Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Thursday, 03 January 2013


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

Mike Buchanan

Skimminton, thanks for another great post. It will be interesting to see how this develops. I think Willetts's heart is in the right place, as is Michael Gove's. If I had my way, I'd replace David Cameron at No.10 with Michael Gove today. Hell, I'd be happy to replace him with Keira Knghtley, but only on the strict understanding that when she toured the country, she did so on the big motorbike she rides in that Chanel ad. I digress...

Onto the important question you raise at the end of your piece. Almost any font is better than Arial. Verdana is fine, but Garamond would be even better. Pleased to help.

We expect to be getting some MAJOR publicity around our plans for a new political party in the coming week or so. I invite TROM visitors to be the first to learn more, by subscribing to Just enter your email address in the box in the top right corner of the home page. Couldn't be simpler.

I must stop thinking about the Keira Knightley ad, and get back to fighting feminism... but that brings up images of Harridan Harman...

Mike Buchanan


Thank you for the mention Skimmington. I too am not in favour of quotas. However it is a way of showing up the hypocracy and double standards of the equality industry and feminist pressure groups.

Willetts actually point to to the fact that the university applications are the end of "underachievement" throughout the education system.

Now the equality industry's response should be exactly as he suggests; special attention of research and state help for an obvious minority at university. This is exactly their response for instance with regard to women in science at higher education levels (or indeed Boardroom membership). For feminists there shuld be at least concern about an "imbalance".

So Willets' challenge is well aimed at the equality industry (of course I doubt it will be taken up).

For feminists this debateon the facts on previous occasions has brought the following main repsonse to justify doing nothing.

a.Boys are harder to educate for reasons which are largely the fault of the boys themselves. In fact in their own jargon they "blame the victim".

b. Nothing should be done because men over 30 tend to earn more than women anyway. Again pointing to their hypocracy. for instance a similar aruement may go that women shouldn't helped into higher education because in later life they tend to work less and are less ambitious (society gets less return for its investment in their education).

The facts can't be disputed. What the debate can do is expose both the wider issue of educational and social assumptions about boys and men (misandry). And the self interested chauvinism of many feminist organisations which use exactly the lines of arguement for inaction that they would lambast were they to be used about girls or women. Of course it is also pretty conclusive proof that there isn't some overall "patriarchy" uniformly benefiting all males and makes all females "victims".

As a father of three I expected the education system to offer the same opportunity to my son's and daughter. Mr Willets makes me wonder..... I think most parents will think the same and be disturbed by people suggesting it shouldn't because boys are just too difficult to teach and the effort is even less worthwhile because decades after they have left education my sons may earn more than my daughter.

When first I started reading TROM I was such a parent unquestioningly assuming the education system would be doing its best for all. I have learned otherwise. I think three cheers for Willets in hopefully similarly starting to sensitise parents to this pervasive failure to do the best for all pupils and students. And the role of feminist authodoxy in promoting and concealing it.

Mike I hope your Party can keep such issues in the public eye. Health and education seem to me to be strong ground to challenge feminist authodoxy using their own logic.

Mike Buchanan

Groan, thanks for your interesting comments. I agree, health and education are without doubt important areas on which to campaign politically. The number of important areas is, of course, substantial. The challenge for the party will be to select the areas to focus on, given we'll have limited resources for a time.


Political party? What a waste of time, sounds more like a few people gravy-training to me. I suspect we shall see more of the other gravy trainers involved with avfm and it's women sniffing about at some point. Building powerful lobbying groups would be the real way forward if your into it for all men.

Mike Buchanan

Derek, I take offence at the term 'gravy trainer'. I work full-time fighting the manifestations of feminism, I get no income from doing so, and I feel confident that won't change. In 30+ years the MRM has failed to build 'powerful lobbying groups'. The reasons are all too clear.

Lobbying groups only become powerful when they can swing the popular vote at elections. THEN politicians will take notice, because they risk losing their seats / livelihoods. Achieving this leverage requires dedication and hard work, not pleading uselessly for men to collaborate in a manner which is natural for women but unnatural for men.

So, Derek, what are YOU doing to build the powerful lobbying groups of which you dream?

Mike Buchanan


If there were a political party to vote for which I knew supported TRUE equality e.g. had a minister for men as well as women (or one for both) and preached as much about men's rights as they do about women's, I would absolutely, definitely tick that box on the ballot paper.

I wonder how many other men would do the same? It could be millions. And it definitely would be with some media exposure and intense edification aimed at our male population.

Mike Buchanan

Thanks Dave, an interesting point. How about a party that campaigned not for a minister for men, but for the end of ministers for women, and other similar actions? Of course the actions would have to be far more substantive. Titles such as 'minister for women' are little more than a sop for e.g. the Fawcett Society. The femnists could pursue their evil agendas without people having such titles (as they did at one time)


Mike, when we see exactly who is involved, how you are financed, who you team with, disclosure of interests etc. Time will tell. Anyone who knows anything knows as a political party you will not get far with the brainwashed british public . Responding with challenge instead of some reason and strategy that disproves what i say, tells me you know that already.

Mike Buchanan

Derek, thanks. I can only suggest you follow what we're doing by getting notifications of new blog posts, by putting your email address in the top right corner of Had another good donation earlier today. I responded with a challenge because I know what I'm doing to fight feminism, but haven't a clue what you're doing.


Mike, how far did feminism get, did my you ever see feminists form a woman's political PARTY or did you see them use strategic lobbying?

I wonder why they didn't bother forming a party and using lobbying instead? Still you can claim expenses and wages from donations to party's , not so easy as a lobbyist.


I am disappointed with the tone of the points being made about Mike's political party.

It is good to have a lively debate but we are all on the same side. While we may have different opinions about how to get there - what point does it serve to make accusations about people's motives when clearly they are well intentioned?

It is the sort of thing that has continually sets the MRM back. The only people who benefit are those who don't want equality for men and boys.

Mike Buchanan

Skimmington, thank you. Criticism of motives etc. can be dispiriting, but only (for me, amyway) because it illustrates that men (unlike women) have a problem collaborating to advance and/or defend their interests. Which alone makes a mockery of the 'patriarchy' cornerstone of feminism.

On a practical note, I'm working long hours seven days a week on anti-feminism activities, and it's not a great use of limited time trying to persuade doubters. Which is why I ask people to get auto notifications on my blog to keep up with developments.

I was interviewed by a major national paper this week, one that supports what I'm doing, and I expect a two-page article to appear in about a week's time. As soon as it's published I'll let you know.

All the signs are that the media are getting more interested in the MRM / anti-feminism campaigning. Hopefully I'm not repeating myself, but I was attacked by the 29-year-old feminist deputy editor of the 'New Statesman' in their latest edition (p.8). A good end to a good week:

Brian, many thanks for your comments. Feminists didn't NEED to form a party, their strategy was predictably Leftie in origin, to infiltrate all three main parties and have those parties do their bidding (though I guess lobbying from e.g. the Fawcett Society did its bit). This strategy has been very successful. All three parties have long danced to the feminists' tune.

Of course there was Harman et al in the last Labour administration (1997 - 2010). In the curent coalition there are highly driven feminists, mainly Lib Dem (e.g. Lynn Featherstone, Jo Swinson), and they get all the key gender-related posts. Very few Tory MPs or peers challenge them either overtly or covertly (Philip Davies is a rare exception, which is why he's the only politician to date to win a 'Winston').

Then we have feminist-friendly uber-Leftie ministers such as Vince Cable, the Anti-Business Secretary, who's driving the gender balance in the boardroom debate. And of course the worst of these men is Cameron himself, who won our 'Toady of the Year' award in 2012. The way he's going, he may win it in 2013 too.

Mike Buchanan


" Brian, many thanks for your comments. Feminists didn't NEED to form a party, their strategy was predictably Leftie in origin, to infiltrate all three main parties and have those parties do their bidding "

I think that is exactly what is being said Mike, they didn't NEED to have a party because lobbying (infiltrating) parties is much more effective? That's the point it was getting at I guess.

Anyway, asking questions about who benefits from forming a party in any way what so ever, whether financially or in any other way, is perfectly reasonable and a legitimate course of questioning and investigation. Not only that it is an essential line of questioning to ensure our democratic process and transparency is upheld, only a blooming shame so many parties don't practice it themselves!

If it is a political party you want, then this is perfectly legitimate and is nothing I have not asked of any other party before. I have seen people harm the MRM in this way, this is why i ask what I do and start digging. Forming a party could cause great harm to the MRM if done badly or corruptly, so dig I will, if there is nothing to find, then I shall find nothing.

I wish you luck, I still think it is the wrong way to go myself. As you say though, getting men, especially large groups, to act together and do it the other way, is very difficult and on that I give my understanding to your way of going.

Mike Buchanan

Thanks Brian. A few thoughts:

1. I've no idea how the MRM might lobby / infiltrate a party. The vast majority of MPs and peers are scared stiff of being seen to associate with MRAs. If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them. The F4J people and F4J offshoots have been lobbying (for over 10 years) with little to show for it (hopefully I'm not misrepresenting the position - I'm just reporting what appears to be a common view).

2. If this was about making money, I'd ditch it for something far more lucrative. Stacking shelves at Lidl would certainly do it. When I retired from business consultancy in 2010 I was making markedly more than MPs make.

3. After writing three books largely about feminism, I thought it was time to get actively campaigning.

4. There are elements of our thinking which must remain confidential at this stage. Rest assured we're exploring in depth the issues and reservations you (and others) have expressed, here and elsewhere.

5. We have no plans to do anything badly or corruptly haha. We have a Treasurer in place already and have already had some good donations.

6. You mention other people 'harming the MRM' by forming a party. Do you mean in the UK? If so, it hasn't come to my attention before. Can you give me details? I'm aware some people in NZ launched a party but it didn't fare well, or so I'm told. We need to learn from others' mistakes.

6. If you (or indeed anyone else who reads this) can offer some time to help us with some desk/PC-based research that needs to be done, please let me know - Thanks.

Mike Buchanan


Brian, I really don't understand why you think what Mike is doing is a bad thing. I, for one, and there must be many, many other men like me, think it's well overdue that politics in general recognises there are lots of critical men's issues out there that require attention. I can't understand why you wouldn't support such a proactive measure. Surely you wouldn't want an opportunity like this to pass by, would you? Mike is in a good position to help us. He has time, passion and the competency required to communicate effectively. Yes, he'll get resistance, much of which will be shaming tactics, and it's not going to be an easy ride. But don't you think that resistance from someone like you, who is obviously passionate about men's rights, is a tad bit unnecessary!

Also, I'd love to be in a position where I could do something similar to Mike, it's just that my circumstances mean that there's no way I could. However, I do what I can by leaving factual comments and responses to feminist articles in the online newspaper columns. I also make a point of complaining about sexist adverts and TV programmes etc. whenever I can. The more men (and women) who do this, the quicker men will get the respect they deserve. I think that many of the newspaper columnists these days need putting in their place. For example, Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail is always spouting here feminist nonsense in such a sneakily surreptitious way in order to tweak society towards being a female-friendly one. This article below has really got my goat lately because the media is ranting over the misogyny based on a couple of jokes. But I don't here her complain about the endless onslught of hateful mockery aimed at men in the media. Funny that!

Mike Buchanan

Brian, on reading your last comment again I see I got something wrong. You didn't say that forming a party HAS damaged the MRM, but that it COULD. I couldn't agree more. But I'm very encouraged by the private exchanges I've had with various prominent people in the MRM. They've all been supportive, and satisfied with my answers to their queries.

Dave, thanks for your comments. One reason we decided to form a political party was that we found that even when we went to the not inconsiderable effort of engaging with the political process (e.g. submitting written evidence to parliamentary inquiries) our evidence was summarily rejected if it didn't support the recommendations the committee wished to make. An example from a recent House of Lords inquiry:

We're hopeful that the House of Commons committee on 'Women in the Workplace', to which we gave written evidence and I gave oral evidence, will prove to have more integrity. The chairman, the Labour MP Adrian Bailey, has, to his credit, asked some probing questions. The Conservative MPs on the committee have, from what I've seen, been as useful as chocolate teapots. You would genuinely not know from their questions that they ARE Conservatives. Shameful.

I don't read Amanda Platell's column often but I know she's made some anti-feminist remarks in the past - obviously not her customary position, from what you say.


Dave, People use such things for themselves every day, it is easy to see how doing it wrong can completely undermine the cause it was started for.

Yes Mike I did say MIGHT :-) That is why questions and observation needs to take place to make sure it doesn't. Past experience in the MRM dictates that it is prudent to make sure we don't have any more gravy trainers and subversives to the cause. One of course sincerely hopes that is not the case here, but I will continue to ask questions and dig for any sign that I think is harmful to the cause. I HOPE I don't find any and that you succeed. That's all really.


Because boys don't matter and females own inbuilt sense of entitlement and greed makes them victims of themselves...but still someone else has too be blamed?


So where is his million pound settlement? Where are his false accusers and the ten years in prison they shoudl have got?
What [political party will be SHOUTING for a mandatory minimum prison sentence for all false accusers? ;-)


Mike.The very best of luck with your approach. With regard to you repeated surprise at Conservative's I cite an observation made years ago by a Labour politician. The labour party electorate is essentially socially conservative but sticks with the party despite it's avant guard policies so long as it continues to deliver better living standards. He went on to expand this analysis to point put that the avent guard ideas reflected a growing orthodoxy of personal freedom and choice among classes insulated from the negative consequences of such a free for all. A decade later the position is even clearer with the comfortable urban middle class wedded to feminism in so far as it eases their lives. The class paradoxically more present in the Tory party than even labour. As pointed out by Willets feminism has particularly cemented in the privilege of the professional classes. Generally Tory voters. The best policy is the tax savings reducing the number of Quangos. Otherwise "call me dave" merely represents this strand of the professional classes.


Mike, the feminists used the 3rd sector monies and its useful position in key areas to fund their political lobbying groups and still do.

I have seen it in third world countries I have visited with NGO's. They are full of western feminists using funds donated or granted to these psuedo-charities to spread their agenda via their "social change agent". We have all seen the blatant side of this with NGO's that would only help women in the Haiti earthquake, the Misandry in R4L and Cancer UK. This is the core base of feminism and how it got away with what it has and how it got such big financing.

It's one of the reasons I never give to charity any more and one of the primary areas ANY men's rights group, party or men's lobbyist must attack the 3rd sector FULL ON ! The 3rd sector is the biggest gravy train of all time and the left/feminist has milked the shite out of it!

It needs to be shut down, torn apart and rebuilt. This will completely undermine the financial power base of the left and feminism.

Mike Buchanan

Thanks Brian. I agree 100% with your analysis. Which may help explain why we're going to challenge the charitable status of Refuge and Fawcett (to start with). These are clearly political organisations.

Mike Buchanan


Great Mike there are many others like them that also need to be addressed, sounds bang on and in the right direction. The charities commission needs to be attacked itself and reformed as they have clearly allowed this to go on.

I sincerely hope you will also be hammering hard at the family court/social services system, all major players in the mega-buck abuse industry and participants in the deliberate destruction of traditional family, in alignment of course with marxist feminist ideology.

In fairness and just to make clear, my previous comments are cautionary if somewhat cynical, rather than accusatory. Main reason for that being you have not formally started yet or let us know much about anything to do with the party. Therefore it stands to reason they cannot be accusatory as nothing has even taken place yet :-)

Just look at it as justifiable cynicism of anything political, given how corrupt politics always is, who can blame me? :-)


Mike, Amanda Platell actually blows hot and cold with her views. However, analysis of her writings always shows the same result: that she spends a disproportionate amount of time supporting a drive for promoting female respect across society whilst conveniently ignoring men's issues. For example, she'll talk about violence against women etc. but ignore violence against men. The typical tact used by the plethora of female columnists in the media these days. It's these types of people who make your job harder because they have a huge influence on millions of people over long periods of time. Perhaps you, Mike, could apply to be an "altrnative" columnist in, say, the Daily Mail - a tactic that would create significant tubulence whilst also generating interest in men's matters. The UK newspapers are crying out for a new approach to visible equality truths and now's the time to strike :-)

Tim  Mids

Mike, can I just add my voice to the other positive ones and say thank you so much for trying to get this political party off the ground. Men's concerns need to be addressed on a political level and this looks like an excellent way to do it. More power to you mate.

(Just add to that, the most important thing will surely be to stay moderate in tone. In my opinion Tom Martin lost a lot of credibility by using some silly, extreme terms like 'whoriarchy' and talking about gender equality in Saudia Arabia when it wasn't relevant. So just keep it simple and focus on basic facts which are beyond dispute re:education, healthy, justice etc.

As they often say in politics, if you want to say something radical you need to dress conservatively. So that's why I for one am glad that it's a highly intelligent and knowledgeable person like yourself who is going to be running the campaign.)

Mike Buchanan

Brian, many thanks. Family law will, of course, be on our agenda.

Rest assured I've not taken offence at any of your comments. Few are more cynical about politicians and wanabee politicians than myself! But we were offered an opportunity to get some publicity in the Daily Mail some time before the party was registered, and it seemed to good an opportunity to pass up. It proved to be a goodm decision. We were atacked by the New Statesman last Friday, and today we were attacked by two of their feminist boggers. It's a gem:

Dave, thanks for your comments. I would be a newspaper columnist like a shot if asked haha. But to date only women seem permitted to comment on gender matters.

With regards to Amanda Platell, thanks for letting me know more about her. The Mail does feature material from some very bright non-feminist women from time to time. Melanie Phillips and Cristina Odone come to mind.


Mike, two things:

Daily mail, okay its coverage, but its like having Gary Glitter represent a day nursery in the eyes of the left, feminists and the brainwashed general public. I wonder if you spend as much time as me studying the reactions and comments in all the circulations? Such coverage may go against you quickly if they swing the "daily mail" thing against you. You know what I mean. You need exposure in the Telegraph, Times or something? Even Max Clifford can get stitched !

You're going to take on women's refuge and take away their charity status? F*ck your luck with that one, talk about in at the deep end. You know you will have 70% of the male population against you on that also don't you? That is the "white knight/mangina men who need to be dealt with first" thing that I talked of previously.

I have had over 56 accounts deleted in my local newspaper for trying to "educate" people and de-construct the propaganda for women's refuge that they sell. Including some serious hate comments from (useful idiots) men.

My question still stands from before though, how do you intend to represent and deal with MGTOW and the myriad of psychologically hurt men who are in a lot of pain because of family courts and general man -hate, those who are victims and only have revenge left. Take your time answering that if you like, it is a BIG and difficult question.

One is always taught to be cautious.


PPS mike, Melanie Phillips, yeah you would be hated even more if you could get her on side along with Erin Pizzey. ;-)

I like Melanie..the thinking man's crumpet or is it mother /maggie figure? :-) LOLZ....


Jane Moir "I watched telly and it made me a victim" it hates me...bbwaaahhhh !!


What will this dirty little female get? Life, death penalty would be nice along with her pathetic white-knight useful idiots who undertook the attack.

There HAS to be scandal and outrage if she does not get life !




What sentence will these degenerate women get? Lets keep watching what they get for torturing an elderly man to death. Anything less than life without parole should be screamed about by any political party for men. !


What punishment will they get compared to men. Today alone I have seen 5 sickening and violent reports on FEMALES ! Bere in mind this is in a media that refuses to see women as perpatrators of anything and blames men for all evils.

Many of us know the minds of women are just as sick and violent as the men that do these things but for centuries women have been given what is colloquially termed, "pussy passes" over and over again. Society has also never reacted and viewed such women with the same hatred and loathing that they do men, largely because the media and social indoctrine has made sure of it.

Once women are held to account, punished, viewed and looked upon the same as men. Then we can start talking about equality.


WHY? why? why?

Why does anyone decry a woman being beheaded for the brutal murder of a child? Would the same people say the same if a man did it?

This is an interesting report. Once again showing males losing out in education. I can’t find the reference but there was some research done early in the life of student loans here in the UK . One basic point was that young men took more seriously the weight of the debt. Because they expected to be solely responsible for repayment in future. Whereas females expected more help from family and future partners in paying for the loans. In other words the females generally expected to be able to share their responsibilities either presently or in the future. This is of course a likely scenario and a realistic expectation generally in a society still organised generally on a “one and a half” pay contribution to couple’s finances.
This reminded me then of the much more extensive debates and research in the USA. There it is quite clear a number of gendered issues assist female access to HE and FE.
1. Greater financial support for females from families.
2. More likely to have financial support and gifts from partners (cars being common).
3. Deliberate behaviour to partner with “successful” males able to support them. There is extensive research on US universities as a site for females seeking good prospects for partnership and marriage.
4. Expectations of future earnings of husbands and their responsibility for funding their wive’s debts.
I suspect the more extensive research in the US reflects their more open discussion of money.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List