Profile of a Misogynist: Mike Buchanan

Mike Buchanan is a traditional conservative (Tory) from the UK. He is an MRA that plays tag along with Paul Elam. He got so frustrated with his own government for helping women that he quit the Tories and started his own political party called Justice4MenandBoys or J4MB. His political platform is focused on ‘stopping feminism’, which will never happen.

‘For over 30 years, men’s and boys’ human rights have been assaulted by politicians pandering to the demands of women driven by misandry (the hatred of men) – feminist MPs, as well as feminists in key positions in state institutions.’

There are 2 people in his political party gearing up for the 2015 election and is currently developing his platform.

He’s been on British TV a few times but says he probably won’t be invited back. No surprise. On his website he gives out awards for ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ as well as other similarly named awards to British politicians.

He got into the MRM when he didn’t get a job he felt entitled to. He called the female who interviewed him for the position a ‘vile feminist’ who was only interested in hiring women.

Just to give you an idea of what he considers good material he promoted a post by a ‘sociologist’ who claims the State should butt-out of marital bickering. Here’s what he considers ‘bickering’:

‘Recently, Seema Malhotra, Labour’s new shadow anti-domestic violence minister, asserted that husbands who tell their spouse that she is fat may well be guilty of domestic abuse.’~dumb MRA abuser sociolologist dudebro

Of course! Calling your wife names isn’t abuse. It’s just, well, it’s just plain ole criticism! Haven’t we heard this from MRA’s about how criticizing women isn’t misogyny?

Mike has a serious inclination to stalk women he doesn’t like. He writes them emails demanding them to retract public statements. Carolyn Criado Perez had to contact the police because he wouldn’t stop contacting her and demanding her to retract statements.

Lately he has a big rage boner for Laura Bates, the creatress of The Everyday Sexism Project.

This rage led him to start his own site based on the same premise. I went to the site and there’s not a single post by a man telling of this vast suffering men are supposedly enduring at the hands of women.  The only posts on his site were from him raging at women:

‘How best to deal with the whiny women in your life, whether at work or at home? A whiny nature usually develops in early childhood – maybe that’s why whiny women generally sound like petulant little girls – and we recommend two options we’ve found work well when a woman starts to whine. Don’t wait until she’s wound you up. You don’t need that sort of misery in your life.

1. Walk away from the woman until she’s no longer audible; or

2. Listen to some music through headphones or earphones, with the volume cranked up sufficiently high that you can no longer hear a word she’s saying. It may be worth taking an MP3 player to work for this sole purpose.’

I took the liberty of compiling his TV appearances into bits where he opens his mouth. This is the result:

I have a second video I haven’t published yet.  I’m going to spend the year compiling clips so I can do another video project exposing them when they have their next conference bawl which they say will be held in Washington DC.

Advertisements

72 thoughts on “Profile of a Misogynist: Mike Buchanan

  1. On the link you provide, Ms. Queen, Buchanan treats Criado-Perez with contempt and calls her a liar when she doesn’t respond to his assertions that allowing women onto corporate boards is bad for business. She doesn’t respond because she doesn’t want to have anything to do with him, as your link makes clear when she demands repeatedly that he stop contacting her.

    BUT plenty of studies support Ms. Criado-Perez and show Mr. Buchanan to be a mendacious little twit:

    1. See this Catalyst Bottom Line Report –http://www.catalyst.org/media/companies-more-women-board-directors-experience-higher-financial-performance-according-latest:

    “The report found higher financial performance for companies with higher representation of women board directors in three important measures:

    Return on Equity: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board directors outperformed those with the least by 53 percent.

    Return on Sales: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board directors outperformed those with the least by 42 percent.

    Return on Invested Capital: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board directors outperformed those with the least by 66 percent.”

    2. Or how about this, from the University of British Columbia–http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/3/study-women-on-corporateboardshelpcompaniesstrikebetterdeals.html

    “In an analysis of all of the mergers and acquisitions activities of S&P 1500 companies between 1997 and 2009, each female director present on a company’s board meant it spent 15.4 percent less on acquisition bid premiums — that’s however much a company pays for an acquisition target over and above the value of all that target’s stock shares.

    And what’s more, each woman director on a board was associated with 7.6 percent fewer acquisition bids made altogether, a signal that the women directors made shrewder and less risky business decisions, according to study co-author Kai Li, a professor at the UBC’s Sauder School of Business.”

    3. Or, how about this industry report —

    “Recent research has pointed to the positive effect that female board members have on company performance. For example, a 2012 report from the Credit Suisse Research Institute (PDF) found that, among the 2,360 companies it examined, those with at least one woman on their boards outperformed all-male boards in terms of share price performance.”

    ______________________

    I could go on, but why bother. Mr. Buchanan knows his bullshit stats are wrong, but he’ was never looking for a debate, he was looking to force Ms. Criado-Perez to pay attention to him. When she demands clearly that he stop bothering her, he throws the hilarious tantrum one can observe on the link you provide, HMQ.

    He can’t stand it that a woman he’s focused on won’t talk to him. He’s got to talk about what an evul woman she is all over the Web. He’s got a rage-boner, yeah. And he’s a projector, weirdly calling HER a miserable whiner.

    At one point while the rage-boner is high he reveals himself as the harassing little stalker he is, complaining:

    “She then orders me NOT TO CONTACT HER as though – being a woman – she has the automatic power to order any man around.”

    Let’s look at that complaint. So — because she is a woman — she can not tell Mr. Buchanan to leave her alone. No woman has the power to do that to any man. Because SHE HAS NO RIGHT to choose her associations, no right to object to a man’s wishes, no right to save herself from harassment.

    Luckily, Mr. Buchanan is just an aberration, a crackpot, and a strange little fellow in hornrims who can’t even begin to pull off the masculinist gender role he so admires.

    • Yes, I know of his silly little ‘theory’ that is completely untrue. Ally Fogg, a British blogger on Freethoughtblogs, took Buchanan to task and completely obliterated his crap argument.

      Mikey was throwing a tantrum in the comment section and you could see how he responded differently if the avatar/name was typically female or male. Basically, he’d mansplain the women to death.

      He’s got Laurie Penny’s email address she’ll use in America, she just got a gig at Harvard U. He’s giddy about it because he’s going to stalk her across the Atlantic.

      I have another video compilation of the whiner that I’ll post soon.

      • What on earth makes you think I have the email address Laurie Penny will be using in America? I don’t. Would I be right in surmising you lose touch with reality on a fairly regular basis?

        I look forward to your next video compilation. Can you manage not to accuse me of being a racist next time (4:19 on your video) given the feminist who denied me a consulting assignment was white?

    • Hi. A supporter just pointed me to your tirade, which I’ve ‘speed read’. Delighted to be attacked by you – especially since much of what you say is demonstrably ridiculous –

      You couldn’t find stories of men writing about the impact of sexism again? Look again.

      I’ve run Campaign for Merit in Business for well over two years, and have engaged with two parliamentary inquiries. ALL the studies you cite – and others – make it clear that not only is correlation (of female representation on boards, and enhanced corporate financial performance) NOT evidence of causation, it can’t be taken to even IMPLY it. Only longitudinal studies can provide evidence of a causal link, and longitudinal studies clearly show a causal link between increasing female representation on boards and DECLINES in corporate financial performance. 15 minutes ago we posted a public challenge of the Bank of England, which includes links to the evidence:

      We’re shortly going to present Carolien Criado-Perez with her second ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award. She also won our ‘Whiny Feminist of the Month’ award, of course.

      Have a nice day.

      Mike Buchanan

    • A link to our public challenge of Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, below. The final three pages in the letter are the full Abstracts of five longitudinal studies – with links to the studies – all demonstrating a causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and declines in financial performance:

      EDITED FOR LINKS

      I invite you to email me mike@j4mb.org.uk with details of longitudinal studies showing a causal ink betfgsdfgween more women on boards, and improvement in financial performance. Good luck, because we’ve challenged dozens of organisations and hundreds of proponents of ‘more women on boards’ over the past 30 months, and not one has been able to do so. A small selection of our challenges of the highest-profile proponents, including the CEO/President of Catalyst, and Prof Susan Vinnicombe, the world’s leading academic proponent of this policy direction:

      EDITED FOR LINKS

      (Hint: Prof Vinnicombe, who’s been active in this field for at least 15 years as the head of the Cranfield International Centre for Women Leaders, admitted to a House of Lords inquiry in 2012 – to which our allied organisation ‘Campaign for Merit in Business’ http://c4mb.wordpress.com also gave evidence – that she knew of no evidence of a causal link between more women on boards, and enhanced corporate financial performance. Let me know if you want a link to our blog piece on the matter.)

      HMQ EDITED LINKS OUT. QUOTE STUDIES. NOT ERRONEOUS LINKS.

    • A full answer to your comment is in a comment I posted some time ago, starting, ‘A link to our public challenge of Mark Carney…’. It has links to supportive materials. It’s still ‘awaiting moderation’. Hmm, I wonder why?

  2. Thanks for bringing yet another AVFM Conference speaker to our attention, HMQ. I’m pleased you’re compiling clips of this person. I do hope you don’t spend too much time on him.

    Cos he’s a poser. He’s going to sink like eggshells in a garbage disposal. Barely worth our momentary attention. I mean, if he could sing, or something…

      • “manbawl”? Haha! I like the associations of a ball where the men rigidly dance a waltz with each other in tails. And of a “Manball”, like a bowling ball that goes straight into the gutter. Or how about a “manbrawl”? Whatever. Happens every night when the pub closes.

  3. That should be fun.

    The manosphere has been getting their ASSES KICKED lately. AVFM’s reputation has sunk to its proper place, i. e., oblivion, what with Elliott Roger the poor fellow whom hypergamous feminists wouldn’t date though he was rich and good lookin’, because he was weird as fuck, and the fake death threats at their conference with concomitant collecting of donations, and now defending Ray Rice as a brave example of almost killing women who swat you when you spit in their face.

    The mensrights subreddit on Reddit is a roiling mass of contradictions. Nothing is coming from there but bizarreness. Internal contradictions between tradcons, libertarians, PUAs and MGTOWs are eating them up alive. No wonder they just talk endlessly about how come women are so mean – at least there is some class out there they can still dump on.

    It’s like fish in a barrel. Every single position the Manosphere takes is not only stupid and contradictory, it’s documentedly dangerous, as we come to find out when their ideas get translated into reality.

    • Someone left me a comment on youtube telling me that it indeed is like shooting fish in a barrel.

      They’ve sunk to new lows publicly. They’ve always had these hatreds of women but they’ve been much more vocal. I notice too they are a little less likely to attack individual women as of late. It’s like they’ve changed that aspect a bit.

      They did get on the hate wagon of Zoe Quinn but that’s a dead issue since Zoe herself exposed the misogyny after the misogyny, if you know what I mean.

      They’ve sunk for sure. No matter what kind of press they get it will revolve around the new stuff. I will make sure I expose this stuff.

      The only issue and one I’m cognizant of, is that many news outlets have liberal feminist views. Now liberal feminists and radical feminists are on the same page in regards to these freaks but because this blog gives a deeper analysis and a radical feminist analysis, it’s sometimes forgotten and seen as invalid.

      I will not change this blog to a liberal feminist blog. I was recently cited in a negative way by liberal blog due to my post on Eron Gjoni sending a mob of angry males to attack his ex girlfriend. Now the blog isn’t nearly as successful as this one is but I think this is why many news outlets stay away from here.

      We’re radical, we’re about root issues that typically aren’t addressed in the mainstream media because people want quick easy concepts, words.

      The second they see radical feminist resources and our analysis they envisage a bunch of stereotypes. They almost don’t read the actual material. This is, of course, the the problem with liberal feminism. It’s about ‘appearances’ not ‘root issues.’ The ‘individual’ not the ‘collective.’

      The important point for me is that this space remain exclusively friendly to women with the added plus of a deeper analysis.

      To think that calling Eron Gjoni a patriarchal asshole would get this blog the equivalent of a sideways glance displays to me the problems with liberal feminism.

      Is it not true that this guy used a woman’s sexuality as a tool to harm her? Check. That’s a radical feminist analysis. Is it not true that he used his privilege as a man to get other men behind him to harm her? Check. That’s a radical feminist analysis.

      But YOU CALLED HIM PATRIARCHAL!!!!!

      Yes. Yes I did, because that’s the system in which we live and he USED that very system to his advantage in his attack on a woman.

      So you see, this is, I think, why it’s important to keep pushing on with this blog even though we all know MRA’s are not going anywhere.

      I hope that some news outlets will start to address the deeper analysis. As Gail Dines says ‘WE are the future.’

  4. Naw, stay radfem of course. Libfems remind me of mensrighters in pretending crimes against women are individual aberrations, not systemic — “That horrible totally unpredictable individual, unconnected-to-any-structural-analysis crime committed by [Elliott Roger] [Anders Breivik] [Ray Rice] [Timothy Ray Jones] [Marc Lepine] [Brian Mitchell] [Samuel Little] [Daniel Camargo] [Gary Ridgway] [Ahmad Suradji] [Pedro Lopez] [Ted Bundy] oh I’ve run out of energy just look at this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims

    So Fox News says Ray Rice’s assault was a “family matter”. Let’s sweep it under the shag rug, it’s a family hole situation, we don’t go there with our laws and protections of women, that’s the deep sick hole where we make women ask authorities not to prosecute because it’s bad for the family. The family, the family, the family…the man and his kid…never the woman being slowly killed…

    And push on. Radical feminism has got this figured out. We do actually understand the reality. We have trained ourselves to look at it .

    In future, radfems will be recognized as political theorists who were closest to the economic/politico reality of the 21st century.

    • Absolutely.

      It does get frustrating for me at times but I’m truly convinced that this is the right path.

      There’s a video I’m going to share, well, maybe a few, by a man on Youtube that I really like. He explains feminism in a very radical feminist way.

      He uses words like ‘the game’ to represent how men view women. He admits men are superficial and that they are stronger and are ‘takers’ which means that men will steal from women. ie. rape.

      He tells MRA’s off and men in general for not understanding that women are on the shit end of the stick and that all it takes is a bit of thinking and sensitivity to these facts.

      I just like the fact he explains this in a biological way as well. Now I’m not talking about biological as in what MRA’s do with it as in ‘women don’t think properly’ but with the understanding that men are larger, have different goals in life and how this is truly a pathology in men.

      I don’t know when I’ll post the videos since there’s so much going on but when there’s a lull I’ll post them.

        • Haha very good. Misogyny is nothing more than a projection by women consumed by misandry. I don’t know a MHRA (online or in person) who’s a misogynist. I don’t know of a radfem who isn’t misandrous, and proud of it. After all, what has the average radfem achieved in her life? Nothing. She has to get some comfort from the fantasy that she belongs to a superior gender, doesn’t she? What else has she got?

          • Well, *I’m* not a “misandrist” (if by that you mean man-hating). I don’t hate myself. I do hate rapists and people who support rape. That’s not “misandrism”; many men don’t support rape, and some women support rape.

            Incidentally, I have nothing against man-hating, because I know it’s not personal. But small-ego males like you take everything personal. It always has to be about you, you, you.

            Give me a break, asshole.

          • You’ll never know what we’ve achieved, twit. And look at you, dragging your valise around espousing your crackpot theories, it’s pathetic.

            Misogyny is just a projection? Here are some quotes from the sponsor of that recent MRA conference you presented at, as though it might lend you some legitimacy, which indicates the level of your naivete:

            “But no matter what you do, you are going to see a lot more of the things you don’t like in the future. I don’t mean that in the way of violent threats and continued fixation on your rectum, but in much more organized, high impact consequences for those of your ilk, courtesy of the men’s movement. Simply put, we are coming for you. All of you. And by the time we are done you will wax nostalgic over the days when all you had to deal with was someone expressing a desire to fuck you up your shopworn ass.”
            http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/stalking-sady-doyle/

            “…beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles. And then make them clean up the mess.” http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/10/18/paul-elam-of-a-voice-for-men-in-his-own-words/

            “Look, ladies, I get it. I really do. You think you were raped. At least that is your claim. And even if we take for granted that you are telling the truth about some asshole that ignored your insistence that you did not want to have sex; who even ignored your repeated, tearful pleas to be left alone, and instead forced himself on you sexually, violating your personal boundaries and bodily integrity in order to penetrate you in one orifice or another, that is still a far cry from justifying the use of a word as strong as rape.” http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/ill-decide-if-you-were-raped-not-you/

            “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”
            http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial-acquit/

            “Now, let me ask you something. Do you think I am going to stop? It’s a serious question, because the answer to that question, again if you are not too stupid to grasp the impact of it, should inform you of what will work for you or not work for you in dealing with me. And the answer is, of course, no, I am not going to stop. You see, I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.”
            http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/the-fembots-are-already-bent-out-of-shape/

            Please explain how these comments from the site that had you as a speaker, and which you wholeheartedly endorse, are not misogynistic.

    • Sorry for the continued OT, but wanted to respond. I first suspected him when he appeared to be profiting off the Elliot Rodger murder spree. He has also said repeatedly that he thinks the MRA have some points that should be addresses, esp. regarding family courts – they don’t because they have no right to women’s children, to control, abuse and kill women, which they are doing with the assistance of the courts.

      But, if after that you still question where he stands, he has said he does NOT support radical feminists. Does the phrase, “We’ve seen the enemy and he’s our friend,” ring a bell here?

      Here’s an screen shot of a discussion where he makes it very clear he’s not on our side:

      http://imgur.com/tEQUpKi

      Futrelle is a lot like those 3 college boys who are trying to raise money to manufacture rape drug-detecting nail polish to “empower” women. Men are not on our side. No men are on our side. They’re not going to voluntarily give up their power or stop with their violence against us. They are, however, good at profiting off women in every way.

      Dude’s just another parasite if you ask me, but you’ll have to make up your own mind.

      • I don’t want to “not all men” here but I’m definitely on your side. I dislike liberal feminists as much as you do. It’s because of them that I was kept ignorant of what real feminism was about for so long. Futrelle actually banned me from commenting on his damn blog.

        • Why did he do that? He’s never been anything but nice to me but it’s clear to me that he has some sort of disagreement with radical feminism but I’m not sure what that disagreement actually entails. I could speculate but I don’t want to do that in absence of asking him directly. I’ve never asked him because it’s never come up in our personal exchanges.

          • Oh, I made a comment about using violence, which is a big no-no for theetie-wheetie liberals (even though all ownership systems, and certainly any ownership system promoted by liberals, entail the use of violence).

          • Today Futrelle says he would get a spot in Women’s Country. I find it ironic that Futrelle says he doesn’t like radfems but thinks a society made entirely of rabid radfems (who are using violence to achieve their aims, even against each other, no less!) would allow him in. I don’t think so, buddy! Also, men aren’t allowed to have sex in Women’s Country, so good luck with all that.

          • Well, M. Tremblay, these radfems in The Gate to Women’s Country are kinda cool, I always thought.

            Sure, they’re trying to get rid of male violence by not letting the most violent have children, and doing it secretly at that, but the system seems to be working. The men are still invited inside the gates for regular festivals where sex is available, and they get to make war among themselves, ad they raise their boys, and women can still visit them outside the walls, and the men have their own society, and also some men, the non-violent ones, do live in the women’s villages, and are respected.

            I don’t think the women elders are rabid though I do agree they’re radfems. And though they practice radical birth control, well, once you learn why humans are living in medieval conditions again post-apocalypse, you’re inclined to give women the benefit of the doubt there.

            I think David would probably choose village life and do fine.

    • I think the majority of Futrelle’s readers are libfems, and therefore using the word cis is speaking to his core audience. Unfortunately, he would alienate a lot of his readers if he took a radical feminist perspective.

        • Ha ha, yes, but there’s a lot of dumb people in the world, and he wants pageviews. What do you wanna bet he gets a book deal someday? Women blog about feminism all the time, and men are the only ones getting several hundred comments on each post. By no coincidence, once I discovered this blog I hardly ever read Futrelle anymore.

          • Yea, I guess I would look forward to a book, as long as it doesn’t have any personal stuff in it. I don’t like him personally. But the anti-MRA stuff is great. This blog seems to be doing him one-up in terms of analysis, but his blog is still more entertaining. Again, just different approaches, I love both blogs now.

          • eh100, I know what you mean, I don’t check out Dave Futile’s blog either these days. This blog is SO much more interesting. Whenever I get Futile’s pingbacks to approve – showing he’s linked to my site, or to one of my pieces – I always approve them instantly, but never bother to see what he’s wittering on about. I don’t know an MRA who can be bothered to read what he says anymore. To say he’s irrelevant today would be to exaggerate his importance.

            Ladies and gentlemen, good night.

  5. I respect and admire David Futrelle’s smarts, guts, writing ability, humor, and persistence. He has made an important record of the misogyny movement over a period of years and deserves a lot of praise for that. I hope he keeps it up for a long time to come.

    That said, it seems that David doesn’t understand (or maybe understands and doesn’t agree with) radical feminist objections to transactivism. He doesn’t really engage with feminist theory, such as structural analysis of male violence or the way the patriarchal system works. He would probably call himself a liberal feminist, I don’t know. But he is a hell of an anti-MRA.

      • The HMQ is the one who first introduced me to what they are. I glance at his site, but I like this blog and her YT videos by far the best. I think she’s the best thing out there (talking about you like you’re not here, HMQ – sorry!), but Futrelle, dick and all, gets more press and doesn’t have to fear rape and death. Therein lies the difference because HMQ is hands down better at exposing them.

  6. Yah I think we all can agree , David included, that it is more dangerous to be a vocal anti-MRA blogger if one is a woman. The rageboners just don’t get so excited that a guy is critiquing them, though he does receive threats too. That’s cos violence is eroticised and they’re mostly het, I think.

        • It’s just a liberal feminist vibe. Give it another 10 or so years. Radical feminism can’t die until its goals are achieved. We’re in it for the long haul.

          We’re not about slut walks. We don’t want our inner slut to come forth. We’re about changing the structures of power that keep women down as a class.

          The message of slut walk was totally lost on the general public. It’s really a shame. Radical feminists have been so demonized that our meetings are cancelled because of transactivists who want to get in or stop us from speaking.

          To me, that’s bullshit. We should have our spaces just as they would want theirs. It seems to me that it’s true that many transactivists want to just ‘get in’ for it’s own sake, to rile it up. Not because they actually want to work with radical feminists.

          The theoretical position on gender is diff. between the two groups. That’s not to say transppl and radfems can’t get along. I think we SHOULD get along.

          We do have a disagrement in theory and in practice but damn if we agree on everything else we should get together. It’s unfortunate for all of us in the end.

          Radfems have a need for space. I expect that to be respected just as I respect transspace.

          I don’t have issues with transfolks using the washroom if they have the equipement. None whatsoever. I don’t even think about things on that level.

          We aren’t going to change our theory. I know that much. Radfems are going to insist that socialized gender roles are a major thing that has to go.

          It seems intractable. Which is a shame.

  7. I am utterly mystified by your caption in the video stating, ‘A black woman STOLE MAH job’ at 4:19 on the video, before I relate my story about a feminist denying me a consulting assignment (ends at 4:55). What makes you think the woman was black? To the best of my knowledge I’ve never stated what her colour was. As it happens she was white. I cannot think you have any motivation for writing that caption other than trying to mislead your followers into thinking I’m racist, and I invite you to remove that caption. Thank you.

    • So, your caption was both utterly irrelevant to the subsequent video footage of me, and insinuated racism as well to the vast majority of people who wouldn’t get your obscure Oprah Winfrey reference? You must be so proud of what you do – am I right? And why won’t you publish my more substantive comments. e.g. the public challenge of the Governor of the Bank of England which details the evidence that one consequence of increasing female representation on boards leads to corporate performance decline?

      • Why would feminists not debate substantively about women CEO performance with a man who starts from the misogynistic premise that feminism is “forcing [women] to go against their natural instincts and rely on the world of work for their economic survival”.?

        This misogynistic twit is saying that his assumption and overriding premise is that IT’S AGAINST NATURE FOR WOMEN TO WORK OUTSIDE THE HOME.

        Men in business suits commonly think this.

        As a result, women CEOs and board members have to go through a special kind of hell to get and do their jobs.

        But. this twit’s argument goes, if anything goes wrong for such women, WE WON”T DISCUSS WHETHER IT’S BECAUSE THEIR MALE PEERS WERE SABOTAGING THEM with their misogynistic attitudes, WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE it’s because they’re going against Nature! Women don’t belong in business because it conflicts with their vaginas!

        Q.E.D. and another example of migogynistic logic.

  8. One final thought. Contrary to how you start your piece, the J4MB political platform isn’t ‘focused on stopping feminism’. We know feminism can’t be ‘stopped’. No problem – it doesn’t NEED to be stopped for J4MB and MHRAs to progress. I can scarcely believe you haven’t grasped even that. It gives me hope for the future when feminists can be SO wrong about J4MB. You really don’t have a clue what’s happening, do you?

    Shaming tactics – e.g. calling me a misogynist – are well past their sell-by date. MRAs like myself laugh at them, and happily link to silly pieces like yours – with content we can discredit with minimal effort and time – on our websites. More men with each passing year are refusing to be manipulated by shaming tactics.

    The fact that you reduce opposition to feminism to misogyny is lazy, to say the least. The next few years will come as a big surprise to you. You’re on the wrong side of the history, and you’re blissfully unaware that you are.

    Oh, while I think of it. One or two references to CC-P in my letter to the Governor of the Bank of England. She was, of course, the genius behind the ‘women on banknotes’ campaign. Why don’t you ask her to contact me mike@j4mb.org.uk with evidence to show she didn’t lie when she called into that BBC radio programme, then I can apologise to her, and trash her ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award? You do know why she won’t do that… don’t you?

    Have a nice day.

    • And look at Buchanan’s comment begging Ms. Queen to contact Ms. Criado-Perez so Mr. Buchanan can get that attention from her he’s dying for.

      Hey, look, Mr. Buchanan, as I already said, though I see you didn’t read my comment, Ms. Criado-Perez isn’t contacting you because she has declined further contact with you, not because she can’t decimate your position. No means no, and nobody here is going to be your harassment buddy.

      You bluffed your way into a hot mess where you have seem to have libeled her and she won’t give you an excuse to take your libel down without you losing face. Bad bluff. There it sits, and you can’t take it down, cos yer a man, yah you am, hey, yah…

  9. By the way, what makes you think the woman who didn’t award you the position was a feminist, much less a “vile feminist”? Because anyone who doesn’t give you a job, who happens to be a woman, must be vile and feminist? Perhaps she instead googled you and found some information that made her decide you wouldn’t be a good team member?

    http://www.newstatesman.com/v-spot/2013/01/coming-soon-angry-dude-near-you-pro-men-party

    That article contains a quote from you to the effect that women who work outside the home are going outside their “natural instincts.”

    Perhaps you didn’t get that position because a good hiring manager realized your sexism would make it impossible to work on a respectful basis with women?

  10. Didn’t you see the first comment here, in which I (not Ms. Queen) described you as a mendacious little twit and did set forth three large reputable studies that disproved your position? Also, Ms. Queen did publish a link in which your incorrect position on women on corporate boards can be read in detail right here in this thread. Did you not read her posting? Rageboners do that – make it hard to read.

    • Vyechera, do you not understand the distinction between correlation and causation? Fairly elementary statistics, to be honest. If you don’t understand it, you won’t understand my response on the matter, which explains that ALL such studies say they’re NOT reporting causation. The only evidence of causation can come from longitudinal studies, and the longitudinal studies we cite – in our letter to the Governor of the Bank of England, and elsewhere – show that increasing female representation on boards leads to DECLINES in corporate financial performance.

      If you want to understand the difference between correlation and causation – possibly becoming the first feminist to manage it – Wikipedia could probably get you there in 10 minutes. You might then be in a position to make an intelligent contribution to the ‘women on boards’ question, rather than spouting ideologically-driven BS, as feminists (such as CCP and you) invariably do.

      Here’s a couple of $64,000 question for you – why won’t CCP prove she didn’t lie on the impact of increasing female representation on boards? And maybe charge me with libel for publicly calling her a liar on the matter? You do know the answer to those questions, don’t you?

      Never heard the term ‘rageboner’ before tonight. Sounds like a feminist invention, like the feminist interpretation of ‘patriarchy theory’ – to believe in which you’d need the IQ of a fruit fly. I assume you believe in it?

  11. Pingback: Mike Buchanan Comes For a Visit | Mancheeze

  12. Hey, Mr. Buchanan, yer IGNORING ME and you can’t do that, I have a right to your response whether you want to give one or not, ya twit, all women are entitled always to a man’s attention, you better shape up and act like a proper man and respond so I can blast yo ass. (Social rule invented by Mike Buchanan who won’t leave C. Criado-Perez alone despite her repeated demand that he do so).

  13. Why thank you very much Mr. Buchanan for cooling down dat rageboner for a sec to write a couple of things to me.

    “Correlation is not causation”. Didn’t I just look at a luvly chart you put together showing the Decline of the World correlated with women getting increasingly into the workforce, on another site? I’ll stop when you do, ya twit. My studies are better than your studies. Prove me wrong, twit.

    “Why won’t CCP prove she didn’t lie on the impact of increasing female representation on boards? And maybe charge me with libel for publicly calling her a liar on the matter? You do know the answer to those questions, don’t you?”

    See how you do? Have ya stopped beating yer wife? Why won’t Criado_Perez prove she didn’t lie? You said she did, that means she has to PAY ATTENTION AND HOP TO COS YOU A MAN YOU SURE AM, hey, yah.

    Gawrsh, I’ve already answered this like 3 times on this thread, but as I said, a rageboner interferes with cognition, so let’s see… why won’t she prove she didn’t lie? Because she has DECLINED TO HAVE FURTHER CONTACT WITH YOU. Ya twit. And no, let me lay this advanced concept out one more time. Just because you want her attention doesn’t mean she is obligated to give you any. Ya annoying twit.

    Why she hasn’t charged you with libel? Well…hmm…just off the top of my fluffy, nurturing, stay-at-home head,

    She’s checked out your assets – and you’re not worth suing.

    She will sue you – she has plenty of time before the statute of limitations kicks in.

    Your attack is too trivial to bother with.

    She’s not interested in being a party to your attention-seeking.

    She’s so right and you’re so wrong she wants to let the libel just sit there digging you into your hole all by itself, without her having to lift a finger.

    “Never heard the term ‘rageboner’ before tonight. Sounds like a feminist invention, like the feminist interpretation of ‘patriarchy theory’ – to believe in which you’d need the IQ of a fruit fly. I assume you believe in it?”

    Hey, I’m looking at it.

    • Vyechera, what are you, ten years old? CCP only has to provide links to the ‘loads of longitudinal studies’ she publicly claimed existed, and she’s won. Radfem 1, MRA 0. Why hasn’t she done so? BECAUSE SHE LIED.

      This has nothing to do with ‘disproving negatives’. It’s to do with:

      1. Feminist makes a claim which isn’t true – in plain English, she LIES. Business as usual.

      2. Feminist refuses to retract the lie, other feminists provide excuses for the lack of a retraction. Business as usual.

      As to the AVfM related pieces you cite, I couldn’t be bothered to go through them. Slurs against AVfM have been discredited countless times, and I’m not wasting any more time doing so. If AVfM were truly a misogynistic website, I wouldn’t recommend the site – AVFM on a daily basis, nor speak at their conference. I always tell people to subscribe to AVfM for a month (no charge) and make up their own minds. Nobody has ever told me at the end of that month, that they’ve found the misogynistic. Maybe it expects women to act like responsible adults rather than like children with no moral agency – and if that’s deemed to be misogyny in 2014, then guilty as charged!

      EDITED BY HMQ FOR LINKS

      • Hahahaha! I’m not gonna confront THAT misogyny! I’ll just make more each time I open my mouth! You must have a lot of flies in that mouth of yours. It’s open a lot.

        No wait, you’ve got your foot in there. Forgot.

        • Oh, I get it now. Calling a feminist liar a… er… liar, makes me a misogynist. Right. Time to check your privilege, maybe?

          None of the feminists who’ve won our coveted ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards have ever refuted our claim that they’re liars. The reason is simple. They couldn’t. Enjoy:

          >>>> EDITED BY HOUSE MOUSE QUEEN FOR LINKING TO ERRONEOUS CRAP. You can either deal with the argument or say you’ve lost it. One or the other. You can’t keep posting crazy links to things that aren’t being discussed.

      • (accusing me of being 10 years old) My answer: Ya wish, ya twit. I’m already aware you don’t read my comments or respond to them. I see you have adopted the internal misogynistic narrative that I am juvenile. This lockstep narrative doesn’t work too well in my case, if you actually take a moment to consider what I’m saying, ya twit.

        Double neg again, ya twit! She betta prove that which she didn’t do!

        Dude calls her a liar and attempts to ruin her reputation – and now says we’re refusing excuses to retract. Yah, as if it’s up to us to pull Dude out of his cesspool.

        Dude announces there is no misogyny anywhere. I respond with massive, overwhelming proof of misogyny from his sponsoring site. He says…”I couldn’t be bothered to go through them”, and without reading what I wrote, announces AVFM isn’t a misogynistic site.

        Lalalala! Fingers into ears!

        Twit, you been owned!

        • Yep, he’s been pwnd alright and now he’s taken his woman hatred and toys and gone home. He’s busy writing emails to various UK women in true stalker fashion because he’s a dude who MUST BE responded to even when his assertions are the silliest shit I’ve ever read. Volleyball?

        • V

          “Double neg again, ya twit! She betta prove that which she didn’t do!”

          She DID lie. I offered to send you a link proving she lied. You haven’t asked for the link. I’ve wasted enough time on you tonight. Not going to waste any more time on you tonight, or ever.

          Even by radfem standards you’re ridiculous, and that’s one VERY low bar.

          >>>> HOUSE MOUSE QUEEN DIDN’T EDIT THIS COMMENT BUT IS SURE THAT MIKE BUCHANAN HAS NO ARGUMENT. HENCE HIS MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO LINK TO ERRONEOUS SHIT INSTEAD OF HANDLING THE ARGUMENT ON WOMEN AND BOARDS.

  14. I think the performance of your blog would be improved if there were more female anti-feminists commenting on it, with “performance” not referring to financial performance or any metric of any meaning to a client, employee, or stockholder, but rather simply more estrogen. I’ve heard that whenever there are more women added to an equation–particularly when they fail to agree–there is always a performance. While nine out of ten feminists may agree that Mike Buchanan is a misogynist, I’m sure I can beat his performance on that metric. I’m just bursting with poor self esteem, obviously, and in need of an education on my “rights”. Surely, I could be convinced with a nice cushy seat on a nice corporate board on no basis of merit on my part? Shall I pout and look victim-like? Or put on the designer suit and kick ass?

    By the way is there a similar campaign to “diversify” offshore oil rigs, garbage collection, the homeless? How about we diversify the aged given that women currently outlive men? I know, we should convince *more* women to commit suicide–it isn’t fair that so many men do it–it should be *equal*. As for workplace injuries, it really isn’t fair that not more women are injured on the job. I eagerly await your solutions to these inequities.

    • I approved this comment so people could see how stupid AVFMer women are.

      Equality of course means you force women to do shit they don’t want to do! And of course you assume women don’t want to work in traditionally male jobs, which is bullshit anyway. I dare you to read a report called ‘Women in Construction.’ There you’ll find just how friendly males are when you try entering a field they’ve dominated, which is practically every public job. You’ll read about the massive sexist shit these women have to endure.

      How about men stop thinking they own everything in the public sphere and women can enter without having to endure sexism and racism? Oh but that’s too difficult! That’s just not equality to AVFM and the MRA’s! Equality is forcing women to enter fields they don’t want to enter in which they’ll get harmed, not by the JOB but by the MEN IN THE JOBS!

      I think a couple women are mad they didn’t get included on Marcotte’s hitlist of women who are doing their best on setting women back decades and they’ve decided to come here and whine about how I should run my blog.

      LOL

      I’m not interested in taking ‘advice’ from female misogynists who line Elam’s pockets but you are truly amusing and well, I love to mock you.

      • OH my good fucks sake. You’re kidding me? She wrote that piece of shit?

        I’m getting the clearest picture of female MRA’s. They want to sell shit and in this case want men to beat them up.

        I’m not going to enhance rapists and male sadists.

        Nor will I channel a male’s inner pedophile.

        Wow, she’s a nutbag.

        puke

        • It seems likely that Caprizchka’s “predator” wrote the comment above.

          With her windpipe cut off like that I doubt she says much.

          (Besides getting her recipe book out.)

          Though the photo is funny as shit, it’s also depressing.

          • It’s modern day porn is what it is for the express purpose of selling recipies. Everyone puts male supremacist porn on shit they want people to buy. It’s a nice schtick but I bet the book didn’t do very well in this culture. I’m sure the failure of the book was accompanied by lots of scratchy head. ‘Why won’t anyone buy mah book? Oh tis’ those nasty feminists!’

            Repeat ad nauseum.

            Women aren’t going to buy a cookbook with a woman getting choked on the cover. The fact here is that one of the most common male battering tactics IS choking women. Choking the life right out of us. If you look at the CDC 2011 report 11.1 Million women are choked. To put this in perspective, the total amount of men who suffered choking was LESS THAN a million.

            So I find it pathetically horrible that she’s now selling this BDSM submissive crap to men and yet I bet any amount of money that actually having to have a relationship with any one of these MRA’s would make her run to the hills.

      • I think I’m gonna need a barf bag….

        What really makes me LOL about this is how “dominant” & “american male” are used in the same sentence. Am I supposed to feel intimidated by that old, flabby cock on the cover? Har! Har! Patriarchy keeps losers like that in their positions of power. Take away civilization, money, ammo, technology….them dump these feeble relics (like Buchanan) into the jungle. Ah, what a show that would be.

        Oh, and most old cocks can only stay “virile” with the unnatural assistance of VIAGRA. They aren’t even supposed to be breeding, due to poor sperm quality. That is why they go limp in the first place. Stop fighting Nature, you freaks.

        • Hahahaha. You’re so funny. You’re providing me many laughs. old cocks LOL

          I’d love to drop all these fuckers in a jungle with Amazon women who laugh as they die slowly because they’re so misogynist they won’t ask for knowledge to survive.

          • What really eats at me is how Buttchanan makes numerous nasty comments about women’s appearance…WITH A FACE LIKE THAT. I mean, look at that video footage and his damn avatar. If that’s not a “hatchetface”, I don’t know what is (plus, he’s fat). Holy corn dog on a fuckstick with Grey Poupon! This asshat is completely BLIND to his own ugliness…and this seems to be a problem with most MRAs (and men in general). They feel perfectly comfortable commenting on our looks, while they themselves resemble something that fell out of Godzilla’s asscrack.

            Just unbelievable, really. I mean, I see it 100 times a day, but it never fails to astound me.

Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s