Lead articles

New ‘men’s rights’ party to stand in Nottingham

Candidates from the ‘Justice For Men and Boys (and the women who love them) Party’ will be standing in three different Nottinghamshire constituencies in the General Election in May.

The party was launched in February 2013 and claims on their website that ‘for over 40 years feminists have lied relentlessly about issues such as rape and domestic violence, making women excessively fearful of men, and in consequence hateful towards men as a class’.

The party has generated controversy for some of its claims in their 80-page election manifesto, including that only one in seven British women is ‘work-centred’

The party has generated controversy for some of its claims in their 80-page election manifesto, including that only one in seven British women is ‘work-centred’ and that ‘the feminisation of the NHS over the past 30+ years has proved a disaster for patients (and taxpayers)’.

Their leader, Mike Buchanan, will be facing the Shadow Women and Equalities Minister, Gloria De Piero MP, who his party once presented with a ‘Lying Feminist of the Month Award’ following comments she made on the gender pay gap.

Buchanan previously worked for the Conservative Party from 2006-8, but resigned after David Cameron suggested using ‘all-women shortlists’

De Piero only had a majority of 192 in Ashfield at the last general election.

Buchanan previously worked for the Conservative Party from 2006-8, but resigned after David Cameron suggested using ‘all-women shortlists’ to ‘concentrate on fighting the scourge of radical feminism, a female supremacy ideology driven by misandry (the hatred of men)’.

A central point in the election manifesto is based around the assertion that ‘’in 2011/12 British men paid £68 billion more income tax than women, yet the state disadvantages men and boys in many areas, usually to advantage women and girls’.

‘there’s a pressing need for boys- only schools with all-male teaching staffs’

In regard to education, the ‘Justice for Men and Boys’ party claims that ‘the state education system is run with the objective of advantaging girls over boys from their earliest years… the gap has led to women now taking the majority of university places (57% in 2012/13)’’.

As a result they believe that ‘there’s a pressing need for boys- only schools with all-male teaching staffs’.

The ‘Justice for Men and Boys’ party also take issue with ‘governments continuing to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money ‘encouraging’ girls and young women into STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) subjects and careers’.

[They] criticised the government for ‘encouraging fatherless families… it should stop subsidizing sperm banks for single women and lesbians’

‘‘It is widely understood that boys and men favour these subjects for reasons of aptitude… It should be obvious to the reader that the flipside of ‘advancing the careers of women’ must be ‘holding back the careers of men’’’.

Many of the other controversial policies in the manifesto relate to children and the family; the most prominent of which is that the right to an abortion should be limited to 13 weeks after conception.

The ‘Justice for men and boys’ party also advocates that all babies should be paternity tested and criticised the government for ‘encouraging fatherless families… it should stop subsidizing sperm banks for single women and lesbians’.

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is, and we [UoN Feminists] hope that this party will be willing to engage in dialogue and recognise the damage their policies would have to an already unequal society’’

In addition, the manifesto proposes that the ‘Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002’ and ‘terms in the Equality Act 2010 advantaging people with ‘protected characteristics’ should be scrapped.

Responding to the news, a representative for the University of Nottingham Feminists told Impact: ‘‘On reading the manifesto, we feel a lot of their beliefs are unfounded and we question the need and usefulness of pitting men’s issues against women’s issues.

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is, and we hope that this party will be willing to engage in dialogue and recognise the damage their policies would have to an already unequal society’’.

Two other candidates from the ‘Justice for Men and Boys’ party will be running against Conservative MPs in Sherwood and Broxtowe.

However, George Highton, General Secretary of the Nottingham University Conservative Association, told Impact:

‘‘The Conservative’s Long Term Economic Plan and our passionate advocacy of women’s rights across the globe are clearly the best choice when it comes to the election, whether over Labour, the Lib Dems, UKIP or the Justice for Men Party’’.

Yasemin Craggs Mersinoglu

Image: Flickr

All quotes taken from the party manifesto or their website.

Exclusive interview with Mike Buchanan, leader of the ‘Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them) party’, to follow.

Categories
Lead articlesNews
14 Comments on this post.
  • Anonymous
    28 January 2015 at 21:51
    Leave a Reply

    what a joke :L

  • Guest
    29 January 2015 at 16:44
    Leave a Reply

    Feminists HAVE lied relentlessly about everything under the moon…and journalists have aided and abetted them by failing to fact check their false claims.

    • mike
      2 March 2015 at 12:16
      Leave a Reply

      Can you be more specific?

  • Joe Wilson
    29 January 2015 at 20:22
    Leave a Reply

    This was one of the first articles that didn’t come all out making fun of Mike and his party. I am just appalled at the stream of biased commentary being thrown to reframe the ‘Justice For Men and Boys (and the women who love them)” party as lunatics. If you seriously take the time to review and research what Mike’s party is advocating you will find that there is a lot of truth. Sure there are some things that I don’t agree with the party (but no one agrees 100% of the time with any party).

    As a dad of one daughter I was elated to find out my wife was having a girl – not because I have anything against boys but because I truly fear where this world is going and how it treats boys from an early age – right up to retirement. If you are not convinced yet, look up “The end of men” and Hanna Rosin and listen to her Tedtalk on YouTube – it was a real eye popper.

    • mike
      2 March 2015 at 12:18
      Leave a Reply

      Reframing the ‘Justice For Men and Boys (and the women who love them)” party as lunatics is grossly unfair on lunatics.

  • Lauren Mccarthy
    2 March 2015 at 11:46
    Leave a Reply

    The ‘end of men’? Please. Men dominate politics and law-making, the media, technology, business, public sector management (that includes universities), the judicial system… feminism is about equal opportunities for all disregarding gender- something women have historically not had, and continue to not have. This is extremely well-researched and documented, and nothing that Mr Buchanan and his supporters say can change that. Instead of scapegoating women and feminists for trying to better our society, perhaps those worried about boys’ prospects would be better directing their energies to a (no offence intended) respectable political party.

  • Mike Buchanan
    2 March 2015 at 13:20
    Leave a Reply

    Thanks for this. A link to our election manifesto is below, for those prepared to read what we’re campaigning for, rather than naively believing the stream of lies that are told about us:

    https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2015-general-election-manifesto/

    Mike Buchanan

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

    http://j4mb.org.uk
    http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com
    http://thealternativesexismproject.wordpress.com
    http://menshouldntmarry.wordpress.com
    http://c4mb.wordpress.com

    [email protected]
    07967 026163

  • Mike Gibbs
    2 March 2015 at 13:34
    Leave a Reply

    Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them)1 – ‘J4MB’ – recommends that men don’t marry, because the institution has been highly risky for British men for decades, and remains so. The state gives wives considerable power over husbands, because of their preferential treatment in divorce settlements – it’s as if they’re given loaded guns to use at any point during their marriages, however well they’re treated. This is toxic for marriage. Women institute 75% of divorce proceedings. Even if you bring most of the financial resources into your marriage, and earn much more than your wife during it, you could find your financial position devastated by divorce. If your ex-wife maliciously denies you access to your children – a grave emotional assault on your children, you, your parents, and others – you’ll face a lengthy, costly, and highly uncertain legal battle to gain reasonable access to them. Even if you’re denied that access, you’ll have to provide for the children financially. If you’d like to learn more about why you shouldn’t marry, visit the J4MB website dedicated to the matter.2

  • David
    2 March 2015 at 13:38
    Leave a Reply

    Nottingham Feminists rep: ‘‘On reading the manifesto, we feel a lot of their beliefs are unfounded’. OK, which are the ones that AREN’T unfounded?

  • Herbert Purdy
    2 March 2015 at 13:46
    Leave a Reply

    ‘‘On reading the manifesto, we feel a lot of their beliefs are unfounded and we question the need and usefulness of pitting men’s issues against women’s issues.
    There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is, and we hope that this party will be willing to engage in dialogue and recognise the damage their policies would have to an already unequal society’’.

    1. ‘We question the need and usefulness of pitting men’s issues against women’s issues…’ But isn’t that the very nature of feminism? Equality doesn’t happen in a vacuum, one persons rights end where another person’s begin, don’t they? The truth is, feminism is a highly partisan political movement that has politicised gender, and turned it into a war against men for the purpose of advantaging women.
    2. ‘There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is…’ Yes, but it is not on the part of the anti-feminists: men and women alike. They fully understand the origins, teachings and objectives of feminism, going right back to its roots in Marxism in the 19th century. If there is any misunderstanding about feminism, it is in the undiscerning minds of those who, today, are its blind acolytes.
    3. ‘… we hope that this party will be willing to engage in dialogue and recognise the damage their policies would have to an already unequal society…’ Excuse me? And where is our society unequal, except in the naked advantaging of woman and girls over men and boys? So what is this spokesperson saying? ‘Leave society unequal because women are getting more of the cake and we want it to stay like that?’ Priceless.

    Justice for man and boys (and the women who love them) is what it says it is. I think it would be a very good idea for a dialogue to take place with radfems. Any takers? I for one would be more than happy to engage in such and exchange. It’s about time.

    • Lucy
      4 March 2015 at 11:49
      Leave a Reply

      In response to your first point; I dont believe that one persons right end where another begins? What kind of comment is that to make? It makes little sense, and is not reflective of society. Universal human rights exist, just institutions prevent everyone from experiencing them.

      And to your next part about feminism being a partisan movement based in advancing women. Did you ever stop to wonder WHY such a movement felt the need to exist? Perhaps it is because society systematically advances the progress of men over women (admittedly not as much as 100 years ago, but it still rings true – see victim blaming). It is not a war on men, but addressing fundamental inequalities that we are faced with in our everyday lives.

      You second point; marxist roots? Right, okay. If you mean in search for equality yes, but otherwise, thats a whole other kettle of fish and you might need to update your knowledge on the definition of feminism (to save you time, here it is; The social, economic and political equality of the SEXES)

      Your third point; Please, tell me, how many female prime ministers have we had in the past 100 years. How many leaders of the major parties are female? How many CEOs of the big six are female? How many times on a night out do you get inappropriately touched without your consent compared to the average for a female? (and that is not to say men arent, but women experience it more frequently.)

      I sincerely hope your comment was a joke, because there seems to be a serious lack of comprehension of the very society you live in and it honestly worries me.

  • Nigel
    2 March 2015 at 22:53
    Leave a Reply

    As with all parties there are a range of views. However in a time where even the Director of UCAS declares her concern at the gender imbalance for boys entering Uni. There is little real justification for positive discrimination programmes such as SWAN or bursaries for women only in the modern age. J4MB taps into some very real issues where boys in education , including Uni. are in fact dis advantaged.

  • Pinman
    3 March 2015 at 01:14
    Leave a Reply

    So strip away the manifesto quotes and the obviously obligatory feminist “response” and what are you left with?

    A collection of empty words, bereft of any meaning without then quotes they would otherwise link to. Good luck with that journalism degree.

  • Franny
    14 April 2015 at 22:06
    Leave a Reply

    Men are not ‘ a ‘class’ – they are one half of the human team.

    Value is not just measured in earning capacity; bringing up the next generation is kind of important, as is being carers for elderly and vulnerable relatives.

    I can’t help feeling that these men are projecting their own bad experiences onto the whole of the human race. Life doesn’t need to be men v women. The Chaucerian term ‘helpmate’ has a sound meaning.

  • Leave a Reply