Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Saturday, 18 February 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Oh dear, another fantastic book about the truths of Feminism spoilt by a bad choice of cover. Why choose that picture for the cover when a) it won't be shown on television and therefore you won't be invited on to dicuss its contents b) it would scare kids so you won't read the book in public c) the cover could be deemed at attacking women and their looks, resulting in SYMPATHY for Feminists!Swayne O'Pie's book had a similar inappropriate cover picture. What's wrong with a plain book cover! I don't feel the cover picture does our cause any good. We lose respect by apparently demonising women and their looks. If there are any other authors intending to write a book about the myths of Feminism PLEASE just ignore the advice of your publisher and go for a plain cover - your find yourself invited on more shows it discuss it if you do and you won't have to spend half of the show defending your choice of cover and how it portrays women. You can then just focus on its contents.

Mike Buchanan

John, many thanks for your comments, and I understand your points fully. Please permit me to explain my thinking.

There have been numerous excellent anti-militant-feminism books with covers which are 'uncontroversial' - Christina Hoff Sommers's 'Who Stole Feminism?' comes to mind - which have had (I'm sorry to say) no impact on the relentless march of militant feminism.

It's time we were more honest about what lies behind militant feminism. Quite apart from ideology, it's no accident that militant feminists tend to be unattractive, so I explore the issue of female attractiveness in the book. It's also no accident that men-hating lesbian feminists have a disproportionate influence in the movement, so I explore that too.

With the cover I'm seeking to give people a jolt - I for one look forward to reading the book on trains, and on the London Undergrund in particular - to DARE them to think (and to say) the unthinkable and unsayable. Let's look at this ugly ideology face-on.

I have no desire to appease the people who might be offended by the cover (they won't read the book anyway) and I should be delighted to defend the cover if ever interviewed on the TV or radio (chance would be a fine thing!) I want the book to be bought by, and read by, people in the vast majority of the population who aren't militant feminists.

It's time to FIGHT these damnable women (and, all too often, men, e.g. David Cameron). They have no interest in a rational debate about what they're doing. They just want power over the men they hate so much, and we're handing it to them on a plate.

A small minority of women are bending our institutions to their will, largely because they ruthlessly exploit men's hard-wired deference towards women (what an irony!) If my book's cover wakes up even a few people to how ugly feminism is, I shall be happy. If it upsets feminists, I shall be even happier.

Finally, I've emailed the Editor to inform him the book is available only in ebook editions for the time being, and for those without e-readers it can be read on PCs and Macs with free-to-download ebook software from Amazon, Sony, Apple etc. The paperback edition won't be out until April, and quite possibly some months after that (if ever - depends on sales).

Have a nice day!

Mike Buchanan


I agree with John I'm afraid Mike, the cover isn't too good. Even if the other books had no impact (and its difficult to gauge impact) it is not necessarily because of the cover.

Perhaps a pastiche of blended images such as F4J protesters, Ms Harmann and the sign infront of the family courts would be more apt.

Sorry but the cover is just too much and doesn't make it look like a serious book.

I think the reason anti-feminist books get sidelined is because the mainstream media decide to ignore them. I don't think the cover is the principle reason. Once the book gets publicity then the sales aspect comes in and the cover matters much more. Just my 'two cents'.

Though I must say hats-off to you Mike for writing this book. This and many more are needed.


You see, I see this from a different angle. Having lived a life as a male in a society that besmirches men at every opportunity, basically portraying them as either evil, stupid or, more and more these days, as desirable sex objects (although few people seem to have latched onto this because they're all indoctrinated with the idea that only females can be objectified), I feel that this cover provides a much needed balance that is well overdue. We all know that are kids are used to seeing men as evil - even in bedtime stories. And this will never change. So tell me, what is wrong with showing that the female species can be evil too? After all, we all know that women have plenty of potential to be evil, and some are, just like some men are. I didn't like the cover where the guy is shown in the nude with a woman grasping his genitals because this shows a man, once again, in a vulnerable position. If I was a child, that cover would say to me 'women have vulnerable men in control at their fingertips'. I think Mike's cover, after careful consideration, makes a nice refreshing change and it's nice to see the tables turned for once!

Mike Buchanan

Bob and Dave, thank you for your comments. Always helpful to get some feedback.

Dave, your point that 'the female of the species can be evil too' is well made, and it neatly sums up some of my thinking with regards to the cover (and the book's contents too, come to that). I think men's failure to accept the evil nature of some women partly explains the 'success' of militant feminism ('success' in feminist terms, anyway).

If a small group of men assaulted the interests of all men and boys, and the majority of women and girls, there'd be riots. But because it's a small band of women doing the assaulting, they're allowed to get away with it. Encouraged, even, by those with a vested interest in wishing to be seen as 'women friendly', such as politicians in general, and David Cameron in particular.

Your comment reminded me of an article referenced in Swayne O'Pie's recently-published 'Why Britain Hates Men: Feminism Exposed'. The article goes back 11 years but the situation is surely worse now than then:

(The Guardian, 14 August 2001: Fiachra Gibbons)

Doris Lessing, who became a feminist icon with the books 'The Grass is Singing' and 'The Golden Notebook', said a ‘lazy and insidious’ culture had taken hold within feminism that revelled in flailing men. Young boys were being weighed down with guilt about the crimes of their sex, she told the Edinburgh book festival.

'I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed’, the 81-year-old Zimbabwean-born writer said yesterday.

‘I was in a class of nine- and ten-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls fat with complacency and conceit, while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives.’

Lessing said that the teacher ‘tried to catch my eye, thinking that I would approve of this rubbish’.

She added: ‘This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing. It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man, and no one protests. Men seem to be so cowed that they cannot fight back. And it is time they did.’

I agree. It's time we fought back.


I think Doris Lessing meant fight back by exposing feminism for the hate crime it is, not mimicking it. Its best not to copy the tactics you deplore.

Ok, its only human nature to do so in order to equal the scores and on low level that's not counterproductive and can induce some empathy in casual feminists if they feel the sting of their own ethos.

However to parade this demeaning attitude, which copies what you debunk within the book itself as the actual frontpiece says that at the base of it all you are just as bad as the feminists. Ok, I'm sure you're not and I fully understand your hatred of them, but that is what a cover like that indicates and will also leave you open to public accusations that you are really actually just as bad as them.

Lessing herself didn't choose aggressive covers for her books and there is a reason for that. Anyone who publicly demeans others will ultimately end up having it reflect back on them. You must be aware of this because it will be used against you.

Sorry Mike but the cover is just too much, its gotta go mate!


Venus: the dark side. Started out with a much more angry cover and title. The change from using B.... in the title to the softer words and image means I have been happy to buy copies to give to Library's locally. And they have put them out to loan. Library's are strapped for cash and accept serious books. Just a story to add to the discussion.


Unfortunately, it seems that when you're too nice in life, you get taken advantage of. The problem with men is that they are, on the whole fundamentally more decent to women than women are to men. This coupled with the fact that women seem to protect one another whilst men don't, means that the female species can get away with far more abuse aimed at men which seems to get tolerated. Take, for instance, the card shop I visited the other day. I looked for a funny card to send to a friend for their Birthday. The section was rife with cards that mocked men, some of which were quite abusive. There were jokes about them being lazy, useless, smelly, bald, unreliable, unhygienic, cheating, evil etc. Then there were the cards referencing their genitalia and the usual bunch of cards at child's - eye height showing men's bums etc.

Personally, I find this ofensive. Not because I can't take a joke (some were funny), but the fact that it is so one-sided. Men, even in a card shop, are the butt of all jokes, it appears, and thus youngsters growing up perusing today's high street pick up these vibes and then transfer the ideas across society. Incidentally, there were virtually no cards mocking women, the one or two I found were very mild in comparison.

This is only a representative analogy but I honestly can't see the card shops pulling out from the ongoing onslaught against men, after all, women love to besmirch men!

So how do you put an end to this fundamentally damaging concept that does nothing more than breed acceptance amongst our young generation that it's ok to ridicule men? Do you have any ideas other than just sitting back and hoping it will go away? Because it won't you know! You'll live your life and leave your children with all the baggage.

Mike's cover is nothing compared with what men have to endure. I have seen books with clear titles like: "Why are Men are so Stupid?" and "All Men are Idiots" etc. etc.
I think Mike has chosen not to just sit back and do nothing. I hope it pays off.


"Unfortunately, it seems that when you're too nice in life, you get taken advantage of." Indeed Dave, been my problem for a long time.

I saw an ad from Virgin for their internet service with the woman and her cat getting broadband. Another of the many 'replace your man with a pet' adverts that have been all the rage for the past few years.

I was thinking, a picture of Harperson on the cover would do it, no need for editing.

Mike Buchanan

Dave / Bob

Thanks again. I already have a picture of Harperson on one of my books. I commissioned a cartoon by Martin Honeysett for the cover of 'David and Goliatha: David Cameron - heir to Harman?'

Mike Buchanan


Bob, don't get me started on adverts - I need to go to bed early :-) How some of these adverts get away with what they do is beyond me! Not sure who are the worst perpetrators, but there are lots of companies high on my list! I understand how some people can think things like cards, adverts, TV shows etc. are low level issues. But it's those basic influences that help indoctrinate and mould behavioural aspects amongst our young society and then pave the way for our future generation's social environment.


I'm sorry, but this book is nothing but a load of rubbish. Feminism is a movement against the patriarchy, which harms women as well as men. Feminism is against gender stereotypes, such as 'men are stupid and unsympathetic', and 'women are illogical and over emotional'. Modern day feminism is about equality, not only between different sexes, but between people of different sexualities and ethnicities. Feminism is not against men. I, for one, am a feminist and I love men. However I don't like people, not just men, but women also, who believe that: women are naturally inferior to men; that women are only as good as their looks; that men who display emotions, feelings and other characteristics (that are for some absurd reason) are considered to be feminine, are not good enough to be called 'real men'. This idea of 'militant feminism' is as real as Father Christmas.
This book seems to me to be very closed minded, written by someone who has not bothered to actually understand and explore what modern day feminism is. Instead, it tries to make myths and opinions look like facts. I wanted to read it to understand how the other side might feel. I thought it might be... oh, I don't know... rational? Logical? It wasn't.


Jane - modern day feminism, whatever that may be, is dead before it was born. It was killed by orthodox feminism and what feminism in general has brought to society so far. I totally agree with equality, as do most people around here, but men are not treated fairly and that's a fact. It would be far easier for you to make a list of female inequalities than me to prepare a list of male ones! As a female you get preferential treatment that I don't get. On a sinking ship, you survive, I die. Thanks not to feminism, old school or modern!


I think the fundamental problem is the notion that there is "the patriarchy". This gets conflated into all men as if men are some form of uniform class of people which the movement needs to fight against. A simple glance at life shows that there are a few men and women in our society who could be said to be in charge, the rest get on with life as best they may. Jane I too think that equality is about a moral equality between people. The annoying thing is that what I actually observe is the banners of "feminism" or "equality" used to further the interest of a very small number of already very powerful individuals(often with family and social links) using claims based on historical events or supposed equivalence with people in genuine need. Even worse then these people use the same spurious linkages to deny support to people who genuinely need it. The domestic violence support industry being the most overt example. The scandals at the end of the last parliament clearly illustrated the equality in the political class as men women and ethnic minority parliamentarians were represented in the haul of shame.

I'm a FEMINIST, and I am proud.

First off, I would like to say I could read the sample of the book and the other comments without bursting of laughter or screaming at the stupidity that I saw...but alas I could not. Has anyone on this site actually ever talked to a feminist or any modern women? You are basically saying that women should stay at home and sew and cook for men. HOW IS THAT EQUAL? Now there are some extreme feminists out there, but you can't just going around saying that feminism generally supports "man hating", and that we are ugly (is that just based on (STUPID!)biased opinion or are there statistics?)I challenge you to go ask a random woman anywhere and ask her if she thinks its her nature to sit, sew, cook, and take care of kids and not do anything else. I'll guarantee that they will slap you. Feminists goal is not to beat down men, it is to fight for equality for women which can benefit everyone. Woman are not equal yet. Men had control of the world for thousands of years, and in the past 200 years women have made strives to become more equal, and I am proud of this fact. No longer will women be the feeble female who quietly sits at home and follows the orders of a man. And if you don't like that, move to a country where women have no rights, like Saudi Arabia. I'm sure you will be happier over there, lording your superiority over the women that have no rights over there. You may mock feminists, but when have you had to go through discrimination because of your gender? You may imagine you have, but trust me the discrimination is a lot harsher for the other sex. By the way, I don't think you have to worry about the tacky and tasteless cover, I think the actual book was so bad that nobody noticed.

Peter Charnley

Through laughter and screams, a proud feminist writes:-
"You are basically saying that women should stay at home and sew and cook for men."

I have to confess that I manage to keep a tight reign on my own emotions when I hear that they are still practising positive discrimination in favour of women, along with female only scholarship schemes, at some American universities where male attendance is down to between 30-40%. I can still suppress the tears at the thought that the vast majority of the world's homeless are male, that many times the funding is afforded to female specific disease, in terms of treatment, public awareness and testing, than it is for male. The weeping is still kept at bay at the realisation that our education system has been deliberately sabotaged, ultimately lowering standards for all, but particularly undermining the incentive, interest and performance of boys. And laughter seems a million miles away at the concept of millions of dissolving marriages, families, alienated father figures, withering indigenous birth rates, unborn human beings aborted annually in their millions, rapidly ageing populations - and the horrific social devastation that is only just now beginning to kick into gear.

Well, if this determinedly proud individual believes concern and doubt about feminism focuses upon cooking and sewing and keeping the home fires burning - be proud of yourself woman. Self deception is clearly more than an art form for some, it is a quasi-religion.

I do not yet know what Mike Buchanan's message will be exactly - but I have ordered a copy from Amazon.

Belligerent Fool

I would like to challenge the view that women need equality because they have been oppressed by men for thousands of years.

Firstly, we suffer from nowism. By that I mean that we fail to realise that we live in a very different world to our forefathers and foremothers. They lived in a world were division of labour was not optional and they lived in a world that was dominated by physical threats to life. The point I am making is that men did not oppress women, we were oppressed jointly by our environment in a way that is totally alien to us today.

Secondly, I would like to suggest that women are equal in every sense of the word today and to fight for even more equality is really a fight for superiority. Feminists (Female Supremacists - FS) justify this by cataloging the historic injustice done to their sex. However it is not right to punish the men of today, because, quite simply "it wasn't us that done it, love". The people FSs are mad at are long gone and to tar us with the same brush is ... sexist.


BF you are so right. Probably the two most dramatic changes have been our longevity, which means that the time taken up in carrying and nursing children formed progressively less of the total lifespan coupled with the dramatic fall in birthrates in the latter part of the last century. As you say coupled with a rapid increase in material comfort overall it is pretty clear that things have changed quite without any specific ideology. Indeed many of the concessions and privileges granted to women on the assumption that they have substantial childcare roles seem quite redundant in a society with so few children. I assume the absence of any actual negative discrimination is why feminist ideologues so often look to the Muslim or third world for examples of the patriarchy, so clearly not present in first world societies only too ready to apply positive discrimination . Of course for men the role largely remained the same, work longer, support others and die younger.


Interesting that the mysogynists who have commented and believe me we can recognise you by your language and negativity against women, who by the way brought you into the world, are fighting tirelessly to promote 'masculinism' in a patriarchal society. A feminist man does not protest, demean, derogatorise, degrade, disenfranchise, dupe, decimate or wish to because, he sees men and women as equal. Catch up the rest of you guys, we are no longer in the caves!!!!!!!!!!!

Janette McGrory

I listened to 'Woman's Hour' this morning on Radio 4 where Mike Buchanan was attempting to promote his male-dominated 'political party'...'Justice for Men and Boys..and the women who love them'. Thankfully there was another man on the programme - John O'Farrell - to talk sense around the issues. Listening to Mike Buchanan, the overriding sense one gets is that he must have been dealt some serious blows in the past by the women in his life because he has such hatred for us! He actually thinks that feminists are the ones with the hatred! You only need to look at the cover of his hateful book on feminism to see what his true feelings are! My question is....what is he so scared of? If he knows anything about feminism at all, then he will know that feminists do not hate men per say, they hate the system (usually run by men) that for hundreds of years has attempted to make them out to be less than men in every sense of the word. Feminists just want to be treated with equal respect, have equal opportunities, and to be considered, first and foremost, to be people with a brain and not just objects with breasts and a vagina! When the day dawns - and it will - when men and women are treated with equal fairness and respect in every area of society - our society will be a happier, safer place to live in and free from such vitriol as Mike Buchanan obviously feels justified in promoting.


Stangely ladies Mike didn't express any vitriol or attack anyone. However Mr. Farrel tried a few personal remarks about Mike as well as some scatter gun comments. Mike explained that many of the women supporting him were doing so from concern about their sons.
I agree we live in all the comfort and ease of a "man made" world here in the 21st Century. But very few of those men had any rights or privileges while of course some women had quite a few. Even in the UK male suffrage was introduced barely 20 years prior to female suffrage. Liberated from short lives consumed by bearing and nursing children it is indeed time for women to make a much bigger contribution to building the future. One result should be men have more time not least an equal lifespan and retirement.The end of paternalistic protections for the "fairer sex" should give more room to consider the so far disregarded needs and burdens of the "disposable sex".

Mark W

Like Janette I listened to Woman’s Hour on Thursday during which Mr Buchanan was interviewed and was also challenged by John O’Farrell.
What I would have like to have heard was Mr Buchanan giving one piece of evidence to support his wild claim that successive governments have actively legislated against men and men’s rights – he has, so far in my reading and listening to him, nit been able to give one meaningful and well researched scrap of evidence about any anti male legislation. A few anecdotes from people who have obviously felt they have been on the wrong end of some form of discrimination. Well if they feel that then take it to a tribunal (which is more than likely to be run by a man by the way), where the guidelines for judgement will have been established by men, as will the legislation that established the tribunals in the first place!!

While it is true that men have a shorter life expectancy this is nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. Men are less likely to go to the doctors, less likely to talk about illnesses, less likely to eat healthily and more likely to smoke and drink heavily. So if Mr Buchanan wants to be pro mens health he could have a very positive approach and encourage more men to be more open (a feminine trait I believe).

I know from personal experience that in divorce and separation cases women are more likely to get custody of the children. Work towards a fairer system here too, but again this is nothing to do with feminism, this is far more to do with the lack of responsibility that men are prepared to take. I know a number of men who have left their spouses and want nothing to do with the children afterwards, so make no effort to spend time with them. I worked really hard to ensure that I spent as much time as possible with my children in spite of the fact that I put nearly 400 miles of distance between me and their mother! I didn’t feel sorry for myself or go draping banners across buildings – I built a relationship with my children. So maybe Mr Buchanan can use some of his hatred and vitriol of women and channel it into developing a more grown up response from a bunch of men who want to go and spread their seed, but not take responsibility for the outcome of that.

I am all in favour of equality of opportunity the problem is that the world we live in has been designed by men for men and so the opportunities are far fewer for women. Let’s aim to make the playing field more level. One of the ways we do that is to redress the imbalance that has been in place for hundreds of years. The pendulum has to swing a long way in the direction of women before we will have any idea where the middle ground lies.

A really simple example is my wife and I run our own business. When we are at business meetings our clients almost always defer to me regardless of whether it is me who has put the proposal together. I feel uncomfortable because the clients are not basing their focus of attention on me because of meritocratic reasons, but because I am a man. It happens time and time again and is blatant discrimination. As a white, middle class male I have NEVER suffered discrimination, but I see it day in day out with my wife and business partner! It needs to change and while ever there are women hating bigots who make society wide decisions then there is little hope for equality.


Mark I'm pleased the in your personal experience you haven't experienced any discrimination. Yet you do point out issues of unfairness to males. Most legislation is indeed framed to be Gender Neutral. However the policy, guidance or strategy linked to the law reveals how the state agencies are to act. It's in these that one sees the intent. Have a look at CAFCAS ,the CPS, EHRC Documents on Gender issues and you will see the clear influence of this ideology. One can avoid it by having no contact with state agencies but that is hard for most to do. Of course most women don't support feminism so opposing it's more oppressive emanations is hardly anti women. Were you a White working class man you may well have experienced it.

Alex S

Read the sample here.

Pretty disgusting book, great job.

(So that you actually listen to what I say, I better point out that I'm a guy.)

There are many facets of feminism you just aren't understanding, which entirely undermine every word you say in the book. Even ignoring the core misunderstandings you make repeatedly, none of the book's rhetoric stands up by itself. No sentence in it is justified or logically appealing. It's entirely an appeal to pathos, i.e. emotional riling rather than logical argument, which even itself fails if the reader has any intellect. I've spent a good three years studying rhetoric with the few masters of it in the UK. You're rhetoric is agonizing, esoteric, idiosyncratic and vacuous.

Returning to the actual content here, you misunderstand that "feminism" is a concept unique to every individual who believes in it or disagree with it or even thinks about it. Your feminism is not my feminism. My feminism is not Shulamith Firestone's. Etc. Etc. Everyone's understanding of it is different, relating to subjective thoughts, philosophies, beliefs, experiences, people, etc.

For another, if you do any sort of background reading you'll understand that there's an incredible depth to theoretical and critical concepts underlying "feminism," which again undermine what you say. Repeatedly. You discuss feminism on a superficial, tabloid, "hack level". The concept is in fact on parallel with Marxism, Socialism, Liberalism, Neitzschean philosophy. It's a fully fleshed-out, logically appealing political concept.

Here's the facts of, for example, Shulamith Firestone and Judith Butler's work in the second-wave.

Biology is inherently sexist. Women are weaker. They suffer from constant physical irregularities and debilitations. They get pregnant- they effectively have no control over this due to rape, etc. Men are stronger, and their bodies are consistently structured after puberty.

Our society is a creation which overcomes imbalances. Racial inequality- beaten to an extent. Class equality- not beaten, but affected. Sexism- until the late 19th-20th century, unbeaten. Society is an act of creation- feminism proposes we creatively build equality for women where, in nature, no equality exists whatsoever. Biologically, women are a production facility used by men. The modern "housewife" embodies this. Feminists say this, see this, and agree with its existence, but add that we have to change it. Not _against_ men. _For_ women.

Feminism- despite its extremist or fundamentalist aspects, has beaten back the majority of the inequality. Yet, the world over, women are still raped and beaten on a day to day basis due to thoughts like the ill-informed and inciteful ones in this book.

Oh well. Have a good life, Mr Buchannan. In 50 years you'll be a forgotten name, all your texts will be forgotten except as studies of misled schools of thought, and the world will have moved on without you and made itself better- thanks in no small part to movements like feminism. The damages it has caused, apparently, to a small proportion of men, are insignificant in comparison to the good it creates, and has created.

And stuff like "feminists are generally ugly"? What the heck? My girlfriend and all her friends are feminists, and she's a gorgeous journalist, her friends are all attractive and are writers, translators, musicians. All feminists. Your generalisations are just inane and insane and reactionary.

EverSmoke Coupon Code

I rarely comment, but I glanced through some responses on this page The Rights Of Man : FEMINISM: THE UGLY TRUTH (Extract) by MIKE BUCHANAN. I do have some questions for you if it's allright. Could it be only me or do some of the remarks appear like they are left by brain dead folks? :-P And, if you are posting at additional places, I'd like to keep up with anything new you have to post. Would you make a list of all of all your public pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List