Mike Buchanan in discussion about misogyny as a hate crime, on The Victoria Derbyshire Show

We recently posted a piece about a feminist-inspired initiative in Nottinghamshire, where the county’s police force has unilaterally decided to treat misogyny as a hate crime. They are even considering wolf whistling as evidence of men’s misogyny, something that could only makes sense in the warped minds of feminists. Other police forces around England are now considering adopting the initiative, so they must have plenty of spare resources. No, hold on…

I was on The Victoria Derbyshire Show this morning, and thank Kevin for preparing this file (video 12:33), just loaded onto our YouTube channel.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Mike Buchanan in discussion about misogyny as a hate crime, on The Victoria Derbyshire Show

  1. epistemol says:

    Mike Buchanan came out of his corner fighting from the start, being proactive and not reactive.
    That is to say not letting his opponents set the agenda or wasting those precious few moments of air time slip through his fingers by merely responding to prearranged fem-rhet.
    I think this is perhaps the only way to manage such an inherently unequal situation.
    Victoria Derbyshire herself seemed fair, though we were shewn a pre-recorded package at the beginning right out of the disinformation hand book with it’s attempt to dress up pernicious infamy in an oh-so-reasonable-tone.
    A brief answer from a policeman on patrol in his car offered a moment of light relief with his very carefully measured reply, no clumsy plod-fool he!
    At the end though, only a proponent of legally enforcable censorship was allowed to sum up, so the producer’s intentions were clear.
    In all though, I believe recognition must go to Mike’s refusal to be a passive token stooge in an attempt at apparent ‘fairness’.
    If that was the intent (and I am bound to suspect it was), they picked altogether the wrong man there.
    To have been privy to any post transmission discussion would have been interesting, I feel!

    • cheannaich says:

      You raise a very valid point. All to often Mike has been invited on, not for to contribute a valid counter-view, but to be the whipping boy or clown to be laughed at. I disagree with your appraisal of V.D. as fair. Nothing that the BBC presents/reports on is fair or balanced. Maybe I am somewhat contemptuous of the BBC. A contempt that will fester as long as the BBC is allowed access to public money.

  2. hequal says:

    Typical BBC “balance” of two vs one (three vs one if you count the propaganda clip promoting the scheme before the interview) . Despite that, you were superb Mike, calm, civil and making strong points every time whilst refusing to let other dictate affairs. Think this will get a lot of views if people share it.

    Thought Derbyshire was actually quite reasonable in most of the discussion, though let herself down completely at the end by first shutting you down and then engineering the entire discussion so it finished on supporting a national roll-out of the scheme (and of course the promo clip at the start meant it was book-ended by such material).

    Couldn’t really have said anything better myself, though if we’re getting into gendered hate crimes by women (and no so much the state), then there’s contact denial, paternity fraud, false rape and abuse allegations etc, all of which contribute to the male suicide epidemic. Not sure any women have killed themselves after a wolf-whistling “attack”.

    And if it comes down to a contest of playing the victim I dare say you could have raised the sexist attack you were subject to caught on BBC cameras at Nottingham University which a BBC 3 presenter found so amusing.

  3. hequal says:

    I guess what we really need to spell out is that misandric hate crime isn’t only some random drunk woman abusing a guy in the street, it’s women using the power of the state and legal system to assault men and boys.

  4. The excuse that misandry as a hate crime is not being addressed because men have not come forward is classic.

    It shows why feminists think more women are needed in parliament in order to get women’s matters addressed: it is because feminists are sexists and will not stand up for anyone other than (certain types of) women; they therefore can’t see that men stand up for women all the time. So long as feminists have control of an initiative, gender equality will never be considered and this was admitted as such in the interview.

    Her total ignorance of the form that street harassment takes against men is upsetting but not unusual. What the heck does she know about the experiences of being a man on the street? Is she even aware that the vast majority of street violence is committed against men? Does she even give a damn about men or boys being harassed, bullied and beaten on Britain’s streets?

    I liked the part where it was stated that wolf-whistling when a woman is with a man is not misogyny. (I have often been out with beautiful women who have been whistled: not one if them considered it other than a compliment.) Only wolf-whistling a female who is not accompanied by a male is apparently a hate crime: could this be because of the females FEELINGS about the incident? That is what this is really about: the increase in outlawing our thoughts and in outlawing anything which women dislike about a man.

  5. Paul Jackson says:

    Good interview Mike. I would argue that the issue here is equality under the law. The law should be blind to the sex, race, religion, class etc. of the offender.
    Philip Davies MP has already provided irrefutable evidence that the criminal justice system in the UK is biased in favour of women and against men.
    For the same crime a man will receive on average a 60% longer sentence than a woman.
    This proposal to include misogyny as an aggravating factor in harassment cases where the perpetrator is male and the victim is female, but not to similarly include misandry when the perpetrator is female and the victim is male, will only serve to worsen this bias.
    It is a clear attempt to give women yet further unfair advantages over men in the criminal justice system.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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