AUDIO AND VIDEO ROUND UP

Here are a few audio and video clips from this week

Mike Buchanan on Women's Hour with the ghastly misandric John Farrell and Jenni Murray - both sniggering from behind their hands (you can hear it)

Tom Martin and Ally Fogg in a video produced by students.

 

 

Comments

[barryb]

in a video produced by students.

That's more like it :-)

If anyone think Ally fogg is for men properly, they need to remove their head from their ass imo.

[Mike Buchanan]

Thanks S. Can't disagree with your comment about O'Farrell - he was 2-3 feet away from me - but I was maybe 6-7 feet away from Jenni Murray and she was the consummate professional before, during, and after the discussion, as I reported on my blog (link below). If she sniggered, I missed it at the time. I'd expect some barbed questions from her, and prepared for a number of predictable ones, which never came.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKhX1c3ow6BrzdzP3ydpeZQ/videos

Mike Buchanan

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

http://j4mb.wordpress.com

[Tom Martin]

I think Mike should start with a well-polished rapid-fire bullet-pointed overview of the key men's equality issues that his party are concerned with, all condensed into a twenty second answer, so when interviewers or debating opponents try and take him into a cul-de-sac, it will appear inappropriate of them, given the wide array of stated inequalities that Mike makes more clear the party want to address.

The income tax opener is good, but sets him out as a conservative more than a men's issues advocate, when his party consultation document is actually focused more on men's equality issues than economics.

[Groan]

Tom I think I understand your comment about economics. And I do think the Party's manifesto has the right issues . However I suspect that making the taken for granted visible does play well with men in general. Somehow it's become impolite to point out men's contribution to our society. The income tax figure could be teamed with observation of who does most of the wealth creating work. Amongst my friends there is irritation at the feminist lobby saying how " men are..." when actually they work hard for their families, are generous to women in trouble and would never dream of hitting a woman. It's the unfairness that we agree on in the pub. Selfishly I hope Tom will contribute to Trom again. And Mike and the Party too!!!!

[John Kimble]

Mike, perhaps next time you're on you could ask Jenni why she think the domestic abuse of men is funny?

[malemids32]

Ha! Looks like pressure from J4mb might be having an effect already!

Just today it was announced in the Sunday Times that Chris Grayling is planning all of a sudden to scrap the law of marital coercion, because it is 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping with the modern world.'

Wow, since when have Tory politicians been concerned with striking off anti-male laws?

Is it not the case they know that if J4MB gets it act together, they will harness the 'UKIP' effect and knock out all those weak, Tory marginals up and down the country?

Well they're gonna have to do more than that if they want to win back voters' trust before election time! :-D

[Groan]

Now here is a test. How will the radical feminists respond to an obviously discriminatory and paternalistic law being scrapped. Support for Chris Grayling ?
As with the few other discriminatory laws that were mainly swept away in the seventies this is another example not of "patriarchy" but the now outdated impulse to protect the "weaker sex" My own mother widowed young and with two sons to support fell foul of two such laws in the 1960s ;one with regard to mortguages and the other bank loans. Both had been put on the statute books to spare women the genuine horrors of Debtors Gaols by making husbands responsible for debts. This was in the mid sixties and these Victorian statutes were swept away in the seventies. Clearly these old statutes created problems for my mother( and indeed for husbands with profligate wives) but they were emphatically not some plan to subjugate women and actual barely lasted a century. What is more many such laws had their genesis and support from women's organisations of the time!!!
So good luck Mr. Grayling.
I wonder if this implies will spread to changing the legal definition of Rape. As in the USA where it is a crime men and women can commit. A bridge too far for this Parliament.

[Tom Martin]

To be fair to the Conservative-led coalition, they did try to give anonymity to rape accused,
equalize retirement age (next few years), increase paternity pay and leave (next few years), strengthen the presumption of shared parenting (families act, coming soon), they're changing GCSEs back to exam assessments (known to favour boys), give tax incentives to dual earning parents over one main earner. David Cameron floated the idea of fining women who don't put the father's name on a birth certificate.

If the main parties, including UKIP, The Greens, and the Nationalists are smart, they'll read Mike Buchanan's consultation document, and steal his workable centre-ground equality policies forthwith.

And if Mike is smart, he'll emphasize as many of the main equality issues that most people agree need fixing, over and over until the voters become familiar with it.

Maybe someone needs to write him a men's issues rap.

[Mike Buchanan]

malemids32, we plan to contest the top 30 Tory marginals in 2015. In 2010 the successful Tory cadidates had majorities in the region of only 50 - 1,600 votes. The open letter I mailed to David Cameron four weeks ago, revealing our plans concerning Tory marginals:

http://j4mb.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/130302-open-letter-to-david-cameron.pdf

The deposits alone will cost J4MB £15,000 to finance, and as I work 70+ hours pw for an annual income of precisely £0.00, I should like to ask the good followers of this blog for an Easter donation to party funds (with Skimmington's permission, of course). The link is here:

http://j4mb.wordpress.com/donate/

Thank you for your support.

Mike Buchanan

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

http://j4mb.wordpress.com

[Tom Martin]

Reading Mike Buchanan's letter to David Cameron, it becomes clear that 23 of the top 30 marginal Conservative seats have Labour in second place, the other seven Lib Dem.

I am not a political scientist, so I'm asking an open question:

Wouldn't it be more effective, to pitch boys and men's equality issues to the voters that centre, right, and left wing parties and voters can agree on, than have an overtly right wing libertarian economic message or focus, that the centre and left parties will simply dismiss outright?

Mike Buchanan says in his letter to Cameron that J4MB have no official policy on Europe for instance - so wouldn't it be smarter for the party to have no official policy on economics?

If Mike sticks strictly to the men's equality issues, then he can pick up broader support, from Libertarians, libertarian paternalists, and even leftists.

If he take an entirely libertarian free market approach, resisting all manufacture of social equal outcome, then how can we for instance, as Mike says he'd like, get more men into teacher jobs? There need to be sweeteners, for men into those jobs - which require a bit of social engineering.

I think it would be much more powerful if Mike were able to announce that his party was a coalition of right and left wing thinkers, nevertheless agreeing on certain men's issues that need to be addressed urgently.

[Mike Buchanan]

Tom, this will hopefully be the last time I have to say this. I will not waste any more time debating with you, or responding to your questions. I've already wasted too much damned time doing so already.

I repeat my recent suggestion that you form your own political party.

From your track record I'd expect you to respond to this comment (or for someone to do so on your behlaf). Rest assured, I won't be responding in turn.

[John Kimble]

"If he take an entirely libertarian free market approach, resisting all manufacture of social equal outcome, then how can we for instance, as Mike says he'd like, get more men into teacher jobs? There need to be sweeteners, for men into those jobs - which require a bit of social engineering."

Surely if we simply rid society f the "all men are paedophiles/rapists" culture pushed by feminists and crack down on false allegations then that will be more effective?

Most sensible men currently refuse to enter teaching due to it being such a dangerous and hostile environment for them. Paying "danger" money to them for choosing such a risky career is not the answer and may even cause harm by just attracting ever more unsuitable men. We need to change the misandrist culture in our schools and in society as a whole. If men can't even get to see their own kids at present then it's a bit ambitious to expect those same people to feel confident in looking after other people's children.

[Tom Martin]

That's part of it John, but also, men are currently underwhelmed by the status the teaching profession brings, so could do with a b it of a financial incentive to become teachers, like a tax break, for instance.

[barryb]

I certainly wouldn't vote for any party that had left wing anywhere near it.

Those traitor bastards have ruined this country enough ! Not that the right is any better these days....

[Tom Martin]

If Mike comes across as intolerant to leftists or centrists, it's not going to look good.

Mike is so organized, clearly has such an enormous work ethic, loads of political experience, and now media experience too, so is the person for the job. There only needs to be one men's party.

There isn't a left as well as a right wing green party for instance. They've gone Marxist lefty victim-feminist rhetoric on us, putting of the centre, right, and men - I see no reason why Mike should make the same mistake to the right.

[barryb]

There is enough left infiltrating the mrm right now i can smell their stink a mile away, another reason why not to pander to filth that are the enemy.
If you are weakened by leftist tactics and rhetoric that you feel you must pander to them, then you are weak or you ARE them, period.

It,s is that thinking of yours Tom that has got this country in the state it is in.

[Tom Martin]

Right Barry, that kind of doom and gloom talk from the right puts a lot of centrist and leftist men off.

There are inequalities, which we need to sort out, but it would be disingenuous to pretend men's lives aren't getting better overall. Men's lives will be better still, when we sort out the remaining inequalities, and it will help women too.

[June42]

http://kareningalasmith.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/the-112-uk-women-killed-through-male-violence-against-women-in-2012-2/
This is the TRUTH about your nonsense

[Groan]

Well June I suppose the men killed as the result of DV don't count?
http://www.esteemmen.co.uk/
No one argues murder or violence is a good thing. Fortunately murder is mercifully rare in this country of 60 million and addressing each case is important. The application of some daft theory cooked up by Engels is of no help in understanding murder or indeed society in general. The fall of the Berlin Wall really should have proved the bankrupt nature of all the strands of Marxism.

[Groan]

As this comment so clearly puts it:

"The fact remains, however, that feminism is an educated, academic and largely middle class pursuit largely uninterested in working class women or their concerns"

As evidenced by the Guardian itself!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/31/gender-pay-feminism-working-class

[Groan]

"Motherhood was also a key factor, with women who had children earlier seeing their earnings prospects decrease compared to those who postponed starting a family, the study found. For men, the reverse was true, as fathers enjoyed a "fatherhood pay bonus" that saw them earn more than men without children."
From the IPPR report. Weasel words indeed. A fatherhood pay bonus suggests extra pay just for the birth of a child. In fact what happens is fathers have to work more and push for promotion to provide for their families. In a way it's a sign of pressure not some free bonus. Such deliberately obtuse spinning the stock in trade of Feminists to cover the obvious that if one partner leaves or reduces work for even a time the other must fill the gap.