Welcome to the official website of Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them) – J4MB.

We’re planning to change the face of British politics.

We’re currently engaged in drafting our general election manifesto, and we’ll publish it on this website in due course. We’ll be making proposals in the following areas:

1. Fathers denied access to their children following relationship breakdowns.
2. Rebuilding strong families, restoring fatherhood.
3. Men’s financial devastation following divorce.
4. Boys’ and men’s disadvantaging by the education system.
5. Male unemployment.
6. Male victims of domestic violence.
7. Male homelessness.
8. Men’s high suicide rates.
9. Male circumcision.
10. Men’s health.
11. Men’s lower retirement years expectation.
12. Abortion law reform.
13. Anti-male biases in the justice system.
14. Anonymity for those facing criminal charges.
15. Paternity fraud.
16. Men’s non-representation in the Cabinet.
17. Anti-male government interference in company director appointments.

In June 2014 I gave a speech in Detroit, at the first international conference on men’s issues, explaining whey there’s a need for new political parties to campaign for the human rights of men and boys. A video of the speech, along with the associated transcript, is here. My media appearances, as well as those of Ray Barry, who’ll be standing for J4MB at the 2015 general election, are here.

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.

The family court system, for example, fails to ensure fathers enjoy reasonable access to their children following family breakdowns. Denial of access is emotional abuse of children, fathers, grandparents and others.

Conservative and Labour administrations have been equally culpable, and the current Conservative-led coalition has been the worst of them all, slavishly following policy directions set by Harriet Harman and other feminist MPs.

Men collectively pay 72% of the state’s income tax revenues, while women collectively pay only 28% and receive disproportionately far more from the state in return. Men paid a total of £68 billion more income tax than women in 2011/12 – a rise from £64 billion in 2010/11 – yet their human rights and interests are assaulted by the state they largely finance.

The hostile, poisonous, undemocratic, anti-meritocratic, anti-male culture which has developed over 30+ years must be challenged and defeated for the sakes of men, women, and children. For the sake of Britain as a civilised society.

We’re receiving support (and donations) not only from men, but also from women, who believe (as we do) in equality of opportunities for men and women rather than equality of outcomes, which require anti-meritocratic social engineering initiatives to deliver, cause considerable damage to the fabric of a civilised society, and result in justifiable resentment among men who are disadvantaged.

We’re receiving support from women who are mothers of boys, and see them increasingly disadvantaged by the education system.

We’re receiving support from women who love their male partners, fathers, brothers, male friends and acquaintances, and who deplore the assaults on those men’s interests.

We’ll be contesting Conservative marginal seats at the May 2015 general election. As a longstanding resident of Bedford, I’ll be contesting the Bedford & Kempston seat.

One of our candidates at the 2015 general election will be Ray Barry, leader of the campaign group Real Fathers for Justice. He supports parents in custody battles through Court Without a Lawyer. Ray will be contesting the Wolverhampton South-West seat.

He says:

Family Law has become a multi-billion pound industry. The dysfunctional family law system has led to one in four British children permanently losing contact with their fathers after family breakdowns. These children are more likely to suffer disadvantage throughout childhood and adult life.

The reluctance to reform this system among those who work in the industry (lawyers, judges, court staff, court experts) is driven more by financial self-interest than concern for the welfare of children.

We propose a simplified legislative model, intended to remove the need for the great majority of contested court proceedings in cases where parents have separated and are unable to agree the living arrangements for their children.

This legislative base would also remove the need for state intervention concerning child support. No Child Support Agency would be required. This would result in significant savings to the exchequer and would restore the responsibility for such matters to the parents, which is where it belongs.

While we’ll be fighting to win those seats, as a minimum we’re seeking sufficient votes to unseat the sitting MPs. This strategy will help put men’s and boys’ human rights squarely on the political ‘radar’ in the UK for the first time, and before future elections the main political parties will have no choice but to engage with us, in an effort to deter us from contesting their marginal seats.

Then we can expect to see the start of the reversal of 30+ years of state-sponsored discriminations against men and boys.

The challenge will have to start at the ballot box. All the main parties unfairly advantage women and girls at the expense of men and boys, so if you’re concerned about the areas in which we campaign, a vote for any of the main parties is a wasted vote.

Only a vote for J4MB will send the political class the message that their assaults on men and boys must stop.

Political campaigns inevitably cost money to run, and we’ve a great deal of work to do. The people working for the party, including myself, receive no personal income from it. 100% of donations will be used to pay for general election deposits and campaign-related costs. An accountant ensures we abide strictly with Electoral Commission guidelines for political party funding and expenditure.

Please donate what you can to help us make the future brighter for men and boys, and the women who love them. If you’re able to offer us some of your time, perhaps for leaflet distribution, please contact us.

I invite you to contact me at any time. I live in Bedford, my email address is mike@j4mb.org.uk, my mobile number 07967 026163. Thank you for your interest in our work.

Mike Buchanan


Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments

Intimate Partner Violence: Women are as physically aggressive as men (or more aggressive) in their relationships with spouses or opposite-sex partners

Our thanks to J for sending us this link to an important report from Martin S Fiebert, References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: an updated annotated bibliography. It was published in June 2013, and updates his initial report, published in 2012. The full Abstract:

This annotated bibliography describes 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 440,850 people.

Given the evidence about IPV, the lack of support for male victims of IPV is a scandal across the developed world, as is the seizure of virtually all public funding for IPV victims by radical feminist organisations including some well-known charities in the UK, for the past 30+ years. There are 4,000+ places for abused women in shelters in the UK, and just 11 for heterosexual men (Source: Mankind Initiative).

It goes without saying, hopefully, that we’ll have a good deal to say about IPV in our forthcoming election manifesto.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Intimate Partner Violence: facts and statistics.

An interesting new piece from Science v Feminism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Angry Harry interviews Mike Buchanan

Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting the MHRM legend Angry Harry, and we enjoyed a good dinner. Last week he interviewed me for AVfM, and the time flew by. The piece is here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dominic Lawson: Jobs for the girls and why it’s MEN who’ll soon be suing for sexual discrimination

An excellent piece with the exception of this silly comment:

women… did and still do suffer prejudicial treatment within the workplace…

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Angry Harry: What is ‘Stop Violence Against Men Day’?

A thought-provoking piece to start the week.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Mike Buchanan’s discussions on London Live TV, 22 August

[Note added 1.9.14: This video has just been posted on A Voice for Men.]

Nine days ago I was involved in four discussions over the course of six hours at London Live TV. One of the shorter ones has been lost to posterity, but the other three have been captured in a video sequence lasting about 24 minutes. It’s just been posted to our YouTube channel along with some background information, and the start times of the three discussions. Could you please leave any comments there rather than here. Thank you.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Feminists – what you do

Just caught this on Janet Bloomfield’s blog. Possible new images for our ‘Whiny Feminist of the Month’ awards?


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Herbert Purdy: ‘Rotherham: Girls need fathers. Hello?’

This must surely rank as one of the most powerful and insightful pieces we’ve read in a long time. Needless to say, the mainstream media haven’t commented on the absence of families in these girls’ and young women’s lives.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Jo Swinson MP – Whiny Feminist of the Month

Female Labour and Lib Dem MPs are among the whiniest feminists in the UK – in the world, come to that – and in recent times we’ve presented awards to several of them: Yvette Cooper, Gloria De Piero, and of course that perennial whiner, Harriet Harman, one of only two Harpy Lifetime Achievement Award winners, the other being Germaine Greer. When considering the contenders for this month’s Whiny Feminist of the Month award, an obvious one was Meg Hillier MP, who suggested that more women would cycle if they could ‘pootle along’ in slow cycle lanes – here. Ms Hillier was selected as a parliamentary candidate from an all-women shortlist – what are the chances? And you have to ask, what was the calibre of the women who lost to her?

Ms Hillier hadn’t come to our attention before that story, but our award winner has been on our ‘radar’ for some time. Jo Swinson is a Lib Dem MP, the Employment Relations and Junior Equalities Minister. In 2012 she gave evidence to a House of Lords inquiry, uttering vacuous nonsense in support of the government’s bullying of companies into appointing more women onto their boards, despite offering no evidence to indicate corporate performance might be expected to improve as a result. Our comments on her contribution, and a link to the minutes of the inquiry, can be found here.

Ms Swinson wins this month’s award on the strength of her whining about ‘pregnancy discrimination’ – the perfectly reasonable reluctance of employers to hire women of childbearing years, or promote them to senior roles, given how onerous employment legislation is with respect to women who have children. Kathy Gyngell of Conservative Woman wrote an excellent piece on the matter, a link to which can be found on Ms Swinson’s award certificate.

We were impressed by comments posted by Herbery Purdy in response to Kathy Gyngell’s article. Mr Purdy writes a ‘must read’ blog. His comments take up the remainder of this blog piece:

“Pregnancy discrimination is illegal, immoral and completely unacceptable.” Really?

But pregnancy discrimination is entirely to be expected because it is based on common sense, a commodity that is signally lacking in so-called liberal thought nowadays. The fundamental spirit of freedom with responsibility tempered with a sense of social justice, those enlightened aims of eighteenth century liberalism has morphed into just ‘right-on’ repetition of mindless mantras in the hands of women like Jo Swinson.

In an age of equality, Swinson’s argument is hollow. Equal women cannot have freedom of self-determination without shouldering the yoke of moral responsibility that comes with their freedom. What she is advocating is a charter for cheats.

In an age of equality, there is a good case – a common sense, balanced and just case (indeed a liberal case) to throw out the present legislation and require able young career women to step up to their basic responsibilities as players in the means of economic production. They should give their employer a legal undertaking (as part of their employment contract) not to become pregnant for a set period following the commencement of their employment, or upon promotion or re-deployment with that employer. After all, pregnancy is no longer out of a woman’s control. It is a matter of personal choice. Ten years would not be unreasonable for a young twenty-year-old.

Should a woman become pregnant during her contractual period, she would be held to have reneged on her contract. Any obligations her employer had toward her contractually would legally cease and the employer would be free, without penalty to re-recruit. It is nonsense to hold an employer responsible for women’s life choices.

It is about time that women assumed the mantle of moral agency that comes with liberation, and eschewed the intellectually and morally corrupt thinking that women like Swinson spout. It is as threadbare as the ideology upon which it is predicated.

The Swinsons of this world, her counterparts in the Labour Party, that bastion of feminism, and, indeed, those in the Conservative Party (and not all of them female, if you know what I mean?), need to wake up to the stark, and for them, no doubt, surreal reality that they are not only on the wrong side of common sense, they are also on the wrong side of history. Their thinking is flawed and patently weak because it is based on dogma, not discernment; on mantra, not mental rigour.

They need to take the red pill and see that people, men and women, cannot have the privileges that women demand in the name of social justice, without also balancing those privileges with social responsibility.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Leniency shown towards women – suspended prison sentences

We’ve been submitting Freedom of Information requests to various government departments, as part of our work developing the election manifesto. Yesterday we received this response to a FoI request we sent to the Ministry of Justice. Parts have been redacted by us because they’re not relevant to the issue being covered here, and we’ve emphasised some key points by highlighting them in yellow.

Primary legislation is seldom created with pro-female and anti-male biases. That would be too obvious. In the case of the ‘justice’ system the biases are introduced in a number of ways, including:

1. Not charging women with crimes, when it’s deemed not in the ‘public interest’. Not one British woman has ever been convicted of paternity fraud.

2. The inclination of (mostly male) judges and magistrates to exercise their discretion and show inappropriate leniency towards women, often to the point of not punishing them at all, as we’ve reported in numerous cases on this blog. A small example – a barmaid convicted of stealing £3,000 from her employer was ‘punished’ by being required to pay back just £500.

3. Women with ‘primary carer status’ – with respect to children and/or others – are treated particularly leniently. Instead of being given custodial sentences, they’re typically given suspended sentences, which are no punishment at all. This saves the state from funding alternative accommodation and care for their children and/or others, which could otherwise be very costly – quite apart from the cost of funding prison places for all these women. Whatever else this is, it isn’t justice, and it explains in part why 95% of prisoners in the UK are male.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments