Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Tuesday, 29 January 2013


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

John Kimble

Don't see much wrong with Mike focusing on studies, his opponents looked particularly weak when they were confronted with such evidence. I suppose the only criticism is that he should have spelled out more explicitly his position of being all about meritocracy and the best person for the job, thus emphasising that feminists stand for the opposite of this.

It seemed rather unfair that he was subject to a 2 vs 1 battle, so full marks for coming out on top when faced with 2 opponents.

Mike Buchanan

Thanks guys. The piece was only five minutes long, and I guess I got half of that. Only so much you can squeeze into 150 seconds! I planned to mention the fact that although women make up almost two-thirds of public sector employees, the Equality Act (2010) allows public sector bodies to discriminate in favour of women, and this must be a cotributory factor in four out of seven people being men. But as I say, 150 seconds...

Mike Buchanan


Mike Buchanan

Another senior moment. I wrote in my last comment:

'...and this must be a cotributory factor in four out of seven people being men.'

I meant, of course:

'...and this must be a contributory factor in four out of seven unemployed people being men.'



I reckon Mike will now get invited to do more TV and radio publicity so there is more than likely going to be further opportunity for him to tailor his methodology and focus on delivering some slam-dunk, killer one-liners that will be difficult to refute by even the best of pro-feminists.

I do recognise what Skimmington has said but, like Mike said, 150 seconds isn't a lot of time to deliver. Mike, you mentioned that the lorry driver remark earned you the most positive responses. The reason is simple. Most men on TV or radio are simply too scared to speak the truth like this, but when someone finally does, it is quite a jaw-dropping moment which deserves a pat on the back for sticking your neck out like that. If you can execute with confidence that sort of quick-witted, out-of-the-blue discourse style (backed by facts, of course), it's sure to earn you plenty of fans out there!

I do agree though, that if you are granted more time, you could perhaps engage with more of the philosophical reasoning and sentiment behind the blatant and rife sexism against males in today's western society. It would be nice to hear something like "I'm actually quite impressed how passionate you are about female rights and equality. How do you fancy utilising your passion to help with......" and then reel off half a dozen irrefutable inequalities against men and boys :-)

I guess in the end it's all down to bargaining more than 150 seconds of time.

Mike Buchanan

Thanks Dave. The impact my throwaway line about lorry drivers has made on people has given us much food for thought. It wasn't even something which arose in our pre-debate preparations. I could equally have said, 'More than 95% of workplace-related deaths are in lines of work dominated by men. Why aren't women seeking equal employment in THOSE fields?'

We were expecting the perennial 'need for more role models' argument to arise, and I had a LOT of material prepared for that.

We have a natural advantage over our opponents. Our arguments are based on compassion and truth, while theirs are based on hatred and conspiracy theories, fantasies, lies, delusions and myths. It's no contest, really, is it?

We'll learn and raise our game, and keep ahead of our opponents. You'll like some (maybe all!) of the proposals and policies of our new party, which we'll be revealing in the coming weeks. We'll keep TROM fully informed of developments. Skimmington has been supportive of our campaigns from the outset, over a year ago, and we're not about to forget that.

Finally, it's good to be exchanging views with Sensible Dave rather than Angry Crazy Dave haha.

Mike Buchanan




The exellent Newsletter (link above) highlights two very useful reports "Taking Boys Seriously" a longitudinal study related to boy's under achievment at school. And a policy document for Fathers.
Work in the island of Ireland seems more progressed than in the rest of the british isles. Possibly because the recent history of division concentrates the mind more.

Tom Martin

I just got banned from AVFM for criticizing Mike Buchanan's position regarding women on boards. I thought it was the feminist websites who can't handle dissenting opinions.

Mike Buchanan

Tom, that's not why you were banned, and you know it - although I thought it was interesting you felt a decline in corporate performance was a price worth paying for more women on boards. Incredible.

You were banned because from AVfM because you (predictably, I'm sure) got people angry with views that I and other admirers of AVfM regarded as absurd - social enginering at its very worst, in pursuit of a utopian dream. Also, calling stay-at-home mothers and women who want to work in gender-typical lines of work 'gold-digging whores', or words to that effect, was, to my mind, misandrous in the extreme.

I've trashed a comment you tried to post on one of my blogs today, and I'll trash any future ones. Please stop wasting my time, and the time of others. Feminist MRAs like you are a curse on the MRM. It's like we're trying to fight a battle against feminists and you're behind us, shooting us in the back.

Mike Buchanan


Tom Martin

I'm against sex segregation Mike. You seem to be a bit more okay with it. I'm shooting a documentary about sex segregation, so we can have a proper debate about it without gatekeepers banning anyone if you like. I think
your preparedness to accept gender imbalanced boards is rather socially conservative, which will be ultimately unhelpful to the men's equality project.


Women on boards is interesting. While there may well be arguments for encouraging women into competing for votes to be councillors or MPs as these aren't jobs as such. There isn't one for interfering in the same way for real jobs. What I take from Mike's evidence is that the business case advanced as a justification is false. Frankly over time I expect more women to be on boards simply because there are a huge cohort of current middle managers working their way through. Young women are out performing young men in education and earnings now and this will be reflected in boards in 30 years. The issue for me is that quotas now are inequitable and based on spurious arguments. Boards aren't political bodies with a representative function. I don't think it helps to spice arguments with intemperate language in public.

Mike Buchanan

Hi Groan. Happy to exchange views with you but not with Tom any longer. To my mind only a tiny minority of MRAs are ultra-left-wing utopians like him, and I refuse to waste myy time engaging with them. They simply waste time and energy that could be better used in other ways. I've declined his suggestion of getting involved with his silly video on sex segregation. Hopefully he'll set up his own political party and we'll then see what the public thinks of 50% of coal miners, front-line troops, hod carriers etc being women.

The reason most MPs are men is perfectly simple, as I know from my time working for the Conservative party. The majority of people who want to be MPs are men. All-women PPC shortlists mean that the least qualified woman in the country is given priority over the most qualified man. This is madness. It's a good thing such shortlists weren't around when Winston Churchill decided to go into politics, otherwise we'd be speaking German now, and life's difficult ebough as it is...

Why, too, do women have to be 'encouraged', supported' etc. into going for top jobs, then 'celebrated' relentlessly if they get there? The answers say a lot about the different between gender-typical women's and men's psychologies, in my view. I refer again to Baron-Cohen's 'The Essential Difference' and Moxon's 'The Woman Racket' and my own 'The Glass Ceiling Delusion'.

Young women are only out-performing men in the education system because a highly feminised education system has manipulated assessments to play to young women's relative strengths (e.g. conscientiousness), and against young men's relative strengths (e.g. competitiveness, ready acceptance of rules-based competition).

Finally, I agree 100% with your point about intemperate language. My apologies if any has come from me. I try to avoid it whenever I can, even in the face of the nonsense spited by Tom Martin. And that can be difficult, to put it mildly!

Have a good weekend.

Mike Buchanan

JUSTICE FOR MEN AND BOYS (and the women who love them)


This is how it should be:

Individual wants to do job.

Individual is given the right to train and apply for any job.

Individual is recognised by ALL potential empoyers as a valid candidate and treated equally in terms of consideration and assessment.

Individual is fairly assessed amongst competition based on numerous factors relating to job specification.

Most competent person wins.

Comments - Not ALL people are willing OR ABLE to apply for ALL jobs and, as such, there will be a number of outcomes:

1 - Some will cherry pick what they want to put themselves up for. This usually establishes some interesting facts. The fact that few women tend to apply for the dirty, dangerous, unsociable jobs says something about the different sexes. Make what you will of that!

2 - Some people will be very disapointed with the criteria and assessment.

4 - If women want to apply for Exec. Board roles then let 'em. And if they're good enough then take 'em on.

5 - If women want to apply for mining jobs then let 'em. And if they're good enough then take 'em on.

Evolution requires motivation, ability and performance winning results. That's what we're all measured on.

That's about it really.


Though I fully agree that equity is very likely to result in different results based on preferences and aptitudes I do think the push to get women into politics has had a very positive effect. In that while women are absent then feminists would have no counter examples to the assertions of the inherent virtue of women. Yet now it is gratifyingly easy to reel off a depressing role call of all too lamentable female" role models". Mensch, Bercow, Blears, Dorries,Smith and so on. Each and every one a chip out of the pedestal feminists are so anxious to keep shoring up. All I want is equity, maybe then the future may include armies of house husbands and female navvies , who knows. Somehow I doubt it. What is clear is that currently the disposable sex is saddled with all the responsibility it has always had and non of the choices .


Women in politics, yes. Feminists in politics, no.

Tom Martin

Mike likes to say "All-women PPC shortlists mean that the least qualified woman in the country is given priority over the most qualified man."

"The least qualified woman in the country" would be a crazy bag lady etc, Mike.

The best qualified available women in a political party are usually preferred.

You come across as an aggressive unreliable witness on this subject for some reason.

I'm not particularly in favour of strict quotas, more tax break incentives for organizations achieving equality - but this "least qualified woman" stuff?


There should be no quotas. Refer to my post above. Quotas don't help drive our economy forward and they discriminate and alienate against the "right" people for the job. Quotas are only set for the purpose of appeasing the feelings of those who truly don't understand the dynamics of life. What we should really be doing is educating and encouraging people to expand their horizons in line with their potential, but more importantly, teaching them what acceptability means i.e. not everyone can do everything and we all have a place in the world to keep the world turning. Quotas simply fight evolution and aren't helpful at all in the long run, IMHO. And if we are to see quotas for women, then where are the ones for men?

Tom Martin

None of us know what quotas for men are like.

paul parmenter

Oh yes we do Tom. Have you ever heard of conscription in wartime? Essentially the selection of men only to do the fighting, killing and dying. The most vigorous, destructive and sexist quota of them all. Reserved exclusively for the expendable sex.


You took the words right out of my mouth,Paul!


There are targets , almost quotas, in some public authorities for childcare, teaching and some health services. Indeed the claim positive discrimination in the equality act could benefit male teacher recruitment was used as a sop to opposition. Whatever the motivation quotas are directly discriminatory. Not only national service but the legal protections for women in dangerous services effectively mean males are those in the front line. Legally so in the armed services less directly in the police/emergency services. No men have a long history of quotas reserving the dangerous for the disposable.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List