Mike Buchanan interviewed on BBC Radio Scotland about gender-balanced cabinets, boards…

One of the first actions of Nicola Sturgeon, after her recent appointment as the new First Minister of Scotland, was to announce her first cabinet would consist of five men and five women. Apparently, on the basis of merit, exactly the same number of men and women deserved the posts, although barely more than a third of the members of the Scottish parliament are women. Righto.

Last Monday I was interviewed at some length on BBC Radio Scotland about the issue of gender balance at the top of organisations, in politics and elsewhere, and of course there had to be an obligatory feminist throwing around silly comments. There generally is – sometimes two, with a hostile female presenter, for good measure. But I have no complaints about the female presenter in this case, and later called the programme to ask that my appreciation be passed on to her.

The audio file is here. As usual, please leave any comments on our YouTube channel, rather than here.

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.
  • Really admired how you remained civil throughout that despite the insults thrown your way. Congrats on calling out your opponent on what she was doing and for citing evidence and research. It as interesting on how you had to deny being sexist, whereas the feminist who spent he entire discussion supporting blatant discrimination against male politicians wasn’t required to do so.

    What I find tends to be missing from such discussions is that it’s women who are privileged in being able to choose between working or raising a family, and a you pointed out, choosing the later should no be seen as a bad thing.

    The lack of equal rights for fathers n issues such as shared parenting denies separated fathers the choice of being family centered. Furthermore, if it’s impossible for them to get equal custody hen they’re also forced into making massive child support payments and thus forced into being work cantered whether they like it or not.

    More significantly of all is the fact that it’s feminists who are behind all the problems above and their agendas ultimately enforce gender role far more rigidly than any other movement. They fight tooth and nail against shared parenting and equality for fathers and harm women’s prospects with demands for special treatment or their campaigns against equality such as opposing equalising retirement ages. If feminists would only allow men equality at home then there would surely be more opportunity in the workplace for women.

  • Well done Mike,as always.
    it is quite astonishing that women fight against men’s equality on all fronts,openly and blatantly,yet if a man only just demands equality on even one issue,he is immediately branded male chauvinist.
    Yes it is ridiculous. Surely this sort of female behaviour has nothing to do with ‘lady-like’ behaviour whatsoever. But if we have women acting in such ways nowadays,why do most men still insist on giving them any special considerations? It is obvious that women in power don’t give a toss about merit and will rather hire women,no matter if they are less qualified or able than men. This points to the fact that dogma is more important to women than merit. Exactly as was practiced by the communists. Why do western men still tolerate and do not question complete shambles of a governance practiced by most women ? It really is time to turn the page on men’s assumptions of women’s ability to govern effectively and act in a civilized manner. Western women have already demonstrated their inability to act without prejudice and make selections based on merit.
    The female gender can not be an excuse for them to be allowed to act in an incompetent and undemocratic manner. It destroys the society,economy and ruins financial health of the country,leading to economic and social decline.
    It really is high time for men to stop tolerating women’s incompetence and double standards,just for being women. And if that means that men need to cast aside the gentleman’s code of conduct towards women,then be it. Women need to be held as accountable as men.Do not mix chivalry with business and governance. Letting women get away with crime,incompetence and anti-merit tendencies on the gronds of chivalry is nothing short of disastrous.Women’s accountability is long overdue and the damage is getting unsustainable.Just because British men have been gentlemen for centuries does not mean they must continue to be gentlemen when women are no longer ladies and social conditions together with gender roles have completely changed. There is no point in insisting on sticking on practices from the past which not only do not fit to current conditions but are outright harmful to men and boys,as well as to the entire society.

  • vadark

    Another good one, Mike. By the way, women DO get paid for looking after their children. They get financial support from their partners, which is passed to them as a joint share, as well as receiving tax credits and other financial benefits such as free prescriptions etc. They also enjoy far more free time than they would if they were in paid work (which allows for little freedom) – and time is money, as they say! Even if Mothers don’t have a ‘live-in’ partner, they probably get child support and have already been rewarded with assets that belonged to the Father in any case! If you think about it, we all strive to bring in the money so that we can have nice things, play a little, look after our family and relax in our own free time without some manic boss breathing down your neck! Most men can only look forward to that at retirement (once the kids have all grown up and they’ve missed it all and nearly ready to die!). Women get these perks much earlier, and yet they don’st recognise any of it as a benefit and still complain! Don’t ever be fooled by that little gem of a question that women don’t get paid for having children! They do, and it’s THEIR choice.

    • Thanks Vadark, good points. The line about women ‘sacrificing’ their careers when they have kids – or marry well-off men, or both – always slays me. Most women would ‘sacrifice’ their careers in a heartbeat give a softer option, as we would expect from Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory.