Ellie Slee misrepresents J4MB in an article in ‘The Huffington Post’

In politics you know you’re making progress when your enemies resort to misrepresenting you in order to attack you. So we thank Claire for pointing us to a piece in The Huffington Post by a feminist ray of sunshine, Ellie Slee, prompted by a forthcoming debate at Durham University:


It’s predictably dreary stuff, which may yet lead to Ms Slee winning a ‘Whiny Woman of the Month’ award – there’s no shortage of competition, as always – but what caught my eye was her assertion that J4MB:

… refers to women as ‘gestational incubators’ and proposes that their rights are stripped away so that men can get back to doing the hard work and women can resume their intended position as housewives.

The reference to housewives is so silly as to not deserve a response, likewise the comment about ‘stripping away’ women’s rights – we campaign against abuses of power by women, often state-enforced e.g. denying former partners access to their children, which are emotional abuses of both fathers and children – but the claim that we’ve ever referred to women as ‘gestational incubators’ is simply and demonstrably untrue. So where does Ms Slee get the idea from that we have referred to women in that way, if indeed she does believe that? She links in her piece to a recent intriguing article written by Clint Carpentier and published on AVfM – ‘The Future of Women in a MGTOW Society’ – to which we recently provided a link. The full article is here:


We didn’t comment on the piece other than to say it was an interesting piece of ‘future gazing’, or words to that effect. An extract from Carpentier’s article:

What women didn’t realize was that the very things which made their lives easier – be they appliances or conveniently boxed pre-made meals at the grocery store – simultaneously reduced the necessity for women. Men are increasingly becoming aware of this, and are opting to go their own way and reject the farce that marriage has become.

Women have inadvertently been reduced to gestational incubators; everything else, men can take care of on their own. And the more that women harp on about how evil, and useless, and stupid men are, and how much men must be responsible for the life choices women make, the more men opt to ignore women altogether.

I’ve posted the following comment, in the forlorn hope of receiving our first public apology from a feminist:

There’s so much utter nonsense in this article (e.g. gender pay gap – SERIOUSLY? Factor in seniority, size of enterprise, premium for accepting risks to life and limb, unsocial hours… and the ‘gap’ disappears) that’s been discredited so many times by so many men’s human rights activists, I’m not prepared to do so yet again. But as the leader of the political party ‘Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them)’ http://j4mb.org.uk, which you claim refers to women as ‘gestational incubators’, I challenge you to point me to where I, or anyone involved in my party, has ever said such a thing. The article to which you link was written by someone whose identity is unknown to us. A public apology is in order, I think. That said, even where we’ve challenged gender feminists such as Kat Banyard and Caroline Criado-Perez to retract manifestly misleading statements made on TV, radio, etc. they never have retracted statements. They’re utterly shameless. Hopefully you’re not.

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.
  • ‘Nowadays, the sheer volume of damaging content written about women online is dizzying.’
    Ellie – read your article(s) from a man’s point of view, then all the others of your persuasion. See what I mean? See how I’m dizzy reading your bile as well?

    ‘Now remember that you live in a country where there are chocolate bars that are Not For Girls; where there are print newspapers that trade solely on naked breasts.’

    ‘Not for girls’, Ellie. Heard of irony – or maybe, humour? Why take it seriously? Notice how it got people talking about a chocolate bar. I’d love to know how many females were part of the marketing campaign. Marketing departments are awash with women, Ellie. Have a go at the woman in the advert:


    What WAS she thinking? (Why do you man-haters NEVER EVER criticise your own sex?)

    Also, have a go at (yes, CRITICISE) ‘page three girls’. Or maybe they’re being marched into the studio at gunpoint to bare their breasts for The Sun? More evidence of ‘violence against women’, surely.

  • “you leave university and walk into a job where your male counterparts earn almost 20% more than you because of their penises.”

    Young women leaving university actually earn more than young men, but I don’t supposed she’s interested in actual facts. Any pay gaps develop later and are down to experience, commuting long distances, working long / unsociable hours, and risking ones life or health in dangerous professions.

    “Now remember that you live in a country where there are chocolate bars that are Not For Girls”
    Well women aren’t girls are they?, so adult females can still consume the product. I’d be rather more concerned about how we have three entire colleges genuienly “not for boys” at a leading university, with one even banning male staff! All this despite the growing gender education gap (something that’s actually real), with your average campus very female dominated.

    We don’t have adverts yet pretending to ban boys from eating chocolate bars, but there are real bans that exist and are more than just attention seeking marketing. For example, many Women’s Aid shelters kick boys out on their 13 birthday (or on every single day of the year if its their father who is the victim). This ban is ideological and down simply to their hatred of males. Still, at least when a boy out on the street isolated from their entire family due to the taxpayer funded Women’s Aid “not for boys” policy they’ll have the comfort of knowing they’re allowed to eat Yorkies.

    • Hequal, thanks for your perceptive comments. You have to love the idea of women who’d like to eat Yorkies but are so dim they think they’re not allowed to haha. I wonder what this ray of sunshine thinks of female postgraduate engineering students at Brunel University earning an additional grant of £15,000 on account of having the genitals that alone entitle them to have the grant?

    • Also:
      ‘Only 1% of raped women ever see justice – in the form of a conviction.’
      Maybe I’m wrong, but, isn’t that just the teansiest, weansiest bit of an exaggeration, Ellie?

      • David, the 1% claim is laughable outside gender feminist circles, i.e. among rational people. Gender feminists fight for a world where the default position is that women are believed and men aren’t, and we’re already there. I regularly refer feminists to Swayne O’Pie’s ‘Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism’ but of course they never read it. Why would they be interested in the truth? Feminists’ power comes from repeating lies endlessly – ‘1 in 3 women’, ‘1 in 4 women’, and the rest. For 30+ years they’ve succeeded in persuading the masses left is right, black is white, up is down. But the masses are rapidly wising up to their lies. Feminists are on the wrong side of history, and the smart ones know it… so 99% of them don’t. This is going to get interesting, sooner than they can possibly imagine. Happy days.

  • Pingback: Our public challenge of Ellie Slee |()

  • The Stern report into rape concluded that feminists lying about conviction rates and the prospects on convictio. stopped victims coming forward because it made them unnecessarily pessimistic about the prospects of a conviction. Therefore, people such as harman and Slee who use these fake stats actually harms rape victims, and actually make things worse themselves.

  • Mike.
    One day, and hopefully in the not too distant future, your “challenges” will be quoted and quoted again in demonstration of how this type of misrepresentation and misandry has been banded about with abandon.
    I trust you have full publication and licensing rights to all of your comments? 🙂

  • Pingback: Huffington Post retracts Elly Slee’s false allegation |()