awesome were it not for the social conservatives among them who also deny me the right to do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want. On the subject of their policies, I remain mum.

    Substantive assertions, such as they were, in short: straw feminism bad. MRAs you don’t like, also bad. Sex in the media bad. Swedish laws against sex workers bad.

    Exercise: which of those things do you think a mainstream feminist today might probably agree with? (Hint: the number is greater than two.)

  116. 116
    davekendall

    Your bias is not at all apparent here, is it?

    I think everyone can be said to be a bit biased against beliefs and policies that they ideologically oppose…

    Translation: I want to do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want.

    A pretty typical strawlibertarian argument. I’ve encountered very few people who’d argue for that.

    I think you’ll find that even people who greatly value personal freedom and individualism typically follow the view that “the right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”. My problem with mainstream feminists, along with religious conservatives, is that they demand restrictions on personal freedom that aren’t backed up with solid evidence of reduced harm.

    I demand evidence for assertions that I don’t describe, but only vaguely reference in passing.

    I’ve spent quite a bit of time examining the authoritarian policies pushed by mainstream feminist groups in the UK, and far too many rely purely on feminist theory, rather than actual evidence.

    For example, the common feminist claim that sex in the media (or the existence of porn, strip clubs, prostitution, etc.) increases rape and domestic violence isn’t even backed up with a clear correlation (i.e. a drop in rape/violence where those things are restricted, or an increase where they are tolerated). Many of the studies I see feminists cite in support of their campaigns fall apart under scrutiny, for example here’s a very thorough debunking of the claimed link between strip clubs and rape.

    My predictably social libertarian view is that there needs to be extremely strong evidence to justify curtailing personal freedoms, and to me feminist theory alone definitely doesn’t cut it.

    MRAs would be awesome were it not for the social conservatives among them who also deny me the right to do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want.

    That’s a rather silly attempt to read something into my post that wasn’t there.

    After criticising feminist authoritarianism I thought I should make it clear that I wasn’t making a pro-MRA argument, yet somehow you interpret that as saying that the rest of the MRA movement is “awesome”. For the record, I generally don’t agree with MRAs any more than I agree with feminists, and I’m definitely not a supporter of J4MB.

    Substantive assertions, such as they were, in short: straw feminism bad. MRAs you don’t like, also bad. Sex in the media bad. Swedish laws against sex workers bad.

    Um, no. I didn’t say anything about “straw feminism”, so I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I certainly didn’t say “sex in the media bad”.

    While I’m not “anything goes” when it comes to sex in the media (there are plenty of things that should be restricted to consenting adults), I view the censorious feminist moral panic over “sexualisation” to be much more objectionable. For example, I’m not a Sun or lads’ mag reader, and I don’t really care whether they feature topless women or not, but I don’t think mainstream feminists have built a compelling case that they directly harm women, and would oppose state censorship of them.

    Really, boiling down everything I’ve said to simply “authoritarianism bad” would be more accurate than the “substantive assertions” you’ve drawn from my comment.

    Exercise: which of those things do you think a mainstream feminist today might probably agree with? (Hint: the number is greater than two.)

    You’ll have to explain what you mean by “straw feminism” before I can respond to that.

    Mainstream feminists obviously agree with “sex in the media bad”. In the UK at least, there’s probably more feminist effort put into fighting media “sexualisation/pornification” and “objectification of women” than anything else. To me this seems no better supported than the conservative panic over “video nasties” back in the early days of home video.

    Obviously they’d generally agree that “MRAs are bad” too, although some of their reasons for that would undoubtedly be different from mine. The fact that feminists are willing to work with conservative Christian groups when they share the same puritan agenda (despite their disagreement over issues like abortion) highlights that difference I think.

    The one that mainstream feminist organisations would typically disagree with is the idea that “Swedish laws against sex workers bad”. The Swedish model (often disingenuously promoted as “abolition of sex slavery”) is the legislation I see being pushed by the vast majority of mainstream feminists, for example the European Women’s Lobby (a coalition of over 2500 feminist groups, including major British organisations). Again, I don’t think that feminists have compelling evidence of this making society better/safer, and of course it conflicts with my libertarian biases regarding individual choice and freedom.

    Perhaps I should make it clearer that I’m talking about mainstream feminism in Britain/European (I’m much less familiar with the movement elsewhere). I thought that was obvious considering that I was talking about British feminist campaigns, and a UK Feminist Party, in a response to a post about a UK MRA group, but I don’t want there to be any confusion.

    Anyway, I’ve played along with your little exercise, maybe now you’d like to explain the point you were trying to make?

  117. 117
    Kevin Robson

    MrFancyPants @89

    I’m happy to let you have the last word my friend. No hard feelings.

  118. 118
    Pete

    Test

  119. 119
    Ally Fogg

    Morning all. Haven’t you been busy.

    I’d like to go back if I may to the discussion about men and women in the public sector, and particularly teaching.

    Mike

    The thing I’m trying to get to the bottom of is what you are actually campaigning for here. Let me see if I can piece it together and you can tell me where I’ve misunderstood.

    At the start of yesterday, I thought you wanted to see serious efforts to get men into teaching, and some sort of positive action to move towards 50% of public sector employees being men. Both those demands are there in black and white, in your prospective manifesto that we’ve been discussing.

    But then as the debate continued, you said you had never seen any efforts to get more men into the public sector. I pointed you towards three different government initiatives to do exactly that in three different sectors – teaching, health care and nursery care.

    You then decided this wasn’t good enough, because teaching, health care and nursery care are low paid and low status. The only public sector job you think men should want to do, it seems, is being a doctor.

    Except there are only about 7,000 new doctors trained every year, and there are about five or six million people in the public sector. So that doesn’t really wash.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you are arguing that all the high status, high salary jobs (eg doctor, MP) are rightfully the province of men, whereas all the low status, low salary jobs should only really be done by women.

    Meanwhile you also complain that men pay the majority of income tax, and believe governments should govern more in the interests of men, because they pay more of the taxes. Presumably if you had your way on gender roles in careers, women would end up paying even less tax and therefore be granted even less political representation.

    I stress, I’m not trying to misrepresent you. I’m just echoing back what you have said on this thread and elsewhere and trying to make sense of it.

    Tell me where I’ve got it wrong?

  120. 120
    Mike Buchanan

    @ MrFancyPants (105)

    “Mike, bear in mind that Paul Elam and AVfM until very recently had a longstanding public call for men to engage in acts of physical domestic terrorism. That’s the kind of website you’re promoting here, and using to promote your own agenda.

    Despicable.”

    I’ve raised this with Paul Elam and he’s baffled. He’s not even sure what you mean by ‘acts of physical domestic terrorism’. Could you please clarify, and link to the source of the material? Thank you.

  121. 121
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    “At the start of yesterday, I thought you wanted to see serious efforts to get men into teaching, and some sort of positive action to move towards 50% of public sector employees being men. Both those demands are there in black and white, in your prospective manifesto that we’ve been discussing.
    But then as the debate continued, you said you had never seen any efforts to get more men into the public sector. I pointed you towards three different government initiatives to do exactly that in three different sectors – teaching, health care and nursery care.”

    Thank you. Firstly, a point about low paid work. Because women have a preference for better-off partners – a preference that increases as women become better-off – men who want a partner have little choice but to seek better-paid lines of work.

    I accept that many public sector jobs are low-paid. I think it’s important for there to be more men in teaching not just for the sake of getting more men into work, but also for the sake of the children they teach, who I believe would benefit from more gender balance in the teacher population.

    Frankly I would be surprised if government initiatives to get more men into selected lines were well resourced, and we’ve seen decade after decade of efforts to get women into the most attractive lines of work e.g. medicine, where 70% of students are women, and I’ve already outlined how the feminisation of the NHS has been a disaster for both patients and taxpayers.

    The issue of gender balance in the public sector is a tricky one for many reasons. It may well be that men are less inclined towards it because of the pay issue, so we may well modify our proposals when it comes to the 2015 election manifesto. It’s exactly this sort of debate which is influencing our thinking, so I thank you for taking the trouble to respond at length.

  122. 122
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    I’ve been asked by a supporter to ask you for your position on gender-selective abortion, a matter that’s been in the press a lot of late, with the statement by the head of BPAS that she has no objection to women aborting foetuses on the grounds of their gender. The issue arose with respect to a women who has a female foetus, but ethically the issue would be the same if she chose to abort a foetus because it was male, obviously.

  123. 123
    Ally Fogg

    I’m entirely opposed to gender specific abortion. It is immoral and socially harmful. I also think it is very difficult to prevent. You certainly wouldn’t prevent it by banning abortion, all that would do would be drive it underground or overseas.

    If we did think it is a widespread enough issue in this country to warrant legal restraint, it would seem to me the obvious thing to do would be to ban doctors and radiologists from revealing the sex of the foetus before 24 weeks, unless there was a medical reason to do so (eg rare congenital diseases etc).

  124. 124
    Lucy

    @MildlyMagnificent

    “And then it would also be entirely consistent to inspect “workplaces” and to counsel paid workers on “performance indicators” or objectives”

    This already happens to some extent, and we are moving in a direction where it will happen to a larger extent. When you are pregnant and when give birth you have to complete certain documentation regarding your ability to raise a child and you will receive a number of monitoring visits at home from the midwife. GPs and nurseries pick up where that leaves off. Once children are in school, your parenting and suitability are also being constantly assessed, the teacher-parents meetings are a two way street.

  125. 125
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you are arguing that all the high status, high salary jobs (eg doctor, MP) are rightfully the province of men, whereas all the low status, low salary jobs should only really be done by women.”

    Happy to correct you. I believe in equality of opportunity, whether that be for high status, high salary jobs or low salary, low status jobs. But the government initiatives I see are to drive more women into the high salary jobs, and more women into the low salary jobs. It’s as if we have a coin which, when flipped, always lands on the same side.

    As far as the private sector is concerned , the key objective of Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com is to fight the government’s threat of legislated gender quotas for major corporate boards, because the evidence clearly shows that one consequence we can expect will be declines in corporate financial performance. It’s primarily an inexperience effect rather than a gender effect. The same would be true of any ‘under-represented’ group being advanced e.g. Welsh people, one-legged people, deaf people, people with red hair…

  126. 126
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Thanks. Our positions are identical on this. I guess the problem would be that mothers would then use the services of rogue radiologists (which I believe happens very commonly in India) or again go overseas to have the sex of the foetus determined, then possibly have it aborted there.

  127. 127
    Ally Fogg

    Mike

    Firstly, a point about low paid work. Because women have a preference for better-off partners – a preference that increases as women become better-off – men who want a partner have little choice but to seek better-paid lines of work.

    This is just flat out, factually wrong.

    All research I’ve ever seen is that as gender equality and income equality diminishes, so too does “marrying up.”

    In this country, the phenomenon is now that people overwhelmingly marry within a very tight socioeconomic band – almost all couples earn very similar salaries before marriage. It’s actually been posited as a reason why social mobility is falling.

  128. 128
    mildlymagnificent

    When you are pregnant and when give birth you have to complete certain documentation regarding your ability to raise a child and you will receive a number of monitoring visits at home from the midwife.

    Really? There used to be a non-government agency that helped out with well baby and some other stuff here. afaik, the only time there’s a doubt about proper care of a baby the hospital social worker organises follow up. Otherwise it’s pretty well up to parents and families to get services themselves.

    As for parent-teacher interviews, they’re not compulsory for starters, not even in the UK. If teachers have concerns about children’s welfare they let the relevant agencies know but there’s no guarantee the child’s file will ever make it to the top of the teetering pile of overdue overwork.

  129. 129
    Ally Fogg

    But the government initiatives I see are to drive more women into the high salary jobs, and more women into the low salary jobs. It’s as if we have a coin which, when flipped, always lands on the same side.

    Apart from all the ones we’ve pointed out doing the exact opposite, which you insist upon ignoring because reasons.

  130. 130
    Lucy

    Mike

    “a) The government should introduce compulsory paternity testing for all babies, at birth, and both parents informed of the result of the tests (verbally and in writing) within a week of the babies’ births.
    Woah, Stalin is back. Get yer nose out of my relationships, Uncle Joe (and Uncle Mike.)
    b) The government should only require men to have financial responsibility for a child if he’s previously signed a legal declaration (witnessed in a solicitor’s office) that he’s willing to support a child who results from the sexual relationship in question.”

    “It’s a matter of women deceiving men, and those men then working 20+ years to support a child who isn’t biologically his own”

    —–

    So essentially men can have sex and commit adultery with absolute impunity.

    Whereas women will be held accountable – by the state.

    Any mistaken pregnancy will be revealed to her (possibly violent, possibly polygamous, possibly religiously homicidal) partner.

    She can meanwhile not obtain an abortion, not obtain financial assistance from the state, not obtain financial assistance from the father without her pre-conception contract, not obtain financial assistance from the man she has been sharing a bed with for however many years. Her mistake or her decision or her deceit is punishable in other words.

    Not only this, but whatever incentives men may currently have to use contraception will be removed and responsibility for preventing pregnancy will be shifted to women. Meaning that women will be essentially forced to either be chaste or to have continuous hormone-altering medications with known and unknown serious risks such as cancer and deep vein thrombosis, for life, and live in a state of perpetual fear that they forget to take it one day (have you ever tried to take medication every day?).

    Not only this, but the decision whether she can have a child at all will be put in the hands of her male partner. Who is being encouraged to regard motherhood as a lifestyle choice rather than a biological imperative.

    It’s horrific really. It has the ring of The Handmaid’s Tale about it.

  131. 131
    Kevin Robson

    @ Lucy

    See you’ve popped back into the debate. May I remind you of my last asking for your view on the level of State pay for mothers and what your view is as to whether women today would really consider your suggestion as a carer choice? Maybe it just got lost but I would really be interested in your take on this.

  132. 132
    Lucy

    Will compulsory paternity tests apply to male homosexual couples who use a surrogate or co-parent and sometimes mix their sperm and don’t wish to know who the biological father is?

  133. 133
    Peter L.

    A huge amount of material here, I’ll try to be brief as a Northerner can be. Thanks to Ally and Mike for the forum space and material.
    I just love being succinct and to the point. Always tricky. Here goes:
    1. Firstly, why is it that people with strong views don’t want actual names being put on a blog? ‘MrFancyPants’ and ‘MildyMaginificent’, for goodness sake. How about ‘StreakofYellow’? Seriously, you lot, why can’t you use your actual monikers, or abbreviations of such?
    2. In terms of the political landscape – all political parties to date have completely ignored men’s issues, so the whole Thatcher / UKIP aspect has become secondary to the overarching and ubiquitous (sometimes veiled) attacks on men and boys human rights. (Mike’s party addresses the need for men’s issues to be on the agenda).
    For example: positive action / training as embodied in the EA 2010 – hardly any for men, and the examples raised only help the tiniest minority who want teaching or nursing – the majority of men want to go into management, and find themselves with vastly worse training / networking options than women. What a blatant insult to their aspirations and abilities. It’s a human right to have the same training opportunities in the company you dedicate yourself to.
    Men pay 70% of the taxes owing to, one assumes, spending more time at work, doing harder jobs. The issue is that little of that public money is spent on their issues e.g. health and safety at work, cancer funding, tackling MGM, helping male victims of DV, etc.
    3. Ally raises important points about homelessness, suicide and work which I assume will be further addressed in the next edition of the consultation. I did find that Ally’s article played to the gallery, was witty and acerbic, though skirted around the need for representation. If J4MB isn’t there to represent men and boys, who is?
    4. Ah yes, paternity fraud. It is in fact illegal to get a test done in France, for info.
    5. Comments, notably, 23: @AllyFogg “higher tiers of management are not feminised”, yes they are, these men authorise the training and networking for women only, but oddly these fellows don’t give their own jobs up to women, only the men way down the ladder; 72 @MildyMagnificent – it’s actually two men a month who are killed by their partners, something that the headline-writers miss out; 90. @’Fibinachi’ (say what?)…when has feminism gone too far? When the Evening standard is full anti-FGM but nothing about MGM; when positive action always leaves innocent non-sexist young men behind in training / jobs / funding; when the Council Of Europe proposes making criticism of feminism illegal; when the Welsh Government wants to introduce gender-specific laws i.e. to mention women in the title (terrific lack of democracy); when feminist MPs want to close women’s prisons and replace the locking-up of women (and women only) with e.g. counselling; when men are terrified to criticise anti-male policy in case they lose their jobs; when there is hypocrisy around sexuality e.g. lap-dancing clubs (bad, you will be sacked if you mention at work) and The Chppendales (good and cool, you will be cheered if you mention at work); when fathers are seen as redundant at best and toxic at worst; when male stats (homelessness etc.) are ignored. That’s when it’s gone too far.
    I feel the need to add that some men’s complacency (and let’s face it reserve / cowardice) has been part of the problem, and that’s why Mike deserves respect and thanks: he’s doing something.

  134. 134
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Very pushed for time but I’ll try to track down the evidence to back up my assertion. The fact that women may pair up with men on similar salaries doesn’t indicate preference, more a reflection of the pool of better-off men which is presumably in decline as more and more of the higher-paid jobs are taken by women.

  135. 135
    mildlymagnificent

    In this country, the phenomenon is now that people overwhelmingly marry within a very tight socioeconomic band – almost all couples earn very similar salaries before marriage. It’s actually been posited as a reason why social mobility is falling.

    It’s much the same here. Lawyers and accountants tend to marry lawyers and accountants. Doctors tend to marry other doctors which has sharply cut across the old stereotype of doctors marrying nurses. Public servants tend to marry people of similar professional standing to their own. Senior academics tend to marry others of similar interests and status. Non-equivalent pairings do happen, but not as often as like marrying like.

  136. 136
    Lucy

    Kevin

    “See you’ve popped back into the debate. May I remind you of my last asking for your view on the level of State pay for mothers and what your view is as to whether women today would really consider your suggestion as a carer choice? Maybe it just got lost but I would really be interested in your take on this.”

    I thought I had answered this, but perhaps I’ve missed an additional question.

    But yes, I think it is a reasonable and socially necessary career choice to raise children, for women and/or men. Particularly in a socialist state system that centralises funding for activities of public benefit, less so in a capitalist or libertarian one than individualises these responsibilities.

    But regardless of the political system, I certainly don’t see any justification for the double-standard of the taxpayer funding men to carry out their biological imperative of defending territory in the form of maintaining a well-resourced standing army, and/or competing for status in the various ways they’ve developed over the centuries in the public sphere (such as through church and state) and not paying women to carry out theirs of motherhood.

    We have an economic system that depends on an army of women completing necessary tasks for free, or for pocket money according to the whim of the man they may or may not manage to tie down. That sounds like a society designed by men for men.

  137. 137
    Ally Fogg

    Way back at comment 44: CityManMichael said:

    “I would have expected you to counter his proposals with your own suggestions which might have more chance of suceeding, but instead you have simply critisied them.”

    Mike Buchanan specifically asked for feedback on the proposals on the table, which is what I provided.

    However this offers an interesting challenge.

    Over the next day or two I will try to find time to write another post about some policies for men and boys that I would like to see any / all political parties adopt.

  138. 138
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Lucy

    “But yes, I think it is a reasonable and socially necessary career choice to raise children, for women and/or men. Particularly in a socialist state system that centralises funding for activities of public benefit, less so in a capitalist or libertarian one than individualises these responsibilities.”

    We’re clearly living in a socialist state system, which tolerates capitalism only because there’s no wealth-generating alternative.

    So men pay 72% of taxes but women are the net recipients of gender-related welfare benefits. And now you want women in general to be paid to stay at home looking after children, as single mothers already are? Wow. What proportion of the tax bill would you like men to pay? 90%? Presumably even then men would till be denied access to their children following relationship breakdowns, if the woman so chose?

    Here’s a crazy idea. If women don’t want children, they shouldn’t have them. The idea of paying women to stay at home looking after children is beyond risible. Wasn’t it Simone de Beauvoir who said women shouldn’t be given the choice of not engaging in paid employment, because they’d tend to exercise that choice?

  139. 139
    mildlymagnificent

    Seriously, you lot, why can’t you use your actual monikers, or abbreviations of such?

    This is really tedious.

    1. People in certain jobs, particularly public servants, police and the like are not free to make their personal views known publicly without possible damage to their careers. Teachers in particular try to avoid becoming known online to students or their unfriendly or grudge-bearing families.

    2. Many people need to keep their online life reasonably, or extremely, private in order not to come to the attention of estranged family members (not just stalkers or abusive partners or exes).

    3. Names are rarely unique. In my own case, my real name is exactly the same as that of a science journalist who writes for international magazines. It’s better all round not to risk damaging her online reputation by virtue of a bad tempered outburst or an egregious scientific clanger or an unacceptable (to her or a prospective employer) political statement.

  140. 140
    mildlymagnificent

    Here’s a crazy idea. If women don’t want children, they shouldn’t have them.

    Agreed. And if they find themselves pregnant, having abortion available to ensure they don’t have that (additional) child sounds like a good idea.

    You’re opposed to that. How do you reconcile those two positions?

  141. 141
    Peter L.

    Hi Mildly
    is it OK to be on first-name terms?
    1) Seriously though, surely debating gender politics isn’t yet illegal or that damaging to a career? Your first point reveals a great deal about the potential for a censorious culture within parts of the public sector, and there was me remembering only a few decades ago :) when you could say pretty much what you wanted, within etiquette, and it was great for British democracy. Not your fault in any way, but has political correctness / militant feminism closed real debate down?
    I don’t think this issue is tedious btw.
    2) I’m sorry to hear that estranged family members could be part of limiting freedom of speech. What, one wonders, are all the columnists, TV presenters, politicians etc. doing not wearing face-coverings? Perhaps they could inhale oxygen cannisters, or have gender-switch voice-overs just to be really safe?
    3) Fair call. Could you use ‘not the journalist’ as a suffix?
    If it sounds like I’m being a little flippant, I do pride myself on not being the ‘voice from the crowd’, and the less Ajax83s, MRATrues, and 1234s we have, the more integrity and better outcome for a vital debate surely? I’ll move off the topic as I know the Magnificents are hard to persuade.

  142. 142
    Mike Buchanan

    @ mildlymagnificent

    Women ‘find’ themselves pregnant? For some women I agree the pregnancy will be unwelcome but I repeat the point that there’s no evidence that abortion reduces the risk of mental injury to women, so 97% of elective abortions carried out in this country are carried out on spurious grounds. We have ‘abortion on demand’ although the public was assured before the passing of the Abortion Act (1967) that it wouldn’t enable abortion on demand. The public have never had the opportunity to vote on the matter, and it’s about time they did.

    There are plenty of couples who would give a very good home to any unwanted baby.

  143. 143
    Peter L.

    @ Ally Fogg
    “Over the next day or two I will try to find time to write another post about some policies for men and boys that I would like to see any / all political parties adopt”.
    Terrific news – look forward to it.
    You are technically correct that the EA 2010 is designed for both genders, it’s just that I can feel it being ‘corrected’ if it were ever used to advantage men in any serious way.

  144. 144
    Lucy

    Re. The compulsory pre-sex contracts, quasi marriage contracts for unmarried people and paternity tests at birth, I’m thinking this is half measures. Any state intervention in relationships worth its salt ought to be considering many more factors than this.

    Surely a person has a right to know whether the person they are sleeping with is fertile at all, whether they’ve got any STDs and whether they are amenable to having children. Is it fair, for example, for a woman to be putting up with years of unrealised sex, and all the numerous uncomfortable, painful and non-state funded expensive aspects of being a reproductively-viable female only to be sorely disappointed in her late 30s when he lets her know he was keeping something from her? This after all is a much more common and equally devastating occurrence in society.

    Then there are considerations over whether somebody would make a suitable parent. Shouldn’t sexual partners be informed of other communicable diseases and health conditions, lifestyle habits, existing children, abortions, criminal records, mental health, financial background checks?

    Shouldn’t there be compulsory testing and disclosure of this for men and women?

    And as the JFMB state is up for crossing ethical boundaries on bodily integrity with its abortion and contraception proposals, shouldn’t it be able to impose certain measures for those who don’t quite make the grade?

  145. 145
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    I look forward to your future piece on men and boys.

    Earlier we touched on the issue of women’s preferences for higher status males. In my cheery critique of modern marriage, ‘The Fraud of the Rings’, I had a number of excerpts from Simon Andreae’s ‘Secrets of Love and Lust’. Here’s one which is relevant to the question at hand:

    “Fame is not the only indicator of a man who is high in status and rich in resources. In 1986 the American psychologist Elizabeth Hill published the results of an experiment in which she asked her students to describe what sort of clothes they considered high-status men to wear, and what sort of clothes they considered low-status men to wear. Among the former were smart suits, polo shirts, designer jeans and expensive watches; among the latter were nondescript jeans, tank tops and T-shirts.
    She then photographed a number of different men in variations of both styles of dress and showed the photographs to a different group of female students, asking them to rate each one for attractiveness. Overall, the same models were found more attractive when wearing the high-status costumes than when wearing the low-status ones.
    It’s important to note, though, that it’s not just status symbols, and resources they indicate, that women find attractive. It’s also those personality characteristics which indicate the capacity to acquire such symbols in the future. In most cultures, women rarely have the luxury of being able to wait for a man to achieve all that he sets out to do before pairing up with him; as a result they have to calibrate his desirability partly on unrealised potential.
    To find out what these characteristics of future success might be, and to see how they correlated with female desire, psychologist Michael Wiederman examined more than a thousand personal ads placed in various American periodicals between January and June 1992. He speculated that, in an arena where men and women were paying to attract potential mates, they would be more than usually forthright in specifying the attributes they sought, and more than usually direct in how they expressed their priorities.
    Taking the various descriptions of what people wanted, and arranging them into categories, Wiederman noticed that terms denoting high status and plentiful resources (terms such as ‘business owner’, ‘enjoys the finer things’, ‘successful’, ‘wealthy’, ‘well-to-do’, and ‘financially affluent’) cropped up ten times as often in the women’s wish lists as in the men’s.
    But there was also a considerable female preference for terms like ‘ambitious’, ‘industrious’, ‘career-oriented’, and ‘college-educated’; in other words, for terms which clearly indicated the potential to acquire status and amass resources in the future.
    Wiederman’s results have been backed up by numerous other studies covering different decades and geographical areas. The American periodical The Journal of Home Economics took the sexual temperature of the nation’s youth in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s and found in each decade that young women rated financial prospects as highly desirable (though not absolutely essential) in men they were considering dating.
    Douglas Kenrick, in his study of how intelligent, attractive and so on men and women had to be before they were considered sexually attractive by the opposite sex, found that earning capacity was much more important to women than to men; and David Buss, in a massive study of mating habits which covered 10,000 people in 37 cultures around the world, found that women rated financial resources on average at least twice as highly as men did.
    Some researchers argue that an evolutionary explanation is not justified here. Women only desire wealthy men, they say, because most cultures don’t allow women to make much money for themselves. But the female preference for wealth seems to exist regardless of the financial status of the women in question.
    There is an unprecedented number of independent, self-supporting women with resources of their own in the world today, yet their mate preferences still seem to be following the age-old, evolved pattern of looking for men who can offer more.
    One study of American newly-wed couples in 1993 found that financially successful brides placed an even greater importance on their husbands’ earning capacities than those who were less well-off. And another, conducted among female college students, reported that those who were likely to earn more in respected professions placed greater importance on the financial prospects of their potential husbands than those who were likely to earn less. Buss’s fellow psychologist Bruce Ellis summed up the prospect for future mate choice by saying, ‘Women’s sexual tastes become more, rather than less, discriminatory as their wealth, power, and social status increase.’ “

  146. 146
    Lucy

    @mike

    “Women ‘find’ themselves pregnant? For some women I agree the pregnancy will be unwelcome but I repeat the point that there’s no evidence that abortion reduces the risk of mental injury to women, so 97% of elective abortions carried out in this country are carried out on spurious grounds. We have ‘abortion on demand’ although the public was assured before the passing of the Abortion Act (1967) that it wouldn’t enable abortion on demand. The public have never had the opportunity to vote on the matter, and it’s about time they did”

    So if the public votes that a person should continue hosting a foetus in their uterus while they don’t want to, the public gets what it demands?

    What other medical procedures do the public get to vote on?

    Shall we have a weekly public vote on live organ transplants or, to borrow the famous philosophical thought experiment, on whether you should remain hooked up to a famous violinist who needs to use your kidneys?

  147. 147
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Lucy

    Thanks for that, and for all your comments. I try to get to them all but forgive me if I don’t manage to all the time. Only so many hours in the day, and while I welcome Ally’s post, I wasn’t prepared for the sheer volume of comments it stimulated. But I think the debate’s proving very worthwhile and it’s modifying my thinking in a number of areas. Not, however, with respect to abortion. Not so far, anyway.

    I’m 55 and have been an atheist since my early teenage years, but it seems clear to me that in becoming an increasingly secular society, Britain lost its moral compass. The idea that the only important moral compass lies at the individual level – a cornerstone of the ‘pro-choice’ position, it seems to me – is one that would surely have been deemed absurd in human societies going back thousands of years, and would be considered so in much of the world today. I find it intriguing that most of the people who support our pro-life proposals have been women. Indeed a number of the more prominent pro-lifers, particularly those with strong religious convictions, believe our proposals don’t go far enough.

  148. 148
    Lucy

    “Women ‘find’ themselves pregnant? ”

    Well men AND women find themselves pregnant.

    Women have sex, they’re not responsible and cool-headed about it 100% of the time, any more than men are. Sex is something that is highly emotive, irrational, frequently irresponsible.

    And no contraception that relies on people to use it perfectly all the time is ever going to be completely effective. There is ample evidence that people are hopelessly ineffective at keeping to any kind of medication regime, they make mistakes on dosage, timing, they lose interest, they make elective decisions to try a different approach. Over the course of a year, three quarters of mental health patients will discontinue theirs for example. The same goes for proper condom use. Alternatives like coils and implants have side-effects and don’t suit everyone.

    You seem to have quite unrealistic expectations of people and the messy business of relationships and life.

  149. 149
    Kevin Robson

    @ Ally @Mike

    On the issue of men in teaching. Is it a fair point to make that, for there to be initiatives to rectify the imbalance, there must actually be an imbalance? Isn’t the real question why this should be? Maybe penetrating that would point a better way to finding the answer. The colonisation of many workplaces by women is a fact irrespective of the levels of pay, type of work, reasons for why it should be so etc.

    @Ally
    Having read your considered responses, I am impressed that you clearly want to engage with the issues being raised. It seems to me that the degree to which your blog has sparked such a wide range of responses is good evidence that this is an issue that is really causing concern amongst men: men who have well articulated concerns expressed with thoughtfulness and patent integrity. I think this is a really important current issue that needs all of us, from whatever side of the political spectrum, to work on it in honest respect for each other’s views. Hope you agree.

    What for me stands out in this debate is the degree to which feminism is clearly highly politicised. The degree to which those who sympathise with it respond to those who don’t with such animated passion shows beyond doubt that it is a great deal more than about equality of opportunity. It seems to me that feminism is undoubtedly a political force that is staunchly defended by the left. Could this be because it actually is a product of the left? It is not news that feminism displays massive parallels with the ideas of Marx and Engels after all. I am, as I suspect many are, increasingly coming round to believe this when I see the degree to which people with (legitimate and firmly held) left wing views defend feminism and its social effect so stridently: seeking to further its promulgation as being for the good of all. There can be no doubt that Marx and Engels wanted to bring down the capitalist bourgeoisie by inter alia destroying marriage and Engels had utopian ideas of children being held in common by the community rather than in the cellular family and so on. I won’t recite the whole thing, it would take too long. Then there was Weber who had a deep suspicion of leadership of people being predicated on patriarchs and even those with charisma, arguing instead for the neutral rational/legal as being the most ideal form of community arrangement. All of these things, and more, I see being worked out in our society today.

    @ General:
    Might I also comment on the issue of Margaret Thatcher? I believe the degree to which many on the left revile her has some interesting aspects to it. I do not believe she was the demon people make her out to be. I think the deeply held view that she destroyed people’s lives by closing down traditional industries assigns to her a far greater degree of agency than she actually had. When she took office, the world had already changed. We had just had the Winter of Discontent in which a Labour government was brought down by the very people, organised labour, whom it represented. The times truly were a-changing. What was happening during the seventies and early eighties is now clear when viewed with the perspective of time. Our economy, primarily based on industry and extraction of raw materials, with agriculture thrown into the mix, was morphing into a service economy. I believe, for what it is worth, that the age of industrialisation took its last breath one dark day during the Winter of Discontent and we emerged into the new paradigm, during 1980s.

    Margaret Thatcher was at the helm during those times and I believe she saw what was happening and managed it rather than being the cause of so much misery. And there was misery, let us be in no doubt about that. Society was massively changed during those years. The lament I have seen expressed here for the days of old, which I found touching and surprisingly resonant, is a lament for the loss of an era in which organised/political labour (small ‘l’) had its raison d’être. I have to say I believe those times are past. Industrialism as we knew it has gone for good but our skill at manufacturing hasn’t. People think we have lost our industrial prowess to the far east. We haven’t you know. Certainly, we exported physical assembly to China, but the industrial processes the Chinese use all come from the West and much of the value added in the final product is repatriated to home shores. Also, we still have an enormously efficient manufacturing base in which new jobs and new skills have developed. I won’t go into that now, because I neither want to bore people nor write a book.

    I am also of the view that the so-called liberation of women that happened at precisely the same moment in history as this seismic shift in our economy was due more to the changes in that economic balance i.e. more services jobs which suited women and opened up many more possibilities for work for them than hitherto, than to the feminist movement per se. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the feminism of the time found a wave that was cresting, and it rode it.

    Margaret Thatcher was an extremely charismatic person with a keen intellect who was undoubtedly full of her own political drive. That, I suggest, needs to be respected, just as much as those on the left have such drive and passion which also needs to be respected. That is the nature of healthy politics in a healthy society. That is how we manage our tensions. It is a fact that Mrs T hated feminism. She is on record as saying that, calling it “poison”. This was, of course, an expression of her politics, not a criticism of equality for women for she had amply demonstrated that it was possible for a woman to fight her way up the essentially male-populated political greasy pole, and in a party that was far less oriented toward women than Labour. Her opposition to feminism was because she recognised its Marxist inspiration and that was detestable to her political ethos, just as much as her political ethos is detestable to those of the left. ‘Twas ever thus.

    I truly hope that I will not get mobbed with strident rhetoric for saying these things. Frankly I don’t need that in my life and it doesn’t advance the cause or add to intelligent debate. What I am saying, I am saying with genuine integrity and no bad will towards anyone, or any view and I want to engage ideas not suffer personal epithets. I hope that can be respected.

  150. 150
    MrFancyPants

    Mike @120:

    I’ve raised this with Paul Elam and he’s baffled. He’s not even sure what you mean by ‘acts of physical domestic terrorism’. Could you please clarify, and link to the source of the material? Thank you.

    I cannot provide the link because, as I mentioned, “until very recently” he had it on his website, namely under “activism”, but it has (finally!) been removed. It was a terrorist manifesto that called for firebombing courts and police stations that admitted outright that those actions could result in deaths. It was up as recently as the Boston Marathon bombings, and had been up for quite some time before that. Granted, it was not written by Elam himself, but it was posted by him as an example of activist action.

    Are you really very surprised? Elam’s comments and rhetoric are filled with violent imagery and fantasies of violence. Presumably you read this very blog on a semi-regular basis; Ally Fogg himself addressed an example of this in this post from this past July. For those not wanting to follow that link, I’ll repost Elam’s own words for an example of his all-too-common musings about meting out his idea of “justice”:

    I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
    And then make them clean up the mess.

    These are the words of the man who is an ostensible leader of your movement. He is a despicable human being, and AVfM is a despicable, hate-filled, misogynistic cesspool. You would do well to distance yourself from this kind of person and rhetoric; indeed, it’s disturbing that you appear to be unaware of it. A simple google search reveals countless more examples. Is this what you want people to learn about when your political candidates’ names are brought up?

  151. 151
    Lucy

    “We’re clearly living in a socialist state system, which tolerates capitalism only because there’s no wealth-generating alternative.”

    Well we’re not, but okay.

    “So men pay 72% of taxes but women are the net recipients of gender-related welfare benefits.”

    There you go again thinking that women in general and mothers in particular are the only beneficiaries of child-rearing. Seeing as child rearing is what produces tax payers and men are the bigger beneficiaries of tax spending (which they are when you factor in things like spending on criminal justice, business infrastructure, the military, etc) then your equation doesn’t work.

    “And now you want women in general to be paid to stay at home looking after children, as single mothers already are? Wow. What proportion of the tax bill would you like men to pay? 90%? ”

    Well somebody has to do it, do you think they shouldn’t be paid? That sounds fair to you? Wow.

    Re. Proportion of the tax bill, well that all depends on whether tax spending can he redistributed from say criminal justice, business infrastructure, the military, etc. Sure, 90% why not. Do you want women to do this job or not?

    Of course, if the workforce was geared up for the unavoidable fact that human beings reproduce with more flexible working, home working, shared parental leave, childcare, then this problem would be alleviated and men and women could contribute to the pot of tax money more evenly.

    “Presumably even then men would till be denied access to their children following relationship breakdowns, if the woman so chose?”

    Why presumably?

    “Here’s a crazy idea. If women don’t want children, they shouldn’t have them.”

    But we’re talking about women who *do* want children. ie. most of them. And men who *do* want women to want children, ie. many of them.

    “The idea of paying women to stay at home looking after children is beyond risible.”

    Well you would say that wouldn’t you.

    “Wasn’t it Simone de Beauvoir who said women shouldn’t be given the choice of not engaging in paid employment, because they’d tend to exercise that choice?”

    No idea, sorry. I suspect you’re misappropriating the quote though.

  152. 152
    mildlymagnificent

    There are plenty of couples who would give a very good home to any unwanted baby.

    Am I right in thinking that you presume that most abortions are for single women?

    I’ve done a bit of fruitless searching for UK details, but in Australia over 40% of women seeking abortion already have at least one child, in America the proportion is over 60% (which increased to over 70% when the GFC hit). And many of those who don’t yet have a child are intending to have children, but not at this time. (There are some details in some studies breaking these reasons down into job requirements or job loss – particularly in the US with healthcare/ insurance so tightly tied to employment, health issues of the pregnant person or the partner, housing problems, studies to be completed and a few other categories.)

    The great majority of women seeking abortion have a partner described as supportive, a small proportion have a partner described as abusive, the proportion whose pregnancy is the result of pregnancy coercion or contraceptive sabotage is not well known – it’s only recently received much scholarly attention, but it’s pretty certain they’d be largely a sub-set of the abusive partners.

    And the people in the population who have the most sex are married (or otherwise partnered) people. They are therefore the ones most likely to have mistakes or failures of contraception. It’s a bit of an ask for a family with child/ren to go through a pregnancy and then to have the cute little baby brother or sister handed over to others. Not a way to bolster a small child’s trust that their parents will continue to care for them.

  153. 153
    Lucy

    @kevin

    “The colonisation of many workplaces by women is a fact irrespective of the levels of pay, type of work, reasons for why it should be so etc.”

    Colonisation? Insulting much?

    More women than men work in nursing and teaching because for the last 4 centuries those (along with domestic drudgery, laundering, seamstessing, fish gutting, farming and the most repetitive, low paid tasks available in factories) were all that was available to them. Seeing as they were denied access to higher education, membership of professional bodies, inheritance rights, free assembly and movement.

    Men on the other hand colonises the public sphere by denying women access to higher education, membership of professional bodies, inheritance rights, free assembly and movement and general disenfranchisement.

    Talk about adding insult to injury.

  154. 154
    Dean Esmay

    “Mike, bear in mind that Paul Elam and AVfM until very recently had a longstanding public call for men to engage in acts of physical domestic terrorism.”

    This is a false, slanderous assertion. There are in the backlog of AVfM two articles which I know of which are frequently cited as evidence for claims like this, one of which was clearly marked as satire (which, you know, you aren’t supposed to do in effective satire, but which was done anyway because it was assumed it would be quoted out of context) in response to a piece in Jezebel celebrating violent women, and another in which it was strongly argued that a man hitting a woman in self-defense should be as acceptable as the reverse, but that we live in times of double standards on such things. If there’s some other example I’d like to hear it; AVfM’s policy is one of strict non-violence and if anyone is in a relationship that involves hitting that is a dysfunctional relationship and those people either need immediate help or the relationship needs to be ended.

    As for the claim by someone else that Girl Writes What dodges debate: as she is a good friend of mine I can assure anyone interested that if you want to debate her you merely need to ask, she has engaged in many debates and has challenged others to debate only to be ignored. So you know, I don’t believe this charge but I’ll be happily to relay any debate challenges directly to her for response.

    In general I am happy to see that Ally took the time to look at the Justice for Men and Boys platform. My own view, for whatever that’s worth, is that Ally’s got some good points and some points where I don’t think he’s representing the J4MB party’s platform fairly and just putting his own inferences on it. That said, I also firmly believe that if there were a left or center-left party that got started in the UK with a direct interest in men’s and boys’ issues (there are certainly plenty of people on the political left interested in these issues), it would garner at least as much, maybe more support, than J4MB, and I suspect some of the donors to J4MB would be very happy to see such a development and would donate to the left or center-left men’s issues party as well or even preferentially–and I also suspect that even Mike Buchanan wouldn’t be unhappy about that, given that he has many friends on the political left and he’s told me he believes the most vital thing in all of this is to get people talking about the problems and proposing solutions. Mike’s fundamentally a Tory, so there’s going to be no getting around J4MB reflecting his fundamentally Conservative views, but from what I can see he’s also one of those Tories who knows how to respect people with other political points of view.

    So, there is one party on the Right trying to address these issues and pressure the big parties to do something about them, will the left have any response except raspberries? To counter Ally’s point of view, my own belief (and this is the belief of a lot of political scientists by the way) is that in a first-past-the-post parliamentary system like the UK’s, the main purpose of small upstart parties like J4MB isn’t to win elections per se, but to force the major parties to start taking their issues seriously. This is effective in any number of areas, as you can see where the UK’s Conservatives, Labour, and Liberals have all modified various postions based on pressure from third parties–third parties with little chance of winning but which potentially threaten their seats. In other words, it’s part of the sausage-making process and it may be ugly but it often works.

    Anyway I’ll repeat here my request that anyone who claims A Voice for Men, which has always maintained a rigid non-violence policy, of ever advocating “physical domestic terrorism” to back that up or retract it, and also offer to relay any debate challenges personally to my friend Karen (Girl Writes What).

    I’m usually loathe to comment here as I assume I’ll be unwelcome but I thought “what the hell, I’ll give it a go this time, maybe Ally will read it at least.”

  155. 155
    Dean Esmay

    Ah, I see I missed a comment. Yes, as I suspected, the one quote came from an article that was clearly marked as satire and as being in response to a Jezebel piece celebrating women who bash and beat their men, but the person quoting it didn’t bother noting either of these facts or noting that in both previous and subsequent articles and in numerous recorded pieces easily available Elam has not only made it plain that the piece was satire generated to make a point that society takes women’s violence towards men too lightly but that the actual position of AVfM is strict nonviolence and that no relationship that involves violence is healthy or acceptable.

    The other surprised me: the reference to AVfM having posted Thomas James Ball’s manifesto. I’d forgotten that. No matter: Thomas Ball was a man who set himself on fire in front of a courthouse in protest, and left behind a manifesto of agony and pain that advocated things we do not advocate. It was posted because it was kept out of the news and almost anywhere else it might have been seen. Paul Elam and the rest of the editorial team always made it clear he/we do not endorse these things, but that as a society we are in danger of seeing things like Ball called for (but didn’t actually do) start to happen if something isn’t done to address the injustices Ball and millions of other men in the US (and Canada and the UK) are put through. Posting Ball’s manifesto as a newsworthy item and an illustration of the serious and growing problem of pain and injustice inflicted by the family court systems is no more an endorsement than reprinting Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto and noting there are parts of it you might agree with is an endorsement of what Ted Kaczynski did or everything he said. Although even here the comparison is not really fair to Thomas James Ball, since while he advocated violence (which we do not), the only serious violence he ever actually inflicted was to douse himself with chemicals and set himself aflame. We’d have thought this would be noted as the act of desperation and an enormous political statement and an illustration of much of what we say, but of course if someone insists on saying “that means you endorse terrorism,” well, that’s a bunch of crap but whatever.

  156. 156
    Lucy

    The financial cost of masculinity (more than a third of the annual budget deficit):
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/25/dangerous-masculinty-everyone-risk

  157. 157
    Mike Buchanan

    @ MrFancyPants

    I don’t condone reacting to violence with violence, nor do any of my supporters, to the best of my knowledge. But neither do I condone the societal expectation than men should just suffer DV – state provision of support for male victims of DV is all but non-existent as you hopefully know. I agree that DV inflicted on women is abhorrent, but I believe DV inflicted on men is also abhorrent. The difference is society cares about the former and doesn’t give a damn about the latter.

    A common feminist narrative around female-on-male DV is that the women are defending themselves. A (female) psychologist at the recent National Conference for Male Victims of Domestic Violence pointed to research which showed that fewer than 4% of female perpetrators self-report as having acted in self-defence. Yet many men DO simply take it, and it’s one of the contributors to the high male suicide rate (3x that of the female rate).

    At the same conference a registered disabled man gave an account of the DV he’d suffered at the hands of his partner. He was disabled because in her final attack she’d employed a hammer and broken many bones. She was sentenced to seven years in jail and got out after 18 months. Many in the 120-strong audience were in tears listening to his account. He came close to committing suicide many times in the years that followed the final attack, and how he didn’t actually do it, I’ll never know.

    I assure you I’m an avid follower of AVfM which is how I know it’s wildly mis-represented by its enemies. Its popularity is, by the way, considerably higher than many think – they’ve done a number of pieces pointing to independent evidence of the site’s popularity.

    I agree with the vast majority of AVfM’s output – including Paul Elam’s – and I’m not about to attack them over the tiny minority of things I don’t agree with. I look forward to the day prominent feminists criticise women like Krista Milburn. What she thinks and says makes anything Paul Elam say pale into insignificance:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/your-new-employee-krista-milburn/

  158. 158
    MrFancyPants

    Mike @ 157:

    Impressive: special pleading, appeal to emotion, and tu quoque. Three fallacious arguments in such a brief comment, and I didn’t even read it that carefully.

    It’s enough for me to know that you support Elam so earnestly, even when presented with his own violent rhetoric (of which there are MANY examples), to feel justified in repeating that I believe your activism is rooted in misogyny. However right some of the things you’re campaigning for are–and I agree that there are positive changes that you are seeking–you should at least be aware of your own motivations. You know that you can pursue your campaigning without associating yourself with him; you can do good without allying with evil. Yet you don’t make that choice. That, sir, is telling.

  159. 159
    Mike Buchanan

    @ MrFancyPants

    I refer you to the two comments just posted by Dean Esmay. I believe AVfM to be the most important MHR site in the world, and it will only go from strength to strength.

    I think I’m perfectly well aware of my motivations, and misogyny certainly isn’t one of them, as people who know me would attest. You’re using a lazy shaming tactic which induces me only to yawn. Goodbye.

  160. 160
    Ally Fogg

    Dean (154)

    Just for the record, you are always welcome to comment here, as indeed is anyone from any perspective. I can’t guarantee that you or your comments will be accepted uncritically or given an easy ride, either by me or other commenters, but that doesn’t mean you’re not welcome to join in and express your views.

    For what it is worth, despite some profound disagreements and my revulsion at much of the content of the site you edit, I’ve always found you personally to be an engaging and thoughtful voice.

  161. 161
    JT

    @Lucy 156

    Are you implying that masculinity is biological?

  162. 162
    Fibinachi

    @Dean Esmay:

    I agree with you that posting Thomas’ manifesto as a newsworthy item which indicates the ongoing problems faced by many, and one response to that problem is correct, and even an interesting approach.

    Now you tell me why that was posted under your “activism” section, and why you didn’t edit out the call fore court-house bombing and molotovs. Further, tell me why it stayed under your “activism” section – not misandry, or feminism, or women, or any other little neat label to indicate that you were using it as an example of the feelings of many – and if you’d be so kind, I would also love a quote or a reference to someone on AVfM pointing out that the manifesto they have / had in their ACTIVISM section, the section for the website that deals with real-life on going activism, should be read only as an “example” and not in any way as an attempt to try activism-by-firebomb.

    I respect lighting yourself on fire as a political statement. I don’t respect calling for the firebombing of courthouses, and I cannot respect someone who insinuates that they support that kind of activism.

  163. 163
    JT

    @Mike

    Avfm will need quite a few of the men to drift away before it has any mainstream significance. For the most part(from my view) it has way too many stereotypical angry, nasty, commenters on it. Unfortunately in this instance the squeaky wheel needs to be replaced not greased.

  164. 164
    Mike Buchanan

    @ JT

    Thank you. Men SHOULD be angry about the relentless assaults on the interests of men and boys around the world. We need to change the narrative and make men realise it’s not ‘manly’ to suffer in silence when decade after decade pass with fathers unable to see their children, and men and boys suffering all the other travesties of natural justice we cover in our document, and more.

    Of course some angry people are drawn to AVfM and indeed other MHRM websites. There’s been an explosion in the number of blogs and websites dedicated to men’s rights, the following is but a small selection:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/recommended-blogs-and-other-websites/

    This is a human rights movement, and if you’re one of the humans assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions – or you have sympathy with men who are – anger is a perfectly natural response. The question is whether states will stop assaulting men and boys, or carry on doing so, making men ever more angry with each year that passes, and reap the consequences. Men have been pushed around for too long, and the consciousness of men collectively that this is the case is growing rapidly, and internationally.

  165. 165
    Kevin Robson

    @ Lucy 153

    “Colonisation? Insulting much?”

    No Lucy, chosen neither as insulting or pejorative. Just my word of the moment trying to express my ideas. Happy to change it to whatever will not give you offence. I regret it made you angry.

    “More women than men work in nursing and teaching because for the last 4 centuries those (along with domestic drudgery, laundering, seamstessing, fish gutting, farming and the most repetitive, low paid tasks available in factories) were all that was available to them. Seeing as they were denied access to higher education, membership of professional bodies, inheritance rights, free assembly and movement.”

    400 hundred years ago British society was entirely different to that which we know today. We had an essentially agrarian economy with some trading and most work (by men and women) was either on the land or about sustaining life. This was a time even before before coal extraction began at the turn of the 18th century and certainly before the cottage industries of the late 18th/early 19th centuries (in which women took part in harness with men as part of the overall economic output.) Indeed children were also a significant part of the economy. Prime Minister William Pitt told industrialists complaining that the Napoleonic wars were driving up labour costs to ‘yoke up the children’. To take just one of your examples, women cleaned the fish because it allowed them to be productive for society, whilst being able to look after children as they worked. The men, of course were away catching the fish. By the time of the 19th century, women did less work than men because industrialisation was making our society vastly wealthy. Many of course were housewives, keeping the home going and looking after the children whilst their husbands worked in the factories that had replaced the cottage industries. Many women married to men who were wealthier as a result of industrialisation did not work at all. Indeed this is a time when consumerism was born and department stores, largely patronised (hope that’s and OK word for you, tell me if it isn’t) by women. In the early 20th century, as the First World War broke out, around 30% of the population, mainly women, but with significant numbers of men too, were in domestic service, such was the degree of wealth generated by industrialisation which, by then had been in full swing for well over a hundred years. Then, of course, the First World War brought women into the war effort making armaments and other things like clothing and blankets for the men who were dying in awful horror in the trenches of France and Belgium. During the 1920s and 1930s, women were able to engage in careers and even the professions and many did, whilst many stayed at home, looking after the children and keeping a home going whilst their husbands earned money for their families. The Second World War gave women more opportunities to work in the armaments factories and in food production, working on the farms as land girls. As to the post war era, well I guess I don’t need to spell that out.

    As you can see, the pattern of society was massively different than today, and indeed it changed dramatically in that 400 year period. Society is a dynamic thing, and mostly progress causes better conditions for all of us: men and women. May I respectfully suggest that judging history from the standpoint of the present is not particularly helpful? We could equally get angry about the use of child labour (mostly boys, incidentally) or the destruction of young men (boys really) in the trenches, or men and their sons having to work underground on their backs hewing coal for 12 hour shifts and so on.

    “Men on the other hand colonises the public sphere by denying women access to higher education, membership of professional bodies, inheritance rights, free assembly and movement and general disenfranchisement.”

    I have to say I am not aware of any historical restriction of freedom of assembly imposed upon women, I would be pleased to study it if you could point me to any information on that? It is true that most women historically did not go to university. That was because of the structure of society, mainly the role of women as home makers and mothers which has been a theme of society down millennia, but it is not true to say that women were denied access to higher education. I can think of a number of examples such as Marie Curie, the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize in 1003 only eight years after the prize was established, Elizabeth Blackwell the first American woman to be awarded a medical degree in the mid 19th century, Laura Maria Caterina Bassi, Professor of anatomy at the University of Bologna in the mid 18th century. I could go on, but don’t want to overstate the case.

    Women historically did have inheritance rights and rights to their own property. This is an often mis-understood situation. Under couverture, the Norman system of society providing for women, it is true than a woman’s property became one with that of her husband upon marriage, however fathers often gave their daughters inheritances upon their death that could not be touched by their husbands. This was all subsequently dealt with in English Statute Law in 1870 and later in 1882 with successive Married Women’s Property Acts that made a woman’s possessions her own, beyond the control of her husband or third parties, such as his creditors. There was also no general gender specific restriction on enfranchisement. In the 19th century women were full voters at local government level and although it was not until 1929 when the obtained the full national vote, it is also a fact the the majority of men also obtained the vote in the same act of parliament. Wen the Suffragettes were campaigning at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, only about half of the men who went to the trenches had a useable national vote anyway.

    I hope all this is not too challenging to what you say. That would never be my intention. Only to inform and keep things in perspective. Hope it helps.

    PS I may not be able to reply in such detail for the time being. I have a lot of very important things to get on with. Always happy to exchange ideas when time permits.

    “Talk about adding insult to injury.”

    With respect. No I don’t think so.

  166. 166
    Dean Esmay

    @Fibinachi: Numerous articles on AVfM pointed out why that was put in the “Activism” section: because at that time (there have been redesigns since that time, 2+ years ago that made it unnecessary) there was no easy way to make sure it stayed in an easily-accessible spot and we wanted activists to be made aware not only of the Ball case but blatant attempts by the media and even by Wikipedia to blot out even awareness of this man’s actions, why he took them, etc. We also repeatedly made it clear then, as now, that we believe that so long as abuses such as he went through continue to happen and stories like his treated with indifference and contempt, we believe we will see violence of the type he advocated (but did not actually carry out) become a reality–and that this is something we oppose, that we don’t want to see happen, but we see as an inevitability if someone doesn’t start paying some attention and taking this seriously.

    I will repeat what was in all of our editorials at the time: we are quite positive that we will eventually see violence against the state if these abuses are not addressed. We don’t want it, we oppose it, we think it’s morally wrong, we think it unconstructive, but we believe it WILL happen, especially if we keep ignoring and belittling men put through things like this.

    Since we now have a section for storing historical documents, a wiki, which we did not have at that time–we moved it. If you had ready any of the numerous articles on the site written at that time about it, or thought to just ask someone there about it, you would have known all that. Here is one of the articles, but there were plenty of others:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/a-father-burns-himself-to-death/

    As for the notion that AVfM has no mainstream significance and needs to be replaced: the fact of the matter is that people talking about the issues we discuss have been doing so in polite, civil tones for more than 20 years only to face accusations of misogyny, bigotry, rape apologism, excusing domestic violence, ad nauseum anyway. There is literally nothing in the big scheme of things that we talk about that others have not said before, only to be ignored and demonized anyway. Now we shout out in agony and anger in provocative tones, and we’re the bad guys? Nuh uh. And if we’re so irrelevant one will be hard pressed to explain why we are now, by far, the largest, most frequently quoted, most highly-traficked web site on men’s issues not just on the internet today, but in any medium in history, and we are continuing to grow and continuing to get more coverage. Therefore, we’re relevant. The question is, if the quiet, kindly, tea-sipping-with-pinky-lifted approach hasn’t worked before, why should we believe it will now?

    The fact of the matter is that for such a supposedly irrelevant site, we’re bigger than anyone’s ever been and continue to grow, and now are having people like Warren Farrell, Martin Fiebert, Philip Cook, Miles Groth, and quite a few other entirely mainstream thinkers and writers joining us.

    I please guilty to our being angry and provocative. I plead not-guilty to any allegation of advocating violence, and can only smirk at the charge of irrelevancy given the measurable impact we’re having. But hey, prove us wrong: build your own web site that addresses these issues in the style you find preferable, and see how it works. I’ll only point out to you that the people who refuse to get angry, who refuse to get in your face, and who refuse to say anything inflammatory have been an abysmal failure for decades from what we can see. When that changes, I’ll be happy to change. Until then, I’m proud to be part of AVfM and make no apologies for it.

  167. 167
    Dean Esmay

    Argh, should stop and spell check ” If you had ready any of the numerous articles” should be “If you had READ” and “I please guilty” should have read “I plead guilty.”

    @Ally: Thank you. I find much of this painful to have to go over but these are issues I’m passionate about. I don’t always see eye to eye with you but I don’t always see eye to eye with Mike or others either. Where I’m most appreciative of your work is that you actually are out there doing things, and are speaking to the issues that need speaking to.

  168. 168
    Peter L.

    I reckon we can get to 200 by mid-day tomorrow, easy.

  169. 169
    Dean Esmay

    Oh, one last bit, heard from Karen Straughan, aka Girl Writes What. She says she has no idea who this person is who claims she won’t debate her. She further states:

    “I linked to a site where there was evidence that several women were blacksmiths and that only in times of economic depression were men likely to discourage women from entering the trades (not barring them, mind, just being annoyed)
    that is, I have no idea who this person is, but from their description of the site I linked to, I remember the conversation vaguely, and know what I linked to–a site that reveals trade guilds never specifically barred women, but that the process of becoming a blacksmith or other tradesperson was prohibitive for any woman who had a good chance and desire for marriage and children.”

    If a debate is desired with her on this or anything else, drop me a line, a comment here I might miss but you can always Skype me at deanesmay or call 313-334-4887 and I’ll make the arrangements. Karen doesn’t back out of debates.

    I’m going to be very busy this week so don’t know that I’ll be back to this thread but there’s the information for anyone who’s genuinely interested in dialogue, and I’m always up for talking about these things with someone who’s genuinely got an open mind.

  170. 170
    Peter L.

    As long as no-one takes any time to explain ‘heteronormative’ to me, I’m game to keep going.

  171. 171
    AMM

    The comment thread is up to 165 comments, and I have yet to see anyone point out the obvious: Mr. Buchanan’s agenda is almost a carbon copy of the USA Republican Party’s reactionary social agenda, down to the scapegoating of feminism and women in general and the idea that oppressive measures against the scapegoats will actually benefit anybody but the privileged folk who are running the show already. And their scapegoating of women and immigrants is a carbon copy of the way the power brokers in the USA South would encourage poor whites to blame poor blacks for their misery, rather than the rich and powerful who were exploiting and oppressing both. For anyone living in the USA, there’s a real “been there, done that, now get me back out!” feel when we read Mr. Buchanan’s policies.

    It is certainly true that most men in the UK (as in the USA) are worse off than 30 years ago. The Big Lie that Mr. Buchanan and his cronies are peddling is that women are to blame and that simply making life even worse for women than for men will somehow magically make life for men as good as it was 30 years ago. As Mr. Fogg has pointed out, Mr. Buchanan has proposed exactly nothing that would actually improve life for men. All he is offering is to give them a group of people who are even worse off than they are to mistreat and feel superior to.

    I can’t help wondering what Mr. Buchanan’s real agenda is. I cannot believe he is really stupid enough to believe that his policies will actually help any men. What it does do is to distract middle- and working-class men from the real authors of their misery: the plutocrats and the well-heeled and well-connected politicians who tailor the laws and institutions to benefit those plutocrats.

    I also can’t help wondering why Mr. Fogg is debating with Mr. Buchanan as if the latter were actually offering any arguments in good faith. It somehow reminds me of how Rabbis would be hauled up into Medieval courts to defend their Torah and their faith in trials set up by Christians, knowing that the judges were biased and the outcome was foreordained.

  172. 172
    Kevin Robson

    @ Peter L

    I was in the same situation. There is an excellent explanation on Wikipedia of Heteronormative. As I understand it, it is denoting or relating to a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation (Oxford Dictionary online) That pretty well sits right with me although I have nothing to say one way or the other about homosexuality. It has been around since mankind has been around. It’s not my bag (not my tea bag I stress), but it’s not for me to say anything about others’ sexual orientation. That’s their business it seems to me. I just take people as I find them. I know a number of male homosexuals and it never comes up (if you’ll excuse another inadvertent double entendre – I’m valiantly striving to keep my sense of humour reading this robust exchange that’s going on.) ttfn

  173. 173
    BecomingJulie

    Apologies for putting this so crudely, but the problem with adoption as a way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy — besides the risks to the mother of carrying a fœtus to term, which are thoroughly documented elsewhere and with which you are advised to familiarise yourself — is that most people don’t want used babies.

  174. 174
    carnation

    @ Dean Esmay

    Just a quick question. What are your thoughts on the AVfM commenters who responded to GWW’s appearance on the honey badget radio programme by saying they’d love her breast milk in their coffee?

    GWW can more than hold her own, I would like to know how you feel about having ibdividuals like that as comrades?

  175. 175
    Mike Buchanan

    @BecomingJulie

    Surely the question is not what ‘most people’ want, but would there be enough prospective parents to look after the unwanted babies who are currently being killed at up to 24 weeks in the UK? That would amount to around 180,000 babies in the UK in a typical year. Pro-lifers tell me that there would be no problem finding good homes for the vast majority of these babies, and I haven’t had a single pro-choicer say otherwise..

    We shouldn’t forget in all this the potential risks of abortion to women’s physical and mental health. A recent piece on the matter:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/eight-facts-most-people-dont-know-about-the-physical-and-psychological-consequences-of-abortion-for-women/

    Some medical ethicists (both male and female) are now openly arguing for the right of a mother to kill a baby post birth, even if there’s nothing medically wrong with the baby, and even if others would be willing to care for it:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/journal-of-medical-ethics-2012-after-birth-abortion-why-should-the-baby-live/

  176. 176
    karmakin

    Meh. Just a bunch of crabs in the bucket. There’s a reason why I don’t like the MRA movement and that’s it. To be fair, I don’t like swaths of the Feminist movement for the same reason.

    Here’s a tip. If you’re more concerned with Justice than Progress, you’re on the wrong track.

    Most of those things listed in the OP serve very little to help men…instead a lot of them simply serve to pull women down, which shouldn’t be the goal. Men in particular, especially because of the gender roles and responsibilities placed upon men in our society, have been ravaged by economic changes over the last 20 years. Part of this is yes, the whole thing of male disposability, which is a real thing. It’s also the flip side of a lot of the freedoms that men enjoy. (Remember that all these gender roles form a relatively coherent structure…they’re not unrelated.) Men are more free because we don’t care what happens to them, generally speaking.

    In any case, here’s what I would like to do to help men in terms of major points.

    1. Make as much legislation as we can gender neutral, as a short-term fix to eliminate unneeded gender roles from government and the legal structure.

    2. Make full employment not only an economic imperative, but a cultural and social one as well.

    3. Long-term, look to tear down as much of that rigid gender framework as is possible.

    Now, I strongly believe that those things help most people. Men and women alike. There’s also a whole lot of minor things we can do in order to eliminate and counter-act gender bias against both men and women. (The educational stuff is a good example. I think that “blind” test correcting is essential..I’m supportive of “blind” approaches where possible)

    But that’s about progress, not justice. It doesn’t mean that women are men are going to get to be torn down. It doesn’t mean that the opposite gender is at fault for what’s going on, and it doesn’t mean that they then get to be punished for it. But it means that we all live in a better society. And that should be what the goal should be.

    Not this “Keeping up with the Jonses” bullshit that not only is prevalent on both sides of this, but SHOULD be what we’re actually fighting in the first place.

  177. 177
    Mike Buchanan

    @ carnation

    Hopefully Dean will answer your question, but I can assure you that after listening to 10+ hours of Honey Badger, I’ve never personally heard a disrespectful remark made against the ladies. You’re picking a very unusual remark to make a general point, and misrepresentation seems to be the favourite weapon of choice for the site’s critics. It’s perfectly clear to me that the critics on this blog and elsewhere are unfamiliar with the site. Again I recommend people subscribe to it (no cost) for a month and make up their own minds.

  178. 178
    Fibinachi

    @Dead Esmay
    Thank you for the time you took to address my concerns, I appreciate that a lot. The reason I asked was actually because I have read several of your articles – hell, I check the site occassionally – and it is in fact pretty much exactly articles like the one you linked that makes me go “Uh, wait?”, since it includes a fairly enumerative expression of the kind of horrors of violence that might happen soon, and only a minor “I abhor violence and don’t support it, but it is coming”

    I guess that… does mean it is not calling for violence, but I admit to some difficulties reconciling statements of a stance against violence with the impassioned plea for others to get with the programme or violence will happen, surely and with complete certainty, enacted by the kind of people your movement attempts to recruit from and work with.

    Riding on the wave of others who are willing to engage in violence to make your agenda feasible is still, in my mind, a willingness to use the tools of terror. But that’s my perspective, and I do appreciate your very, very earnest stance against the same. Good luck with everything.

    Also, I guess this is strictly speaking kind of an aside (which I may have engendered), so to lead us back on topic…

    …. I believe my unaddressed questions may be:
    1) Mr. Buchanan refers to a tsunami, and I would very much like to know what that will wash away or destroy or wash over, since it’s kind of a pointed metaphor.
    2) When refering to the need for balanced recruitment options in public employment, and specifically male teachers, I would love to know why their payment is important (as opposed to other jobs compared to women) and further, whether or whether not their romantic relationships have any influence on their ability as teachers.

    It is important for me to find out whether someone wants social justice, statistical equality in a profession, help to young children (who can have male role models) or if the important aspect of someone’s profession is the monetary compensation and romantic possibilities.

    Bluntly: Does it fucking matter if male teachers get laid, or are we having this discussion to improve the general equality of society and to make people more able to do what they want and happier?

    3) I would very much like to find an answer to number 16 on the proposition list, wherein it is argued that women should work longer than men on account of their statistically longer lifetimes. Why do you need to differentiate between the age of retirement, exactly, and why exactly are we suggesting that a 70 year old grandmother has more ability to work than a 65 year old grandfather?

    4) Proposition 5 up there, with the ceasation date for the support of single mothers. I would very, very much like to know how that squares with number 19 there. Accidents do happen, problems do occur, and I’d rather not see more people out on the street if we can avoid it. How does the ceasation of paying for families help exactly, and what bloody natured madness must occur for someone to suggest that starving future single parent families is a good idea?

  179. 179
    karmakin

    BTW on the whole retirement thing what’s needed is a system that allows people in physically demanding jobs or have worked physically demanding jobs to retire earlier.

  180. 180
    Ally Fogg

    Mike Buchanan

    We shouldn’t forget in all this the potential risks of abortion to women’s physical and mental health.

    I let it ride in the blog above, because it was already far too long, but you’ve just prompted me to point out something in your policy document that is so inaccurate as to be downright mendacious. In the section on abortion, you say:

    In December 2011 The National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a 252 page report for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, ‘Induced Abortion and Mental Health: a systematic review of the mental
    health outcomes of induced abortion, including their prevalence and associated factors’.

    Among the key findings of the report (p.8) was, ‘The rate of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth’.

    That paper was addressing the precise hypothesis you just made, that abortion carried risks to mental health. After an extensive and impressive meta-analysis, they concluded there was no evidence that abortion caused damage to mental health, or at least any more damage than childbirth.

    What the study did not do was examine whether forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and birth (as would happen under your proposal) carries greater risks to mental health than an abortion.

    Indeed, that research would be pretty much almost impossible (and downright unethical) to do. But since the same study found strong evidence that an unwanted pregnancy is more harmful to mental health than a wanted pregnancy, it is not unreasonable to presume that continuing an unwanted pregnancy would be more harmful than terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

    Your “background information” twisted this research to say almost the exact opposite of what the original paper actually said. That’s pretty shoddy.

  181. 181
    Lucy

    “Are you implying that masculinity is biological?”

    Whenever I need to answer that question, I ask myself whether male chimps do it too. Get to know chimp social behaviour and human social behaviour makes a whole lot more sense.

    I think human masculinity and femininity are a mixture of the biological and the environmental. I absolutely do think that there are innate and acquired differences between the sexes, but that those differences are on a spectrum, and many of those differences have been exaggerated or entirely distorted and manipulated for economic and political gain of those who stood to benefit. But, that in no way means that I think social models that confine women to the disenfranchised, domestic sphere and men to everything else are fair or useful, I think this lead to highly dysfunctional societies, riven with inequalities, with men’s needs and modes of operating being best served, and locked in perpetual conflict that has brought us to the brink of destruction, not once, not twice, not three times but now four times in the last 100 years.

    My opinion is that all fields of human endeavour should be equalised as much as possible in order to benefit from the respective talents and perspectives of both (or all) sexes. I believe very strongly that if women had 50% of the influence in the world, it would be a very different world with very different social models, different political systems, different economic systems, different science and technology, different infrastructure, different philosophy. I’m pretty certain that one of the first things that would disappear would be the domestic/professional caste system men have implemented and that this would quickly lead to the dismantling of so much else our society is currently built on. The question of whether female work should be subsidised as well as male work is would become a moot point.

  182. 182
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    Thank you. It is certainly not our intention to mislead. Indeed we have an open invitation to critics to inform us of where they think any of our statements are misleading, and when they do so, we’ll look into the matter, and correct the document if necessary. We’ll obviously do exactly that in this case.

    Our approach to criticism is in stark contrast to the feminists (Kat Banyard and Caroline Criado-Perez among them) who’ve made DEMONSTRABLY misleading statements but won’t retract them after being publicly challenged. Indeed I cannot recall any feminist in the past 30+ years ever conceding she’d made a misleading statement, even when it’s one of the absurd ‘1 in 3’ or ‘1 in 4 women’ variety.

    Also in our document is the following:

    “In April 2013 the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published a report, ‘Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unplanned pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence’:

    http://anp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/02/0004867413484597

    The full conclusion of the report was, ‘There is no available evidence to suggest that abortion has therapeutic effects in reducing the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy. There is suggestive evidence that abortion may be associated with small to moderate increases in risks of anxiety, alcohol misuse, illicit drug use, and suicidal behaviour’.”

    What is missing in our exchanges is any sense that the foetus has any human value. As someone with social conservative views (albeit I’m personally deeply unsuited to marriage, as my ex-wives would attest) I regard the foetus as having considerable human value, and the destruction of foetuses at the whim of anyone – whether a woman or a man – is accordingly deeply objectionable to me. As it is to the millions of other people around the world who are never given the opportunity to vote about the issue at the ballot box.

  183. 183
    thetalkingstove

    Mike, I understand you don’t think you’re a misogynist. But do you really not see the implications of your policies?

    For example:

    Compulsive paternity tests essentially says “women are liars and cannot be trusted”

    While I don’t doubt that some women do lie about the father of their child, you’re assuming this is so common as to be worth the state imposing itself in people’s lives.

    The vast majority of women aren’t like this, Mike.

    Or is it your contention that they are?

  184. 184
    Ally Fogg

    Mike

    “In April 2013 the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published a report, ‘Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unplanned pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence’:

    http://anp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/02/0004867413484597

    I can’t find a full transcript of that paper, but did find this response:

    http://anp.sagepub.com/content/47/9/798.extract

    Which suggests that the methodology used by Fergusson et al had the exact problem that I just described – Fergusson et al did not and could not compare mental health outcomes for women who had abortion against women who would have had an abortion but were not permitted to. Instead it compared the mental health of women who had abortions to those who did not. That’s a fundamentally meaningless exercise in the context of this debate.

    If you have read the full paper, as opposed to just copying and pasting from some Christian fundie anti-abortion website, then you should be able to confirm that.

    “What is missing in our exchanges is any sense that the foetus has any human value”

    That’s pretty much my position, yes. A foetus is a potential human being, which can become a human being if carried to independently viable life.

    Before that point it has as much value as the carrying woman and her partner choose to accord to it, no more.

  185. 185
    Mike Buchanan

    @ thetalkingstove

    Thank you for your interesting points. In truth we don’t know the true incidence of this form of paternal fraud – men being deceived into believing they’re the fathers of children, when they’re not. But with compulsory paternity testing it won’t take long to get a good steer on the matter, a few months at most. Paternity tests now cost under £100, and the price will surely only decline in time. Just the knowledge that compulsory paternity testing was going to take place would surely deter some women from this form of fraud (of which no British woman has ever been convicted, despite the CSA alone knowing of 500+ cases p.a.)

    Now, why would the state be reluctant to introduce this cheap measure so that men weren’t deceived into supporting someone for 20+ years who wasn’t their biological offspring? Because the financial onus would then fall on the state (even though that means it falls on men’s taxes, in the main). Either way, it’s the same old song. Women make choices and men pay the associated bills, whether as partners or taxpayers.

    I repeat the double standard in all this. Would we expect women to work for 20+ years to support children who weren’t their own? Of course not, and quite right too. I ask only for gender equality in this area as in so many others. It’s about recognising that MEN MATTER. It’s about their rights as humans.

  186. 186
    BecomingJulie

    Mike, the health risks to a pregnant woman from a properly-carried out abortion pale into insignificance when compared to those from carrying a fœtus to term. The effects upon Society At Large of an unwanted child being born are worse than the effects of an abortion.

  187. 187
    Dean Esmay

    I said I might not get back but I keep finding myself mysteriously drawn back, and since I’m making this comment while doing other things there will doubtless be other comments I won’t get to. Ah well.

    @carnation – Not that I saw such a comment about breast milk, and I would be inclined to assume that was some random troll in the chat room, but, if I saw that comment I probably would have laughed and/or rolled my eyes and told the person to grow up. I couldn’t care less about such comments if they did exist. While I can’t speak for Karen I know her well enough to pretty confidently predict she finds them amusing and would tell you to get a sense of humor. The notion that women are such delicate flowers they can’t handle a sexual remark or innuendo is one of the things she finds so annoying about current culture and so grossly hypocritical about so many so-called women’s advocates–people who want women to be treated like equal adult human beings but nevertheless seem to feel the need to make everybody else treat their delicate ladylike sensibilities upon demand. If they clutch their pearls and find a nearby fainting couch because someone made a sexual remark, Karen hasn’t got much respect for them and neither do I, especially if they make noises about wanting women to be treated like adults just like men. Make up your mind, are we supposed to walk around on eggshells so the delicate flowers don’t get bruised by words, or do we treat them like we’d treat any man and tell them to stop being such hypersensitive ninnnies? I vote for treating them like adults and not delicate flowers.

    @fibinachi – I don’t answer for the J4MB party, so you can ask Mike about the rest.

    On the violence question: I will note for you that Desmond Tutu, during the worst of the uprisings in Apartheid South Africa, was frequently accused of being a terrorist apologist and of egging on violence when he pointed out that the conditions were such that violence should surprise no one. Tell me, was Desmond Tutu an advocate of violence?

    Malcolm X in the United States was quoted as saying he was nonviolent but he and his people would use self-defense without apology, and would support change “by any means necessary.” That made pants go brown all over comfortable Middle Class white America, but was he violent? No he wasn’t. The very fact that you would assume that someone is advocating violence when they say “You’re violating people’s basic human rights and causing massive suffering, how can you not eventually expect violent reprisals?” honestly?

    To be blunt, it says more about your own prejudices against male human beings (whether you’re male or not) than anything we’ve said or done. You cannot get stronger than the nonviolence stance we take, which is so harsh we boot people off our site for saying such simple things as “I will kick your arse” or “I hope person X dies.”

    When we attend rallies we publicly tell our people that if someone pushes them they are not to push back and if someone even punches them they are not to hit back they are to either run or go to the ground and assume the foetal position and scream for help.

    That’s right, those of us who demonstrate in public agree going in (and yes, I’ve been among them) that even if someone punches us, kicks us, pulls a weapon on us, WE WILL NOT FIGHT BACK. How much more committed to nonviolence do you want us to be? We’re practically Quakers when it comes to the question of violence.

    So I don’t know how we can bend over backwards more to you by telling you to learn the difference between a prediction and a threat, except to point out that in the years now since that and other articles appeared there has been not one instance of violence done by any of our people anywhere. NOT ONE. How much more do you want?

    So yes, we do think there is a high likelihood of violence. It won’t be from us, but we will say “we warned you, are you ever going to listen?” Men set themselves on goddamned fire to get attention and nobody gives a damn. How much higher does it have to escalate before someone starts taking it seriously and starts losing prejudiced, hateful remarks like “losers” and “they’re just bitter?”

  188. 188
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Ally

    “A foetus is a potential human being, which can become a human being if carried to independently viable life.

    Before that point it has as much value as the carrying woman and her partner choose to accord to it, no more.”

    At what point does a human have ‘independently viable life’? Certainly not at birth. A baby left alone would surely die in a matter of hours or days. If we include economic viability into the matter, we’d say… when? Five years of age, with the child might be able to perform some menial work in return for food and shelter? Following this line of logic, parents should be able to kill their offspring up to five years of age.

  189. 189
    Jennifer W

    This is in response to Alan, #12.

    Alan, you claim that “90% of divorce initiated by women yet most domestic violence initiated by women.” Where do you get this number? Provide citations, please. Keep in mind that “she asked for it” is not a valid reason to abuse a person, so I’m sure that will make your 90% figure drop considerably.

    You say the writer “never, personally, researched nor experienced the anti-male legislation that has been put in place across Western societies which destroy families, marriages, .. and hope.” It seems to me you have not done much, if any, research on the subject of domestic and sexual abuse against women and girls. Making sure women don’t have to put up with abuse is not what is destroying marriages. There is more divorce these days because more women have the possibility of financial independence. They no longer need to feel they are trapped in a relationship. Men also benefit from this. Back when marriages lasted, it was mainly because people had no options. There was just as much betrayal, abuse, and misery as there is nowadays, the difference was that there were too many hurdles to get out of it. Yes. Couples should be encouraged to work on it, but in an unequal marriage, there is often one partner who doesn’t feel obliged or able to work on it. Then what can be done, if only one person did all the changing, because the other refused? That’s not a partnership.

    You say “Destroying marriages is actually being funded by what one researcher called ‘One Stop Divorce Shops’ and what our government calls ‘Charities’ or ‘Women’s Shelters’.” In what way is it funded by these things? Charities, especially ones for battered women, tend to be grossly underfunded. They are not like a luxury hotel or a long-stay spa resort, nor have they boards of directors and executives, all making sizable incomes, and they certainly don’t have the money for paid activism. So where is this money supposed to come from? Please provide evidence for this ridiculous conspiracy hypothesis (notice I don’t say “theory” because theories require actual proof to be called theories).

  190. 190
    bugmaster

    @Lucy #181:

    I believe very strongly that if women had 50% of the influence in the world, it would be a very different world with very different social models, different political systems, different economic systems, different science and technology, different infrastructure, different philosophy.

    That’s… quite a few differences. Do men and women really have so little in common ? Furthermore, how would things like science, technology, and infrastructure be different ? Electrons don’t care about gender, and a water pipe rated for 200psi will still withstand the same amount of pressure regardless of who is turning the valve. Do you believe that if Newton was female, she would have discovered radically different laws of motion than the ones we know today ?

  191. 191
    Dean Esmay

    @thetalkingstove: There is evidence that millions of men are victims of paternity fraud. There are also multiple documented cases of men who can PROVE they are not the biological father of a child being forced to pay child support anyway. There are also places where it’s illegal to even ask for a paternity test, you’re the father because the state says so, period. This is gross discrimination.

    From my point of view, and the point of many others, paternity fraud should be viewed as being as serious a crime as rape–and yes, I mean that literally. The phsyical, financial, and social costs of paternity fraud are crippling, possibly even lethal. It is arguably as bad as many forms of sexual assault. And it is easily rectified by means that violate no one’s rights: having a paternity test be standard.

    What does it matter if the rate of paternity fraud is 0.01% or 50%? That’s like saying theft shouldn’t be addressed since odds are you won’t get stolen from. Whenever or however often this happens, it is a gross injustice, an enormous personal and financial and even physical (yes, physical) violation of the victim, and it can be easily reduced by simply making paternity testing standard. And there is nothing “misogynist” about saying women are as likely to lie about things as men are.

    A story you might find useful:

    http://www.shrink4men.com/2012/04/03/paternity-fraud-what-would-you-do/

  192. 192
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Lucy

    “I believe very strongly that if women had 50% of the influence in the world, it would be a very different world with very different social models, different political systems, different economic systems, different science and technology, different infrastructure, different philosophy.”

    You might believe these things, but that doesn’t make them objectively TRUE. To me they sound like nothing more than self-serving fantasies, built on a belief in women’s superiority over men. Ha.

    And different might mean worse, of course. In the public sector ‘different’ ALWAYS means bending the organisation to women’s wills and wants, regardless of the impact on organisational efficiency, effectiveness, and attention to the interests of the paymasters, taxpayers. In the private sector we have major companies appointing more female directors although the compelling evidence I’ve pointed to many times shows that those companies’ financial performance WILL be ‘different’. It will decline.

    Here’s a ‘difference’ for you. When a woman says she believes in astrology, crystal healing, Tarot cards, psychic healing, or any other mumbo-jumbo, she’s normally indulged by women, and often by men. A man who said he believed in the same things would be regarded (by men at least) as utterly feeble-minded. Why the double standard?

  193. 193
    bugmaster

    When a woman says she believes in astrology, crystal healing, Tarot cards, psychic healing, or any other mumbo-jumbo, she’s normally indulged by women, and often by men. A man who said he believed in the same things would be regarded (by men at least) as utterly feeble-minded.

    If this is true, it might be a cultural difference between the US and the UK. Here in the US — sad to say — people of all genders appear to believe in all kinds of woo indiscriminately. That said, I don’t have any hard evidence of this; does anyone know of any studies regarding the demographics of woo-ish beliefs ?

  194. 194
    Mike Buchanan

    @ bugmaster

    That’s depressing. Do the men really believe such nonsense, or do they pretend to for an easy life? There was a marvellous episode of ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which Leonard tussled with the possibility of having no sex life with Penny – a young woman way out of his league in terms of physical attractiveness – if he continued telling her that her belief in psychic powers was ridiculous.

  195. 195
    Kevin Robson

    “That’s pretty much my position, yes. A foetus is a potential human being, which can become a human being if carried to independently viable life. Before that point it has as much value as the carrying woman and her partner choose to accord to it, no more.”

    This, of course, is the nub of the problem. At what point does a foetus become a viable human being? And, having established when that is (presuming that point is before birth) does it have an intrinsic right to life other than be the value a woman ascribes to it.

    I have to say Ally, your position is very extreme. I don’t buy the Catholic view that a child is a potential human being at conception. It is but only conceptually really. We know that something like seven out of ten impregnated ova spontaneously abort anyway and get washed away in the menstrual flow. Implantation cannot be said to be the basis for a viable child, and even at the next most critical point, arising 12 weeks or so into the pregnancy, no one could reasonably say the child is capable of independent life or even cognizent. I know because years ago my wife had an early spontaneous termination and I saw my child. It was little more than a large tadpole. (We still had enormous grief however, that took some time to get over before another successful pregnancy assuaged it.)

    So we are left with some point between, say three months and actual birth. Rhetorically, where is the line to be drawn? At what point does the foetus become a child in the womb and with the absolute individual right to life? You say the moment of birth (plus conditions). I have a lot of difficulty with that, I must say.

    The problem is, medical science is now so advanced, it is just about possible for a child of even around 24 weeks to be outside the womb and brought to successful viability (just, it is not guaranteed but it is becoming more possible). So, we have the bizarre potential for a situation where a child is born extremely prematurely and be in an incubator with an army of medical staff in attendance trying hard in the hope of bringing it to full viability, and with its mother recovering from the birth in a bed right next to the bed of a woman recovering from the abortion of a foetus not much short of the age of the other child whom the medics are striving to keep alive. (Yes I know that post abortion mothers may not be in a bed in these circumstances, it is just by way of making the point)

    So, how can we say that the value of the aborted child is just the value it’s mother (or even both parents) chooses to place on it? I really think this is an untenable ethical position, frankly. It seems to open up a Pandora’s box of problems for is all.

  196. 196
    Dean Esmay

    For whoever asked above: women are as likely to assault their intimate partners as men are, if not more likely. For a current look at the state of where the peer reviewed literature is on that, see in Sexuality & Culture. Online citation: 2013, 17(2). DOI 10.1007/s12119-013-9194-1: “References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography.” This is the current version of a paper Professor Martin Fiebert first published back in the 1990s, and has been updated every few years since then. This one, as noted, just came out a few months ago. You can get a free copy here: http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/

    It was also my honor to recently interview Professor Fiebert. You can hear that interview here:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2013/10/12/revelations-martin-s-fiebert

    Men remain the marginalized, laughed at victims of domestic violence, and about half the perpetrators of domestic violence remain infantalized and excused for rather than treated like adults fully culpable for their actions.

  197. 197
    Jennifer W

    Mike, you say: “At what point does a human have ‘independently viable life’? Certainly not at birth. A baby left alone would surely die in a matter of hours or days.”

    Independently viable means that it can survive outside of its mother, even if cared for by someone else. A baby that is born can be clothed, fed, and sheltered by anybody. A baby that is not developed enough to be in a state where it will breathe, where its heart will pump, and where it will be able to develop and age as a human being, is not “independently viable.” Does this clear up the definition somewhat?

  198. 198
    bugmaster

    @Mike Buchanan #194:

    Do the men really believe such nonsense, or do they pretend to for an easy life?

    I’m not sure exactly how all that woo would provide “an easy life”. Life is a lot harder when you base your decisions on the stars rather than, say, a cost-benefit analysis. But as I said, I don’t have any hard evidence for the demographics or the relative strengths of woo beliefs. I was hoping that you did, since you were the one who made the positive claim earlier that women (in the UK, as I assumed) were overwhelmingly more likely to believe in woo as compared to men.

  199. 199
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Dean

    Thanks for this. The Abstract of the bibliography, from the link you’ve just provided:

    “This bibliography examines 343 scholarly investigations; 270 empirical studies and 73 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 440,850.”

    What influence does this mountain of evidence have on the support given to male victims of DV? Absolutely NONE. We would argue that more support should be given to female victims of DV. The support given to male victims of DV also needs to be proportionate to their needs, but around the world it’s non-existent (or very close to non-existent) so far as I can gather. The message to men in even the most desperate circumstances is always the same. YOU DON’T MATTER.

  200. 200
    Mike Buchanan

    @ bugmaster

    By ‘easy life’ I meant with respect to relations with partners, sisters, mothers etc. There’s definitely a huge gender divide in the UK, I’m genuinely astonished to learn the same isn’t true in the States. In the UK only women’s magazines have astrology pieces, while astrology magazines (and other mumbo jumbo) are only to be found in the ‘Women’s Interests’ sections in stores.

  201. 201
    Dean Esmay

    @Mike: I don’t give you “absolutely none.” You will find it, here and there, in tiny pockets of enlightenment, usually meager, usually with almost no funding. The most frequent help given to male victims of domestic violence is to throw them in jail and blame them for being beaten on. Not much has changed in the last few centuries on that score.

    The answer so frequently given is that “patriarchy hurts men too” and these women most all be defending themselves. We appear to be completely incapable of seeing women as full on human beings, meaning, just as capable of being violent, sadistic, brutal, sociopathic, abusive, etc. This not only doesn’t help half the victims of domestic violence, it also arguably hurts many of the perpetrators, who are excused for their behavior instead of getting some sort of treatment that might allow them to overcome their violent impulses.

    Intimate partner violence is not a gendered issue, except on the margins (men tend to need slightly different treatment from women, in the aggregate, but every in dividual is different). But instead we continue to peddle the sexist charade about “violence against women” and behave as if the main problem is thuggish brutish men and helpless damsels in distress. Demonizing men and infantalizing women; how can anyone not call that sexist? How can they not see it as counterproductive at minimum?

  202. 202
    Jennifer W

    Dean, I did read an article the other day (sorry, can’t remember where) that said that an alarming number of men are abused, and even raped, by women. I always suspected that abuse of males was a bigger issue than was being discussed, but the sheer quantity (mostly estimated, due to minimal reporting) was absolutely shocking.

    I agree that men and boys need to feel free to come forward and seek justice, without losing credibility as men, without ridicule, without ostracism. The fact that society sweeps it under the carpet and does not mean that it doesn’t exist, or is any less important an issue. It does need seeing to. Abuse of one gender does not negate or render less important the abuse of another.

    Alan (comment #12) said 90% of domestic abuse is initiated by women. That is what I would need to see evidence of. Too many women are beaten, and killed, by domestic partners, for me to think that they all were “asking for it.” I most certainly did not “ask for” the emotional and mental abuse of my sociopathic ex. He selected me because I was too young and trusting, because I lacked confidence, because I adored him. I was perfectly manipulable. He didn’t care how much damage he was doing, he only wanted compliance. I’ve read, and been told in first-hand accounts, of too many stories of abuse, one from a woman whose husband threatened her with death, and held her down while his friends raped her, and would keep her captive, to think that these women, and myself, were all just part of the rare 10%. Also keep in mind that in the abuse of females, there is also so much more that goes unreported, or when reports are filed, very often they are not taken seriously, or treated as the serious act of violence that it is.

    All around, domestic abuse, be it mental, emotional, and/or physical, is a major issue, and needs to be brought out into the wide-open. We need to stop blaming victims, stop allowing it to happen to anyone, and make people more aware in general of their rights and just how prevalent it is. We need to provide proper support, regardless of the victim’s gender, sexual identity, age, or lifestyle. Nobody deserves abuse. Everybody deserves to be treated with dignity.

  203. 203
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Dean

    Thanks for that. You may have missed my earlier comment re a presentation by a female psychologist last week. The prime feminist narrative on female perpetrators seems to be that women only attack men in self-defence. She pointed to studies showing that female perpetrators themselves report that in fewer than 4% of the attacks they make on men, it was in self-defence.

  204. 204
    Dean Esmay

    @Jennifer: My apologies, there’s a lot going on in this thread and I missed the claim of 90%. The notion that 90% of domestic assaults are initiated by women (or by men) is lunacy for certain. What we see in intimate abuse is what amounts to a rough parity, although women are somewhat more likely to be severely injured or killed, even there the numbers are far closer to parity than most people want to believe, and in a good half of all cases (more or less) it’s actually both parties being violent.

    Ally himself had a pretty good article on this a year or two ago, in The Guardian I think. Can’t seem to find it, but no matter, this classic paper by Malcolm George lays it out very well:

    http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm

  205. 205
    Peter L

    At AMM 171 “It is certainly true that most men in the UK (as in the USA) are worse off than 30 years ago. The Big Lie that Mr. Buchanan and his cronies are peddling is that women are to blame and that simply making life even worse for women than for men will somehow magically make life for men as good as it was 30 years ago. As Mr. Fogg has pointed out, Mr. Buchanan has proposed exactly nothing that would actually improve life for men. All he is offering is to give them a group of people who are even worse off than they are to mistreat and feel superior to”.

    The above is the opposite of the truth.

    Militant feminists (not women as a group) have introduced an anti-male culture (read any of their books first three pages); some men are not even allowed to see their own children “ever again”; there are positive action courses that deny men training and funding; anti-FGM feminists scorn MGM as being ‘of any interest’; the media ridicules men; ‘the equality people’ don’t care about the high suicide, earlier deaths or work fatalities of men; boys are falling behind in education arguably through a feminist environment without male role models, and male (hetero)sexuality is seen as something to be hushed up; a man pays for his child even if he can’t get access; men’s sentences are longer than for women for the same crime and some feminists wish to create gender-specific law and close women’s prisons…..all of which can be ascribed to militant censorious biased feminist ideology.

    Mike’s document is tackling the above, and I suspect having fair play and balance in open discussion – and policy – would actually be of great benefit to men.

  206. 206
    Dean Esmay

    As for the issue of sexual assault by women on men, Ally himself recently posted something on the matter, although he was somewhat out of date; research subsequent to the stuff he posted shows it to be even more common than he thought when he was shocked to find out it was higher than he thought. ;-)

    A very important book on the matter, by Philip W. Cook and Tammy Hodo PhD, which examines a massive number of peer reviewed studies, is “When Women Sexually Abuse Men: Hidden Side of Rape, Stalking, Harassment, and Sexual Assault.” At the risk of being accused of whoring out my show excessively, I’ll mention that we did an extensive interview with the author here:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2013/09/07/revelations-with-erin-pizzey-philip-w-cook

    The fact of the matter is that the number of male victims of female perpetrators is far, far greater than most people have any idea of; it remains the subject of much ridicule and shaming of victims, and this has been true for decades now if not centuries with very little change for the better. Indeed, if you count in prison rape (which most sources do not) then the startling news is that, in the United States at least, the vast majority of rape victims are men. And if you don’t count prison rape? Then it’s about half, with far, far more female perpetrators than people believe (many statistical sources actually intentionally elide female perpetrators by how they define things).

    At some point if we won’t see each other as human–and that means being willing to see women negatively just like we do men–nothing can get better.

    There are some very specific areas where I disagree with Mike Buchanan, I am to his political left on some things for certain, but in areas like this we are very much in agreement. This is one reason why I, unlike Ally, am pleased his J4MB party exists… and why I sincerely hope someone on the left takes up the cudges and starts a left- or center-left men’s and boys’ issues party. Not to win seats necessarily (although that would be nice) but to FORCE parties like the Greens, Labour, the Liberals, etc. to start talking about these things. Is the left going to leave the whole dialogue on this to the Tories, and surrender on it by default? That’s what it looks like to me for now.

  207. 207
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Jennifer

    Thanks, that’s clear. For me that’s a fairly curious construct, but it make sense in the context of this debate. Hopefully you caught my earlier link to a piece by two medical ethicists (a man and a woman) who argue that women (and women alone) should have the right to have a baby killed (for a week or two after birth if memory serves right) even if the baby is fine physically and others are willing to assume responsibility for him/her? My blood ran cold when I read that paper.

  208. 208
    David Futrelle

    Dean:

    Here’s a link to the Ball manifesto as it appeared on AVFM, in the “Activism” section. If you all wished to disassociate yourself from his explicit calls for violence — that is, his calls for firebombing police stations and courthouses, which he admitted quite plainly would probably mean killing people — why didn’t whoever posted it at AVFM simply add a short disclaimer at the top saying so?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130423205908/http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/tom-ball-murdered-by-the-family-courts/

    Anyone finding this piece on your site, in the activism section, would conclude that you supported Ball’s suggestions for “activism.”

    Where might a person reading this manifesto on your site find the disclaimers in which you specifically denounce Ball’s call for terrorism?

    If these disclaimers are so easy to find it will presumably only take you a moment to find the quotes and urls.

  209. 209
    mudskipper

    Just FYI–

    According to a 2005 Gallup poll, 30% of British women believe in astrology, versus 14% of the men. In the US, it is much more even: 28% versus 23%.

    In any case, a strong majority of women in both countries apparently do not believe in astrology.

  210. 210
    Dean Esmay

    Ah, the Michael Savage of the reactionary anti-human-rights movement comes in with a disingenuous question already-answered, our nonviolence policy already explained, and ignoring the inconvenient fact that after years of his trying to paint us as violent he can find not one single instance of us being anything other than the victims of violence, or anyone even associated with us distantly doing anything more than act like a jerk.

    I don’t debate with people like this for the same reason I wouldn’t debate with Dwayne Gish or his acolytes: honest discussion isn’t in the cards, just a desperate attempt to prop up a failed ideology and a falling revenue stream.

    We’re nonviolent. Our nonviolence policy is so strict we throw people out for even hinting at violence; we don’t even put up with “I’d like to punch you in the nose.” We’ve been doing what we do for years and while a number of us have been assaulted and harassed, none of us has ever hurt any of our critics with anything other than harsh criticism.

    We do believe that if the fundamental human rights of boys and men continue to be trampled on with impunity, there will inevitably come a breaking point and violence will happen, just as it has in other places. Even Gandhi couldn’t stop all violence in India, much as he condemned it.

    All of this was explained when the Ball manifesto was put where it was, and it has been explained here, as its being moved to our Wiki has also been explained. I have no more comment on the matter: we’re a non-violent human rights movement, and no effort to provoke or distort or impute guilt-by-association and “reading between the lines” will change that. Paul Elam’s a pacifist, as are a number of our contributors and editors. As it happens, I am not a pacifist, but I do not approve of violence in this or most areas, and consider anyone using violence in the name of the Men’s Human Rights Movement to be my enemy, which is something I have said so many times I feel no reason to repeat it yet again.

    If anything, I suspect Mr. Futrelle is hoping to egg someone into being violent toward us by portraying us as dangerous–many of us have been subjected to threats and harassment–by creating a false threat narrative. We’re evil, we’re rapey, we’re beaty, we like child abuse, we like woman abuse, we want to kill cops, we eat babies, something must be done to stop us! Think of the children when you lynch that MRA!

    Whatever. This will be the last time here I answer anything asked by Mr. Futrelle, I do not consider him a person who asks honest questions.

  211. 211
    Mike Buchanan

    @ mudskipper

    Thanks. Too depressing for words. Another way to look at the numbers is to say that slightly more than twice as many British women as British men believe in astrology. I’ll take a small crumb of comfort from that. What worries me more is that these people have the same vote in general elections as you and I. Suddenly some things make more sense than they did… but what does this say about the education system in the UK and US? Nothing good.

  212. 212
    JT

    I just came across this and it made me think for some MRA’s maybe it could be there theme song. Or at least add some levity to their cause. :)

  213. 213
    JT

    Oops wrong one. Nothing quite like Freddie

  214. 214
    BecomingJulie

    What I’ve never seen from the pro-forced-birth brigade, ever, is any good reason why they imagine that someone else’s reproductive habits might be any of their business in the first place.

    So, pro-lifers, please answer me this. If it was possible to transplant a fœtus into another body (and being born male wouldn’t necessarily be any barrier to receiving such a transplant; it would just require a simple course of hormones and a Cæsarean section at the end), would you take one on in order to avoid an abortion?

    And if your answer is anything but an unqualified “hell yeah”, what makes you think that anybody else should have to undergo that?

  215. 215
    wtfwhateverd00d

    I’m not an enormous fan of AVFM, I tend to think a lot of what they do almost dares people not to like them.

    But it is in fact a true fact regardless of what “MrFancyPants” claims that the SPLC has specifically not designated AVFM a hate group or hate site.

    For MrFancyPants to keep spreading this long debunked lie really should tell one all they need to know about MrFancyPants.

    Here is what the SPLC has to say about reddit’s mens rights group, and the same words hold true for AVFM

    http://www.dailydot.com/news/reddit-mens-rights-hate-group-splc/

    “”It’s false. We wrote about the subreddit Mens Rights, but we did not list it as a hate group . . .

    “In almost all cases, we list hate groups at the end of each calendar year when we publish lists. I very much doubt we would ever list the Reddit [r/MensRights] in question—it’s a diverse group, which certainly does include some misogynists—but I don’t think that’s [its basic] purpose.”"

    Now, MrFancyPants

    YOU NEED TO RETRACT or we will know and understand that you are plain and simple a liar.

    And though I disagree often with AVFM’s editorial policies, I absolutely 100% agree with Mike: read AVFM (and http://reddit.com/r/mensrights) for a month and make up your own mind.

    You will find in your face opinions and you may find satire but what you won’t find is hate.

  216. 216
    MrFancyPants

    Dean @ 210:

    This will be the last time here I answer anything asked by Mr. Futrelle, I do not consider him a person who asks honest questions.

    It seemed like a fair question. That archived page looks like any other posting; for all anyone unfamiliar with it all might know, “Tom Ball” might have been a writer for AVfM and that could have been just another activism post, because without any kind of disclaimer at the top that’s exactly what it looks like.

    I continue to find it bizarre that it was posted under “activism” for so long. It’s not like making a special category would have been hard, or that setting up a wiki is a difficult thing that requires months (years?) of storing such content so confusingly elsewhere, or that taking 60 seconds to write in bold text “AVfM does not condone or approve of the actions recommended in this article.” As they say, actions speak louder than words; despite your protestations to the contrary, your actions indicate tacit approval of the activist message in that document.

  217. 217
    mudskipper

    Why on earth would you take comfort in the fact that twice as many women believe in astrology than men in the UK? That seems like a very strange thing to say.

  218. 218
    MrFancyPants

    wtfwhateverd00d @ 215:

    My, you are quite worked up about a group you care little about. Yes, you are correct, they were not designated a “hate group”–that was poor wording on my part. They were designated a “hate site”–and that is a fact.

  219. 219
    wtfwhateverd00d

    MrFancyPants,

    This is what the SPLC has to say about AVFM.

    “A Voice for Men
    A Voice for Men is essentially a mouthpiece for its editor, Paul Elam, who proposes to “expose misandry [hatred of men] on all levels in our culture.” Elam tosses down the gauntlet in his mission statement: “AVfM regards feminists, manginas [a derisive term for weak men], white knights [a similar derisive term, for males who identify as feminists] and other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not consider them well intentioned or honest agents for their purported goals and extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would clansmen [sic], skinheads, neo Nazis or other purveyors of hate.” Register-Her.com, an affiliated website that vilifies women by name who have made supposedly false rape allegations (among other crimes against masculinity), is one of Elam’s signature “anti-hate” efforts. “Why are these women not in prison?” the site asks.”

    Nowhere in there does the SPLC call AVFM a hate site. The closest is when at the top, the call the various sites women hating sites.

    But show me MrFancyPants, where in the above do you see anything about women hating? Granted AVFM is very opposed to feminism. THIS PLACES AVFM solidly in with the majority of women

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html

    Of which only 20% identify as feminists.

    If you were honest MrFancyPants you would be referring to the facts not to the hand me down allegations

    Show me anywhere MrFancyPants that the SPLC has “designated” avoiceformen as a “hate site”.

    “Hate Group” is a term of art for the SPLC, and AVFM is not a hate group.
    “Hate Site” is nothing. The SPLC does not “designate” “Hate Sites” and you are trying to give some official meaning to your “fact” that just is not there.

    You are in fact a liar. You were given a chance to retract. Instead you doubled down. You have no shame and no intellectual honesty.

    Worked up? I am worked up? That purely is just some form of ad-hominem smear. (Which Chrome suggests I change to Eminem.) AVFM does not work me up. Who cares what I am worked up about?

    But the lies and liars and smear artists and assholes that pervade Free Thought Blogs do work me up. That I admit.

  220. 220
    MrFancyPants

    Show me anywhere MrFancyPants that the SPLC has “designated” avoiceformen as a “hate site”.

    The SPLC does not have a formal list of websites that it calls hate sites; such formality is reserved for organized groups–some of whom have websites, and the websites are often listed alongside the descriptions of the groups.

    What the SPLC does have that is relevant here, as you well know, is a page devoted to listing misogynistic websites. “Misogyny,” of course, in its simplest sense, means the hatred of women. AVfM is one of the websites listed on the SPLC’s list of misogynistic (hating of women) websites.

    Now, I get that you’re squirming quite hard to get AVfM out from under this onerous description by point to the fact that nowhere are the exact words “hate site” used on that web page. This is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. A site labeled as being “misogynistic” is a site that condones hatred.

    An interesting way to turn this around: consider the SCUM Manifesto, which is often pointed at as being an extremist document given that it considers men to be biologically inferior to women. If you saw it listed on a page of “Misandry: The Documents” would you insist that it in no way condones hatred, simply because the word “hate” was not used? Because it does. In the same fashion, AVfM condones misogyny and yes, hatred.

  221. 221
    Mike Buchanan

    @ MrFancyPants

    You can keep banging this drum as long as you want, but people have seen through you. I repeat my invitation to people to subscribe (at no cost) to http://avoiceformen.com for a month and make up their own minds. I’ve followed the site for two years and never encountered one instance of misogyny. I’ve had private exchanges with probably 20+ contributors of material to the site – including on numerous occasions with Paul Elam and Dean Esmay themselves – and never once encountered misogyny. It would be crazy to associate J4MB with misogynists – a miniscule proportion of humanity, which is more than can be said for misandrists – so we don’t.

    At some point, for the sake of what remains of your credibility, you should apologise to AVfM and retract your baseless accusation, then we can all move on and engage in constructive debate again. I respectfully suggest that time is now.

  222. 222
    Ally Fogg

    I’ve followed the site for two years and never encountered one instance of misogyny

    OK, that’s officially the funniest thing that’s been posted on this thread. Good work.

  223. 223
    David Futrelle

    Dean, really?

    It would have taken far less time for someone at AVFM to put up a simple disclaimer on the Ball post — something to the effect of “AVFM does not condone Mr. Ball’s advocacy of firebombing police stations and courthouses” — that it did for you to pound out your long non-answer to my question.

    This suggests to me that Elam did not want such a disclaimer up. Why might that be?

    Why might a site that “officially” opposes violence nonetheless post a manifesto calling for terrorism by a man they lionized elsewhere on the site?

    I don’t know. But since we’re not going to get straight answers from Dean, let me offer this suggestion: it seems to me that this might be a way for AVFM to nudge some of its less stable readers towards violence, while at the same time maintaining a sort of plausible deniability.

    Certainly Elam himself has made statements suggesting he wouldn’t be terribly unhappy if terrible violence happened to family court judges. Here’s Elam explaining his very strange variety of pacifism:

    I am a pacifist. I do not advocate violence. But I tell you this. The day I see one of these absolutely incredulous excuses for a judge dragged out of his courtroom into the street, beaten mercilessly, doused with gasoline and set afire by a father who just won’t take another moment of injustice, I will be the first to put on the pages of this website that what happened was a minor tragedy that pales by far in comparison to the systematic brutality and thuggery inflicted daily on American fathers by those courts and their police henchmen.

    It would not even so much be a tragedy as the chickens coming home to roost. And it is certainly less of an indecency than the suicide of Tom Ball.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/fathers/the-family-courts-have-to-go-and-i-mean-right-fucking-now/

    So, yeah, this is how AVFM “advocates nonviolence.”

  224. 224
    bugmaster

    @Ally Fogg #222:

    You are undoubtedly right, but my guess is that you and Mike have vastly different definitions of what counts as “misogyny”. Some examples could be helpful, but then again, the act of posting examples might start another needless flame war, so it’s kind of a toss-up.

    My point is, it is entirely possible that Mike is not being disingenuous here; I want to give him at least this much credit, even though I disagree with most of his views (among those posted here, at least).

  225. 225
    David Futrelle

    I should have said:

    Why might a site that “officially” opposes violence nonetheless post a manifesto calling for terrorism — without a disclaimer condemning this call for terrorism — by a man they lionized elsewhere on the site?

  226. 226
    MrFancyPants

    Mike:

    I’ve followed the site for two years and never encountered one instance of misogyny.

    Of course you haven’t. It’s in your political (and financial?) interests to water down your definition of “misogyny” to the point where the word has no remaining meaning. Paul Elam declaring that he would always vote “not guilty” were he on a jury hearing a case of the rape of a woman is not, to you, a misogynistic thing to say, b/c it’s in your interests not to care about the injustice he proposes to all female rape victims.

    Speaking of rape, here’s what Mr. Elam had to say on AVfM in the not too distant past (albeit before you claim to have started reading):

    I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes … these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

    But are these women asking to get raped?…

    They are freaking begging for it.

    Damn near demanding it. …

    [T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

    If you don’t consider those words to be dripping with vitriol, then it’s likely you have an empathy problem. (Try replacing “women” with “teen boys” and “men” for “women” in that quote, and see if it changes the way you think about it.) Repeat statements of this nature week after week, year after year, person after person, and it becomes clear that AVfM is rife with misogyny and fury.

    But you don’t have to believe me. The SPLC says so too. Of course, when faced with that reality, the common refrain today is “but AVfM wasn’t desginated a hate group!” as you’ve just witnessed, which of course is just dishonest twisting of the words and the narrative. I still recall when that original page went up at the SPLC website, and I remember the absolute fury with which it was met by your MRA peers–but not because of this now fashionable word-twisting. The fury then was due to the fact that the SPLC, which presumably many of them respected before then, had taken this step. The result was months of claims that “The SPLC is a bunch of liars” because, of course, if you don’t agree with the message you can always hate on the messenger.

    Regardless, you’ve had enough attention for now, Mike. I shall watch your efforts with interest, and await this “tsnuami” that you say is going to appear–although I won’t be holding my breath.

  227. 227
    Ally Fogg

    @Bugmaster 222

    I think I said about as much as I want to say about AVFM on this blog here

  228. 228
    cloudiah

    Does falsely accusing women as a whole for the destruction of the planet count as misogyny? Here are two examples of that from AVfM fairly recently:
    The Earth Mother is one selfish bitch
    Time for goddess to woman up

    Note that Elam’s arguments are based on a false assumption that women control most spending.

    Note also that someone named Amanda eviscerates Elam’s arguments in the 2nd post, which of course leads to insults and downvotes into oblivion.

    Elam and his crew like to pretend they don’t hate women, just feminism. But sometimes they let the mask slip.

  229. 229
    carnation

    @ Dean Esmay 187

    You’re obfuscating. If I took part in a radio show, I would want my points of view taken seriously, not wearily predictable sexist/misogynistic/objectifying, not to mention irrelevant, fetishistic and sexual comments to follow. And if you’re honest, and feminists objectified you in a similar way, you would not be so benign about it.

    The thing I just don’t get, Dean, about you and followers of the blog you edit, is this. You go onto that blog site and read articles about women demanding to be raped, about a man getting aroused at the prospect of “fucking a feminists shit up”, alongside lurid fantasies about boys being drugged by feminists, governments being infiltrated by feminists and 9/11 being caused by feminism. And the comments are worse. Some people see all of that and decide “yes, these are my people”. In that context, puerile comments about a political commenter’s breast milk in a cup of coffee seems almost innocent.

  230. 230
    carnation

    Also @ Dean Esmay

    You write that “You cannot get stronger than the nonviolence stance we take, which is so harsh we boot people off our site for saying such simple things as “I will kick your arse” or “I hope person X dies.”

    Noble sentiments. It follows from this that you object to people on an Internet forum threatening another person on an Internet forum, no matter what.

    With this in mind, your website’s enthusiastic doxxing of people, mostly women, mostly college students, is grossly hypocritical. You cannot, honestly, say you are unaware of the abuse and threats these people will receive as a direct result of the doxxing. The abuse and intimidation will not come from your website, but was certainly facilitated by it.

    MRAs/MHRAs are fond of accusing others of cognitive dissonance. This ridiculous double standard is a prime example.

  231. 231
    bugmaster

    @cloudia #228:

    Does falsely accusing women as a whole for the destruction of the planet count as misogyny?

    Good question. I skimmed the posts you linked to, and found them — to put it delicately — factually inaccurate, poorly thought out, and needlessly sensational in tone. But I don’t know if I’d necessarily call them “misogynistic”. In this case, I might do so anyway, because of the tone if nothing else. However, in general, I think it’s important to separate misogyny from inaccuracy.

    For example, let’s say that someone wrote an article stating that women have poor vision in the green band of the spectrum as compared to men. As far as I know, this is not true. However, if this were true, we’d want to know about it, because this fact would have real, practical implications (for example, we’d want to start painting green highway signs a different color). In this case, I would hesitate to label the article as misogynistic.

    That said, I fully admit that I’m not at all familiar with I didn’t even know they existed until a few days ago, so if they really are just a bunch of woman-hating cavemen, I wouldn’t know.

  232. 232
    bugmaster

    That latest sentence should read, “not at all familiar with AVfM”, sorry about that.

  233. 233
    mildlymagnificent

    What worries me more is that these people have the same vote in general elections as you and I. Suddenly some things make more sense than they did… but what does this say about the education system in the UK and US? Nothing good.

    Remember we have compulsory voting in Australia. I resigned myself to the fact that people by and large don’t think much about anything when daylight saving was first proposed for Australian summers. “It’ll fade the curtains” and various other daft objections completely divorced from the reality that we were proposing merely to change the clocks, not the physical reality of the world, depressed me every time I read such guff. Mainly because I realised that these people voted.

    I came across this when looking for Australian men/women percentages believing in astrology

    the difference between women and men isn’t so much in their propensity to hold paranormal beliefs as it is in the kinds of paranormal beliefs they’re likely to hold.

    “Women are more likely to be at the ‘social’ end of paranormal beliefs,” Sturgess says. “They’re more likely to believe in things like mediums, astrology, psychic healing, and ghosts.

    “Men, for instance, are more likely than women to believe in the alien astronaut theories of Erich von Daniken, and more cryptozoological things like the Loch Ness monster.”

    Studies have also shown that men are also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, creationism and the notions of historical revisionists, while women are more likely to believe in telepathy and New Age theories.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/blogs/sceptic-science/do-women-want-to-believe-20110105-19fr2.html

    So we can’t get away from it. Men and women both will adopt silly, counterfactual beliefs – I’m not much comforted by them choosing different forms of dreck from the intellectual trash available.

  234. 234
    prodegtion

    There’s a BBC Woman’s Hour? Fuck the BBC, seriously.

  235. 235
    prodegtion

    Men pay the most tax and get the least benefits.

  236. 236
    Dani Wells

    To debate Karen Straughan: This is SaelPalani1969. She knows who I am on Youtube. If she wants to debate send her right here or she can PM my channel on Youtube.

    AVFM is a misogynist, violent hangout on the internet. I suppose its popularity is due to a few things:
    1. Popular with violent, hateful, misogynists
    2) Popular for feminists who want a laugh and also a scare at how violent you guys really are
    3) Popular for those who want to look at the most undesirable of elements, for a thrill, ya know, like a wtf? type thing

    So there’s your site traffick. I would say that numbers 2 and 3 are your highest numbers but from your comments here it sounds like you WANT violence to happen. You sit there and say you don’t condone it but you then say ‘it’s GONNA HAPPEN!’ That’s a wish and you guys are gladly putting out material that will definitely stir the most violent misogynists on the planet.

    I see you won’t debate David Futrelle. I bet that same sentiment will happen to me when she finds out who it is that wants to debate her.

    Oh and the breast milk in the coffee? I was in the chat room and the sexualization of her and typhon was rampant. Nobody called time out on any of it. If you deny those comments actually happened I have screenshots of them on my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz-rgk5ilAE

  237. 237
    Tamen

    Jennifer W:

    First in your commet @189 you cited Alan:

    90% of divorce initiated by women yet most domestic violence initiated by women.

    Then in your comment @202 you again paraphrased Alan:

    Alan (comment #12) said 90% of domestic abuse is initiated by women.

    No, he didn’t!

    Surely you see the difference between these two? The first half of Alan’s original sentence state that 90% divorce is initated by women while the second half state that most (which is > 50%) of domestic violence is initated by women. Yet in your comment @202 you have conflated them.

    The former claim does seem to be an exaggeration. Women appear to be the initiating part in about 2/3 – 3/4 of divorces – although this link points out that in some no-contest states among the college educated population women initiate up to 90% of the divorces. They refer to this paper: http://www.unc.edu/courses/2010fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf

    The latter claim I believe Dean have answered in a comment.

  238. 238
    Lucy

    “Men pay the most tax and get the least benefits.”

    Did you see my link above on the cost of men to the state? Males cost tax-payers the most.

    Have you adjusted the male contribution to the tax coffers to take account for salaries that are paid out of the public purse, e.g. police, military, etc?

  239. 239
    Lucy

    “There’s a BBC Woman’s Hour? Fuck the BBC, seriously.”

    Only since 1946.

    There’s a BBC Men’s Hour too.

    Though to be brutally honest, Woman’s Hour is much better.

  240. 240
    Lucy

    @mike

    “Here’s a ‘difference’ for you. When a woman says she believes in astrology, crystal healing, Tarot cards, psychic healing, or any other mumbo-jumbo, she’s normally indulged by women, and often by men. A man who said he believed in the same things would be regarded (by men at least) as utterly feeble-minded. Why the double standard?”

    Hold on a god-darn minute.

    It was and remains the case that men, not women instigated most of the world’s superstitions. It’s men, not women in capes and pointy hats in mosques, churches and temples issuing edicts and claiming revelations from angels and gods. Sure it’s women sitting in the pews *following* the edicts, but we’ve been over that already.

    Astrology and alternative medicine is women’s way of asserting some small level of spiritual autonomy and female perspective on a theological landscape dominated by male cults.

  241. 241
    Lucy

    Elam:
    “I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes … these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

    But are these women asking to get raped?…

    They are freaking begging for it.

    Damn near demanding it. …

    [T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.”

    Would anyone here want their kids to spend weekends with this guy?

  242. 242
    Lucy

    @bugmaster

    “That’s… quite a few differences. Do men and women really have so little in common ? ”

    I think a small difference in approach and perspective can make big differences in outcomes.

    “Furthermore, how would things like science, technology, and infrastructure be different ? Electrons don’t care about gender, and a water pipe rated for 200psi will still withstand the same amount of pressure regardless of who is turning the valve. Do you believe that if Newton was female, she would have discovered radically different laws of motion than the ones we know today ?”

    I think men, particularly those with a scientific bent have, for want of a better word, autistic tendencies. They tend to break the material world down into its component parts and remove it from its context. I think women have the opposite tendency. I think this would have very interesting outcomes both for scientific discovery, and also scientific application. I think a female Newton wouldn’t have been looking at the laws of motion.

  243. 243
    Tamen

    BBC’s Men’s Hour on Radio 5 started up in 2010 and according to a quick sampling of articles about it it seems like women and feminists were not exactly applauding the introduction of this show although they were a bit more polite (those I saw) than prodegtion.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jul/01/bbc-mens-hour-radio-5-live

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1294209/JAN-MOIR-Mens-Hour-The-LAST-thing-need-Radio-Bloke.html

    http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/185032/Why-Men-s-Hour-is-a-turn-off-for-everyone

    There were also some men who were negative to the idea:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100045883/mens-hour-illustrates-the-bbcs-weird-idea-of-how-men-actually-live/

  244. 244
    Lucy

    @mike

    “You might believe these things, but that doesn’t make them objectively TRUE. ”

    I know, which is why I said I “believe” not I “know”.

    “To me they sound like nothing more than self-serving fantasies, built on a belief in women’s superiority over men. Ha.”

    Well they’re based on my observations of being in all female and all male environments, as well as several studies I’ve seen on how men and women organise themselves, as well as observations I’ve read about men and women’s approach to science. As well as how patriarchal societies such as the UK, US, the Middle East are run compared to less patriarchal ones such as Iceland and Scandinavia. If you’re interested I’ll try to look them out,

    But obviously, until women are given a chance to have significant influence on social organisation and fields beyond the few they’ve so far been limited to, for a significant amount of time (centuries, not decades), it’s very difficult to know isn’t it. So let’s give it a whirl! They can’t do any worse.

    “And different might mean worse, of course. In the public sector ‘different’ ALWAYS means bending the organisation to women’s wills and wants, regardless of the impact on organisational efficiency, effectiveness, and attention to the interests of the paymasters, taxpayers. In the private sector we have major companies appointing more female directors although the compelling evidence I’ve pointed to many times shows that those companies’ financial performance WILL be ‘different’. It will decline.”

    Bending the organisation? You make it sound as if organisations aren’t already bent to men’s wills and wants. Men have a gender too you know, the way they’ve built things isn’t neutral.

    You obviously accept the principle of the dominance of one gender in institutions leading to distorted outcomes, you accept it where it comes to the feminisation principle, and yet you seem to have a blind spot where it comes to the masculinisation principle.

    Yes women’s ways may be superior, inferior, the same or just different to men’s. Until we do the experiment of trying them we’ll never know. Early indicators suggest, different.

    “Here’s a ‘difference’ for you. When a woman says she believes in astrology, crystal healing, Tarot cards, psychic healing, or any other mumbo-jumbo, she’s normally indulged by women, and often by men. A man who said he believed in the same things would be regarded (by men at least) as utterly feeble-minded. Why the double standard?”

    This is another one of your blind spots I’m afraid. As I’ve said, all the world’s 300 religions, as well as astrology incidentally, have been instigated and are run by men, they have male gods and male prophets. A fair proportion of their adherents too are male, often the most dogmatic ones. The female religions (of which crystal healing and so on are the remnants) were persecuted and wiped out. I’m not surprised women turn to them when the alternative is the woman-hating Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism.

  245. 245
    Avicenna

    @Dani Wells and @Mike Buchanan

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/07/07/a-voice-for-me-pet-rock

    Karen’s take on Afghanistan? Seriously? And the comment list.

    AVfM is not misogynistic? I first read their articles after the India rape. And trust me they boiled down to “Women in India don’t have it bad, ignore reality! they get their own bus seats and don’t pay entry into nightclubs! Ignore all the violence the lack of healthcare, the child marriages, the dowry deaths, acid attacks, spousal abuse and infanticide.

  246. 246
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Lucy

    I’ve been on Woman’s Hour, but Men’s Hour refuse to have me on. I’m not surprised because the presenter, Tim Samuels, is a cardboard cut-out metrosexual and feminist sympathiser. He and his show were praised by Jenni Murray of ‘Woman’s Hour’, which says it all, really:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/mens-hour-an-endorsement-from-a-militant-feminist-jenni-murray/

  247. 247
    Avicenna

    Karen or GWW (Girl Who Write’s) particular piece that Mike Buchanan put up is extraordinarily vile to read particularly if you have spent any time in Afghanistan, read about it or paid attention to all the people coming back and saying things.

  248. 248
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Lucy

    “It was and remains the case that men, not women instigated most of the world’s superstitions. It’s men, not women in capes and pointy hats in mosques, churches and temples issuing edicts and claiming revelations from angels and gods.”

    Lucy, I’m an atheist, but religions have developed and taught moral codes without which everyone (atheists included) would suffer. So men can be thanked for this, as they can be thanked for democracy, the vast majority of scientific discoveries, and countless other things. I fail to see any moral guidance dimension to astrology, crystal healing, or any other such nonsense. And I have no idea what you mean by ‘spiritual autonomy’ in this context.

  249. 249
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Lucy

    “I think men, particularly those with a scientific bent have, for want of a better word, autistic tendencies. They tend to break the material world down into its component parts and remove it from its context. I think women have the opposite tendency. I think this would have very interesting outcomes both for scientific discovery, and also scientific application.”

    Can you give some examples of ‘very interesting outcomes… and also scientific application’? Another fantasy, not borne out by facts. Women have had equal access to scientific training across most of the developed world for 50 years, to the best of my knowledge, and the result has been pitiful at the top level. Trinity College, Oxford, has been the source of more Nobel Prize winners in science than womankind.

  250. 250
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Avicenna

    For anyone who isn’t familiar with the video by Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) on Afghanistan etc., I invite them to watch it and make up their own minds. Link below, along with an interesting video on Zara Faris, a young Muslim woman:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/girlwriteswhat-were-women-historically-oppressed-are-they-now-in-developing-countries/

  251. 251
    Fibinachi

    Uh, Mike?

    Are you for improving justice and legal outcomes for men, or are you anti-feminist? Because one of those is great! And the other is… not bad, but with some interesting complications and possible pitfalls.

    Secondly, the definition of a metrosexual boils down to grooming as far as I understand it – so unless you’re just calling Tim Samuels impeccably well dressed, I kind of fail to understand your point. And if he was well dressed, I don’t see how that relates to your apperance (show or otherwise, both, really). Also, if you were on Women’s Hour, isn’t someone from that show… supporting your case? I don’t get the vitriol.

    Anyway, could you take a minute to run through my questions from up thread, possibly?

  252. 252
    Amy Cocks

    So when we blame The Patriarchy, and you dismiss our view on what’s going on here…what’s that?
    Is that a conspiracy?
    Because you just said women can’t believe in that sort of thing because of their woman brains.

    Does that mean there genuinely is a Patriarchy? Glad that’s been cleared up.

    So, there’s the religious patriarchy Lucy mentioned and then there’s the rather frequent occurrences where men either simply refuse to believe women and put greater effort into trying to obliterate a woman’s factually derived opining than another man’s.

    Erin Brockovich and Florence Nightingale would both be female conspiracy theorists, if not for the rigorous information collection both undertook in order not to be dismissed by the mainstream and powers that be.
    If they’d been male, they’d have needed much less paperwork to convince people they were right.

    Do you think this might have an influence on proceedings?

    Does in STEM.
    Fighting the constant disbelief, colleagues saying you are wrong but that guy, the guy who said the exact same thing, now he’s right…takes it’s toll on anyone with even vague concepts of social dynamics.

    And women aren’t vague in this regard.
    From day one on earth when we’re informed we’re women, we set about learning what it is women like us should do. At the moment, and until men step up, the most of us learn from our mothers, that women are meant to drop whatever it was they were doing in order to figure out what a baby can only communicate through screaming and getting a rash, and then go do something about it to assuage the infant.
    Male infants will dismiss this as behaviour they needn’t learn…until they see other males at it.

    Women have a massive head start on learning to pick up on social cues and people pleasing, you lot, enormous setbacks.

    But we’re human beings and learning is very much our game, so you can easily sort it out if you wanted to.
    But I don’t think you do.

  253. 253
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Fibinachi

    “Are you for improving justice and legal outcomes for men, or are you anti-feminist?”

    Both. I’ve written three books about feminism, and in early 2012 I launched the Anti-Feminism League http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com. The blog isn’t being updated, however, as all new pieces are going on http://j4mb.irg.uk and/or http://c4mb.wordpress.com.

    It seems to be the experience of anti-feminists that one characteristic of metrosexuals is their unusually high degree of deference to women. Given that we believe that deference is the source of so many problems afflicting men, we would naturally have some reservations about this cohort. The support given to Tim Samuels and his show by Jenni Murray is clear evidence of his feminist leanings.

    I was on Woman’s Hour with John O’Farrell, a ghastly man who wrote in one of his books of his regret that Margaret Thatcher wasn;t killed in the Brighton bombing. Such was his hatred of Mrs T that he also spoke of his regret that Britain won the Falklands War (at the cost of 255 men’s lives and 1,000+ major injuries) because it improved her chances of an election victory. Outrageously he compared J4MB with the KKK and Jenni Murray let that remark pass. The audio file of the interview is here. Not too proud of my performance, but it was a pretty hostile environment, given O’Farrell’s presence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNxw8NXNul4

    “Anyway, could you take a minute to run through my questions from up thread, possibly?”

    Sorry, can you remind me what they were? I’ve been struggling to keep up with the comment thread, and have many other things on my plate, but I will always try to answer questions so long as I believe that in doing so it may help enlighten people about our positions, and the reasons for them.

  254. 254
    Fibinachi

    Sorry about that, for some reason the qouting borked – used to a different system of blockquotes.
    —–

    I’ll just rewrite to make them clearer.

    1) You refer to a tsunami that will wash over the culture in a vast tide – what tsunami is that, exactly, and what will it wash away? As far as I understand the physics behind tsunamis, they’re incredibly destructive forces only in specific environments (Shallow coastal lines). Irrelevant and fascinating, but I’m wondering what exactly you want to wash over and destroy.

    2) You mentioned that women prefer marrying men who earn more than them, in relation to the employment of public sector workers (Male teachers). Why is this relevant, if the important thing is to balance out gender representation in the teaching profession? Secondly, when given links to sources that prove that people try to get more male teachers into teaching positions, your response was:

    Thanks Ally. So efforts are being made to attract men into very low-paid (minimum wage or close to?) lines of work which they’ve traditionally eschewed. Hmm, how might that work out? A male friend says he thought of going into primary school teaching until a woman told him that in terms of attracting women, he may as well have a T-shirt printed with, ‘My clothes are contaminated with Polonium 210′.”

    Are we trying to get more men into public sector jobs to balance out employment ratios, or are we trying to get more men to have more sex? Kind of a dual focus, if you ask me, and I am confused.

    3) Proposition 16 on your list of points – can you cite any studies that indicate that 70 year old women can perform at the level of 65 year olds? Using the retirement ages from my own country here, but the point is specifically: Why should the retirement age be split, even if women statistically live 4 years longer in the UK? (79.38 male vs 81.68). Average aggregate statistics are a poor way of assuring perfomances are met by meat and flesh workers.

    4) As an economist, I am a little perplexed by your “Men pay 72-73% of taxes!” when combined with your statement that: “Thanks Ally. So efforts are being made to attract men into very low-paid (minimum wage or close to?) lines of work which they’ve traditionally eschewed.”

    IF you agree that men traditionally eschew low earning jobs (or, as you hint at, that they are pushed into high earning jobs because it’s one assumed metric of attacting women), why are you surprised when they pay 72-73% of the tax? Income tax is kind of a big deal, and relies on your average wage, which, tautologically, should be higher for high paying jobs.

    Specifically, with that clarification, why does it matter how much men pay in taxes if those same men also eschew traditionally low paying jobs, might refuse entry into those jobs of reasons unrelated to taxation / society (Not becoming a teacher because someone says you can’t attract women), and – according to your proposition 16 – can expect to work fewer years on average?

  255. 255
    Norman Hadley

    Hi Mike

    First of all, a tone point – you’re to be congratulated on the polite and measured way you express yourself. It’s made this thread a more pleasant read.

    However, it seems to me that Ally could have save himself a good deal of typing just by reflecting on the name of your organisation. Because a more elegant refutation is that anyone* promoting “Justice for X” is betraying a poor understanding of what justice is.

    By definition, you cannot have justice for white people, justice for left-handers, justice for fiscal conservative or any other subset. Imagine “justice for accusers” or “justice for defendants” – they make no sense. There is justice and there is injustice. Selective justice is an oxymoron.

    Sorry to rain on your barbecue but that seems to me a fatal flaw in your arguments.

    * For the record, I’ve said exactly the same about “Justice for Women”

  256. 256
    Fibinachi

    Not… sure why I wrote 4 there? 82-79 should still be 3, unless I wandered into the twillight zone on my way to work this morning.

    In any case, thank you for your time and good luck with improving the lot of people in the world.

  257. 257
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Fibinachi

    Thank you. I’ll try to answer each question in turn:

    “You refer to a tsunami that will wash over the culture in a vast tide – what tsunami is that, exactly, and what will it wash away?”

    The relentless assaults on men are creating a great deal of anger – globally, and in both the developed and developing worlds – and men are becoming conscious that most of the assaults are because of their gender, something over which they have no power. If the assaults continue – and accelerate – this anger will in time translate into violence. I don’t want that, and no MHRA of my acquaintance wants that. But I think Dean Esmay’s analysis on this is very sound. What forms will that violence take? I honestly haven’t the slightest idea, and whatever forms it takes, I won’t condone them. Indeed I’ll condemn them, as will AVfM and others, I’m sure.

    “You mentioned that women prefer marrying men who earn more than them, in relation to the employment of public sector workers (Male teachers). Why is this relevant, if the important thing is to balance out gender representation in the teaching profession?”

    The issue of pay may be deterring men from entering the teaching profession, so we can either increase pay levels so the point that far more men apply – a very expensive option, I’d have thought – or accept that gender balance isn’t achievable, we should simply seek more men in teaching. We’re reconsidering our position on this, and gender balance in the public sector more generally, due to comments by Ally and many others. Our consultation document is the precursor to our 2015 general election manifesto, and it’s exactly this kind of feedback which helps us improve it. And for that I thank Ally and many others.

    “Using the retirement ages from my own country here, but the point is specifically: Why should the retirement age be split, even if women statistically live 4 years longer in the UK?”

    I could equally ask, why was the retirement age split historically, when men were more likely to have physically onerous jobs, and died earlier? If there’s to be an arbitrary point, should we not set the retirement age at the point that on average men and women can expect to have the same length of retirement (and the longevity difference you cite is 2.3 years).

    “IF you agree that men traditionally eschew low earning jobs (or, as you hint at, that they are pushed into high earning jobs because it’s one assumed metric of attacting women), why are you surprised when they pay 72-73% of the tax?”

    I’m not remotely surprised. The point I’m making is that the state which assaults men and boys (through its actions and inactions) is largely financed by men themselves. My AVfM piece on the matter, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune. Or does he?’:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/he-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune-or-does-he/

    Thanks for your interesting questions, hopefully I’ve answered them all now?

  258. 258
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Norman

    Thank you. I think we’d agree that throughout history there have been definable groups which suffered injustice, so a political party calling for ‘Justice for…’ would have been entirely appropriate. As a MHRA it’s my conviction that men as a group are being assaulted – mainly by the state’s actions and inactions, though there are cultural foundations too – so ‘Justice for men & boys’ seems to us an entirely appropriate name. Of course if you don’t see men as a collectively disadvantaged group – which is a more commonly held position as you look up the social hierarchy, we find – then of course your argument would be valid.

  259. 259
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Fibinachi

    Lest one of us really is in the twilight zone, the longevity differential I stated of 2.3 years was based on your figures 81.68 / 79.38. I’m not yet at an age where I need to check that out on a calculator haha.

    Thanks again for your interesting questions. It’s been a pleasure engaging with you and so many others here. I’m much looking forward to Ally’s next piece, as I know many J4MB supporters are.

  260. 260
    Dean Esmay

    Ah. You’re SaelPalani, and that means, you’re lying when you claim Karen ever refused to debate you. She did no such thing.

    If you want the debate, make the video and send it as a video response to her, or ping her yourself.

    As for your claims about AVfM: they’re nothing but substanceless hatemongering drivel and aggressive ignorance. You aren’t even offering “debate,” not so far as I can see anyway. You just want to bash. Ah well. We’re used to it.

  261. 261
    inappropriate

    Re: GWW’s Afghanistan video.

    I don’t know if it was intentional, but to me it seems she’s making a rhetorical argument against the concept of “privilege backfiring” in general.

    Traditional gender roles have upsides and downsides for both men and women. If you’re going to decide that one group is the oppressor and one group is the oppressed, no ifs no buts, then you’re going to have trouble dealing with anything that looks like evidence of upsides of the oppressed role or downsides of the oppressor role. Just look at feminists tying themselves in knots trying to explain away things like chivalry as “benevolent sexism”.

    The video in question illustrates how an extreme downside of the traditional female role (no freedom of movement or association) is related to an upside (not being expected to go out into a dangerous world and provide for your family) – and of course they’re related, the traditional roles exist for a reason, although they jar with modern egalitarian views.

    It’s offensive and inaccurate to call it female privilege backfiring though, just like it is to call, say, conscription male privilege backfiring, which feminists do all the time without any detectable sense of irony…

  262. 262
    Dean Esmay

    @carnation

    The thing I just don’t get, Caranation, about people like you is that you can’t appear to read articles fully through to digest their meaning before you jump to conclusions, or understand that reasonable people might disagree with you. What I don’t get is why people just make stuff up while they’re giving what might otherwise be honest criticism. I can list for you articles on AVfM that I have taken issue with, that I think may be overharsh, some that even made me cringe but that I could honestly see the intent behind. You can’t do that? OK. We can’t be all things to all people and if we give out criticism then we should expect to get it, even if we don’t consider all that criticism fair or valid (and much of it is not). I do know we hear regularly from men and women thanking us for our work and telling us they had no hope, even decided not to commit suicide, due to our work, and to the support we offer. I won’t bother going into the innocent men we’ve helped get out of jail, I can’t imagine you care, although that’s work we’ll be continuing as well.

  263. 263
    Mike Buchanan

    @ inappropriate

    Funny, I don’t recall getting ‘privilege backfiring’ from the video, but maybe I’m having a ‘senior moment’. It’s been some months since I watched it, I must do so again.

    For me the key message was that it’s dishonest to talk about a lack of rights without recognising that they’re intimately associated with a lack of responsibilities. So in dirt-poor countries, where there’s barely enough money to educate half the children, and even then not well in general, do you educate the portion who will in time have responsibilities for supporting families (the males) or those who won’t (the females)? I imagine most people (including myself) would say that ALL children should be educated. But until and unless we invent the magical money tree, that simply won’t happen. So societies like that in Afghanistan are ordered around basic realities however much the consequences (e.g. denying girls access to education) might offend Western sensibilities (including mine, as I say).

    Zara Faris makes the point in her video (and elsewhere, including her blog) that even in Islamic countries, very few women would trade their collective rights and responsibilities with those of Muslim men. I’ve found very few people get this point about the lack of responsibilities Muslim women have, especially women in Islamic countries.

  264. 264
    Raging Bee

    …state support will not be provided for women having new babies which they are personally (or with the support of a partner and/or others) unable to care for financially.

    And what will the MRAs say about the disadvantages faced by boys born into such destitution?

  265. 265
    Raging Bee

    The day the Left comes up with an alternative to capitalism for generating wealth is one I look forward to.

    WELL-REGULATED capitalism — which has, since the 1940s, proven better at both creation and distribution of wealth than the unregulated kind. You’re welcome.

  266. 266
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Raging Bee

    Thanks you. ‘Well regulated’ capitalism isn’t an ‘alternative’ to capitalism, it’s only a form of it. And since the regulation is getting more and more onerous – e.g. driving more poorly-qualified women onto major corporate board, despite the clear evidence showing that will lead to financial decline – the regulation will have to be reined back in time. If it’s not, the private sector will surely fail, and the public sector with it. As Mrs T once said, ‘Socialism works only until you run out of other people’s money.’

    Might I ask, do you think corporate financial decline is a price worth paying to get more women onto major corporate boards? And if you don’t, shouldn’t the government withdraw the threat of legislated gender quotas in 2015, which is driving this insane direction of travel? In 2010 13% of new FTSE100 director appointments were women. In 2012, the year after the threat of legislated quotas in 2015 was made – Davies Report (2011) – it was 55%. Virtually all the 2010 and 2012 cohorts had something in common with the vast majority of existing female FTSE100 directors – they were appointed as non-executive directors. This has been called a gravy train for poorly qualified middle-class women, and I’m inclined to agree. The objective of Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com is to place a damned big concrete block on the line miles ahead of the train, and keep telling the drivers it’s there. So far, they’re not listening.

  267. 267
    carnation

    @ Dean Esmay 

    Thanks for your reply.  The thing is that I *have* read many, many articles on the website you edit, fully, and with the cognitive and critical skills to make an informed conclusion about them.  I’m not “quote mining”, I was listing claims and themes that appear on the website that you edit. We can have a discussion about the intent – you might call Elam’s piece on women enjoying their r@pe (sorry, at work) satire (as is acknowledged within the text), I view it as appealling to the base readership, who enjoy reading that type of thing.  If you like, call me deluded, call me misguided, but do not say I am dishonest, unless you’re willing to give me a specific instance of lying?  If you do, I will cheerfully retract. 

    And please do go into the innocent men you’ve helped get out of jail.  I applaud any actual activism that helps people.  Equally, I also complimented Mike Buchanan on being an activist worthy of the name by doing something other than blogging. I am a harsh critic of MRAs/MHRAs (and RadFems when they are discussed), but I’m not blinded by ideology, nor am I a feminist.

  268. 268
    BecomingJulie

    There is no such thing as “generating wealth”. The total value of all the money and goods in the world is a constant. Increasing the number of coins just means each coin buys less stuff. Everytime anybody gets richer, somebody else gets poorer. It’s exactly like the first law of thermodynamics; except you keep redefining the Joule so every day it pushes a slightly shorter distance against a resistance of one Newton.

    What is needed instead is to move away from the old economics of Scarcity, and start embracing the Age of Abundance.

  269. 269
    Dean Esmay

    @carnation – The Elam piece on women “enjoying rape” is one of my particular favorites, as it happens, for it is not just satire, it’s the most effective form of satire imaginable. The one you’re talking about is this one I believe:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/study-reveals-female-rape-victims-enjoyed-the-experience/

    All you have to do is read the last two paragraphs to get it. Although it will help you more to realize certain basic facts, such as (1) men are half the victims of domestic violence and women half the perpetrators, (2) men are the majority of victims of sexual assault, (3) female perpetrators of sexual assault are massively more common than generally believed, and (4) we see faux studies and distorted reports on male victimization of females exactly like this savage satire almost every day in the news and no one even blinks at it.

    The answer you’re looking for is in the part that almost no one who takes umbrage at that piece ever even gets around to reading–it’s almost laughable how often I’ve encountered this, even in people who are yelling at me about it. The last two paragraphs are important, but the very last one should tell you all you need to know:

    “These items, indeed this entire article, are illustrative examples of what Murray Straus identified as ‘Evidence by Citation’ and other forms of academic fraud in widespread and unchallenged use by feminist ideologues. They were presented here as an example of their destructive use.”

    In other words, it’s right there: everything in this article is bullshit, and illustrative of how to savagely misuse statistics, and in a fashion we see directed at men pretty much daily without anyone even questioning it.

    As for your view that it “appeals to the base readership: if you mean intelligent women and men who understand the relentless assault of misandric misinformation, you’re right, it appeals to that reader base very well.

    And if you were a regular reader of AVfM, I would not have to tell you about Gordon Smith, Vladek Filler, Nicholas Alahverdian, or others we’ve helped or are in the process of helping get out of bogus charges and persecution of the justice system. It looks to me like all you’ve really done is cherry-pick your way through the thousands of articles on the site, found the most salacious and inflammatory things there, and thrown them up as typical.

    But I will point this out to you: for literally decades most of the issues we talked about have been discussed in polite, civil, tea-sipping tones with people sagely nodding their heads that it’s a problem and doing nothing, while still others would go on to call the polite, non-vulgar, inoffensive people misogynists, rape apologists, violence-enablers and such anyway. In other words, every bad thing you say about us has been said about people who do not take our abrasive, in-your-face tone anyway. So now we scream loud and we refuse to be polite anymore, and amazingly, we start to see our issues being discussed more seriously. It don’t take a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. If being abrasive and obnoxious is what it takes to shake people out of their comfortable prejudices, then that’s what we’ll do.

  270. 270
    carnation

    @ Dean Esmay

    Thank you. Your reply is basically what I expected.  And I was aware of Vladek Filler, not the others.  Small point, but I said that I read it, meaning past tense.      

    So I suppose it’s just a coincidence that a man who calls himself “The Happy Misogynist” writing satire about women enjoying being r@ped appeals to so many egalitarian, forward thinking political activists. You have thus far ignored my point about, on the one hand, condemning people on an internet forum threatening others, yet facilitating this wholesale with doxxing and registerher.com.  The website you edit calls repeatedly for women to be held to accoutn for their role in crimes commited against them, please hold yourself to account for your role in the harrassment of those whose details you make public? 

    Regarding seeing which way the wind is blowing, imminent MRA (now MHRA) victory has been proclaimed on various blogs constantly since 2010.  By your own standards, this isn’t true.  But, like the satire previously mentioned, keeps the base readership happy.  One of my issues with your website is that it serves to keep the radfem (and not so radfem) base readerships happy, gives them a reason to still exist.  After all, all movements need an enemy.  Your website provides a ready, identifiable and obnoxious one.  You help feminism far more than hinder it, in my opinion.  And that will continue. I’ll conclude by saying that I have found one article on your site well written and thoughtful – it was about the emotional impact of male youths on being abused by older women.

  271. 271
    Norman Hadley

    Hi Mike (258)

    You say

    Of course if you don’t see men as a collectively disadvantaged group….then of course your argument would be valid.

    But I see the statement “men are a collectively disadvantaged group” as not even wrong. Men are disadvantaged in some areas but advantaged in many, many others.

    To me, it’s wholly unfructifying to keep arguing over who has the shittier end of the stick. My priority is everyone agreeing that the stick is shitty at both ends and slooooowly, together, putting it down before picking up a cleaner one.

    Now if J4MB wants to be part of that process, that’s great. The trouble is, your name suggests you limit your concern to the male end of the stick (in a way that “Men for Gender Justice” wouldn’t). Worse, parts of your manifesto suggest you’re also concerned there isn’t enough shit on the female end (for example your stuntish proposal to reverse the retirement age differential). From my perspective, that looks more like an attempt to be controversial than a real policy suggestion.

  272. 272
    Dean Esmay

    @carnation – and your reply was basically what I expected, which was to change the subject and avoid acknowledging anything important I said.

    For the record, “The Happy Misogynist” was a tag used by Elam that he dropped years ago, but, which he clearly explained in multiple places: in his experience, anyone who thinks women are responsible, intelligent, rational adults and should be expected to act like it, held to the same standards as men, gets accused of being a misogynist. He experienced that for years. So did I. So did a whole lot of people.

    And in any case, once again you cherry pick through mountains of material, hold up tiny isolated examples as being typical (how ironic is it that you chose the one article most frequently cited by our critics, and just like our critics didn’t even note that it clearly states that everything in it is lies), and then when it’s pointed out to you that even the atypical example you’re using doesn’t hold water, you change the subject instead of acknowledging that I might just have a valid point.

    As for the notion that we’re providing fuel for the radfems: yeah, right, back three years ago we were nobodies and no one heard of us and radfems were continuing to run women’s or gender studies programs, putting into place misandrist policies in government and academia, and doing things like endorsing euthenasia of males. But they need us to keep going? Pull the other one.

    They’re finally for the first time in history getting the light shone on them and direct, unapologetic pushback–for the first time in history. They don’t like it much, but what we notice is that they’re getting more feverish in their responses, more frenzied, more desperate, and more irrational, and everyday people are talking about men’s issues more and more and more as if they actually matter.

    But you just go on and keep carefully cherry-picking tiny isolated examples, ignore the vast body of material actually on the site, and blame us for the radfems. Whatever.

    If the sum total of what we do is play “bad cop” so that the polite-toned people can be heard, then we’ll take that role and be the bad boys. I believe we needed a Malcolm X to make people take Martin Luther King seriously, and I’ll play Malcolm X if that’s what it takes (and to my eye, that is what it takes).

  273. 273
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Norman

    I sometimes amuse myself by asking feminists to tell me one area in which women in Britain today are disadvantaged by the state’s actions and inactions. Not one has ever been able to do so, other than presenting differences of outcomes as reflecting differences of opportunities, which they don’t. Differences of outcomes were largely explained by Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000). let me know if you want a link to a short briefing paper on it.

    In short, for British women today – as for the majority of women at all times, in all places – there is no s*** at their end of the ‘stick’. And a huge bucket of it at the men’s end.

  274. 274
    Lucy

    @mike

    “Lucy, I’m an atheist, but religions have developed and taught moral codes without which everyone (atheists included) would suffer. ”

    But women did and continue to suffer under those moral codes. These moral codes can be thanked for the position women find themselves in today.

    “So men can be thanked for this, as they can be thanked for democracy, the vast majority of scientific discoveries, and countless other things.”

    I’m afraid you are betraying your ignorance of the development of philosophy and theology. Women were systematically sidelined from involvement and to take credit for that is, to borrow your word, risible. The process is well documented and well researched; the field of feminist theology is a very established one and in fact this is where you find the origins of the entire feminist movement. Women were forbidden to speak in church, they tried but early Christian women’s groups were closed down, their theology deemed heretical, women were forbidden to publish their works, their books were burned, later on women were burned themselves (some estimates put this in the millions). Non-Christian female pagan religions comprehensively wiped out across Europe. The early church fathers propagandised against women as the source of all evil, a panoply of female Greek and roman goddesses were neutered and turned into the Virgin Mary. During the Protestant reformation, at the hands of the arch misogynist Luther, even that was taken.

    It’s not a coincidence that you borrowed the hook-nosed, anti-pagan propaganda of the witch/Medusa to illustrate your book about killing feminism. You may not recognise where your influences come from, but there they are.

    I recommend a book to you, The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy by
    Genevieve Lloyd

    It describes how the ancient Greeks went about constructing the philosophical legacy we have today and where in fact many of your own philosophies owe their origins.

    ” I fail to see any moral guidance dimension to astrology, crystal healing, or any other such nonsense. And I have no idea what you mean by ‘spiritual autonomy’ in this context.”"

    Well why would you, have you ever made any effort to?

    I’m an atheist too, however I recognise that around the activities you mention, exists an entire pagan-like subculture concerning celebrating the body and the earth, the wisdom of females, respect rather than shame for female cycles and life stages, a rejection of the kinds of militaristic heavenly hierarchies and supernatural law courts that exist in male Abrahamic religion and which punish women for their sexuality and denigrate the body and celebrate the male as the creator. In addition, they provide networks and communities stretching around the world.

    It’s a shame you don’t know what spiritual autonomy might mean. Try to imagine, if you will, what it is like living in a world where most people believe either explicitly or implicitly that the fundamental life force guiding the universe is male and which can only be approached via a male conduit, when you are not male yourself.

  275. 275
    carnation

    @ Dean Esmay

    Re radfems – I didn’t say they needed you, I said that you helped them.  Big difference.  I also said that you help feminism far more than hinder it.  I think that that’s basically obvious to anyone looking and who isn’t deluded. Re The Happy Misognyist.  Last time I checked, which was admittedly a few months ago, it was still his Youtube handle.  It takes hypocrisy to a new extreme when you consider that a young woman was doxxed for saying (joking?) that she was going to get “misandry” tattooed on her hands. Further to that point, you have studiously avoided taking yourself to account for facilitating threats and abuse online.  Care to do that now? Also, I very cleared acknowledged that the piece included in its text a notation that it was satire.  You can accuse me of cherrypicking all you like, the facts are that your site’s offensive satire keeps its readers happy, for reasons that I suspect aren’t quite as noble as you would like to believe. But anyway, please do account for the double standards about doxxing and facilitating abuse, intimidation and threats.  

    I am enjoying our exchange.

  276. 276
    Raging Bee

    I sometimes amuse myself by asking feminists to tell me one area in which women in Britain today are disadvantaged by the state’s actions and inactions.

    And I can amuse myself by noting that your question is a deliberate diversion from the real origin of those disadvantages: individual rapists and abusers, and private enterprises.

    In short, for British women today – as for the majority of women at all times, in all places – there is no s*** at their end of the ‘stick’.

    “ALL” times and places? Including the Muslim world? Seriously? The sheer willful ignorance in that statement is enough to blow your credibility, and that of any movement you’re a part of, forever. As a man who’s well aware of the troubles men face, let me just say that stupid bullshit like this does no good for any men or boys (except perhaps for those in the 1%, or at least in the 0.1%).

  277. 277
    Dean Esmay

    @carnation – I fail to see how we are “helping” these people, sorry, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think we have them for the first time in history being exposed and explicitly confronted, and they don’t like it much, and despite their best efforts we’re getting men’s centers opened on multiple universities (another of those little things we do besides these carefully cherry-picked out-of-context examples you keep bringing up). Also, you apparently don’t have a very good memory since Paul renamed his YouTube channel much longer ago than “a few months” Further, your statement that we ever doxxed any young woman for wanting to have “misandry” tattooed on our knuckles is a slanderous fabrication.

    It would be nice if you’d acknowledge the point about the irony of Paul’s “misogyny” remark.

    As for “facilitating threats and abuse online” – oh what a pile of horseshit. Identifying someone who publicly identifies themselves and confesses to–brags about–criminal behavior is called reporting. I get abuse and harassment regularly online, and have for many years, long before I ever identified myself with AVfM or even publicly identified as an MHRA. Publicly available information is just that, publicly available information. We neither condone nor abuse threats or harassment, but why is it that I am 99.9% positive you have never once complained about any publication that publicly identified a male person who did something despicable? To me it looks like all you’re doing is lying about what we’ve done, and expecting women to be held to higher standards of protection than men are.

  278. 278
    carnation

    @ Dean Esmay

    To clarify, the Youtube “address” is still TheHappyMisogynist but the “handle” or name is the “founder and publisher” name.

  279. 279
    Norman Hadley

    Hi Mike (273)
    Your question is indeed amusing but it presupposes that we only concern ourselves with state actioned disadvantages, ignoring those contingent on biology and individual sexism.
    But, even if you impose that restriction, I’d argue that child custody answers your question. State sanctioned imbalance of child care disadvantages both sexes

  280. 280
    Raging Bee

    Thanks you. ‘Well regulated’ capitalism isn’t an ‘alternative’ to capitalism, it’s only a form of it.

    Really? Then why do people like you always scream “SOCIALISM!!!” every time someone proposes any kind of regulation?

    …driving more poorly-qualified women onto major corporate board, despite the clear evidence showing that will lead to financial decline…

    Given the financial decline I’ve seen in so many male-run businesses, big and small, I find that assertion extremely hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe that the men whose ignorant and/or shortsighted decisions caused their corporations’ decline just found another excuse to scapegoat women and/or government for their own failures.

  281. 281
    Dean Esmay

    @carnation – Ah. You mean http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHappyMisogynist – hadn’t noticed that, but, YouTube won’t let you change the URL I guess. In any case, Paul isn’t ashamed he ever went by “The Happy Misogynist” and he shouldn’t be. It was clearly explained on the channel and in multiple places to anyone open-minded enough to ask or take a few minutes to look to find out what he meant by it.

    It’d be nice if you say something like “Oh, I can see what you mean about how guys are often called misogynists when they don’t deserve it” even if you don’t agree with it. It’s something that matches my lived experiences: treating women like fully functioning intelligent and mature adults who should be expected to act like same frequently gets you tarred these days as a misogynist. That’s been my lived experience many times over the last 20 years. Maybe not yours. [shrug]

  282. 282
    Raging Bee

    One more thing, Mike: you may not have noticed this, but the “financial decline” you’re complaining about didn’t just happen in countries that force women onto corporate boards. It’s happening all over the fucking planet. And that’s just one more thing making your bullshit all the more laughable. You really don’t have a clue, do you?

  283. 283
    carnation

    I am against Cathy Brennan’s doxxing of those she deems enemies. In fact, I am against Cathy Brennan, period.

    I sm aware of no other feminist doxxing, except that of violentacres, which I was also opposed to but which arguably wasn’t a gender politics issue. The only gender politics blogs I am aware of doxxing are yours and Brennan’s.

    I will acknowledge the woman, a college student, wasn’t doxxed for that alone, but I suspect it informed the decision and certainly was mentioned in the follow up posts on your site.

    Reporting something in the knowledge that they will recieve online abuse is facilitating that abuse. I don’t believe that you placed them in physical danger, and I don’t believe That was the intention (a silly notion IMO), but you and whoever took the decision to doxx did so knowing what would follow.

    That isn’t horseshit, that is reality.

    Your last few lines were standard MRA/MHRA obfuscation. People shouldbe treated as equals, for better or worse.

  284. 284
    Dean Esmay

    @carnation – You cannot “doxx” someone who’s already put their own information out there publicly. All we did was note her Twitter account, her name already on it, and reprint things she tweeted herself not only bragging about vandalism and slander, but urging others to do the same. That is really what happened. And we reported on it, honestly. The only obfuscation going on here is your mis-statements about what happened.

    We make no apology for it. I make no apology for it. I’m proud of it. What this girl did was criminal, not to mention viciously bigoted and hateful (not to mention slanderously dishonest) and had she been a boy I fully believe most people would not have said “boo” to us for saying “Here’s this girl’s Twitter account and here’s what she said on it,” including her bragging and putting up pictures of her own vandalism work and urging others to do the same.

    So basically, we are faced here with two possibilities: 1) You are lying, or 2) You didn’t do basic due diligence before making your allegations. Which one is it?

    In any case, as for you being “unaware” of feminists doing any doxxing: actually Paul Elam and John Hembling were both doxxed very publicly, and for real: information that they had not publicly released on themselves was released, in great detail, including things in John’s case like where he worked with urges that people contact his employer and try to get him fired. That’s far more than just saying “here’s his Twitter account and here’s what he put on it,” that’s putting out his name, address, place of employment, and more. That was done by feminists who didn’t like what he had to say. But all we do is copy and paste screen shots of a girl’s Twitter account, and we’re doxxing and harassing? Pull the other one. (Although you’re running out of them I think.)

    By the way, more feminist doxxing:

    http://jezebel.com/5958993/racist-teens-forced-to-answer-for-tweets-about-the-nigger-president

    From my perspective, what they did here was no different at all from what we did… except they gave out more information than we did, and actually went so far as to directly contact the school principals. I also notice them making excuses for the girls but not the boys.

    Do I condemn them for it? No. They reported what was on those kids’ twitter feeds honestly. Was it an overreaction? Meh, I dunno, kids are stupid. But in any case, Jezebel gave out more information on than we did on those women, urged people to do more than we ever told anyone to do, and oh, THOSE were minor children whereas the persons we identified were adults.

    So let’s just say your outrage seems selective, especially considering that you misreport what we actually did.

  285. 285
    carnation

    @ Dean Esmay

    On a train and lost what I was about to post but will summarise before bowing out, busy evening ahead of ne.

    Doxxing is wrong, when your site does it, when Cathy Brennan does it snd when Jezebel does it.

    Other reasons were stated as to why the misandry tattoo woman was doxed but that certainly featured in the follow up blog posts. Happy to concede your rebuttal (and won’t rely so much on memory).

    Your site doxxes knowing harrassment will follow. Not physical danger, but online harrassment. That is not horseshit it is reality. You can dance round it but your site doxxes people and then they arr harrassed.

    Your nonsense about me objecting or not to male doxxing victims is immature conjecture on your part, and standard mra rebuttal. I thought you could do better.

    Finally, thanks for your time and I look forward to seeing this ungold when I get home.

    PS all typos my own… Blame busy trains and Android opersting systems.

  286. 286
    Dean Esmay

    I should have put “doxxing” in quotes as I don’t think Jezebel doxxed those High School kids, any more than we “doxxed” a college woman (we should stop calling her a girl I think, she was and is a legal adult) by showing screen shots of her public twitter page.

    Real “doxxing” is what multiple MHRAs of my acquaintances have been put through: having their names, addresses, phone numbers, and places of employment put online for the explicit purposes of getting them fired for their jobs. This has happened to multiple men I know. If you weren’t aware of it, now you are.

    But you’re never going to get me to agree that publicly posting screen shots of someone’s twitter feed is “doxxing.” Get bent. All this is is, once again, expecting greater protection and privilege for women than men.

  287. 287
    carnation

    Oops… Apologies for double posts.

    How about the two Canadians a few weeks ago? How about the Swedish film-makers? How about “Big Red”? How about the American blogger who apologised for her erronous remarks about the gender composition of pedophiles but remsins on registerher?

    Proud of them?

  288. 288
    Dean Esmay

    @carnation:

    1) What two Canadians two weeks ago? I sincerely hope you aren’t talking about the two “Bash Back” twits who (A) publicly announced their names and that they were coming and (B) were on camera acting like idiots.

    2) Are you referring to identifying filmmakers who were glorifying torture and murder? I’m not sure we were the first to identify them but I wouldn’t apologize for it if we were.

    3) What about “Big Red?” We never put anything out on her, not even her pseudonym let alone her real name, except what she herself said and did on camera in front of a hundred witnesses with a dozen cameras rolling and in plain sight right in front of her, with full knowledge she was being filmed over a period of at least a half hour. I’m sorry, at what point do you realize the sheer absurdity of what you’re saying? It appears to boil down to this: “This person is female, and you put them on camera and showed what they did in public, that’s evil!” Can you grasp at straws more desperately? We even refused to identify her as “Chanty Binx” (her online handle) until others had revealed her handle in multiple places, and beyond that we’ve never put out any info on her at all. Because she didn’t do anything criminal, she didn’t do anything threatening, she didn’t try to stop anyone from entering a building, she didn’t do anything but act like a verbally abusive loon. And multiple people, including people who are anti-MRA, put her on YouTube. And so that makes us responsible for… what?

    4) Don’t know about this blogger on gender composition you’re referring to, there are literally hundreds of people on Register-Her (and contrary to widespread misreporting, only a tiny fraction are college women, but whatever). Everything on there is public information. If there’s a specific case you feel is erroneous, has bad information, is missing something important, bring it to our attention. For the record, while I think the point of Reigster-Her is a valid one (sex offender registries are a horrible thing that target men over women and the widespread misperception that women are rarely violent needs to be challenged), a case can be made that register-her is counterproductive and we periodically think about taking it offline–until we get questions from people who mischaracterize the site’s content and make it clear they haven’t actually look at it and are just offended that anyone would at any time anywhere put up information that is negative about anyone of the female persuasion. Then I think we need to keep it up, because if that’s the reaction to putting out truthful and easily-verified public information then this is growing to be a very frightening world indeed.

  289. 289
    JT

    @carnation

    Consequences. I tell my kids all the time. Be aware of the consequences of your actions. It may not come back the way you give it out but many times it comes back. Painful lessons for sure.

  290. 290
    Raging Bee

    As for “facilitating threats and abuse online” – oh what a pile of horseshit. Identifying someone who publicly identifies themselves and confesses to–brags about–criminal behavior is called reporting.

    First, calling it “reporting” doesn’t insulate you from accountability: a reporter can be held liable for publishing PII that can be used to locate and possibly harass someone.

    And second, what “criminal behavior” are you talking about here? If you’re really responding to criminal acts, then you should be going to the police, and not just publishing location information to the public.

    Further, your statement that we ever doxxed any young woman for wanting to have “misandry” tattooed on our knuckles is a slanderous fabrication.

    That’s pretty rich coming from an MRA — that lot can’t even hear a name like “Rebecca Watson” without reacting with a volcanic gush of slanderous fabrications.

  291. 291
    Raging Bee

    Oh, and speaking of “slanderous fabrication”…

    …and radfems were continuing to run women’s or gender studies programs, putting into place misandrist policies in government and academia, and doing things like endorsing euthenasia of males.

    Citation required, Esmay, or admit you’re the one doing the fabricating.

  292. 292
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    “One more thing, Mike: you may not have noticed this, but the “financial decline” you’re complaining about didn’t just happen in countries that force women onto corporate boards. It’s happening all over the fucking planet. And that’s just one more thing making your bullshit all the more laughable. You really don’t have a clue, do you?”

    Back on the PC after an hour or two away. There’s no reason to think that had there been more women at the top of major businesses, things would have turned out any better. You’re uttering a discredited (and as always, self-serving) feminist fantasy.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but the available evidence contradicts your assertion. How can I say this so confidently? Because for many years it was claimed that companies could expect their financial performance to improve as and when they appointed more women to their boards. Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com has shown such claims to be baseless. Indeed the only evidence of a causal link of which we’re aware – because the link is proven by numerous longitudinal studies – is that when more women are appointed to corporate boards, financial performance DECLINES. Our short briefing paper on the matter, with the studies’ Abstracts:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

    Even the most renowned academic proponent of more women on boards in the world, Professor Susan Vinnicombe of the Cranfield International Centre for Women Leaders (which she launched in 1999 and still leads) admitted – to a House of Lords inquiry – that she has no evidence of a causal link between more women on boards and improved financial performance, and neither does Catalyst, the leading campaigning group in this area globally:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/a-remarkable-statement-by-a-leading-proponent-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-the-boardroom/

    We’ve publicly challenged government, the CBI, dozens of organisations driving the ‘women in boardrooms’ agenda, and they’ve collectively come up with no evidence of a positive causal link. A very small selection of those challenges:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms/

    So, two questions:

    1. Are you (alone or with the help of others) able to refute the longitudinal studies in our briefing paper, or provide any longitudinal studies showing a positive causal link? How long would you like before you admit you can’t refute them, or show a positive causal link?

    2. If not, and given the evidence that more women on boards leads to declines in corporate financial performance, is that a price worth paying to advance more women onto boards? And if so, would you say the same for other ‘under-represented’ groups? Black people? One-legged people? Welsh people? Short people? Stupid people?

    Have a nice day.

  293. 293
    mildlymagnificent

    no evidence of a causal link between more women on boards and improved financial performance, and neither does Catalyst, the leading campaigning group in this area globally:

    Maybe not causal but certainly correlational.

    http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/09/julie-collins/how-make-more-money-put-women-board/

    Coupla quotes

    …US research by the non-profit Catalyst organisation.

    It found companies with high numbers of women board directors outperformed those with the least by 53 per cent on return on equity, by 42 per cent on return on sales and by 66 per cent on return on invested capital.

    In Australia in October 2011, the Reibey Institute found ASX500 companies with women directors delivered significantly higher return on equity – 6.7 per cent higher over three years and 8.7 per cent higher over five years.

    Of course other factors may have helped companies with women directors outperform those without them.
    Perhaps those companies are more innovative in other ways, too.

    And perhaps they’re concentrated in sectors that outperform old industries that have failed to adapt to economic change on several fronts.

    But it is hard to argue that the intersection of top performing companies with companies governed in part by women is coincidence alone.

  294. 294
    Raging Bee

    There’s no reason to think that had there been more women at the top of major businesses, things would have turned out any better.

    You’re moving the goalposts.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but the available evidence contradicts your assertion….

    What, the recession only happened in countries that forced corporations to bring on more women? Companies run entirely by men suffered no financial declines?

    I notice, Mike, that you never once mention the specific time period in which these declines in financial performance that you atribute to women take place. That’s kind of an important factor, especially given that there’s currently a global recession on, which means LOTS of possible reasons for any given company’s financial decline. Apparently these quotas you’re complaining about went into effect around 2003, and from then to now, we had this economic collapse thingy — which kinda strongly implies that those companies’ performance would have declined in any case, women or no women.

    Also, the page you cite led off with a quote from Margaret Thatcher, which very strongly implies a partisan bias — as does the often belligerent tone taken by people who are supposed to be conducting an unbiased study.

  295. 295
    Tamen

    I think perhaps Dean Esmay was thinking of Mary Daly, who in addition to her transphobia refused to allow male students in her advanced women’s studies classes and who answered:

    If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.

    to the question about what she thought of the following statement from Sally Miller Gearhart (another professor of Women’s studies)

    Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article “The Future — If There Is One — Is Female” writes:
    “At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world.
    1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future.
    2)Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
    3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human
    race.”

    What do you think about this statement?

    Source: http://ressourcesfeministes.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/no-mans-land-interview-of-mary-daly-by-susan-bridle.pdf

    Although if you actually locate and read Gearhart’s essay you’ll see that she doesn’t promote euthanasia of men, but rather using eugenics to achieve the goal. Morally the difference is small in my view:

    A 75 percent female to 25 percent male ratio could be achieved in one generation if one half of a population reproduced heterosexually and one half by ovular merging,

    Such a prospect is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons, no amount of love and care and nonsexist training will save those sons from a culture where male violence is institutionalized and revered. These women are saying, ‘No more sons. We will not spend twenty years of our lives raising a potential rapist, a potential batterer, a potential Big Man.’

    Given the writing of Sally Miller Gearhart where she advocates for a 90% reduction of the number of men and the maintenance of that level I found it quite galling that she calls herself a human rights activist on her homepage. Eugenics and human right’s are not compatible in my view.

  296. 296
    Raging Bee

    I’m looking at Mike’s organization, the Campaign for Merit in Business, and it appears to be nothing more than a single-issue lobbying group with very little presence, consisting mainly of hardline Thatcherites trying to bash women and government for their country’s economic troubles, rather than admit that unregulated private business isn’t as wunnerful as their former Tory Goddess assured them it was.

  297. 297
    Mike Buchanan

    @ mildlymagnificent

    Thank you. I recommend you spend some time on http://c4mb.wordpress.com before engaging in this particular area. Every study of which we’re aware (and we’ve been working on this for 17 months so far) states very clearly that correlation is no evidence of causation, indeed it doesn’t even IMPLY it. Elementary statistics. The Catalyst report you cite has this:

    “Catalyst designed the Bottom Line report series to establish whether an empirical link exists between gender diversity in corporate leadership and financial performance. These studies have examined historical data and revealed statistically significant correlations. The studies do not, however, establish or imply causal connections.”

    We publicly challenged Ilene Lang, the CEO/President of Catalyst on the issue (link below).

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/our-public-challenge-of-ilene-lang-president-and-ceo-of-catalyst-an-american-organisation-campaigning-for-increased-female-representation-in-boardrooms/

    We first made the challenge a year ago, and have repeated it twice since. She hasn’t responded, and nor did any of the other people to whom we’ve made the same (or similar) challenge in this area. A very small selection of those challenges here (the most recent was Janet Street-Porter):

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms/

    So, any evidence of a causal link? Given that nobody in the world has such evidence, don’t feel to bad that you won’t be able to find it either. So, what will raging bee have to say on the matter?

  298. 298
    Raging Bee

    Tamen: you quoted one feminist speculating about an evolutionary process that might reduce the proportion of males in the population; then you quote another mentioning a process of preventing the birth of males. NEITHER of those equates to “euthenasia,” which is the actual killing of an already-born person. Esmay’s allegation is a fucking lie (already repeatedly debunked), and your lame attempt to equate birth-control with genocide doesn’t make it any less so.

  299. 299
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    “I notice, Mike, that you never once mention the specific time period in which these declines in financial performance that you attribute to women take place.”

    You appear not to understand the nature of longitudinal studies. Over the given time period there’s a causal link between appointing more women to boards, and financial decline. Companies which appointed more women to their boards did worse (financially) than companies which didn’t. Read the abstracts in our briefing paper. 3-4 pages, it won’t take more than 10 minutes. The studies cover organisations in Norway, Germany and the US.

    Feminist ‘researchers’ have been looking for decades for a positive causal link, and they’ve never found one. Why not? For the same reason nobody’s ever photographed the Easter Bunny.

    So are you going to argue rationally, or emotionally?

  300. 300
    Dean Esmay

    @Raging Bee

    Reporting what someone does in a truthful and accurate manner–which is what we did–is called freedom of the press. What kind of “accountability” do you expect reporters to have for reporting factual material, precisely?

    Should people who commit despicable and criminal acts be immune from having it reported, or from being criticized?

    As for what criminal behavior: maybe if you’d bothered to read the report rather than just relying on what you heard about it, you’d know what we’re talking about. Here it is.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/who-is-emma-claire-and-why-is-she-so-hateful/

    If you believe there was any misreporting there, let me know what it is.

    And my name is not “MRA.” My name is Dean Esmay, and I’m Managing Editor of A Voice for Men, a Men’s Human Rights Activist, and proud, and if there is something I and my publication have done that you can point to which is misreporting or slanderous of this person, please let me know. Otherwise, I think the problem here is yours, not ours. Rebecca Watson is not part of this discussion, nor have I written much of anything about her that I can recall, and from what I’ve seen MOST of the criticism she got was from non-MRAs. But this is STILL a change of subject. Why don’t you read our reporting on Emma Claire and you tell me what we did wrong or how we incited anyone to do anything in that report.

  301. 301
    Raging Bee

    What time period, Mike? You keep on posting links, but you never answer this very simple question: WHEN did the companies in question suffer declines in finacial performance? I’m not asking for a dissertation here, just a range of years. That shouldn’t be too hard, should it?

  302. 302
    Dean Esmay

    @Raging Bee: You want a citation for what? Funding of women’s studies departments? Specific misandrist policies by governments? Or, you mean, radfems supporting all sorts of horrible crap? If that’s what you mean, here, have some fun with the Agent Orange Files:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/radfem-hub-the-underbelly-of-a-hate-movement/

    There’s what a real hate movement looks like. I suppose next that will be called “doxxing” and it will be said it’s unfair of us to publish what these people wrote and said too. Just how far does this “never reprint anything any woman said on any forum wrote or it’s misogyny and harassment” thing go?

    The whole notion that these people are strengthened by AVfM reporting on them and opposing them is ludicrous. Indeed, I hope you will join me in condemning these people who actually do advocate murder and mutilation and more, instead of the ludicrous, misandrist assumption that just because a group of men identify bad behavior by women, those women are somehow under threat. (I am tempted to observe that men are far more likely to be victims of violence than women, because we are, but I guess that would be more “MRA Whining.”)

  303. 303
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    “I’m looking at Mike’s organization, the Campaign for Merit in Business, and it appears to be nothing more than a single-issue lobbying group with very little presence, consisting mainly of hardline Thatcherites trying to bash women and government for their country’s economic troubles, rather than admit that unregulated private business isn’t as wunnerful as their former Tory Goddess assured them it was.”

    Please point me to where we’re ‘trying to bash women’. We’re doing nothing of the sort. Never have, don’t now, and never will.

    So, you’ve dismissed 17 months of material in a matter of minutes. Not impressive, to say the least.

    I repeat my question, should companies appoint more women to their boards, even if one consequence is corporate financial decline? Simple question. Do you have a simpler answer?

  304. 304
    Raging Bee

    Esmay, after repeating that long-debunked lie about feminists advocating the extermination of men, you really don’t have enough credibility left to tell us what to read — especially when you cite the repeatedly-debunked AVfM as a source. Go to bed, boy, this is a grownup conversation.

  305. 305
    Raging Bee

    And I repeat my question, Mike: what time period did this decline in certain companies’ performance take place?

  306. 306
    Raging Bee

    @Raging Bee: You want a citation for what? Funding of women’s studies departments? Specific misandrist policies by governments? Or, you mean, radfems supporting all sorts of horrible crap?

    Um, no, I want a citation of the accusation that I directly quoted. It’s still up there, go back and read it if you’re unclear on what I was asking for.

  307. 307
    Dean Esmay

    @Raging Bee “Esmay’s allegation is a fucking lie…

    Which allegation was that?

  308. 308
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    Wow, you’re quite the entitlement princess, aren’t you? I’m amazed Dean Esmay has been willing to spend as much time responding to you as he has. The answer to your question lies here, as it did before:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

  309. 309
    Dean Esmay

    @Raging Bee

    I am still confused. So here’s what I saw:

    “…and radfems were continuing to run women’s or gender studies programs, putting into place misandrist policies in government and academia, and doing things like endorsing euthenasia of males.

    Citation required, Esmay, or admit you’re the one doing the fabricating.”

    There are three assertions that I see there. I’m asking you which one of those three you want a citation for.

    I’m assuming you meant endorsing euthenasia. Well I think evidence has been given for that already, although if you want to say it’s just stuff that skirts the line that advocates some sort of genetic modification, selective abortion, etc. and so that’s not technically euthenasia, OK, what’s a better word for trying to eliminate most of the male population? Mary Daly’s not the only one to advocate that of course, hell, I personally know a woman now who advocates that. I’m not afraid they’ll get their way any time soon, but I don’t see how you get around acknowledging that these are people actually advocating awful things that I’m sure we’d both condemn, no?

  310. 310
    Raging Bee

    Mike, I already looked at the page you cite (again), and there’s no range of years. YOU ARE BLUFFING. Why can’t you tell us the specific period in which the decline in performance took place?

    Also, I notice that quote from thatcher says: “… we want to have women because they are able and as well-equipped as men, and sometimes better.” In your opinion, do the “longitudinal studies” you cite prove Thatcher was wrong?

  311. 311
    BecomingJulie

    3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.”

    Let’s run with this awhile, I find it fascinating.

    Assume that some device or drug is invented that functions as a sex-selective contraceptive, inhibiting the production of male embryos. Now, once such a thing become available, no already-living man or boy need die of anything besides old age, but neither will they be replaced at as fast a rate.

    The question is: Is the eventual benefit to all posterity of a reduced male population greater than the cost to the few generations during which the change is happening?

  312. 312
    Raging Bee

    I’m assuming you meant endorsing euthenasia. Well I think evidence has been given for that already…

    …and it’s been debunked. Again. And now you’re waffling and fudging and trying to pretend that what TWO count ‘em TWO feminists actually said is equivalent to something totally different. You’re a fucking bigoted liar and you know it.

  313. 313
    Raging Bee

    Let’s run with this awhile, I find it fascinating.

    You can run with it in any direction you want — prefereably to a place where people actually advocate such a policy. That place is not here, if you get my drift.

  314. 314
    Mike Buchanan

    @ BecomingJulie

    Two or three generations of a male population <10%, and we'd all be living in caves again. The modern world, which has given so much to women, is a creation of men, and it's sustained by men, often at the cost of their lives.

  315. 315
    Raging Bee

    Uh, Mike, according to one of Margaret Thatcher’s greatest friends, Ronald Reagan, it was WOMEN who got our species OUT of the caves. Now you’re saying too many women will put us back IN the caves? You Tory chauvanists really need to get your patronizing cliches straight.

    Oh, and where’s that range of years I asked for? Simple question, should have a simple answer.

  316. 316
    JT

    The modern world, which has given so much to women, is a creation of men, and it’s sustained by men, often at the cost of their lives.(Mike)

    Come on Mike, dont go overboard. The modern would is a creation of both Men AND Women.

  317. 317
    BecomingJulie

    @ Mike,

    You think that we would be “living in caves” post-demasculinisation. What specific bits of civilisation are you thinking of that so desperately require men, and only men, to happen?

  318. 318
    JT

    @Bee

    I see youre Buzzing again. ;)
    You brought the crackers I hope?

  319. 319
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    Do you think angry women are attracted to feminism, or is it feminism that makes them angry? I’m inclined to think both, it’s a vicious circle. Maybe therapy, or anger management classes, would be a healthier approach, rather than spending your time attacking men?

    The anger you’ve displayed towards Dean Esmay and myself this evening has been almost pathological, yet we respond politely. Are you unable to engage in rational exchanges with MHRAs? If so, I’ll stop wasting my time trying to engage with you. Please let me know, either way.

    Campaign for Merit in Business, which I lead, has been working hard for 17 months, while you’re unwilling to spend a few minutes opening the links we’ve provided to five studies, where the answers to your ‘time period’ question will become clear. Shouldn’t take you more than 10-15 minutes. If you won’t do this, ‘entitlement princess’ doesn’t start to describe you.

    Now, please forgive me, but Petronella insists I take our increasingly grumpy Doberman, Harriet Harman, for a walk.

  320. 320
    Raging Bee

    Julie: I believe a Sylvia comic strip already dealt with this speculative enterprise: “Imagine a world without men: no crime and lots of happy fat women.”

  321. 321
    Mike Buchanan

    @ BecomingJulie

    Building of infrastructure, house construction… Haven’t ever seen a woman building a house, or even contributing to the effort. Doubtless men are holding women back from backbreaking work in all weather conditions, just like we reserve for ourselves the occupations that accounted for 126 of 128 people who died in work-related incidents in the UK last year being men. Why, that patriarchy!!!

  322. 322
    Tamen

    Raging Bee @298:

    NEITHER of those equates to “euthenasia,” which is the actual killing of an already-born person.

    Which I stated:

    Although if you actually locate and read Gearhart’s essay you’ll see that she doesn’t promote euthanasia of men, but rather using eugenics to achieve the goal.

    You go on to say:

    your lame attempt to equate birth-control with genocide doesn’t make it any less so.

    So eugenics is just a matter of birth-control to you?

  323. 323
    mildlymagnificent

    radfems supporting all sorts of horrible crap?

    Well, there’s a surprise. A very small group within the big tent of feminism propounds views that are rejected by the huge majority of self-described feminists and all but a rare nutter in the population at large.

    Mad as a box of frogs would be my judgment of practically everything I’ve ever heard from them. And I might add that many feminists despise them if they don’t dismiss them as irrelevant. Seeing as fair average quality feminists have normal/ friendly/ loving relationships with plenty of men (and often is the mother of sons, aunt of nephews and so on) and no desire to see any of them harmed, they tend to snarl with rage when they see downright ludicrous proposals coming from these moral pygmies.

    In fact, for those of us with a wide reading background in philosophy and theology, their silly analyses and vicious remedies for social ills look all too much like the ghastly pronouncements about valueless / reprehensible / disgusting women that came from the vitriolic pens of Augustine and Luther and their ilk.

    The best thing the rest of the world can do is to hope the locks on their clubhouse door keep them away from reasonable people.

  324. 324
    mildlymagnificent

    Haven’t ever seen a woman building a house, or even contributing to the effort.

    What’s wrong with your eyes?

    This sounds all too much like a prim maiden lady from fiction casting her eyes downwards to avoid confronting her dainty sensibilities with the vulgar realities of farmyard life.

  325. 325
    Raging Bee

    Do you think angry women are attracted to feminism, or is it feminism that makes them angry?

    I dunno, you should ask a woman. But given what I’ve heard, I’d say that a) not all angry woman are feminists, and b) it’s pretty fucking obvious that many (if not most) of those women have good reasons to be angry — reasons that weren’t actually created by feminists.

    The anger you’ve displayed towards Dean Esmay and myself this evening has been almost pathological, yet we respond politely.

    Yes, you spout bullshit in polite tones, and then call others “pathological” when we call you out on it. That’s standard con-artist behavior.

    Are you unable to engage in rational exchanges with MHRAs?

    Well, yeah, when you say something that’s bogus, I question it and wait (and wait and wait and wait…) for an answer. That’s the rational way to respond to bogosity, innit? What am I supposed to do, have FAITH?

    …you’re unwilling to spend a few minutes opening the links we’ve provided to five studies, where the answers to your ‘time period’ question will become clear.

    You’re the one making the claim, you’re the one bragging about all the evidence you have, so it’s YOUR job to back up YOUR claims. It’s not my job to do your research for you. And the fact that you’re refusing to answer a central question about YOUR thesis strongly implies that you’re trying to hide a fatal weakness in it.

    Bluff: called.

  326. 326
    JT

    @Bee

    Well it seems an angry man was attracted to feminism or did you get this way after? lmao.

  327. 327
    Raging Bee

    Building of infrastructure, house construction… Haven’t ever seen a woman building a house, or even contributing to the effort.

    Okay, Mike just won the Upper-Class Twit of the Year Award. Seriously? You’ve NEVER seen a woman lifting anything heavy?! Whatever gated “community” you’re living in must make mine look like a ghetto.

  328. 328
    carnation

    @ Dean Esmay

    1) “What two Canadians two weeks ago?”

    My mistake, it was three Canadians, and it was Men’s Rights Edmonton that are/were looking for their personal information. Their “offense”? Defacing posters.

    2) “Are you referring to identifying filmmakers who were glorifying torture and murder? I’m not sure we were the first to identify them but I wouldn’t apologize for it if we were.”

    No, I’m talking about the Swedish students who adapted a controversial satire into a dramatisation and then made a trailer which was put on Youtube.

    The site which you edit offered $1,000 for anyone who could give you “Full legal names, home addresses, places of employment, email addresses and contact phone numbers of the women and man who produced and starred in the video described above.”

    And this, from AVfM:

    “Some individuals may criticize the intent to publish not only names, but also addresses, phone numbers, employers and other personal information – on the grounds that such exposure create a risk of retributive violence against individuals who openly advocate murder based on sex. It is the considered position of the editorial board of AVfM that any such risks are out-weighed by the ongoing hazard to the public of these individuals continuing to operate in anonymity.”

    Of course, as is obvious to the vast majority of people, they did not “openly advocate for murder” – this, then, very much make the entire episode sordid in the extreme.
    You cannot actually believe that easily identifiable students putting on a stage production “openly advocate murder” – do you?

    3) “This person is female, and you put them on camera and showed what they did in public, that’s evil!”
    This is your own immersion in MRA theory showing. I have previously stated that I disagreed with Violentacres being doxxed. Why on earth do you keep repeating this refrain? It is ridiculous.
    4) “Don’t know about this blogger on gender composition you’re referring to, there are literally hundreds of people on Register-Her (and contrary to widespread misreporting, only a tiny fraction are college women, but whatever”

    It is the “bigot” offender where college students are overrepresented. And, ridiculously, Katherine Heigal.

    David Futrelle discovered a case of your blog doxxing a woman incorrectly.
    http://manboobz.com/2013/04/19/lazy-libel-a-voice-for-men-doxes-an-alleged-misandrist-blogger-and-ids-the-wrong-woman/

    Regarding RadFemHub and the Agent Orange files. Offensive for sure, but evidence of an actual plan for gendercide and euthanasia? Not at all.

    About as much a plan as Anthony Zarat’s suggesting to split the US in two, men on one side, women on the other.

    Regarding the effectiveness of MRAs/MHRAs, like I said, it’s obvious to anyone that feminists who have actually noticed the MRM will have redoubled their commitment to their cause. Because yours is a movement that gauges its importance in unique hits, you will always think you are more important that you are. Trans activists have created disruption and disharmony within feminism (and good on them for doing so) on a scale that the MRM will never be able to.

    And there’s also the extremely significant point, of course, that “feminism” hasn’t been responsible for the great majority of challenges faced by men and boys in today’s society, as pointed out better than I can by Ally Fogg in the OP.

    Dean, thanks for the replies, genuinely appreciated. Thus far, for the most part, and due mainly to Mike Buchanan’s politesse and the Hetpat first directive, this discussion has been engaging and well mannered. I disagree with virtually everything that you have to say but admire your fortitude in replying and you’re frickin’ hard to pin down.

    I think I’m going to catch up on Homeland and see what that crazy b!tch Carrie Mathison is doing to damage the CIA. I hope Saul fucks her shit up soon, else there could be problems.

  329. 329
    BecomingJulie

    @ Mike,

    Building of infrastructure, house construction… Haven’t ever seen a woman building a house, or even contributing to the effort.

    Haven’t looked very hard, then.

    Doubtless men are holding women back from backbreaking work in all weather conditions,

    As though there were no other ways e.g. power tools, temporary coverings, seasonal scheduling of work, low-maintenance, high-reliability designs that last longer meaning fewer buildings will need to be constructed overall ….. all stuff that can be worked out with a bit of forward planning

    just like we reserve for ourselves the occupations that accounted for 126 of 128 people who died in work-related incidents in the UK last year being men.

    How many of those 126 deaths were as a consequence of engaging in some testosterone-fuelled display of machismo, or other risk-taking behaviour?

  330. 330
    Raging Bee

    JT: Why blame feminism, when all the halfwitted lies that make me angry come from ANTI-feminists?

  331. 331
    JT

    Bee

    You sure get angry easy.

  332. 332
    Mike Buchanan

    @ BecomingJulie

    “How many of those 126 deaths were as a consequence of engaging in some testosterone-fuelled display of machismo, or other risk-taking behaviour?”

    Wow. Let’s kick these men’s corpses while they’re still warm, shall we? These men overwhelmingly worked in lines of work, often poorly paid, in dangerous conditions, which the overwhelming majority of women wouldn’t touch with a bargepole. In ‘Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism’ Swayne O’Pie points to research showing that of the 20 top ‘glass cellar’ jobs – those characterised by risk to life and limb, exposure to the elements year-round, poor wages etc. – men were the overwhelming majority of employees in 19 of them. Where are the feminist (or government) campaigns to get more women into deep-sea fishing, sewage work, forestry, agriculture, mining….? Ha.

  333. 333
    123454321

    I was out and about today and it dawned on me just how instrumental men are when it comes to building, remodelling and evolving our entire environment. Whether it be creating new hospitals, building housing, improving our road and rail infrastructure or building bridges they are right there at the forefront. Perhaps it’s merely laying tarmac, fixing leaking pipes, climbing pylons, cutting down trees, shaping timber, mining for oil, delivering sand or laying bricks. Regardless, if I wasn’t mistaken on my travels today, the World we live in and enjoy today is a direct result of men’s determination and unparalleled selflessness. Men have sacrificed themselves from way back before the history books even began. They have shaped the World we live in and continue to risk life and limb progressing toward a brighter future for all. Real power is in self-sacrifice so I wonder why we don’t hear the feminist hypocrites wanting a nice tasty slice of that party cake!

  334. 334
    BecomingJulie

    @ Mike,
    We can scratch deep-sea fishing off the list of jobs straight away. If you don’t eat fish, you don’t need to catch them. For those who really need an occasional seafood treat, small, local fishing operations making limited catches close to shore would have the benefit of all safety lessons learned to date in worse conditions. So a much-reduced fishing industry would also be much safer.

    Forestry ….. Some of it could be eliminated by switching process feedstocks. For instance, manufacturing paper from hemp instead of softwood. Trees for fuel and industrial cellulose production don’t need to be grown to anything like the size of trees for constructional timber. We can reduce our reliance on timber for construction anyway by using longer-lived artificial materials. There would undoubtedly be some women physically suited to the jobs that remained (otherwise, they could be taken on by some of the remaining men).

    Other industries could be robotised. There’s no need to send people to do jobs that a machine could do. Why aren’t we inventing robots that can be sent down mines instead of people? That would be a way to save men’s lives, right now.

  335. 335
    Dani Wells

    @260 Dean Esmay

    I’ve already made the video and we can’t send vid responses any more. The fact is, I’ve offered to debate her publicly several times and she tucks tail and runs. AKA In your rhetoric you would be ‘white knighting’ her. Simple enough it is.

  336. 336
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Dani Wells

    Dean Esmay invited you to debate with GWW and you declined because “I’ve offered to debate her publicly several times and she tucks tail and runs.” Seriously, do you even understand how bats**t insane (my thanks to Janet Bloomfield for the term) you sound? This… is… beyond… parody. Honestly, I laughed out loud when I read what you’d written. Priceless. Simply priceless.

  337. 337
    mildlymagnificent

    Men have sacrificed themselves from way back before the history books even began.

    Less admirably, they’ve sacrificed each other.

    When you look at some of the arguments around getting women and children out of mining in the 19th and early 20th century, it was all about this being degrading, demanding, dangerous work. (Though some of the objections were just prissy. It was horrifying that women working underground stripped to the waist, just like the men, because of the heat.) Did the men who eventually decided that this work was too demanding or dangerous for women stop to consider whether it was too demanding or dangerous for men? Did they think that perhaps they should try to make the workplace a bit less dangerous or less demanding to improve things for all workers? Not a chance.

    Look at construction. Remember all those old pictures of blokes “riding” steel beams suspended from cranes? They were still doing this long after walkie talkies were widely available so that crane drivers and construction workers could better coordinate actions. It was the men running the companies who did or, more often, didn’t supply the best available equipment and it was the men on the job who took empty pride in taking unreasonable risks rather than a little more time and care to protect themselves and their workmates.

    When my husband was working as an underground miner, not only was he the only person wearing earmuffs, the rest of the crews thought he was a bit of a sissy for doing so. There were enough pairs of earmuffs for every single worker. Why, you might ask, was he concerned when others weren’t? Because he knew the hearing in his left ear was already damaged … by driving an unmuffled tractor when working on his parents property. Another question. Why did it take so long for tractors and similar equipment to be fitted with mufflers when they’d been standard for trucks since forever? Because the men who made them and the men who bought them didn’t think it was important enough to protect themselves and their customers by putting in a few extra dollars, that’s why.

  338. 338
    bugmaster

    @Lucy #242:

    This is going to sound quite harsh, but I don’t know how to say it more politely. I mean you personally no disrespect, but I do believe that an attitude like yours contributes, in part, to the lack of women in science and engineering:

    I think men, particularly those with a scientific bent have, for want of a better word, autistic tendencies. They tend to break the material world down into its component parts and remove it from its context. I think women have the opposite tendency. I think this would have very interesting outcomes both for scientific discovery, and also scientific application. I think a female Newton wouldn’t have been looking at the laws of motion.

    Let me ask you a question. Let’s say I throw a ball straight up toward the sky, on the surface of our Moon. The ball weighs exactly 1 kilogram (or as close as we can measure, anyway), and I am an athletic prodigy who can throw it straight up at exactly 1 m/s (ditto). How much time will elapse before the ball comes back down ?

    The problem with your statement is that the question above only has a single right answer (plus or minus some error bars, as per the limits of our instruments). It doesn’t matter whether you’re a man or a woman or something else, the answer won’t change. The knowledge of how to answer that question is a result of science; the ability to go to the Moon at all is a side effect of it, known as technology.

    The world we live in operates by certain rules, and these rules don’t care about who is studying them. Thus far, the best method we have for learning about these rules is the scientific method; specifically, the Bayesian inference part of it. By reinforcing this notion that women think radically differently from men, you are essentially barring women from participating in this incredibly productive field of discovery called “Science”.

    You are effectively saying, “Sorry girls, but you know how humanity had developed this powerful engine of generating progressively more accurate knowledge of the unimaginably interesting world we all live in ? Well, this engine is off-limits to you !” This is exactly the same thing that sexist men have been saying in the past (less so now): “girls can’t do math or science, don’t worry your pretty head about it”.

    I am a straight white man, and I do not agree with many of the tenets of feminism, but science is one of the few things that all of us humans have in common, regardless of gender or nationality or any other artificial barriers. In a way, I believe that the ability to do science is what makes us human in the first place, as opposed to merely being clever apes. Please stop excluding women from participating in it.

  339. 339
    bugmaster

    @Mike #303:

    Please point me to where we’re ‘trying to bash women’. We’re doing nothing of the sort. Never have, don’t now, and never will.

    FWIW, I have only learned about the existence of your site very recently, so I’m looking at it with fresh eyes. I skimmed some of the articles, and I found their attitude toward women as a whole to be decidedly unpleasant. Their attitude toward those women specifically who are your intellectual opponents can only be described as “hostile”. It doesn’t help when you say stuff like this:

    Two or three generations of a male population <10%, and we'd all be living in caves again.

    Now don’t get me wrong, the mere fact that some of the articles on your site are factually inaccurate is not, in and of itself, a problem. Everyone can be wrong; in fact, I am probably wrong most of the time. But there’s a difference between saying, “I believe X and therefore Y”, and “I believe X, therefore Y, and anyone who doesn’t believe X and Y is a creature of pure evil bent on our destruction”. I am exaggerating for effect a little bit, but I hope you see my point.

    I believe there’s a way for people to disagree while still remaining respectful. Even if your opponents are being disrespectful, I believe that one should — to use a gendered saying — strive to be the bigger man.

  340. 340
    Mike Buchanan

    @ bugmaster

    Thank you. Please point me to the articles on our websites which are ‘factually inaccurate’, and if you’re right, we’ll amend them accordingly… and swiftly. By way of evidence of our preparedness to do so, in the next day or two we’ll be amending the text in the section about abortion law reform in our public consultation document, in response to a nuanced but important point Ally Fogg made about abortion reducing the risk of mental health injury to women with unwanted pregnancies.

    I’ve lost count of the number of times people have thanked me for remaining calm and measured in the face of attacks by our critics in general, and by feminists in particular. I’m conscious that I sometimes fail to remain calm and measured because I feel so strongly about the relentless assaults on the human rights of men and boys around the world, and in the UK in particular, but I’ll try to do better in future. Others, particularly on sites such as AVfM, are far better than I in communicating the pain, anger, and sheer desperation, so many men feel today.

  341. 341
    waywardsister

    To mildlymagnificent’s point, it can also be about money. Mainly, the lack of desire to invest in proper safety equipment and training for your workers. My fella has been in several trades (framing, roofing, sheet metal etc) and not one company he worked for ever had proper safety equipment at all job sites (non-union).

    What safety equipment was there was not always used by everyone – there are some people who don’t like using harnesses, for example, or prefer to take the guard off their grinder and then slice their hand/wrist open.*

    Also… when he was in the residential construction business, he did work with some women who were framing, or roughing in, or doing other hands-on work. Just saying. They do exist! They just have to find companies who will hire them, which according to at least one woman wasn’t the easiest thing to do, but not impossible obviously.

    *Yeah, that was my fella :)

  342. 342
    Dani Wells

    Mike won’t give the dates re: his blaming of women for company failures. Telling.
    Dean just calls me a liar. Telling.

    Misogynists have no argument. None of their rhetoric is backed by research and if there is any research they inevitably misquote it to strip context. This is simply backlash that Morgan wrote about over 20 years ago. We all knew it was coming and here it is. This is the group of angry men who have failed to adapt to our world with its fast moving technology and equality of women.

    I gotta admit that I enjoy the show. The more they blame women and feminists, the more ridiculous it is. Sure men and boys have issues. Most of them are due to patriarchy. Workplace deaths due to being macho on the job and taking risks. It’s not some feminist conspiracy.

  343. 343
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Dani Wells @ raging bee

    “Mike won’t give the dates re: his blaming of women for company failures. Telling.”

    I have NEVER blamed women for company failures, and challenge you to prove otherwise in your next comment. Our briefing paper isn’t about ‘company failures’. Seriously, have you even read the Abstracts? They’re about corporate financial declines following the appointment of women to corporate boards, not ‘company failures’.

    You and raging bee can’t be bothered to read the five longitudinal studies. VERY telling.

    Over 17 months Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com has challenged the government, dozens of organisations seeking more women on boards, and hundreds of individuals, to provide evidence that more women on boards can be expected to lead to improved financial performance, and no evidence has ever been forthcoming. Telling.

    C4MB has published a briefing paper outlining the evidence that when more women are appointed to corporate boards, financial performance declines. You have yet to challenge the paper. Telling.

    “Misogynists have no argument. None of their rhetoric is backed by research and if there is any research they inevitably misquote it to strip context.”

    Here’s the research, yet again:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

    Do let me know if you feel we’ve ‘misquoted it to strip context’. Nobody has ever charged us with that, but knock yourselves out trying to be the first to do so.

    I honestly couldn’t imagine two more embarrassing advocates for women to have more senior positions in business. You’re mind-numbingly lazy, unwilling to engage with rational arguments, and resort to shaming tactics and emotional attacks at the drop of a hat. Debating with the two of you has felt like debating with two bad-tempered children. It’s little wonder Margaret Thatcher despised feminists. She believed in women getting ahead on the basis of hard work and merit. Maybe one day another woman will come along who believes the same.

  344. 344
    mildlymagnificent

    it can also be about money

    Exactly, What you do, and what you don’t, spend money on relies on your values.

    If you do value the life and health of the people who work for you, you will spend money (and time, and effort, and training) to keep them as safe as possible. (Even from themselves and their own thoughtless carelessness or braggadocio or silly horsing around.) If a job is inherently dangerous, you make sure that it’s done right or not at all – you don’t just offer danger money and let the chips fall where they may.

    If you are in charge of a work group as a foreman (or manager or leading hand or team leader) and you value the life and health of your workers, you’ll make sure they stay as safe as possible. You don’t set them “challenging” physical tasks nor impossible production or completion targets that lead to people skimping on safety or quality matters just to get the job done.

    Working 12 unbroken hours of backbreaking labour should be reserved for desperately urgent tasks like filling sandbags by a flooding river (and most of us probably won’t care if our hands are blistered and bleeding while we do it). It’s not an appropriate objective for ordinary working days.

  345. 345
    JamesY2

    C4MB has published a briefing paper outlining the evidence that when more women are appointed to corporate boards, financial performance declines. You have yet to challenge the paper. Telling.

    Just thought I’d pop by and suggest an alternate explanation I’ve heard for this: the glass cliff.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3755031.stm
    http://hbr.org/2011/01/how-women-end-up-on-the-glass-cliff
    The idea of the “glass cliff” is that a corporation is more likely to add diversity to its board when it’s already facing problems, so the increase in diversity and the problems worsening share a cause rather than one causing the other. In other words, the conclusion that “increasing diversity causes declines in financial performance” is a case of causalation.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Causalation

    Have your studies eliminated this as a possibility?

  346. 346
    Dani Wells

    What I find particularly hilarious is that Karen Straughan will never debate me. Mike here will do exactly what she does to feminists who scare her, call them batshit crazy! I knew that would happen. Nevertheless, I tried anyway. Once she found out it was me, she tucked tail.

  347. 347
    Dani Wells

    “I honestly couldn’t imagine two more embarrassing advocates for women to have more senior positions in business. You’re mind-numbingly lazy, unwilling to engage with rational arguments, and resort to shaming tactics and emotional attacks at the drop of a hat. ”

    You’ve been repeatedly told this is no causal link. You’ve been repeatedly asked what time frame you are talking about. Now you say the above.

    We know Mike. You’re just a classic misogynist. The fact that you prop up A Voice for Men and salute Paul Elam and then refuse to answer questions is typical of your lot. I’m just glad I have some popcorn to enjoy this little show.

  348. 348
    Kevin Robson

    Dani @347

    I’ve put down what I am doing to try to help you not make such a fool of yourself by continuing what comes over as just a mega childish rant that doesn’t put you in a good light I’m afraid.

    As you obviously haven’t done it for yourself, I have done the simple thing by reading and quickly extracting for you the information you are demanding from Mike Buchanan. He has patiently kept showing you where the sweetie cupboard is by directing you to it, but I have gone and got the sweeties for you to help make it all better. I’m sugaring the pill to save you from making a massive fool of yourself:

    1. In 2011 a joint study between the universities of California and Michigan in 2011 found that the quota constraint imposed on firms’ boards in Norway in 2003 caused a significant drop in the stock price at the announcement of the law and a large decline in the stock market value of the firm over the period from 2003 when the Norwegian law came into effect. This was an 8 year study. This study showed CAUSATION – over a TIME PERIOD of 8 YEARS (I am not shouting, simply helping you see the point.)

    2. In 2010, the Norwegian School of Management Oslo conclusively proved that a firm creates more value for its owners when its board of directors has low gender diversity i.e. mostly men. The time period was 2003 (as above) and 2010. This study showed CAUSATION – over a TIME PERIOD of 7 YEARS.

    3. In 2011, Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management and University of Virginia jointly studied the impact of gender quotas on corporate boards in Norway’s 2006 quota and compared them with other Scandinavian countries. They found direct correlation between lower profits and increased gender diversity. This was shown CAUSALLY to be due to the female influence on the boards leading to the selection of like minded executives who tended not to be so decisive in reducing workforce numbers when business levels couldn’t sustain them. Obviously, with decreased sales that caused and increase in relative labour costs which equally obviously meant lower profits and therefore lower firm performance for its owners, the shareholders. The CAUSATION was further underlined in those firms that had all male boards before the quotas were imposed where the reduction in profitability was more marked. This study showed CAUSATION – over a TIME PERIOD of 6 YEARS.

    4. In 2008 the London School of Economics together with the University of South Wales, this time studying a sample of US firms, found that those with increased numbers of women on their boards tended to focus more on monitoring the business than actually doing the business. A key CAUSAL finding was that increased gender diversity causes firms to have lower defences to hostile takeover. The study was over the time period 1996-2003 i.e. 7 years. This study showed CAUSATION – over a TIME PERIOD of 7 YEARS.

    5. In 2012, the University of South Carolina and Tilburg University studied German bank businesses from 1994 – 2010 i.e. 16 years. They found that boards with high female executives on them were prone to higher risk taking i.e. they put the viability of the firm at greater risk of failure. This study showed CAUSATION – over a TIME PERIOD of 16 YEARS.

    Now you have got what you have been stamping your feet over. Does that help you calm down? is there anything else I can get for you to make it all better?

  349. 349
    Kevin Robson

    @ Raging Bee

    As you seem to be pretty worked up about it, may I gently direct you to the information I have just provided to Dani about the decline in board performance due to women’s quotas? Hope it helps clarify the situation.

  350. 350
    Mike Buchanan

    @ sidhe3141

    It’s an intriguing question, but to my mind the ‘glass cliff’ is simply one of many conspiracy theories in the mould of the ‘glass ceiling’ (I wrote a whole book about the latter, ‘The Glass Ceiling Delusion’). Feminists seem able to come up with a ‘glass x’ to explain everything around why there aren’t more women on boards, and why there’s no evidence that when appointed, performance improves – which they had been confidently predicting (or at least asserting publicly) for many years. If there were any evidence for the ‘glass ceiling’ phenomenon, wouldn’t researchers have found it after several decades?

    We need to return to what we KNOW about women in the senior reaches of business. Because of women’s gender-typical orientation to the world of work – Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000) showed that only one in seven British women is ‘work-centred’, as opposed to four in seven British men – we wouldn’t expect many women to be on, say, the boards of FTSE100 companies. If we throw in the fact that men outnumber women 2:1 in the private sector, and men have traditionally greatly outnumbered men in the professions likely to lead to FTSE100 board positions, we’d expect less than 5% of FTSE100 directors to be female. The current proportion is nearly 20%, largely driven by threats of quotas (Davies Report, 2011). Virtually all of these women have been appointed as NEDs, showing there simply isn’t a deep pool of able women (whatever the feminists might believe). If there were, FTSE100 companies would appoint them like a shot.

    One variant of the ‘glass cliff’ theory I came across was that when companies know they’re in for a rough ride, they appoint a female CEO to take the rap, so she can ‘fail’ and then they can fire her. Having spent 30+ years in business, the last 10 of them in consultancy roles for major organisations, I can tell you the idea is ludicrous. Both management and shareholders would be up in arms at the idea.

    I’ve never encountered a feminist who had ANY personal experience of the senior levels of major organisations. They speculate confidently on things about which they have zero knowledge.

  351. 351
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Dani Wells

    You appear to be living in a parallel universe. People who’ve been reading this comment stream will have read of Karen Straughan’s willingness to debate, made through Dean Esmay. Do you think if you keep repeating the same nonsense, it will somehow become factually true, and people will fall for it? Maybe you’d be happier in Laura Bates’s Everyday Whining Project?

  352. 352
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Dani Wells

    “You’ve been repeatedly told this is no causal link.”

    Please let me know the comment numbers in which I’ve been told that. Thank you.

  353. 353
    Mike Buchanan

    I’m planning to write a series of articles on the economic emasculation of men, a phenomenon which is gathering pace around the world. The first of the articles was published yesterday (link below). It’s largely concerned with the ‘women on boards’ issue as well as the initiatives to drive up the proportion of women in historically male-dominated professions (taking engineering as an example):

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/why-are-david-cameron-sir-roger-carr-nick-baveystock-and-michel-landel-assaulting-men-in-the-workplace/

  354. 354
    mildlymagnificent

    Funny how serendipity works. Came across this piece from the Harvard Business Review.

    The paradoxical implication is that the same psychological characteristics that enable male managers to rise to the top of the corporate or political ladder are actually responsible for their downfall. In other words, what it takes to get the job is not just different from, but also the reverse of, what it takes to do the job well. As a result, too many incompetent people are promoted to management jobs, and promoted over more competent people.

    http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/08/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men/

    In fact, most leaders — whether in politics or business — fail. That has always been the case: …
    Good leadership has always been the exception, not the norm.

    I’m not suggesting you should necessarily change what you want to write, but it would be a good idea to incorporate good evidence you can find to counter-balance material like this. I found this item quite by accident – anyone who was actually looking for this sort of thing would be sure to find it and/or the linked references. So preparing such arguments in advance could work out better for you on this topic.

  355. 355
    Raging Bee

    Kevin Robson: Thanks very much for finally trying to answer my question. AS I SUSPECTED ALL ALONG, the time-periods in all but one of those studies included the Iraq war and a global recession, which (duh) caused major declines in company performance all over the planet, as a result of factors far more important than the presence of women on boards — including that Euro-Zone credit crunch that started in Greece (does Greece have laws requiring women on corporate boards?) and quickly showed effects nearly everywhere else. (And the one exception included 9/11 and another recession.)

    Also, NONE of the stated reasons for women’s poor performance didn’t also apply to men. I was especially amused at the accusation that women were more prone to “selection of like minded executives” than the homogeneous group of rich white men who have been self-selecting for DECADES. Seriously? This is all you’ve got? These studies are bogus, and I think we can safely conclude that this argument is now over.

    BTW, I am employed by a rather large company that is now boasting of a turnaround, and some promising new contracts won, under the command of a female CEO. I don’t like her politics, but her business performance remains a serious counter to your ridiculous stereotyping “women ain’t got what it takes” bullshit.

    I’m planning to write a series of articles on the economic emasculation of men, a phenomenon which is gathering pace around the world. The first of the articles was published yesterday (link below). It’s largely concerned with the ‘women on boards’ issue…

    That’s pretty rich, coming from the guy who never saw a woman doing any kind of home-building work. And you’re writing about the GLOBAL emasculation of men, while focusing entirely on ONE ISSUE that only applies in a handful of countries and has nothing to do with all the ways men get emasculated by other men, all over the planet, starting long before feminism even existed? What a fucking joke. Are you even smart enough to understand how silly you sound?

  356. 356
    Raging Bee

    mildlymagnificent: speaking of serendipity, there’s also a recent article in the Economist — not exactly known as a bastion of radfem socialist thought — saying that women tend to make more sensible investment decisions, because they’re not as conditioned to bold impulsive risk-taking as men are. Funny how much you see when you’re not letting stereotypes do all your thinking for you, innit?

  357. 357
    Mike Buchanan

    @ midlymagnificent

    Thanks for drawing our attention to the HBR article, very interesting. Have just posted the following comment. There are days I think I’ll have to call for the men in white coats if I have to repeat this stuff again, and today is one of them. Day after day I feel like the boy in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ tale. Only I – and my supporters – seem able to see the Emperor is naked. Too many people – academics, politicians, poorly-qualified women – have to keep believing (or at least asserting publicly) that the new clothes are magnificent.

    The comment I left:

    The key reason why there are more men than women at the top of major organisations is gender-typical orientations to work. The world-renowned sociologist Dr Catherine Hakim published a paper about ‘Preference Theory’ in 2000. She found that while four in seven British men are ‘work-centred’, only one in four British women is. How could this NOT translate into men dominating major corporate boardrooms (to take one example)? A link to Dr Hakim’s briefing paper:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/dr-catherine-hakims-preference-theory/

    I find the whole ‘women on boards’ debate quite extraordinary, given that the only evidence of a causal link between increased female representation on boards and financial performance, is that of financial decline. Our briefing paper on the matter:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

    I’ve reviewed a huge number of papers and reports since establishing this organisation in May 2012. In 17 months I haven’t encountered even one that indicates a causal link between increased female representation on boards and improved financial performance. Some studies show correlations but all such studies – to the best of my knowledge – make it perfectly clear that correlation isn’t evidence of causation, and it doesn’t even IMPLY it.

    A small selection of our public challenges to proponents of ‘more women on boards’ (link below). Not one challenge has ever been responded to.

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms/

    Business people – mainly men – are damaging the financial viability of the corporate sector by following this insane direction of travel. My article on the matter:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/why-are-david-cameron-sir-roger-carr-nick-baveystock-and-michel-landel-assaulting-men-in-the-workplace/

    Have a nice day.

    Mike Buchanan

    CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com

  358. 358
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    ‘These studies are bogus, and I think we can safely conclude that this argument is now over.’

    I see you have your Entitlement Princess hat on again. Do you ever take it off? Proponents of ‘more women on boards’ must be cringing with embarrassment at your dire contribution to this debate.

  359. 359
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    The Economist has followed a feminist-friendly line in this area – as it has in others – for YEARS. Likewise Investors’ Chronicle, Money Management…

  360. 360
    karmacat

    Ally,
    I enjoy reading your blog. Thank you for showing how to be an advocate for boys and men without needing to tear women down. I haven’t looked all the comments on your blog, but I haven’t noticed any feminists coming and saying “what about the womenz.” I am a feminist with a 6 year old son, and I am glad you are looking out for boys and men

  361. 361
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    … while the Times give huge exposure to Caitlin Moran, the Mail likewise to Janet Street-Porter, and as for the Guardian there’s Suzanne Moore and many others. I can’t honestly think of one anti-feminist voice in a major newspaper or periodical in the UK. Peter Lloyd of Mail Online has done some great pieces with respect to assaults on men’s rights, but he doesn’t self-identify as an anti-feminist.

    Come to think of it, I’ve never heard of any anti-feminist voices in such media anywhere in the world. The EU plans to ban anti-feminist speech (link below) and to the best of my knowledge not one major newspaper or periodical has written even a small piece on the matter:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/eu-to-ban-anti-feminist-speech/

    The levels of censorship of anti-feminist thinking would have startled even George Orwell.

  362. 362
    Raging Bee

    The Economist has followed a feminist-friendly line in this area – as it has in others – for YEARS. Likewise Investors’ Chronicle, Money Management…

    …and every other publication that doesn’t agree with you, right? As the bumper-sticker said, “Stop blaming the media — the FACTS have a liberal bias!”

    (Do you really believe that the Economist, who consistently oppose nearly all regulation of business and still idolize your Tory Goddess as a “freedom fighter,” are biased in FAVOR of the regs you oppose? Of course you don’t — you know as well as I do that your accusations are bogus.)

    Seriously, Mikey, when are you going to realize you’ve done nothing but make a complete ass of yourself? You couldn’t even defend the one single talking-point your lobbying group exists to defend; then you made a whole bunch of idiotic statements about women that showed your total lack of common sense (you never saw a woman at a construction site? Really?); and whan all of that failed, you tried to talk down to everyone and called me “entitled” just for questioning your word. (Do you only accept questions from “entitled” people in your country?) And now you’re promising to write a whole book about the same thesis that’s already been debunked here (whioch you couldn’t defend), and you epxect us to be impressed? Go to bed, grow up two decades, and come back next week.

  363. 363
    Raging Bee

    PS: Mikey, I also notice that your cite on the alleged ban on anti-feminist speech is nothing more than a reference to an article on AVfM. That’s all you got? If you want us to take you seriously, you’ll need a more credible source than that pit of lying bigoted scum.

  364. 364
    carnation

    Melanie Phillips. Peter Hitchens. Off the top of my head.

  365. 365
    Paul

    @Mike Buchanan

    I remember seeing an interview with Erin Pizzey where she argued that the male dominated media saw the issue of gender as a ”womens problem” and subsequently allowed feminist journalists to dominate any discussion about it. So if we’re to see the media take a more balanced view on issues relating to gender then those in the media who have the power to bring that about need to be challenged .And most of those who need to be challenged are men.

    There are some high profile female journalists who occasionally challenge certain aspects of feminist dogma but it’s rare to see a high profile male journalist do the same. Specifically on the Guardian Ally and a couple of other men have written articles about gender from a male perspective but even with them i get a sense that they’re careful not to rock the boat too much.

    If men and boys are to be treated equally with women and girls in those areas where males clearly face discrimination then challenging feminist dogma is only part of the battle.

  366. 366
    Paul

    @If it wasn’t clear i meant to say that i largely agree with Erin Pizzey’s view about the media.

  367. 367
    Raging Bee

    There are some high profile female journalists who occasionally challenge certain aspects of feminist dogma but it’s rare to see a high profile male journalist do the same.

    What country are you in? Here in the USA, the overwhelming majority of our “news” outlets lean right, with lots of well-known male hacks “challenging feminist dogma” by spouting endless brown rivers of stupid insulting shit about women (and men and gays and liberals and atheists…) every fucking day. And it hasn’t done oppressed men or boys any good either — all it does (all it’s really intended to do) is divert everyone’s attention AWAY from the policies and beliefs that are really doing us harm. So from my perspective at least, “challenging feminist dogma” isn’t even part of the solution, it’s part of the problem.

  368. 368
    Adiabat

    Raging Bee (355):

    AS I SUSPECTED ALL ALONG, the time-periods in all but one of those studies included the Iraq war and a global recession

    Instead of responding to Mr Bee’s deranged rantings perhaps we could play a game? How about the first feminist who points out the very obvious problem with the above argument wins a prize? It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who’s received a decent education, unlike our friend Mr Bee.

    I’ll post daily clues to help (if I can be arsed).

    CLUE 1: It’s something to do with how the Iraq war and global recession affected companies with diverse board members vs companies with homogenous board members.

  369. 369
    Raging Bee

    Instead of responding to Mr Bee’s deranged rantings perhaps we could play a game?

    That’s what MRAs always do when they can’t handle reality — play games. Can’t you put a little more variety into your routine?

  370. 370
    Mike Buchanan

    @ carnation

    “Melanie Phillips. Peter Hitchens. Off the top of my head.”

    Thanks. A pleasure to hear from you as always.

    Intriguing examples. I much enjoy their books and newspaper articles (sorry, Ally!)

    Melanie Phillips is particularly intriguing. She appears to focus on the manifestations of feminism rather than criticise feminism as an ideology (please let me know if I’m wrong). About a year ago I was asked by BBC Radio 4 to suggest some prominent anti-feminist women for a programme, and approached Melanie. She refused to appear, saying she identified as a non-feminist. The only two British women I could find prepared to self-identify as A/Fs were the journalist and broadcaster Angela Epstein (sorry, I should have recalled her name earlier – but she’s rarely given the chance to say much about feminism in particular) and the ever entertaining controversialist Katie Hopkins.

    I feel fairly confident that Peter Hitchens, too, wouldn’t self-identify as an A/F, though our views on the most prominent male feminist of our age (in spite of the silly ‘Calm down, dear!’ distractions) David Cameron are all but identical. He’s also a passionate critic of Mrs T, interestingly. People on the right seem to be more prepared than those on the left to challenge their side’s popular narratives (indeed the left seems far more devoted to narratives in general than the right. Constant repetition of lies, e.g. women getting paid less than men for the same work, the Suffragettes accelerating full female emancipation – debunked by Steve Moxon in ‘The Woman Racket – have sunk deep into the public psyche.)

    I’ve tried to think of when any prominent leftie politician criticised Harriet Harman openly, and couldn’t think of an occasion other than when HH, in June 1988, was asked to defend her decision to send her child to a selective school, then against Labour policy. The sadly irreplaceable John Prescott famously said, ‘I’m not going to defend any f***ing hypoctites’. Like all righties, I miss seeing him in the media as much as we once did.

  371. 371
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Paul

    I seem to be having more than my usual number of ‘senior moments’ today. Erin Pizzey has been arguably the most prominent A/F woman in the world for 40 years. But there’s a virtual media refusal to engage with her – she gets the odd article in ‘Daily Mail’ I think, but not much else. She was on ‘Woman’s Hour’ in the 1970s but I know from an exchange of emails with her the other day, that she hasn’t been invited on the programme since.

    You’re quite right about female journalists – almost but not always feminists – having a virtual monopoly commenting on gender issues. Even the ‘Daily Mail’ regularly cites materials from Catalyst about women on boards improving profitability etc., when the original Catalyst studies make it 100% clear they’re reporting correlations, not causation.

  372. 372
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    “What country are you in?”

    Always a displeasure to hear from you. What country am I in? The UK. Seriously, have you not even grasped that little fact? Wow.

    I repeat the point that not one journalist writing for a mainstream newspaper or periodical in the UK self-identifies as an anti-feminist, with the exception of Angela Epstein, and she doesn’t get anything like the coverage she richly deserves.

  373. 373
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Adiabat

    “I’ll post daily clues to help (if I can be arsed).

    CLUE 1: It’s something to do with how the Iraq war and global recession affected companies with diverse board members vs companies with homogenous board members.”

    Thank you. Priceless. Made me laugh out loud. I’m going to enjoy this game. I wonder if that eternal ray of sunshine, raging bee, will play?

  374. 374
    Raging Bee

    Actually, no, after contributing to the serious debunking you’ve been receiving here, I can find more pleasant games to play. But thanks for at least admitting you’re not serious, and have nothing to offer but silly games.

  375. 375
    Adiabat

    Mike (372):

    I wonder if that eternal ray of sunshine, raging bee, will play?

    He might need to wait for tomorrows clue before he can figure it out. Unfortunately the poor dear’s education has been a bit deficient so far, as evidenced by the fact that he would even make that argument.

    Though, to be serious, if he did get it It would rekindle a least a little bit of respect for him. It’ll at least show that he’s willing to critically analyse his own views, and that he’s able to consider viewpoints that aren’t his own.

    So what do you say RB? How about we bury the hatchet and you expalin the rather obvious problem with your above argument? Everyone else here can see it.

  376. 376
    CerberusCheerleader

    I don’t quite understand what Mikes 5 studies are supposed to show. Is this supposed to be the definite case against what? The quota? Female participation in the management of cooperations? And why only 5 studies? I’m sure there have been more studies done on that. Do they all point in the same direction? Or do they have different findings? And what do these 5 studies really show? E.g. the study of Ahern and Dittmar (“The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation”) shows that the way Norway implemented their quota was probably to drastic in that in forced cooperations to employ young, unexperienced people which then let to a decline in performance. In other words if you want to implement a quota you have to be careful about how you do it. But that’s all it shows AFAICT.

    And really, when you look at different countries you find vast differences in the participation of woman in the management of companies. E.g. there are virtually no woman in the top management of the top 200 German companies whereas female participation in this area seems to be the norm in China. What does that tell us? That woman can’t do these jobs? Or that these things are cultural artifacts?

  377. 377
    Adiabat

    CerberusCheerleader (375):

    I don’t quite understand what Mikes 5 studies are supposed to show. Is this supposed to be the definite case against what? The quota?

    I don’t know what Mike thinks they show but I can give my interpretation: The studies are not a definitive case that women in upper management are bad for companies. As always more research in needed (mrin) before that can be claimed.

    What the 5 studies show is that the claim that women in senior management improve the performance of the business is a lie. The little research available is inconclusive but as an early indicator it shows that it would be misleading, even deceptive, to make the claim that women on boards is a benefit for business. It’s probably not a disadvantage either but as you say forcing quotas is likely to a bad thing for business for the reasons you gave.

    But the fact that this is the case yet groups, including some governments, who cannot be unaware of this research still push the “women are good for business” idea indicates something else is happening, something based on ideology rather than facts and evidence.

  378. 378
    Mike Buchanan

    @ CerberusCheerleader

    Thank you for your interesting questions. I’ll try answer all your points, so please tell me if I miss any.

    “I don’t quite understand what Mikes 5 studies are supposed to show. Is this supposed to be the definite case against what? The quota? Female participation in the management of cooperations?”

    They show that when the proportion of women on corporate boards is increased, financial performance (on average) declines. They show this happens whether the increase is attributable to gender quotas (Norway) or simply corporations choosing to do this freely (US, Germany).

    In our view the prime cause of the declines is the inexperience of the cohort in question, i.e. women, rather than a gender issue per se. We would expect to see the same happen with any other ‘under-represented’ group, wouldn’t we? So why is it across the developed world companies are trying to drive up the proportion of women on their boards, but not other groups? It’s partly because only women campaign effectively, allied with spineless politicians doing their bidding at every turn.

    I have no problem with women in the boardroom, they can take every FTSE100 directorship as far as I’m concerned, if they’re there on merit. But the whole point of quotas – or the threat off them, as we currently have in the UK – is to drive women onto boards when companies wouldn’t otherwise have appointed them.

    “And why only 5 studies? I’m sure there have been more studies done on that. Do they all point in the same direction? Or do they have different findings?”

    To the best of my knowledge these are the only five LONGITUDINAL studies into the issue, i.e. studies from which you can reasonably conclude causal links between increasing female representation on boards and corporate financial performance.

    “And really, when you look at different countries you find vast differences in the participation of woman in the management of companies. E.g. there are virtually no woman in the top management of the top 200 German companies whereas female participation in this area seems to be the norm in China. What does that tell us? That woman can’t do these jobs? Or that these things are cultural artifacts?”

    I haven’t seen any data on China but I should be absolutely stunned if female participation on boards of MAJOR companies were the norm. I suspect someone has aggregated all companies together – a tired old feminist academic trick, the likes of which is used to fabricate the ‘gender pay gap’ decade after decade.

    Of course some women can ‘do these jobs’. But they’re less likely than men (by a factor of 4:1 in the UK anyway) as we know from Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000). I appear to be repeating myself… time to call for the men in white coats…

  379. 379
    Mike Buchanan

    @ CerebrusCheerleader

    My apologies, a supporter has just called to point out one of my final sentences was confusing. New text in capitals:

    “Of course some women can ‘do these jobs’. But they’re less likely than men TO WANT TO DO THEM, BY VIRTUE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN GENDER-TYPICAL WORK-CENTREDNESS (by a factor of 4:1 in the UK anyway) as we know from Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000).

  380. 380
    Paul

    @Raging Bee

    What country are you in? Here in the USA, the overwhelming majority of our “news” outlets lean right, with lots of well-known male hacks “challenging feminist dogma” by spouting endless brown rivers of stupid insulting shit about women (and men and gays and liberals and atheists…) every fucking day. And it hasn’t done oppressed men or boys any good either — all it does (all it’s really intended to do) is divert everyone’s attention AWAY from the policies and beliefs that are really doing us harm. So from my perspective at least, “challenging feminist dogma” isn’t even part of the solution, it’s part of the problem.

    I’m commenting from the UK and my comment was therefore with regard to the UK media. Journalists of either sex who spout shit as you call it aren’t seriously challenging feminist dogma .They are ,as you rightly say ,diverting attention away from the real issues. .And my point was with regard to real issues such as the way domestic violence and child abuse are reported in the media. For feminist dogma usually underpins the way it’s reported and high profile male .journalists as well as many female journalists rarely seriously challenge that. Which in my opinion needs to change. But simply challenging feminist journalists who dominate media coverage on domestic violence and child abuse – and i repeat i’m using these two issues as examples- is only part of the battle. For many people of both sexes who aren’t feminists really don’t want to face up to just how abusive women are capable of being in their familial relationships. And seemingly that includes those who ultimately control our media who are mainly men.

  381. 381
    carnation

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Melanie Phillips’ views are analgous with a typical MRA. A typical MRA is more anti feminist than male positive. To be anti feminist reveals a fixation on feminism. Ms Phillips is probably too busy being ani (insert here) to oau particular attention to feminism beyond that which she does.

    Hilariously, she blames (un-named) feminists for the alleged decline of nursing, on the gender essentialist reasoning that a focus on academic attainment has led to a reduction in nurturing and caring. Thibk it’s in the DM, I’m going from memory. She trots out standatd lurid MRA fantasies about men being stripped of their assets by vindictivr women, then being unjustifiably banned from.seeing their children.

    As an aside, I am contemptous if MRAs because of the damage they could do to men and boys if they gained influence. Scapegoating a sex and/or complex and multifaceted political movement causes retreat into a bitter and self serving cul de sac.

    That last paragraph is copyrighted by me, so no using it to attack anyone, ok guys and gals?

  382. 382
    Raging Bee

    Here’s another problem with these studies (in case another one was needed): If women come to power in a company and certain “performance” metrics are then seen declining, it could be because the women were less competent — or it could be because the men were reacting with prejudice, assuming the women would fail, and bailing for that reason.

    And that’s just one more problem with these studies. A much deeper flaw is the assumption that all of the companies studied were identical enough that different results could be traced to only one factor, women on the board. And while that may be the case with lab rats, it is most certainly NOT the case with business entities, which, even within one LOB, have different histories, different corporate cultures, different previous choices and strategies constraining present ones, different clients, etc. etc.

    Seriously, folks, these studies are crap all around; and the ONE person advocating them here is clearly driven by an ignorant, prejudiced political agenda, utterly lacking in common sense, and has no authorities to quote other than his own blogs; and AVfM. There’s plenty of other institutions studying the same things, and all Mike can do is mindlessly label them “feminist-friendly” without addressing anything they actually say. Mike isn’t a serious expert, he’s nothing but a crank in an echo-chamber. I sincerely hope his abysmal performance here gets plenty of coverage on Ally’s Guardian page.

  383. 383
    carnation

    @ Paul 379

    You are seeing what you want to see. Domestic abuse between average couples doesn’t generally make headlines, does it? Gazza abusing his wife made the front page but so did Ross Kemp’s wife fir her DV arrest.

    There are numerous reports, given prominence, in cases if female teachers abusing male students.

    The true issue us not that female abuse is ignored, fir it clearly isn’t, it is why it is given more attention. The answer to that is easy. Patriarchal attitudes dominant in the press, as in society, deems violent females are more transgressive and therefore more newsworthy.

  384. 384
    Raging Bee

    Paul: Is “feminist dogma” any relation to “Darwinian dogma?” People who claim to oppose either of those naver seem to be able to define what they really are.

  385. 385
    Raging Bee

    I haven’t seen any data on China but I should be absolutely stunned if female participation on boards of MAJOR companies were the norm.

    In other words, you have a prejudice, you can’t imagine it being wrong, and you never bothered to verify it. And you expect us to think you know what you’re talking about?

  386. 386
    bugmaster

    @Raging Bee #381
    Are you saying that the studies Mike cited fail to properly control for confounding factors, such as f.ex. overall economic decline, relative size of the company, relative health of the company’s primary market, etc. ? If so, could you point to some similar studies regarding the impact of gender on corporate performance that are, in fact, properly controlled ?

    Intuitively, it seems to me that women should perform as well (or, sadly, as poorly) as men in financial leadership positions, but it would be a lot better to have some hard confirmation.

  387. 387
    Raging Bee

    No, bugmaster, I’m saying it’s extremely hard — if not impossible — to fully control for such factors at all. And given Mike’s total lack of professionalism and common sense, he’s the LAST person I’d trust to deal properly with complex subjects like this. If you really want to study issues of gender and corporate performance, the first thing you need to do is kick Tory twits like Mike to the curb and move straight on to some REAL experts.

  388. 388
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    “Here’s another problem with these studies (in case another one was needed): If women come to power in a company and certain “performance” metrics are then seen declining, it could be because the women were less competent — or it could be because the men were reacting with prejudice, assuming the women would fail, and bailing for that reason.”

    [Yawn.]

    How would ‘men reacting with prejudice’ lead to companies suffering financial decline? Here’s a wild hunch. You have no personal experience WHATSOEVER of the senior levels of major corporations, unlike myself (and a large number of C4MB supporters). So your relentless witterings aren’t based on experience, but on inexperience. Reveal publicly who you are, and prove me wrong. For some time you’ve been coming across like a petulant five-year-old telling Richard Dawkins his public statements on evolution are deeply flawed.

    [Yawn.]

  389. 389
    Raging Bee

    After all the laughably ignorant statements you’ve made about women and home-building, you’re now pretending your “experience” is superior to mine? I’ve heard the opinions of plenty of people who I KNOW have experience in running corporations — and I trust them more than you because they sound intelligent and competent. You don’t.

    And you know who else has lots and lots of experience at “the senior levels of major corporations?” Mitt Romney. His experience clearly did not make him intelligent, trustworthy, honest, or free of prejudice. Then there’s the Koch Brothers, Donald Trump, Dan Snyder, the Enron crew, the BP crew… There’s plenty of big-time executives who are stupid, greedy, dishonest, uncaring, uneducable, and totally undeserving of any trust. So bragging about your corporate experience doesn’t impress me one bit — especially after the laughable ignorance you’ve shown here.

    Oh, and remember when you brushed off the Economist as “feminist-friendly?” Do you really think that lot have less corporate experience than you? There’s plenty of people with big-time corporate experience who don’t agree with you — what do you have to say to them?

  390. 390
    Raging Bee

    How would ‘men reacting with prejudice’ lead to companies suffering financial decline? Here’s a wild hunch. You have no personal experience WHATSOEVER of the senior levels of major corporations…

    So I ask you a question, and you “answer” by bragging about your experience — but you don’t actually answer the question from all that superior experience of yours. Are you really dumb enough to think your comments here even sound plausible?

  391. 391
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    So who are YOU, and what is your personal authority to opine about what really happens in the top levels of major corporations? Just tell us who you are, who you work for, and what your role is. Why would that be a problem, unless you’re misrepresenting yourself as someone qualified to contribute to this debate?

  392. 392
    Paul

    @ 382 Carnation

    You are seeing what you want to see.

    Am i ? Bearing in mind the research data that’s available you honestly believe the British media accurately reflects the role of females as perpetrators and instigators when it covers the issues of domestic violence and child abuse in this country ? You’re clearly living in cloud cuckoo land.

  393. 393
    Raging Bee

    Funny how you only make an issue of my identity AFTER your entire case has been thoroughly debunked, all of your other manipulative dodges fail, and you’ve been exposed as a chauvanistic jackass. Questioning my authority doesn’t work after yours has gone down the toilet.

    And besides, you’ve already been proven dead wrong, by Ally much more than by myself, and you’re unable to defend any of your arguments — so why does it even matter who I am? Just another pretentious dodge.

  394. 394
    Paul

    @383 Raging Bee

    Paul: Is “feminist dogma” any relation to “Darwinian dogma?” People who claim to oppose either of those naver seem to be able to define what they really are.

    You’ve completely ignored the points i made in response to your post to me and have simply gone off on a different tangent with the above crap. if you want to rant away by yourself and to yourself pursuing your own agendas then that’s up to you but don’t expect me to take you seriously.

  395. 395
    Kevin Robson

    Don’t know about anyone else, but I think the time has come for Raging Bee to be barred from this thread. Anyone else agree? Come on Ally, do the right thing and let this thread get back to some sort of sane discussion for god’s sake! It can’t be doing your reputation ay good, after all.

  396. 396
    bugmaster

    @Raging Bee:

    No, bugmaster, I’m saying it’s extremely hard — if not impossible — to fully control for such factors at all.

    Fair enough, I am not a sociology, so I’ll take your word for it. But this means that the effects of gender on company performance are not merely unknown, but also unknowable. This means that neither you nor Mike can make justified positive statements about it. He can’t say, “More women in leadership leads to poor performance”, but you can’t say, “More women in leadership has no effect on performance”, either. The best you can say is, “we will never know how gender impacts corporate performance”, which is a kind of statement that does not easily translate into any kind of policy…

  397. 397
    bugmaster

    Sorry, that sentence should’ve read, “…not a sociologist”, stupid autocorrect…

  398. 398
    bugmaster

    @Raging Bee #388:

    Mitt Romney. His experience clearly did not make him intelligent, trustworthy, honest, or free of prejudice. Then there’s the Koch Brothers, Donald Trump, Dan Snyder, the Enron crew, the BP crew…

    This does not contradict what Mike said. In terms of profits, most of the people you listed are doing pretty well, Enron being one exception. I agree with you that such corporations are actually harming our world, but that is different from saying, “these corporations are performing poorly”. I am sure their shareholders are quite happy.

  399. 399
    123454321

    Raging Bee, I’m awfully sorry but from where I’m standing you sound rather confused, very angry and extremely bitter. The truth often hurts and I’m pretty certain that you probably avoid the truth in order to avoid the pain. The fact is that, in general, women aren’t as passionate as men in terms of getting to the top of the career ladder. That’s not to say that some women aren’t passionate or capable, because some women ARE work-centred, career-minded and also very competent. It’s just that most aren’t this way inclined and instead choose other paths in life – you know that, surely. The point is that every female born today has the same equal opportunity as every male. Life is what they choose to make it, providing of course that they have the required mental capacity and aspiration to succeed in whatever they choose to do. The fact that more men are at the top of business than women is nothing you should be concerned about. Please tell me who is being harmed here? If it simply upsets them, then tough! From what I can make out, there is nothing getting in the way of young women studying hard and aligning themselves alongside the men, working long hours and pitching correctly in order to exhibit the mental stamina required to grow our businesses. Why shouldn’t you be concerned? Because so far corporate recruitment protocol has been based on merit and that’s evolution in it’s purist form. Get over it. if you want more women on boards then, yes, promote and encourage young women but what gets my back up is when people speak of quotas whilst expecting to be taken seriously at the same time. Personally, i have no issue with women on boards providing they arrive at that position and attain status according to the same level of scrutiny and measured assessment. Getting there by any other means stinks of privilege pie.

  400. 400
    bugmaster

    @123454321 #398:
    I believe that a feminist would tell you that getting to the top of the corporate ladder (and staying there) requires more than just hard work and moxy; it also requires connections, and approval of your superiors and peers. If a woman’s superiors and peers are primarily men; and if they are biased against women (consciously or not); then the woman would have to be much more ambitious, skilled, and lucky, than a man who wants to climb the ladder.

    You say that “corporate recruitment protocol has been based on merit”, but again, the obvious response to that is that if men are the ones who evaluate merit, and if these men are biased, then their evaluations of merit will be likewise biased, and we’re back to square one.

  401. 401
  402. 402
    Raging Bee

    123454321: You need to find a better place to stand. The view from where you currently are sucks — there’s a lot you’re not seeing.

    Robson: I thought you Brave Heroes weren’t afraid of honest debate. Now you’re suddenly sounding like those castrating feminazis you lot keep on complaining about.

    bugmaster: my reference to Romney was in response to Mike’s claim of authority based on corporate experience. That should have been bloody obvious.

  403. 403
    123454321

    @bugmaster

    I guess you could say the same about vertically challenged males – something like:

    if a short man’s superiors and peers are primarily taller men; and if they are biased against short men (consciously or not); then the shorter man would have to be much more ambitious, skilled, and lucky, than a tall man who wants to climb the ladder.

    It’s kind of meaningless really, don’t you think. Plenty of men have similar barriers; it’s just that women have a good excuse because they are…well…women. Pretty pathetic excuse if you ask me!

    Also, the point that a woman’s peers and superiors in business are primarily men is mute when you consider that many businesses have a female weighted customer base. From what I know about business, the customer has far more power.

    “You say that “corporate recruitment protocol has been based on merit”, but again, the obvious response to that is that if men are the ones who evaluate merit, and if these men are biased, then their evaluations of merit will be likewise biased, and we’re back to square one.”

    I don’t think men are biased – there’s far too much at stake for them to be biased. I’m pretty certain that if the right woman stepped into an interview room full of men and blew them away with her portfolio of success stories and offered innovative solutions towards achieving speedy growth and enhancing profit margins she’d be snapped up. Don’t let anyone kid you into believing otherwise.

  404. 404
    sheaf

    I don’t think men are biased – there’s far too much at stake for them to be biased.

    Just because the stakes are high, people do not autmatically become completely rational.

  405. 405
    123454321

    @ Raging Bee,

    I have excellent perspective visibility from where I’m standing thank you kindly. You’re right, though, some aspects certainly suck. Lucky for you that, as a woman, you are afforded far more privilege than me. You have no idea how good you have it and I find that kind of sad really.

  406. 406
    Raging Bee

    Well, 123454321, I’m not a woman, so right there you’ve proven your “excellent perspective” is crap.

    And as for whether I have “far more privilege” than you, I will admit I was at least privileged with a far better education than you’ve shown so far.

  407. 407
    Raging Bee

    I don’t think men are biased – there’s far too much at stake for them to be biased.

    Wow, that bit of self-important chauvanism is right out of grade-school: “boys are rational and good at math and science (just look at Spock!), girls are just emotional and silly, like on all the TV I watch.” How old are you — ten?!

  408. 408
    SallyStrange

    FYI: There has been ONE study looking at outcomes for women who wanted abortions but were denied them. As you might suspect, it’s not a pretty picture, particularly with regards to the women’s economic fortunes.

    Methodology & researchers: http://www.ansirh.org/research/turnaway.php

    NYTimes report: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/magazine/study-women-denied-abortions.html?_r=0

    Also, I’m a woman in the trades who has personally helped construct several houses. Once I even worked on a crew that was entirely composed of women! How nice to hear we don’t exist.

  409. 409
    SallyStrange

    Women’s participation on boards of directors is positively correlated with better outcomes for companies, via that den of feminist iniquity, the Conference Board of Canada:

    Recent and intriguing data link corporate performance to the number of women on boards. A November 2001 U.S. study shows that the Fortune 500 firms with the best record of promoting women to senior positions, including the board, are more profitable than their peers. The 25 firms with the best promotion
    record post returns on assets 18 per cent higher, and returns on investment 69 per cent higher, than the
    Fortune 500 median of their industry. Conference Board research lends some support to these results. We tracked corporations and found that those with two or more women on the board in 1995 were far more likely to be industry leaders in revenues and profits six years later, in 2001.

    Link (to PDF): http://www.europeanpwn.net/files/women_on_boards_canada.pdf

    Have fun y’all.

  410. 410
    mildlymagnificent

    if a short man’s superiors and peers are primarily taller men; and if they are biased against short men (consciously or not); then the shorter man would have to be much more ambitious, skilled, and lucky, than a tall man who wants to climb the ladder.

    More memories. On a training course (in 1974!!) I was taken aback by one presenter. I knew him from other work as an extremely conservative man, an accountant, who I’d never have expected to display much insight on personal interactions – but it turns out everyone has occasional flashes of brilliance. We were looking at reviewing promotion decisions and we’d done one of those look-at-your-own-prejudices exercises. This bloke went through some quite predictable stuff about trying to be aware of your own idiosyncratic likes and dislikes. Then he pointed out common prejudices which he’d observed.

    Ta-daaa! His personal observation was that short men were much less likely than taller men to have succeeded in an initial round of selecting candidates for promotion. Very insightful at the time, there wasn’t the same range of research around these matters way back then which showed that he was right, but then we move on to ….. Women are, on average, shorter than men on average. Think about it.

    (As it turned out, I was right about this particular bloke. In practically every other dealing I had with him he was really, really pleasant and, to be truthful, not a sparkling intellect on interpersonal relationships, especially as they affected his managerial responsibilities. One of those cases where a tall man noticed something about people different from him in one respect, but pretty oblivious to other equally important matters which most people handled quite smoothly.)

  411. 411
    Dani Wells

    The discussion here is very typical. MRA’s spout some anti-woman/anti-feminist rhetoric and outright LIE about studies and manipulate the abstracts. People who can read and comprehend take them to task and show them how wrong they are. Then said MRA’s adhom and call people who they think are women ‘entitlement princesses’ when the person they’re talking to isn’t even female. Can we see the problem here folks?

    You cannot get through to MRA’s who are misogynists. They have a one track mind. If a business is doing badly it’s gotta be women’s fault! Nevermind, like Raging Bee said, the economic downturn has affected most businesses and that there are too many confounding variables. Alas, it’s the menz that are suffering and it’s women’s fault!

    When an MRA fails, they call for censorship of the person that exposed them at every turn. This is a typical tactic of Paul Elam, JohntheOther, Mike and his pals. On A Voice for Men a woman can’t even COMMENT more than once or twice and Paul comes along to ban them yet they complain about Freeze Peach and those dastardly feminazis!

    I appreciate Ally doing the piece because it shows what moronic filth MRA’s come up with. However, trying to have a discussion with a vapid misogynist isn’t going to go anywhere. While it’s good they are exposed, they aren’t going to be sensible and stop blaming women and feminism for every damn thing they can think of.

  412. 412
    Mike Buchanan

    @ SallyStrange

    Recent and intriguing data link corporate performance to the number of women on boards. A November 2001 U.S. study shows that the Fortune 500 firms with the best record of promoting women to senior positions, including the board, are more profitable than their peers. The 25 firms with the best promotion record post returns on assets 18 per cent higher, and returns on investment 69 per cent higher, than the Fortune 500 median of their industry. Conference Board research lends some support to these results. We tracked corporations and found that those with two or more women on the board in 1995 were far more likely to be industry leaders in revenues and profits six years later, in 2001.

    Link (to PDF): http://www.europeanpwn.net/files/women_on_boards_canada.pdf

    Thanks for this. I couldn’t get through to the study in question, but I haven’t the slightest doubt what I’d find. In 17 months I’ve looked at 100+ studies in this area. Every one of them which shows a positive correlation between more women on boards and improved financial performance has made it clear correlation isn’t proof of causation, and doesn’t even IMPLY causation. So what might explain that correlation?

    When we note that very rich men often have beautiful wives, do we conclude that beautiful women make men wealthy? Of course not. And the same is true of women and successful companies. Women are drawn to work on the boards of very successful companies, just as women are drawn to marry very wealthy men.

    Nobody has EVER responded to our public challenges to demonstrate a causal link between more women on boards, and improved financial performance. A very small selection of those challenges:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-of-high-profile-proponents-of-improved-gender-diversity-in-boardrooms/

    Someone asked me the other day if women weren’t ashamed of misrepresenting correlations as causations. I had to respond that the women in question (and their male collaborators) were utterly shameless, in my experience.

  413. 413
    Mike Buchanan

    @ SallyStrange

    “Also, I’m a woman in the trades who has personally helped construct several houses. Once I even worked on a crew that was entirely composed of women! How nice to hear we don’t exist.”

    Hi Sally. I invite you to provide evidence that women have contributed so much as 1% of the labour involved in constructing houses (or any infrastructure, e.g. roadbuilding) in any developed country, in any year, in the past 100 years.

  414. 414
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Dani Wells

    “The discussion here is very typical. MRA’s spout some anti-woman/anti-feminist rhetoric and outright LIE about studies and manipulate the abstracts.”

    Please point us all to the comments in which you (or anyone else) demonstrates I – or any other MHRAs – ‘outright LIE about studies and manipulate the abstracts’. To save you time, neither I – nor any other MHRAs – ever has. Still, let’s not let the truth disrupt your silly narratives, shall we? Seriously, are you (and others, e.g. raging bee) not embarrassed about continuing to peddle your lies? I’ve owned house plants with higher IQs than the two of you.

  415. 415
    Mike Buchanan

    @ 123454321

    “From what I can make out, there is nothing getting in the way of young women studying hard and aligning themselves alongside the men, working long hours and pitching correctly in order to exhibit the mental stamina required to grow our businesses.”

    You’ve hit the nail on the head. The stark truth is that very few women are prepared to compete with men on the grounds of talent, experience, and hard work. They much prefer to be handed senior positions on a plate on the grounds of owning a v****a, and men in positions of power (e.g. FTSE100 chairman) are working hard to give them those positions.

  416. 416
    Mike Buchanan

    @ bugmaster

    “But this means that the effects of gender on company performance are not merely unknown, but also unknowable. This means that neither you nor Mike can make justified positive statements about it. He can’t say, “More women in leadership leads to poor performance”, but you can’t say, “More women in leadership has no effect on performance”, either. The best you can say is, “we will never know how gender impacts corporate performance”, which is a kind of statement that does not easily translate into any kind of policy…”

    I’m not sure I follow this. Our longitudinal studies clearly show that appointing more women onto boards leads to declines in corporate performance. Now that effect may be more an inexperience effect than a gender effect -indeed we believe it is – but one result of gender quotas (or the threat of them) is clearly to drive inexperienced people onto boards, with predictably negative consequences. The same would surely be true of ANY ‘under represented’ groups. I ask again, why is the only such group people are bothered about, women? Let’s appoint to major corporate boards rocket scientists, black people, Welsh people, one-legged people, deaf people…

  417. 417
    bugmaster

    @RagingBee:

    SallyStrange posted a link to a study in #408:

    Link (to PDF): http://www.europeanpwn.net/files/women_on_boards_canada.pdf

    Do you think that this study, which concludes that adding women to boards of directors increases corporate performance, is properly controlled ?

  418. 418
    carnation

    Re women on boards of directors. It is such an infantile and counterproductive pov to take that those hostile to MRAs should be grateful. Mike Buchanan displayed a shocking (and quite touching) inability to understand politics in his pursual of the discussion.

    My view? Since women are like men in all their complexity, any stud trying to show which sex makes for a better board will be problematic. Too many variables and a silly research aim.

  419. 419
    Mike Buchanan

    @ carnation

    “Re women on boards of directors. It is such an infantile and counterproductive pov to take that those hostile to MRAs should be grateful. Mike Buchanan displayed a shocking (and quite touching) inability to understand politics in his pursual of the discussion.”

    You’ve lost me again. What have politics got to do with this?

    If it’s infantile to show that more women on boards lead to financial performance decline, is it also infantile to suggest that more women on boards lead to financial performance improvement, as countless researchers have been trying to prove (unsuccessfully, as we’ve demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt) for many years?

    I ask yet again, is financial performance decline a price worth paying for increasing the representation of women on boards? At least that would be a position with some integrity, though I wouldn’t personally support it. The utter denial of the evidence base by women shows women in a very poor light – hardly an argument for more women on boards, is it?

  420. 420
    J4MBFAN

    NO Ally we are not going to go away. Though I can understand you lefties at the Guardian would want us to!
    We are digging in and we are going to get stronger. It makes me laugh out loud when people suggest that J4MB are stuck in the past and we are ultra-conservatives. We’re not conservative, we are the radicals. We have to be because the mainstream media gives us no help WHATSOEVER. If you want innovation and enterprise go take look at the heroic work Mike has done to build up a presence online. There are YouTube videos plus hundreds of followers on Twitter. There hundreds of committed activists on Mike’s Facebook page. The party is looking all the time for new ways to show our passion and energy. When we find the right ones, it will be you lot on the left who are on the margins of the fight for men’s equality not us.

  421. 421
    J4MBfan

    NO Ally we are not going to go away. Though I can understand you lefties at the Guardian would want us to!
    We are digging in and we are going to get stronger. It makes me laugh out loud when people suggest that J4MB are stuck in the past and we are ultra-conservatives. We’re not conservative, we are the radicals. We have to be because the mainstream media gives us no help WHATSOEVER. If you want innovation and enterprise go take look at the heroic work Mike has done to build up a presence online. There are YouTube videos plus hundreds of followers on Twitter. There are hundreds of committed activists on Mike’s Facebook page. The party is looking all the while for new ways to show our passion and energy. Over time, it will be you lot on the left who are on the margins of the fight for men’s equality not us.

  422. 422
    J4MBfan

    Sh*t double-post. Could you please zap 420? Thanks.

  423. 423
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee @ dani wells

    I can’t decide which of you I’ll be proposing for ‘Entitlement Princess of the Month’ (link below). You both richly deserve the award.

    http://www.antifeministtech.info/category/entitlement-princess-of-the-month/

  424. 424
    UkipIfYouWantTo

    It’s understandable that many men are turning away from the left to the likes of UKIP etc. when all they get from the liberal left the whole time is to be slapped in the face. What is the benefit of being excluded from all the special education and training schemes just because you don’t match one of the “protected characteristics”? When will the left learn that you are there either for everyone or no-body?

  425. 425
    carnation

    “Hundreds of committed activists” on Facebook.

    Thank you, MRM, you brightrned my day with that bit of hilarity.

  426. 426
    Raging Bee

    The stark truth is that very few women are prepared to compete with men on the grounds of talent, experience, and hard work.

    And here, once again, Mike shows the pure simpleminded prejudice that drives and degrades the quality of his reasoning. The above statement is so simplistic, and so observably wrong, that no one who utters it can be trusted to reason his way out of a wet paper bag.

    These are the words of a spoiled complacent brat who ignores and takes for granted the hard work of his mother, his teachers, his nurses, his secretaries, the maids at his hotel, the waitresses and fast-food workers who serve his demands for food, and every other woman he counts on to clean up after him…and never stops insisting that women can’t handle hard work.

    In 17 months I’ve looked at 100+ studies in this area. Every one of them which shows a positive correlation between more women on boards and improved financial performance has made it clear correlation isn’t proof of causation, and doesn’t even IMPLY causation.

    So in other words, that study honestly admitted its limitations, and you take that honesty as a point AGAINST its findings? That’s typical of bigoted con-artists like you.

    Hi Sally. I invite you to provide evidence that women have contributed so much as 1% of the labour involved…

    So when you brag about your experience, you expect us to shut up and be impressed; but when a woman mentions her experience, you ignore it and demand statistics. Are you even mature enough to perceive how inconsistent and hypocritical you are?

  427. 427
    Paul

    @Carnation

    Erm, did you read my post? You’re in cloud cuckoo land if you think reputable news agencies will dance to an MRA tune.

    I don’t know what your problem is but yet again you’ve completely missed the point .My point was that the people who control the media- mainly men- have largely allowed feminist journalists to set the agenda with regard to the way the issues of domestic violence and child abuse are reported in this country. So we hear a lot about the two women who are killed every week as a result of dv but a lot less about the one man who is killed most fortnights as a result of dv. Or the fact that at least one child in this country dies every week as a result of dv and that women are involved in most of those child deaths. We hear a lot about the women who are seriously injured as a result of dv in this country but a lot less about the fact that at least a third of those most seriously injured as a result of dv are men.

    We often hear about the women who kill or seriously injure men in self defence but nothing when the roles are reversed. We never hear any discussion about the fact that some of the men and women who are either killed or seriously injured as a result of dv may be just as abusive as the person who killed or seriously injured them. We rarely hear about the involvement of women in the non-sexual abuseof children-defined as physical violence,emotional cruelty neglect and verbal abuse- which can damage a child every bit as much as child sex abuse which is largely committed by males. We never hear about the mothers and other female carers who encourage their children to be violent. And very little about those omen whose expectations of masculinity extend to them using the violence and aggression of their menfolk to do their dirty work for them.

    i could go on but i think i’ve made my point.

  428. 428
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    I wrote:
    “In 17 months I’ve looked at 100+ studies in this area. Every one of them which shows a positive correlation between more women on boards and improved financial performance has made it clear correlation isn’t proof of causation, and doesn’t even IMPLY causation.”

    You wrote:

    “So in other words, that study honestly admitted its limitations, and you take that honesty as a point AGAINST its findings? That’s typical of bigoted con-artists like you.”

    This is getting embarrassing for me as, I suspect, others. The point I was making was that proponents of ‘more women on boards’ cite reports and studies by Catalyst, McKinsey, Credit Suisse etc. as showing that when more women are appointed to boards, financial performance improves, yet ALL such reports – to the best of my knowledge – contain a rider about correlation and causation. Not even the leading global academic proponent of more women on boards, Professor Susan Vinnicombe, challenges our basic thesis. She’s been working in this area for 20+ years, I believe, yet you claim to know better. You appear to have a very high opinion of yourself. On what basis, I have no idea, judging by your contributions to this comments stream.

    Might I suggest you read this twice, or maybe more times, until you actually grasp what’s being said?

    Have a nice day.

  429. 429
    Raging Bee

    bugmaster: I’m skimming the Executive Summary of that study cited by Sally now, and so far, the very least I can say for it is that: a) there’s none of that gratuitous fake-confrontational tone I saw in the documents Mike cited (i.e., “We demanded a response from our enemies and they had NOTHING to say!”); and b) the study came out in 2001, which means it’s likely to have covered a period of growth, rather than a period of uniformly poor performance caused by many interacting factors. that doesn’t prove the study is RIGHT, of course, but it does prove it more credible than Mike’s blithering horseshit.

  430. 430
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Paul

    I understand more children are sexually abused by their biological mothers than by their biological fathers, and a key supporter of J4MB was sexually abused by his mother up to his teenage years. He’s now in his late 60s and even after a lot of therapy is clearly haunted by his experiences. Male rapists are also commonly found to have been sexually abused as children by their mothers.

  431. 431
    Raging Bee

    bugmaster: here are the conclusions that Sally’s study at least claims to support:

    The research therefore supports these conclusions:
    • Diversity on boards, here represented by the presence of women on boards, does change the functioning and deliberative style of the board in clear and consistent ways.
    • “Diversity”—both the inner range of experiences and the outer visible self—is both an enabler and essential precursor of “board unity.”
    • Board unity, activism and independence are core elements of “good governance.”
    • Good governance improves organizational performance over the long term, financially and non-financially.

    These conclusions, at least, are plausible, not outrageous; and basically boil down to “Diversity (not the specific presence of women, mind you) helps boards to be more perceptive and more flexible, and that makes them better able to understand reality and respond more sensibly and flexibly.” And that conclusion pretty much aligns with similar findings I’ve heard in other publications that deal with business and corporate-governance issues without having visible axes to grind either way. So again, that doesn’t mean this study is right, but it does mean it’s plausible.

    As for whether it’s applying proper controls, I really don’t know. At the very least, it’s not taking poor corporate performance during a recession and trying to blame it on one particular factor.

  432. 432
    Raging Bee

    My point was that the people who control the media- mainly men- have largely allowed feminist journalists to set the agenda with regard to the way the issues of domestic violence and child abuse are reported in this country…

    Sorry, Paul, but wild allegations of systematic media conspiracies and coverups are an instant credibility-killer. You just put yourself squarely in the same box as the teatards, Larouchies, and every other bigot and loony trying to explain why observable reality doesn’t support his prejudices.

  433. 433
    Mike Buchanan

    @ raging bee

    From page 12 of the report you cite:

    “These correlations do not necessarily show causality; it is possible that industry leaders and more profitable firms feel more comfortable in “risking” innovative governance practices, such as increasing diversity on boards, just as it is possible that increased diversity contributes to higher profits, revenues, and assets. Clearly, more research is needed in the area of cause and effect, particularly in gauging how women affect organizational outcomes and results.”

    The report dates from 2001. Well, ‘more research’ was carried out, and we all know what THAT indicated, don’t we?

  434. 434
    carnation

    @ Paul

    No, you haven’t made your point, you have rehashed half baked MRA thesis backed up with zero evidence.

    My problem with this is that you are stating opinion as fact, which is wrong.
    8

    I listed 8 examples, from.the.BBC alone, that contradict what you are saying.

    Look.at things objectively, saying feminists set the.agenda in the media is as nutty as saying femibists infiltrated the.governmebt to.wage war on men.

  435. 435
    Mike Buchanan

    @ carnation

    “Look at things objectively, saying feminists set the agenda in the media is as nutty as saying feminists infiltrated the government to wage war on men.”

    I’m having discussions with a producer making a TV documentary set to broadcast in the new year. If it does so, it will be the first piece on mainstream TV or radio giving any exposure to anti-feminists for the past 40+ years. I confidently expect the majority of the content of the piece (whose producer is a young woman) to be pro-feminist – the presenter will be a feminist with some public profile.

  436. 436
    Adiabat

    Clue #2: In an experiment, when something affects the control group and the experimental group equally, it can generally be ruled out as the cause of a difference between the control group and experimental group.

    (Hopefully Mr Bee’s deficient education hasn’t held him back too much and he can get the answer with this clue. Surely his education isn’t so woeful as to require the third clue due tomorrow)

  437. 437
    carnation

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Interesting. Any news on the 20/20 interview wiyth Paul Elam? Been wondering if it has been shelved.. I hope not.

  438. 438
    Raging Bee

    Mike, your account of your “discussions” does not refute carnation’s statements.

  439. 439
    Raging Bee

    The report dates from 2001. Well, ‘more research’ was carried out, and we all know what THAT indicated, don’t we?

    Yeah, bigoted liars like you immediately discounded most of the research as “feminist-friendly,” without even trying to disprove any of its content.

  440. 440
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Adiabat

    “Clue #2: In an experiment, when something affects the control group and the experimental group equally, it can generally be ruled out as the cause of a difference between the control group and experimental group.”

    Brilliant. Your clues are like rays of sunshine on a gloomy day. Long may you keep posting them. In about 20 years’ time you might start to run out material.

  441. 441
    Mike Buchanan

    @ carnation

    I believe it’s going to be broadcast quite soon. Rest assured they’ll make a lot of it (however it’s edited). The show has 50+ million viewers, I believe.

  442. 442
    Paul

    @Carnation and Raging Bee

    You both seem to have an almost fascist intolerence of anyone who disagrees with you and you prove that by chucking around ad homs like confetti..

    If you’d both bothered to read my posts rather than blindly pursuing your own agendas you’d realise by now that i don’t support either F4MB or any other hardcore MRA’s for that matter. And that i stated that i agreed with the point Erin Pizzey made some time ago that those-mainly men- who control the UK media saw the issue of gender as being a ”womens problem’ and had allowed women journalists- many of them feminists- to dominate any discussion about issues such as dv and child abuse.Consequently media discussion about dv and child abuse tends to be weighted in favour of those who view women as being primarily victims and men as perpetrators.I NEVER r said at any time that the role of women as perpetrators was NEVER discussed in the media .I did also question why more male journalists don’t write about these and other gender related issues issues.

    On this blog and elsewhere i’ve argued that if we want to become a less violent society we have to be much more vigourous in the way we challenge women -as well as men- about their attitudes,behaviour and expectations especially with regard to masculinity and what they think makes a ”real man”..And we need to acknowledge the level of complicity and participation of females in any behaviours that most people view as being unaccpetable,At present i genuinely believe that women too often slip under the radar whilst the spotlight is on men as being the problem.

    i believe that the majority of men and women are basically decent.i also believe that equality between the sexes should cut both ways .And that males who face discrimination on account of their sex should be taken every bit as seriously as men.If you disagree with any of that then fair enough -let’s have a debate.But ffs please cut the crap the pair of you.

  443. 443