Comment: Why Britain needs a pro-male party
By Mike Buchanan
A few weeks ago a new British political party was established, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them) I'm the party's leader – and we plan to change the face of British politics.
The interests of men and boys have been ever more assaulted in the UK for more than 30 years – a trend accelerating after Margaret Thatcher, a true meritocrat, resigned as prime minister in 1990.
Terrified of the prospect of alienating the ‘female vote', politicians have enacted legislation, and issued guidance for civil servants, which have been ever more influenced by militant feminist thinking. They have had no democratic mandate for doing so.
A small example of the phenomenon may illustrate the point. In 2008 Harriet Harman – surely the most influential militant feminist politician of her generation – introduced a piece of legislation which hadn't been trailed in the Labour party's 2005 election manifesto. The legislation enables political parties to employ all-women shortlists for the subsequent five elections. I worked as a consultant for the Conservative party (2006-8), but when David Cameron announced his intention in the autumn of 2009 to employ all-women PPC shortlists, I cancelled my party membership in protest at his anti-meritocratic and un-Conservative decision. I was told I was far from alone in having done so.
One implication of all-women PPC shortlists is that the least qualified female potential candidates are automatically given priority over the most qualified male potential candidates. Had such shortlists been in place when Winston Churchill first sought to become a politician, the course of European history after 1939 would arguably have turned out very differently.
Since being elected party leader in 2005, David Cameron has proved himself relentlessly pro-female and anti-male in his public statements and policy directions, yet even he faces accusations of being biased against women because of the low number of women in his Cabinet. He appears incapable of articulating an obvious truth – for every Cabinet position, the number of well-qualified men considerably outnumbers the number of well-qualified women. So Cameron is left agreeing that he should have more women in his cabinet, yet failing to appoint them. This is an absurd position, and inevitably attracts charges of anti-female bias.
So why do men tend to dominate the political scene, the boards of major companies etc? The key to the phenomenon was outlined by the renowned sociologist Dr Catherine Hakim, in a paper published in 2000. Her research revealed that while four out of seven British men of working age are 'work-centred', only one in seven British women is. Put simply, if the proportion of women in the Cabinet, on major company boards etc is increased, this will entail the appointment of women who are less well-qualified than the best male candidates for such positions. The inevitable consequence of these social engineering exercises will be declines in performance.
Our party will raise public awareness of the discriminations and poor life outcomes experienced by men and boys in modern Britain, many of them partly or wholly attributable to successive governments' actions or inactions. More than three times more men than women commit suicide, and the vast majority of homeless people are male. There are fewer male public sector employees. Much more money is spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. Men are more likely than women to face custodial sentences for the same crimes, and typically receive stiffer sentences. On average men die earlier than women, yet they have to wait longer for their state pensions.
Then there are family issues: paternity fraud, personal enrichment through divorce, domestic abuse, parental access to children following relationship breakdowns.
Why does our party name have the subtitle, 'and the women who love them'? We're seeking to appeal to women who genuinely believe in gender equality, rather than relentless special treatment for women and girls regardless of the cost to men and boys. Women are increasingly recognising that state-sponsored militant feminists assault the nuclear family, and the majority of women, as well as men. Women are mothers of sons, and they see their sons' futures blighted from the moment they enter the feminised education system. They have husbands, brothers, and fathers, as well as male friends and acquaintances whose interests are assaulted by state-sponsored feminists throughout their lives.
I recently wrote to David Cameron outlining our intention to contest the 30 most marginal Conservative seats in 2015, where majorities in the 2010 general election ranged between 54 and 1,692 votes. In 23 of those seats, Labour was the runner-up party.
We're looking forward to changing the face of British politics in 2015.
Mike Buchanan is a writer, publisher, and men's human rights campaigner. As well as leading Justice for Men and Boys, he runs Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. His last three books have largely focused on the impact of militant feminism in modern Britain.
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
