About five hours ago the feminist blogger Glosswatch – a regular contributor to the relentlessly pro-feminist New Statesman – posted the following piece:

http://glosswatch.com/2013/09/15/the-telegraph-the-niqab-and-pseudo-feminism-in-action/

GW moderates comments on her blog, as I do on mine. I posted a comment which she hasn’t yet been published, and she’s published later comments from other people. Since I went to a little trouble to write it, I’ll publish it here instead:

“GW, good evening. I hope this finds you well.

Given that the only form of feminism of any political consequence for the past 30 years in the UK has been gender feminism, a female supremacy movement based upon and fuelled by misandry, the idea of ‘Conservative feminism’ is truly absurd. I wish some female Conservative politicians (and numerous prominent female journalists, for that matter) would grow a backbone and publicly declare themselves what they really are, anti-feminists (or at least non-feminists). 34 years after Margaret Thatcher won the first of her three election victories, the majority of female Conservative MPs appear ideologically nearer to Harriet Harman in their public utterances. Pathetic. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves. And David Cameron should be ashamed of himself for pursuing all the anti-male and pro-feminist agendas of Harriet Harman and her kind, but with yet more enthusiasm and lack of interest in meritocracy.

The idea that the Telegraph is anti-feminist is just hilarious. Very troubled to learn the paper still employs white male journalists with opinions. Shouldn’t be allowed. I can’t recall one genuinely anti-feminist piece in the paper EVER. The Times gives acres of column inches to Caitlin Moran. And as for the Independent and the Guardian…

As for the general tone of your piece, I guess I could boil it down to:

As a woman, I have a right to tell men what to think, say, and do, in the area of gender politics. Men have no right to hold opinions, or voice them, in the area of gender politics.

We see the tide turning against that paradigm, because it’s based upon an age-old female sense of entitlement which men are increasingly rejecting. Why are they rejecting it? It’s simple. Men are recognising the paradigm as highly dysfunctional in the modern era as feminists – directly, or indirectly through their collaborators, notably politicians – relentlessly assault men’s and boys’ interests.

We still haven’t managed to track down even one feminist – anywhere in the world – prepared to give detailed feedback on our public consultation document. Why might that be? Is it possibly because the document outlines the many areas in which the interests of British men and/or boys are assaulted by the actions and/or inactions of the state, and feminists can’t dream up even one area where the interests of British women and/or girls are assaulted by the state? The document was recently extended to cover 20 areas, including MGM:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/our-public-consultation-exercise-2/

One final thing. Our public challenges of prominent feminists (and their collaborators) grows by the month. Not one feminist (or collaborator) has yet had the integrity to rise to the challenges, e.g. admitting to making misleading statement on the radio or TV. You must all be so proud of maintaining narratives based upon denying publicly-available evidence bases. Here’s a link to just 11 of those challenges:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/our-public-challenges-to-feminists/

Have a good evening.

Mike Buchanan

JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS

(and the women who love them)

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com”

[Post updated 16.9.13.]

Good afternoon. I hope this finds you well, and enjoying a restful weekend.

I’m writing in connection with our current fundraising campaign, which aims to fund the fourth J4MB candidate for the 2015 general election:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-j4mb-raise-gbp-1-000-to-fund-its-fourth-2015-general-election-candidate

If the £1,000 target isn’t met by 30 September, your donation will be refunded in full.

We’re over halfway into the 30-day campaign. Generous supporters have already donated £585, a sum which includes a £100 donation from a student. Our blog post on that donation:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-student-donates-100-to-j4mb/

The number of people visiting the J4MB website is almost as high as those visiting the Conservatives’ website – link below – which is surely an indicator of public interest in what our party stands for. We confidently expect to overtake the Conservatives with respect to website visitors in the next month or two.

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/bedford-times-citizen-mikes-party-is-catching-up-with-the-conservatives/

Please bear with me, then, for asking you to donate what you can afford to the current campaign. I exclude, of course, those who’ve already kindly donated to it – my warm thanks to them. The more candidates we can fund in 2015, the more credible we’ll be as a party, and the more media exposure we can expect.

Thank you for your support. Without you, the party wouldn’t exist. It really is as simple as that.

Best wishes,

Mike Buchanan

E: mike@j4mb.org.uk

T: 07967 026163

In the last post Jonathan Wiltshire, a supporter and donor, made some very illuminating observations about the M&S ‘Leading Ladies’ ad campaign. We were surprised to see Tracey Emin, the talentless ‘artist’ who’s Professor of Drawing at the Royal Academy – what times we live in! – among the women in the ad. Here’s a photograph of Ms Emin ‘modelling’ a Fawcett Society T-shirt:

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/?attachment_id=988

In Feminism: the ugly truth there’s a short chapter titled, ‘Are some feminists (e.g. Tracey Emin) a pain in the arts?’

Theresa May managed to look altogether more fetching in the T-shirt (link below), but why on earth was she – a Conservative politician (now Home Secretary) – promoting a T-shirt, the sales of which help fund an odious militant feminist campaigning organisation?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fawcettsociety/3115868250/

Someone else who looked decidedly more fetching than Tracey Emin in the T-shirt was a much-loved British celebrity – a man. You have to open this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fawcettsociety/3115024893/

If our tracking down these immortal images isn’t worth a donation to our campaign to fund a fourth candidate for the 2015 general election – link below – we don’t know what is.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-j4mb-raise-gbp-1-000-to-fund-its-fourth-2015-general-election-candidate

Thank you for your support.

Our thanks to Jonathan Wiltshire, a supporter and donor, for emailing us the following this morning. It was a private communication, but we thought it worth publishing, and he’s kindly given us permission to do so:

“A couple of things have struck me recently. The recent ‘Leading Ladies’ ad campaign from M&S which kicked off this August  http://www.styleateveryage.com/2013/08/m-autumwinter-campaign-britians-leading.html shows, in my opinion, horribly contrived image of supposedly powerful, ‘modern’ women in unnatural poses looking awkward and exhausted. The ad makers seem to want to project an aspirational image of women as powerful, or more powerful, than men. The last thing any of these women look is particularly feminine.  Look at the bizarre settings too. Why these? Most of us live in homes, not in fields, or on rivers or in abandoned warehouses. I can’t help thinking that this is the ultimate fusion of feminist ideology and kitsch consumerism. The ad, of course, rolls out the usual bunch of elite, well-appointed, wealthy and privileged women from the world of culture and the arts who are miles above, socially and economically, the majority of ordinary females.

I think it was Karen Straughen (GirlWritesWhat) who suggested that women aren’t unhappy and ashamed of their femininity because of patriarchy, but because of the bullying, dogmatic, over-indulged establishment feminists who tell them how they can and cannot express themselves. I see this more and more in culture now, the taken-for-granted militant feminism that seeks to police and control the representation of women, and men. The sad fact being, that young talented women don’t stand a chance of getting any artistic project off the ground and getting funding without endorsing the usual mind-bending dogmas that are the bread and butter of political elites. They just won’t be promoted or be seen as audience-friendly.

I don’t see much analysis of ideology within cultural production in the press. The mindset of these particular ad makers is rather clear to see, the more so for the strikingly odd, awkward and unnatural look of these women in the ads who appear, to my eyes, more like prisoners than free women at ease with their femininity.”

[This challenge was first made by Mike Buchanan on another website on 28 October 2012.]

I’ve just emailed the following note to Ilene Lang, President and CEO of Catalyst www.catalyst.org, copying the note to the 12 other members of the organisation’s ‘executive staff’. The gender balance of this group is as you’d expect: 13 women, 0 men.

Ilene, good morning. I hope to hear from you at some point in response to the email I sent three days ago (below) but in the meantime I’ve started to review some of the material on your website including your report ‘THE BOTTOM LINE: Corporate Performance and Women’s Representation on Boards (2004-8)’. While showing data from which the reader might reasonably infer a link between corporate performance and women’s representation on boards, the researchers state:

“Catalyst designed the Bottom Line report series to establish whether an empirical link exists between gender diversity in corporate leadership and financial performance. These studies have examined historical data and revealed statistically significant correlations. The studies do not, however, establish or imply causal connections.”

The very first page of the report states ‘there is no significant difference in ROE between companies with the most WBD (Women Board Directors) and those with the least WBD’. This is surely suggestive that there is no causal link between ROE and WBD, is it not? If there were a causal link we’d expect companies with the most WBD to outperform those with the least. And they don’t.

Despite searching for years for any evidence of a causal link between WBD and corporate performance, I have yet to find any that stands up to rigorous examination. The little evidence that exists (e.g. from Scandinavia in recent years) appears to suggest that if there’s a causal link, it’s a negative one. If you’re aware of any evidence showing that WBD cause enhanced corporate performance, would you please be so good as to direct me to it? If I’m not supplied with this evidence before the end of February, I shall be forced to conclude that no such evidence exists. Which begs the question of why politicians and representative bodies for business (e.g. the CBI in the UK) actively promote ‘improved’ gender balance in the boardroom, a move that can only result in women poorly qualified for the boardroom reaching it. Will that be a ‘victory’ for womankind? If so, it seems a very hollow victory to me.

I shall be posting the contents of this email on my blog http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com, and I look forward to your response.

[This challenge was first made by Mike Buchanan on another website, which is no longer operational, on 28 October 2012.]

My thanks to Wilhelmina for alerting me to a discussion held on this morning’s BBC television programme Daily Politics (Europe). Among the most ideologically-driven proponents of ‘improved’ gender diversity in boardrooms are female Liberal Democrat politicians. One thinks inevitably of Lynne Featherstone MP and Jo Swinson MP. So we shouldn’t be too surprised that a Lib Dem MEP, Fiona Hall, is one of many MEPs who opposed the appointment of the Governor of the Central Bank of Luxembourg, Yves Mersch, to the executive board of the European Central Bank.

In the TV programme Andrew Neil quizzed both Paul Nuttall – an admirable UKIP MEP, and chairman of the party – and Fiona Hall. Wilhelmina emailed me the following:

Paul Nuttall said that any appointment should be made on merit and merit alone, whatever the gender of the candidate, and that clearly the best person was initially given the job, only for it to be taken from him by the diversity tsars in Brussels. Ms Hall, however, said that there was plenty of evidence along with a ‘recent survey’ that showed that companies’ / organisations’ performance improves with more women on boards, therefore the decision of the ECB to find a woman, and reject the man, was absolutely the right thing to do.

I congratulate Paul Nuttall for his clear support of meritocracy, something that’s been a feature of some of his speeches in Brussels. UKIP is notable among British political parties for its clear support of meritocracy, reflected elsewhere in its support for the return of grammar schools, once a great engine of social mobility. By comparison the Conservative party leadership is ambivalent about meritocracy, always happy to sacrifice it if for possible electoral advantage. What a change from the party when the estimable Mrs Thatcher led it.

Ms Hall is, of course, utterly wrong about ‘plenty of evidence’ supporting her position. There is no such evidence. Her ‘recent survey’ claim is a long-discredited tactic used by proponents of ‘improved’ gender diversity in boardrooms. The ‘survey’ either never materialises, mysteriously, or it’s hopelessly flawed and/or misrepresented (e.g. Catalyst, McKinsey, Credit Suisse…). And so it is that we’ve just emailed Fiona Hall fiona@fionahallmep.co.uk the following public challenge:

Ms Hall, good morning. I noted your claim on today’s Daily Politics (Europe) that a ‘recent survey’ gives support to the idea that increasing the proportion of women on boards leads to improved performance. Would you please be so good as to provide us with details of that survey? The overwhelming evidence of which we’re aware – as outlined on our website – is that increasing the proportion of women on boards leads to a decline in performance. Thank you.

Wilhelmina also queried why the normally robust interviewer Andrew Neil allowed Ms Hall to get away with speaking ‘uncorroborated tosh’. A very good question. I can’t recall a male British television or radio interviewer ever challenging the uncorroborated tosh uttered by any women – or men for that matter – in this area. I’d personally like to see Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman grill Sir Roger Carr, chairman of Centrica and President of the CBI, as to why he supports this initiative whilst not claiming it leads to enhanced financial performance. Indeed, I’d like to see Centrica’s major shareholders grill him on the same question.

[This challenge was first made by Mike Buchanan on another website, which is no longer operational, on 28 October 2012.]

My attention was drawn today to a statement made to a Scottish newspaper, the Herald, by Professor Rita Marcella, Dean of Faculty, Aberdeen Business School. We’ve just emailed her with the following, which should be self-explanatory:

Professor Marcella, good afternoon. I see from the following link that you’ve been reported as supporting legislated quotas for women on boards:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/business/company-news/doing-it-for-themselves-top-scots-women-say-no-to-quotas-on-boards.19260560?_=20f504618a47d8bb720e22348ea07d6e85f7a7a8

Can you possibly be unaware, as the Dean of Faculty of a Business School, of the evidence showing that driving up the number of women on boards leads to a decline in corporate performance? At least three robust studies show the negative impact of legislated quotas on Norwegian publicly-listed companies – the most well-known being Ahern/Dittmar (2011). If you are aware of these studies, do you believe a decline in corporate performance is a price worth paying to get more women on boards?

If you believe there are studies showing that ‘improving’ gender diversity on boards causes corporate performance to improve, would you be so good as to cite one robust study, without (mis)representing correlation as causation? Thank you. The list of organisations and individuals who have been unable to cite even one such study is a lengthy one, and grows by the week.

I shall be happy to publish your response on our blog, where the content of this email will shortly be posted.

[This challenge was first made by Mike Buchanan on another website, which is no longer operational, on 16 November 2012.]

Regular visitors to this blog will be very familiar with the role of Helena Morrissey (CEO of Newton Investment Management, founder of the 30% club, mother of 9 children) in the whole gender diversity in the boardroom debate. Only recently I described her as the doyenne of the movement in the UK, and arguably beyond. So I was interested to read her reaction to the recent announcement that the EC is dropping its plans to introduce legislation to financially punish EU-based companies which don’t meet legislated gender quotas. We’ll put up a blog on this matter when fuller details are made available. We can be sure that Viviane Reding, EC Justice Commissioner, won’t let the matter lie.

Helena Morrissey’s reaction to the news:

http://www.30percentclub.org.uk/press/30-club-comment-on-eu-quota-announcement/

I was particularly intrigued by the following line:

The threat of a legislated quota has been an unwelcome distraction in recent months…

This is ironic, given that what’s increased the proportion of new FTSE100 directorships going to women more than fourfold in two years, has been the UK government’s continuing threats of legislated quotas, reflecting the 2011 Davies report recommendation of legislated quotas if FTSE100 companies don’t reach 25% female representation on their boards ‘voluntarily’ by 2015. I’m about to email Helena Morrissey’s PA (contact details on the link above) with the following question:

We were interested to read Helena Morrissey’s comments concerning the recent announcement about EU-legislated quotas. We’d like to pose her the following public challenge. If the threat of EU-legislated quotas has been an ‘unwelcome distraction’, how can the threat of UK-legislated quotas not be likewise? Would Helena personally support a suspension of the government’s threat of legislated quotas, and if not, for what reasons? Thank you.

[This challenge was first made by Mike Buchanan on another website, which is no longer operational, on 1 December 2012.]

Regular visitors to this site will need no reminding about the central role in the ‘improving’ gender diversity in the boardroom (‘GDITB’) initiative played by Sir Roger Carr, chairman of Centrica, and currently [Note: at the time this challenge was first made] president of the CBI. He doesn’t personally claim that GDITB leads to improved corporate financial performance, but maintains that GDITB leads to improved ‘meeting atmospherics’. Which must be nice for him. We wonder what Centrica’s shareholders think of his social engineering exercise.

Given Sir Roger’s predictable presence at yesterday’s celebrations for the second anniversary of the founding of the 30% club, we thought it was about time we issued him with a public challenge:

Numerous longitudinal studies have shown that ‘improving’ gender diversity on corporate boards leads to DECLINES in corporate financial performance, while no longitudinal studies (to the best of our knowledge) have shown it leads to an improvement:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

Do you challenge the rigour or findings of these studies? And if not, do you believe that a decline in corporate financial performance is a price worth paying for ‘improving’ gender diversity in boardrooms? If you do believe this, it would be a position with some integrity:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/arguments-for-improving-gender-diversity-in-the-boardroom/

We look forward to learning of your position on this matter. Thank you.

I’ll be contesting the Bedford & Kempston seat at the 2015 general election, a Conservative marginal seat which Richard Fuller won for them in 2010 (with a majority of just 1,353 votes) and will lose for them in 2015.

The local paper, Times & Citizen, has been giving J4MB welcome exposure since we launched the party six months ago. Recently the paper printed my letters on abortion law reform and the numerous crises in the NHS (including the local hospital) caused by the 30+ year old policy of driving up the proportion of female doctors. The writer and campaigner Dr Vernon Coleman was writing 30 years ago that the policy would bring the service to its knees, regardless of the amount of taxpayers’ money thrown at the service, because female doctors are far more likely than male doctors to:

– quit the profession altogether

– work part-time rather than full-time

– refuse to work unsocial hours

– refuse to work in the most stressful environments, e.g. A&E.

As usual, Dr Coleman has been proven right.

70% of medical students today are female, and over 50% of GPs. My local GP service is closed at the weekend. The average GP earns £104,000 p.a., won’t be sacked unless found guilty of gross misconduct (incompetence is perfectly acceptable) and is reluctant to work at the weekends. So much for work ethic and concern for patients. The feminisation of the NHS has proven a complete disaster for patients and taxpayers.

We recently posted a piece about the number of visitors to the J4MB website being almost as high as the number visiting the Conservatives’ website, according to independent evidence:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/j4mb-has-almost-caught-up-with-the-conservatives/

The good folk at Times & Citizen have covered the story:

http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/local/mike-s-party-catching-up-with-conservatives-1-5467100