Mike Buchanan Comes For a Visit

I recently wrote this article, ‘Profile of a Misogynist: Mike Buchanan.’ It’s important to read that first and come back to this one.

Like clockwork Mike Buchanan came here to mansplain to me and others. I made a claim in my article that Buchanan harasses and stalks women with emails, and he does, but that he has Laurie Penny’s new address at Harvard.

He protested that he doesn’t have her new email address and confronted me to show evidence of him crowing about the fact that he most certainly does have her email.

This is a screenshot from an article HE wrote on Laurie Penny where he brags about having her new address and that of two other women. CLICK TO ENLARGE

buchanan on email addysIn parenthesis, Buchanan brags ‘Names and addresses of three people, all are women, what are the chances?’

I’m sure he intends to harass them by e-mail as he’s done countless times to other women. When they don’t respond to him he gives them silly ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards on his silly blog.

Without further ado, cue the mansplaining.

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Mike Buchanan Comes For a Visit

  1. You’re a star. You are. The three email addresses were of women other than Laurie Penny, and all were based in the UK. Thanks for making my day.

    Seriously, you can do better than this, can’t you?

  2. One more thing. The email from Laurie Penny was an ‘auto reply’ I received to something I’d sent her, as one of hundreds of people on a J4MB circulation list. It wasn’t an email from whatever her ‘American email address’ is.

    So, to summarise:

    1. I don’t know Laurie Penny’s email address in America, I’ve never known it, and I don’t want to know it now.

    2. You were wrong in alleging I knew that email address.

    3. You were wrong in alleging I crowed about it on AVfM.

    So, any chance of you being the first feminist in the world to retract a false allegation – well, two, technically – against an MHRA? You can do it. You’ll feel better afterwards, as someone who’s demonstrated some integrity. But feminists will loathe you for admitting to being wrong.

  3. I’m afraid I don’t know who Laurie Penny is so I had to look her up and what should I find but her interview of you:

    “It was only a few years ago, when he was looking for work and “a huge woman” turned him down for a job in public-sector procurement…”

    So the hiring manager was “Huge”, was she? You claim she was white? Well, let’s see you prove that, since you are so fond of challenging women to disprove negatives. Did you say she was huge, as in obese? Is this the evidence on which you base your claim that she was a “vile feminist?”

    Huge and vile…is it any wonder Ms. Queen here chose a well-known line from Oprah (the most famous, richest, Black woman in the world, so this quote is by no means obscure) to satirize your sexist tale?

    • Please explain when I’ve been ‘fond of challenging women to disprove negatives’. I genuinely have no idea what you mean.

      The reason I knew the woman was a vile feminist is that the interim agency which sent me to be interviewed by her later admitted she was, and apologised for wasting my time. She’d never been known to recruit or promote a man, and would sooner recruit an incompetent woman than a competent man, and had frequently done so. But hey, public sector, who’s going to notice a bit more incompetence? After all, in the UK, men pay only 72% of the income taxes which largely finances the state, two-thirds of whose employees are women.

      You’re not familiar with Laurie Penny? Well then, you have a treat in store. Do catch the video footage of her with Prof David Starkey, at the very least:

      EDITED BY HMQ FOR ERRONEOUS LINKS

      You take an Oprah Winfrey line before a video clip of me in a TV discussion talking about a feminist not hiring me as satirical? Wow. You appear not to understand what the word ‘satire’ means.

      • I’ll just quote myself earlier, since you don’t read my comments anyway:

        “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.”

        Yep, you are challenging Ms. Criado-Perez to prove a negative, that women aren’t dragging down the level of corporate performance when they are promoted to policy-making positions.

        • Vyechera, you clearly don’t know the slightest clue as to why we called CCP a liar. I’m tired of doing lazy feminists’ research for them. A summary. She said when calling into a BBC radio programme on which I was appearing – let me know if you want the link – that there are ‘lots of longitudinal studies which show the opposite’ (I think those were her exact words) to the five longitudinal studies I explained show a causal link between increasing female representation on boards and declines in corporate financial performance.

          How is this ‘disproving a negative’? Please enlighten me.

          Have you checked out the difference between correlation and causation yet? If so, do you now understand why measures to increase the proportion of women on corporate boards isn’t a good idea? And if not, can’t you be bothered to learn the distinction, and why it’s at the core of the ‘women on boards’ question?

      • Your proof? or is this another apocryphal parable for MRAs? That interim agency: who did you speak to, and was he a good ole boy?

  4. Did you write this, Mr. Buchanan? “Any woman out there can get pregnant in a pub car park tonight and she knows she’ll get accommodation for life.”

    Why, those ignorant sluts!

    Does this statement indicate you harbor a dislike of women? No?

    How about this Twitter comment you made 9 days ago? “Dylen, the term ‘hatchet faced’ is used by myself and others not to denote unattractiveness – the fact that unattractive women are drawn to feminism like moths to a flame is another matter altogether – but to the sour expressions of many feminists, and all radical feminists. I refer you to the younger of the two feminists in my last London Live TV discussion. She had a sour expression from the moment she entered the hospitality suite, and maintained it throughout the studio discussion. My point is, sour expressions simply reflect the hate-driven minds behind them.”

    But every dictionary says that “hatchet-faced” is a term of opprobrium used to describe “having a long, thin, and unpleasant looking face with a pointed nose and chin”. Do you think that trying to redefine the dictionary definition of a term later will rescue you from your reputation as someone who dislikes women?

    Did you write this, sir? “That said, I think it’s a scandal how little women’s beach volleyball we see on mainstream TV. No need for men’s beach volleyball, obviously.” Why is that? Why is there no need for men to play volleyball? Respond in detail, in the same fashion you insist Ms. Criado-Prerez jump to and respond to you in detail.

  5. Regarding that video you promote from the world’s premier misogynistic online site: Do you think titling the video to refer to refer to a respected journalist as a “petulant, dishonest child” is non-sexist? Would the same terms be used for a male journalist you disagreed with? Is there any factual accuracy to it, or is it merely hate-mongering? Is Ms. Penny a child?

    Ya twit.

    • Laurie Penny is a respected journalist? You’re killing me. She’s regarded as a vile ideologically-driven journalist across the world. The title of the piece wasn’t chosen by me, nor was the piece written by me, but ‘petulant child’ describes her perfectly. Watch the exchange with David Starkey if you have any doubt on the matter.

      Time for me to go. I need to be up early tomorrow, we’re writing a lengthy piece for the election manifesto on how men are treated brutally by the justice system, and women leniently. One example. Paternity fraud is a shocking assault on children, biological fathers, and men who are deceived into supporting children who aren’t biologically theirs. Paternity fraud – and attempted paternity fraud – have long been criminal offences in the UK. How many British women have ever been convicted of the crime? That’s right. None. The abuses of men’s and children’s human rights in the US and Canada are, if anything, even worse than in the UK.

      Good night.

  6. It’s sickening that someone can actually think men are treated brutally by the justice system right after Oscar Pistorius was declared not guilty of murder in the murder of Reeva Skeenkamp. The reality is that men treat women brutally, and the justice system is lenient on them. You can slaughter a woman and the court treats it lightly. Disgusting.

      • Uh, we’re not going to play the spinning top routine with you bringing up more and more bullshit. Stay on topic. The MRA spinning top routine isn’t welcome here. If you can’t deal with the argument then politely say you can’t deal with it. Don’t just keep posting shit on other subjects that you expect us to research for you.

        Either deal with your claim or tell us you can’t handle it. One or the other.

        • My ‘claim’? Not sure what you mean. This post is about me lying about knowing Laurie Penny’s email address in the US, others have gone OT (and to be fair, I’ve gone with them). I’ve PROVED that I wasn’t lying about Ms P’s US email address. You have yet to concede that I’ve done so. The ball is in your court, I think?

          • What? The image is right there for everyone to read. You’re just not living in reality. Then you started talking about the women on boards issue which so far, you are wrong about but won’t admit it so you’re doing the spinning top routine where you link to erroneous shit not part of defending your arguments. We’re very familiar with that MRA routine. Once we start talking about a subject that YOU initiated and we win the argument, you post more shit that has nothing to do with anything. Just like now. You are saying I didn’t prove it but I posted the damn screenshot!

            Oh and to add to the real subject, which is women on boards, Ally Fogg laid you low on it too. http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/10/13/the-stupid-the-hypocritical-and-the-downright-evil-a-response-to-justice-4-men-and-boys/

          • Yawn. The image doesn’t show what you imply it shows, i.e. that I had Laurie Penny’s US email address. Please explain why you think it does, and I’ll explain why it doesn’t. I’ve already explained:

            1. Her email was an ‘auto reply’ and not from LP’s US email address.
            2. The three email addresses which I retracted from my comments on AVfM were of women based in the UK, not the US.

            How does this add up to me ‘knowing’ her US email address, let alone ‘crowing’ about knowing it on AVfM? The premise of this blog post is deeply flawed, and if you don’t understand that by now…

          • HMQ, you write:

            “Wow. You must think I’m really dumb.”

            I do now, yes.

            “The article about Laurie Penny YOU wrote. Did you forget that? http://www.donotlink.com/bm9n

            Of course I don’t forget it.

            “The article was specifically about her move to the US…”

            Agreed.

            “… and that you had emailed her and got her email address to contact her wherever she was!”

            No. I have no ’email address to contact her wherever she is’, I have only a UK email address which is in the public domain, which I’ve had for a year or two.

            “Then you crowed about it as that image shows.”

            Given that my last comment started with ‘No’, this is a logically false assertion.

            Again I say – seriously, is this the best you can do?

          • The image you fruitbat. Why is this so difficult. You’re telling me that after you contacted her on her ‘normal’ address that you got a way to contact her while she’s away in America. That means you have a way to contact her while she’s away. That’s the point. You crowed about having THREE new email addresses, all female, in your own words.

            Why crow about three female addresses you received as an auto reply to contact Laurie Penny while she’s away? Why do that? Unless you have a way to contact her while she’s away!

          • “You’re telling me that after you contacted her on her ‘normal’ address that you got a way to contact her while she’s away in America.”

            No, I got the emails of three women in the UK. I’ve never contacted them. You said I had LP’s email address when in the US, and that I was going to ‘stalk’ her. Both are false claims.

            “That means you have a way to contact her while she’s away. That’s the point.”

            Well, if I contacted one of the women, maybe, but they were all work-connected. None would have been appropriate for me to contact, by definition.

            “You crowed about having THREE new email addresses, all female, in your own words.”

            Where does this “crowed” nonsense come from? They were three women I could have contacted if I had any reason to with respect to LP’s paid work, which I don’t. I even redacted the three email addresses..
            .

          • Why would she say in her email that the way to contact her would be through these 3 addresses?

            The point was, you emailed her and she said ‘if you REALLY need to contact me’ here’s how you do it.

            How hard is this?

            Then you got all excited and crowed about it on AVFM. See your own damn words!

            You have a habit of emailing women and stalking them. This makes sense to the rest of us but I suppose the stalker won’t admit he stalks.

          • Having had a few hours sleep, I cannot believe the time I spent trying to engage with some of the most profoundly stupid people I’ve ever engaged with, including yourself. This blog post starts with:

            “Like clockwork Mike Buchanan came here to mansplain to me and others. I made a claim in my article that Buchanan harasses and stalks women with emails, and he does, but that he has Laurie Penny’s new address at Harvard.”

            Leaving aside the nonsense about ‘harasses and stalks women with emails’, I’ve demonstrated ad nauseam that I DON’T have’ ‘Laurie Penny’s new (email) address at Harvard’. Yet you go on saying I do, as if by repeating the lie, it ceases to be a lie. What is it with feminists, that when shown by an MRA that they’re demonstrably lying – like all the ‘Lying Feminists of the Month’ including CCP – they refuse to retract their lies? To my mind it’s just one of many indicators that they’re driven by misandry.

            I’ve wasted enough time on you. Will unsubscribe to both your idiotic blog pieces now, and spend my time on something more useful.

          • Awesome. Get going.

            Just remember. When you get called out for stalking and then try playing the big dude that doesn’t do it, it’s important not to leave a TRAIL of stalking.

            That means don’t write all giddy about it on AVFM that you have ways to get to Laurie Penny plus 3 other women or that those 3 women can get to Laurie Penny.

            Don’t crow like a rooster dude. And to top it all off, why don’t you stop emailing women to get them to say shit they’re never going to say.

            You’re just doing it to be a jerkoff. You’re doing it because you want to exercise some control over them and when you can’t control them you go into hysterics on your shitty blogs.

            Now please, don’t let the door hit you in the behind.

            Toodles.

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

    Oh no, you don’t get to go, any more than Ms. Criado-Perez is allowed to go by you. Why should you be allow to go? As you said in the previous thread regarding women:

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

    (I responded) 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.

    No, I don’t choose to leave you to your troubled sleep, Mr. Buchanan. You haven’t earned it yet. As you explained to Ms. Criado-Lopez, people can’t say, leave me alone. Equity, right?

    You haven’t responded yet to my request that you explain that misogyny doesn’t exist in the MRM in light of the following illustrative quotes from the misogynistic site that sponsored your recent speech somewhere near Detroit. 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.

  8. Mr. Buchanan? Have you earned your sleep? or have you left it that you hate women from a deep psychosexual level (huge, vile, hatchet-faced feminists)?

    Do you leave all this misogyny I have quoted above because there is no defense, one can only hit the hay?

    What’s the problem? Is the only toehold you have some misleading bs that longitudinal studies are “better” than the reputable ones I quoted? You are misled.

    As for your special MRA issues, have you realized you put up so many barriers, no one ever gets to your issues? That you are preventing substantive discussion of your issues? Your misogyny makes that impossible. Please work on that.

  9. I read all of Mike Buchanan’s comments and I feel so embarrassed for him. The fact that you can see a picture of him whenever he comments makes it worse. He really needs to find a new hobby other than harassing women with different opinions from himself online. It’s not really helping his reputation and it just makes him look like a bigger misogynist.

    I also don’t really see how paternity fraud is a big issue. There’s already strict laws against it and it doesn’t really help any man to insist that it is a bigger issue than it is because it doesn’t occur that often. Either way, somebody fathered the child and someone needs to help take care of it. Why are people fighting for men’s rights so adament that men should have the right to refuse to support a child on the basis that it’s not biologically his? Or that men should have the right to refuse to support a child even if it is his own? Should men just abandon children that are not their own and have the ability to decide whether or not they want to abandon their own children? These sentiments clearly reflect the old patriarchal notion that children are women’s responsibility to take care of when men don’t want them. I swear the space in foster homes is going to combust on itself someday because of people like these.

    There are much more important men’s issues that needs to be addressed like the fact that male rape victims are continuously silenced and laughed at by the general public. Males also are plagued by body image issues and take steroids to combat them, in extreme cases leading to an eating disorder or death. Out of all the men’s issues to choose from, why paternity fraud? It astounds me. The most pressing issues should be confronted first and emphasized the most. Perhaps unconvicted paternity fraud can be harmful in cases where men cannot afford to pay for child support, but there is a way for men to stop paying for child support, especially if they’re unemployed and they can’t afford it. There’s a bigger statistical problem, however, with single women living below poverty lines with children.

    Anyhow, good luck in the future Mouse House Queen when dealing with people who test your patience. I don’t have the temper to deal with hostile, aggressive people and I’m glad that there’s someone out there who’s willing to talk with them when I’m not.

    • ‘It’s not really helping his reputation and it just makes him look like a bigger misogynist. ”

      That’s why I allow them to comment. We mock them. I get more material to expose them on. It works for me.

      It doesn’t work for them since opening their mouths gives them away.

      I don’t get flustered at them any more. I block a lot of it but when I feel inspired to let them run out of steam while making idiots out of themselves I just let them go full spin cycle.

  10. Looking over Mr. Buchanan’s visit here I’d like to say a few more general words:

    It’s important to stress that any useful reformist message Mr. Buchanan might have brought to the general debate about family law issues is irretrievable, because his misogyny makes it impossible for him to set forth his position in any objective way for discussion.

    It seems necessary to point out the obvious, that if a politician harbors a strong bias against a large class of people, he can’t move forward into substantive discussion and becomes a weight to others supporting that issue.

    The inability to get beyond the “threshold” issue of misogyny has already been fatal to Mr. Buchanan’s goals of helping men. On this blog we are focusing on that threshold issue, pointing out its existence and degree of intensity. We’re not trying to start a political party or become political figures like Mr. Buchanan.

    When I read your first posting, Ms. Queen, I went to the link of a televised discussion Mr. Buchanan was a participant in which you provided. What I observed immediately was the contempt he showed the woman guest in the discussion. He deliberately interrupted her, silenced her, and did not allow himself to be interrupted as he grabbed the floor and held it throughout. I saw an ominous lack of respect for women’s right to speak.

    I then read various statements of Mr. Buchanan’s in the media which established his misogynistic views that women do not belong in the workplace as it is against our “natural instincts”. There is a world of bias in a statement as blatantly sexist as that. I also read that he claimed to have not been hired by an interviewer because she was a “huge”, “vile feminist”. His bias seemed to be pretty intense. Elsewhere, he announced that feminists are “hatchet-faced”.

    Next I read about his attack on Caroline Criado-Perez, the woman who successfully mounted a campaign to have more women;s faces on banknotes. He had another public debate with her in which he alleged that allowing women onto corporate boards is bad for business. This is a rather serious allegation, and, on its face, sexist. He presented some study results to his opponent, who responded that there were many studies finding women at the top do very well. Her statement is true; many reputable studies point out that women make better business decisions than men. However, Mr. Buchanan insisted that only his studies matter, because his were “longitudinal”. Ms. Criado-Lopez responded, apparently (I am taking his word for it), that she knew of longitudinal studies opposing his.

    After the discussion Mr. Buchanan began contacting Ms. Criado-Lopez demanding that she engage further on this question. She apparently had had enough of Mr. Buchanan and asked that he stop contacting her.

    Mr. Buchanan then did two things that cast a spotlight on his misogyny: he announced that he was going to make her his Liar of the Month on his blog, and he complained publicly that she, as a woman, had no right to ask him, as a man, to cease contact with her. When I questioned him here about the misogyny inherent in such a statement, he failed to respond except for some general insults.

    I also saw on the links provided that Mr. Buchanan heartily gives out the AVFM website and heartily recommends it. He was a speaker at the AVFM conference and appears in several publicity photos with Paul Elam. When I asked him here why he enthusiastically associates with a misogyny site, offering overwhelming proof of the founder’s misogyny, Mr. Buchanan refused to respond.

    I also noted that Mr. Buchanan called a journalist he does not approve of, Laurie Penny, a “petulant, dishonest child”. When I asked him if he would have used such terms to describe a male journalist, he did not answer but re-stated that Ms. Penny is a child, and “vile”. He asked me in another exchange whether I am ten years old. It appears that for him, women writers are all children, and feminists are all “vile”.

    From links here I also saw Mr. Buchanan bitterly complaining that feminism has been deliberately assaulting civil society for fifty years. That does not seem to be a very nuanced position.

    Now, all this is only a prelude, a threshold to a threshold, so to speak, before one can look at Mr. Buchanan’s political issues. I only managed to get this far in accessing Mr. Buchanan’s attitudes regarding mothers: ““Any woman out there can get pregnant in a pub car park tonight and she knows she’ll get accommodation for life.”

    Mr. Buchanan’s misogyny is a threshold to substantive discussion he cannot pass through. His complaint that commenters here are not discussing his substantive issues boils down to the reality that he himself makes any such discussion impossible. As with all MRAs, he shoots himself in the foot, then blames it on feminists.

    At this point Mr, Buchanan appears to have left to complain some more about feminism on his blog. At the same time he, with incomprehensible blindness, will continue to try to present himself as a responsible reformist politician.

    So this is a moderate MRA, the kind that would like the mainstream to agree with him.

    • Thank you for your clear and intelligent analysis. I myself had the ‘pleasure’ of an intense discussion with Buchanan and one of his supporters a few months back. From that I learned that there is no point attempting to debate with them, as they’re blinded by hatred and prejudice. I spent some time trying to disprove Stefan Molyneux’s claim that the average American mother ‘hits her baby 18 times a week’. Despite the fact that his claim was demonstrably based on a massive distortion of the results of a tiny survey, I could make no headway in the debate at all, and was ultimately accused of ‘going to great lengths, defending the millions of mothers who beat their infants on a daily basis’.

      Incredibly, despite claiming that all women whine, that we leech off men, that we don’t make good leaders, that the ‘feminisation’ of any profession is a bad thing, and in spite of his very personal attacks on female feminists (which go beyond his attacks on men like David Futrelle) he insists he is not a misogynist. There’s something not quite right there, but whether it’s self-delusion or attention-seeking on a grand scale, I couldn’t say.

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