Be Reasonable: Episode #026 – Mike Buchanan


Joining Marsh this time on Be Reasonable is Mike Buchanan, founder of the UK’s only explicitly anti-feminist political party “Justice for Men & Boys (And The Women Who Love Them).”

Play
  1. #1 by GP on March 2, 2015 - 11:22

    MM, excellent stuff as ever and you do seem more annoyed/incredulous in this one that usual! However he aspires to ‘high-office’ so deserves a tough time.
    To be fair he kept calm in the face of challenge even though his ideas are old-fashioned, based on anecdotal ‘evidence’ and are a little dangerous on occasion.

  2. #2 by Mr56 on March 2, 2015 - 14:48

    I find it interesting that Buchanan argues in the same interview both that:
    A) Women don’t want to do unpleasant and dirty work (like being a binman) and;
    B) Women are disproportionately involved in the caring professions because they are drawn to these jobs.

    As a man who has worked in social care for most of his working life, I can tell you that you’ll come across your fair share of unpleasantness and dirt changing an incontinence pad or changing sheets in a hospital.

  3. #3 by Scott John Harrison on March 2, 2015 - 15:03

    It will be interesting to see the difference between British MRA compares to the American ones I usually hear about.

  4. #4 by Wimmina on March 2, 2015 - 22:10

    I love how much stuttering this guy does when Marsh catches him in a poor argument or unfounded assertion.

  5. #5 by Nigel on March 2, 2015 - 23:33

    Yet interesting as Feminism ( at least as understood by the political elite in our society) has gone from the youth counter culture of the baby boomer generation to a current orthodoxy supported by that same generation, now of course ” the establishment”. Yet is is just an “ism” as open to discussions as any other.

  6. #6 by William Gruff on March 3, 2015 - 00:14

    Wimmina :
    I love how much stuttering this guy does when Marsh catches him in a poor argument or unfounded assertion.

    Presumably his ‘poor argument[s] [and] unfounded assertion[s]’, for which he repeatedly cites his sources, are simply those of his pints that you disagree with or are displeased by. To a different set of ears the interviewer seems to be making the poor arguments and unfounded assertions that typify current gynocentric social and political thinking and policy.

    A stutter, or any other speech impediment, does not invalidate the speaker’s argument.

  7. #7 by Kitty on March 3, 2015 - 01:19

    Another great interview, Marsh. This man could have his cause, *without* the detriment to women, BUT, doesn’t structure it to be so.
    For him, it’s important to “pull down” women, in order to “push men up”.
    He’s a true, total and utter misogynist. His ‘society is based on hatred of women. His beef is with “the government”, and then he blames “women” for whatever government is doing – ‘based on biology… Headdesk!
    If you listen, he mentions mens’ height *several* times and states that , “It’s an indicator of attractiveness.”
    I think he has *Short Man Syndrome* .
    Oh, and the most frightening… his views on conception and abortion…! For one who believes that a woman deserves NO bodily autonomy. His reasoning becomes stunningly apparent when he blurts, “…no consequences for abortion…” . Showing that he’s simply out to ‘Shame’ women for their ‘abhorrent sin’ of failing to not become pregnant. And for this, ‘they must make retribution’ – and then he starts to compare gaoled men, who’ve committed crimes, thus proving the point, that he sees women who have unwanted pregnancies, ‘being punished’ for simple being sexual, ‘not preventing the pregnancy’, and ‘should have the *Scarlet P* sewn to her chest, for all to see that she’s been, well, a bit of a *tart*’.
    Making outlandishly untrue claims, i.e./ “sex based abortions”, and “abortions performed two minutes after birth”. He can’t even produce the ‘so called’ papers that he has… Thanks Marsh, for taking these remarks with the truckload of salt they deserved; asking for the papers, and continuing on.
    I kept screaming, “Where’s your evidence,?”
    His point is clear, “Punish pregnant women.” “Punish women who don’t want to be pregnant.” “Punish single women who want to be pregnant.” Punish lesbians (and presumably Transmen) for becoming pregnant and having families.” And no comment on gay men … (except “I have no problem with gay men”.)
    Well done Marsh, for trying to “wade through” the quagmire that is his hurt fee fees.
    Another wonderful interview!

  8. #8 by Pinman on March 3, 2015 - 01:23

    If only feminism was open to debate. For reference, just google Kayley Cuoco’s declaration that she isn’t a feminist and the associated reaction. Feminism is as open to debate as Catholicism. In Spain. About 500 years ago

  9. #9 by Pdubyah on March 3, 2015 - 02:15

    I’m out walking-exercising talking to myself and laughing out loud, again. By such circular reasoning will I make my point. I’m sure this started out as angry man in the pub somewhere that has just escalated a bit quickly with everyone piling in with their opinion and pet-rave-peeve from which we end up with ‘manifesto’ Startling, but also refreshing in the sense that every time I listen I’m learning something new, not always useful new…..

  10. #10 by John Kimble on March 3, 2015 - 02:57

    A reasonable interview but I found it disappointing that the host had to deny the obvious on quite a few occasions as that hampered the discussion quite a bit which was a shame. Various concepts such as gold-digging women, trophy wives etc are widely known even by the most ignorant in society yet the host seemed to think such phenomena didn’t really exist (or were at least 1 in a billion scenarios). Perhaps he was just laying devils advocate but it really doesn’t work when you’re denying things so obvious to the audience.

    It was at least nice to hear Mike in an interview where he wasn’t abused, interuppted or questioned in detail about his personal life, so that was a plus. Furthermore, while there was a lot of time wasted as highlighted above, the discussion was of value at times and several interesting and thoughtful questions were raised with some extremely robust answers given. I really would like to have heard MGM discussed as that’s a key men’s human rights issue, and much more on fathers would have been good too, though other than that there wasn’t too much missed out.

    It was nice to hear someone not dodging questions and giving straightforward answers, though perhaps Mike could have really spelled out the simple fat that he simply wants little more than to see male and females simply have the same rights and responsibilities in society.

    The only question where Mike’s response was insufficient and where he had little to say concerned homosexual men, so I’ll let him off and help him out on that one.

    There is of course plenty in the manifesto for homosexuals. De-politicising domestic violence would really help lesbians in particular as well as gay men, lesbian relationships tend to be more violent and abusive than any other type, yet it’s something ignored and covered up by feminists for the most part. Suicide is a major issue too for gay men and clearly of huge importance to Mike and J4M&B. Finally, health is another important concern for gay men in particular, and also very important to J4M&B. Page 63 of the manifesto identifies the need to give boys the HPV vaccine, noting that by far the main beneficiaries of this proposal would be gay men.

  11. #11 by Eggman on March 3, 2015 - 07:24

    With his call for mandatory paternity testing, Mike Buchanan has clearly proven that he’s a shill for Big Jeremy Kyle

  12. #12 by Kevin on March 3, 2015 - 09:36

    @Wimmina

    For your information, Mr Buchanan has an inherent speech impediment. That is plain to hear throughout the interview. Like King George VI, he carries on with courage and determination making his points with intelligence and genuine conviction. You might like to consider whether your comment is entirely helpful?

  13. #13 by Declan on March 3, 2015 - 13:16

    I remember the Daily mail story about lesbians and sperm banks.

    It was debunked as trash by lunchtime that day.

  14. #14 by karen straughan on March 3, 2015 - 15:27

    There’s really no reason to debate nature vs nurture.

    As the host said, for most of history, men and women were assigned different roles. Even if, 10,000 years ago, the assigning of these roles was utterly arbitrary, and 100% socially constructed, this would have altered the natural/sexual selection pressures on men and women. It would have created an environment where women were more likely to pass on their genes if they behaved “like women” and men more likely if they behaved “like men”. People who came by those traits naturally would have an inherent advantage over those who did not, and this would have effected their success. Eventually, people inheriting the desired traits would outnumber those who had to be rigorously trained into them.

    So even if the origin of gender roles was 100% socially constructed, over time they would have produced aggregate sex differences in personality traits and preferences.

  15. #15 by Wimmina on March 3, 2015 - 15:53

    Sorry. Yank here. Had no idea this guy has a speech impediment.

    However, most of his claims started with “Everybody knows that…” (or some version) which is pretty much the textbook example for a baseless generalization.

    And yes, possibly, there are, for example, women who try to scam the system or are dishonest with men. Guess who else can be dishonest? (Spoiler alert: men.) I’d really like to see actual numbers for this issue, rather than just someone’s gut feeling and anecdotal evidence. Just because I’ve seen a white raven once, it doesn’t follow that all ravens are white.

    His entire platform seems to be based on this one subset of perceived behaviors by women. Again, yes, there are some crummy women out there. There are also crummy men.

    I do appreciate, however, that he (supposedly) subscribes to equality feminism. (At least he claims to. I’ve not heard evidence for that in this interview.) Really pushing for true equality would go a long way to helping with his grievances:

    1) Policies that support equal time off for paternity/maternity leave would give both moms *and dads* time to bond equally with their babies. At least here in the states, maternity leave is the status quo, so moms are *expected* to take time off, while dads are generally unable, unless they’re independently wealthy.
    2) Breaking societal gender norms for behavior would end the need for men and boys to “Man up” and suppress their feelings. Being “allowed” to ask for help and support probably would do a great deal for reducing stress and suicide in men.
    3) Removing the assumption that women are, by nature, more fit parents would likely make custody cases more fair, in that each parent would be judged for actual fitness and suitability, not just for their gender.

    These are just a few. We don’t have to drag women down to keep men up. In my humble opinion, society would be better off overall *for everyone* if women had real, true equality of opportunity. Gender biases and social mores regarding sex and parenting should be reexamined and made more equal.

  16. #16 by karen straughan on March 3, 2015 - 16:21

    The host is living in the land of “Should”, while Mike is living in the land of “Is”.

    Perhaps the best way to explain to the host, in terms of “should” might be this:

    If the majority of women are naturally inclined toward X, and the majority of men are naturally inclined toward Y, *should* we be building a society that rewards the outliers and penalizes the majority? How humane would such a society be? How happy would the majority of people in it be?

    Is it an injustice to build a society that acknowledges the “is” while acknowledging and allowing for the outliers?

    Conversely, is it justice to build a society based on encouraging and accommodating the happiness and success of *only* the outliers? At what point does such a society become coercive and unjust to those who are not outliers?

    Marlowe Thomas did a project in the 1970s called “Free to Be…You and Me.” At least on the surface, that project was about allowing children to be who they are. Such an ethic would dictate that, say, boys and girls should be given both dolls and toy cars, and let the children choose for themselves. What feminism has managed to do is spread a message (in subtle and not-so-subtle ways) that if boys are more likely to favor the cars, and girls more likely to favor the dolls, this is evidence of systemic injustice. It has gone beyond “free to be you and me”, and morphed into a call to reengineer society into one where outcomes (at least in areas where they want them–typically areas of high level economic and political power) will be equal no matter the cost to society or individuals.

    Baron Cohen demonstrated that from the first day of life, more boys stare longer at mechanical objects and more girls stare longer at faces. While the host may have doubts about babies and their propensities, I doubt he would have anything to say about babies’ initial preferential interest in starkly contrasted black and white images over pastel colors. He would likely not express such skepticism over the tendency of very young babies to follow a person’s movements around a room if that person is wearing black. He would probably not have any hesitation in believing that newborns will listen more attentively to people speaking the language they heard most in the womb than people speaking a different language.

    Babies are born primed to have certain preferences, ones that are most conducive to promoting their physical, psychological and intellectual development.

    However, the moment anyone mentions that some of these preferences might differ between boy and girl babies on average, the wall comes down. People don’t want to hear it. It’s quite sad to me.

  17. #17 by karen straughan on March 3, 2015 - 16:45

    Regarding reproductive coercion through deceit (lying about the pill), why is there any need to prove that it’s common in order to determine it’s a problem that results in an injustice that is only/particularly faced by men? Torture isn’t common in the West, but we see it as an injustice. Murder isn’t common in the West, but we see it as an injustice.

    Only recently, a woman was awarded a huge amount of money after the hospital switched her newborn with that of another woman. I’m almost certain that THAT isn’t common, and I’m also 100% sure it was unintentional–yet this woman received a huge amount of compensation for the fact that she ended up raising a child not her own.

    I’m pretty positive that the incidence of men raising children not their own is much more common. Estimates in western countries range from 10-40% of men are raising children they erroneously believe are biologically theirs. If that number was 1% or a half a percent, it would not mean it isn’t an injustice, and it would not call into question the tendency of the courts to continue to coerce such men to financially support children even after DNA tests demonstrate they are not the father.

  18. #18 by Tom Williamson on March 3, 2015 - 16:59

    So men are 4-5 times more likely to commit suicide than women because women TURKA JERBS?

  19. #19 by karen straughan on March 3, 2015 - 17:04

    In Sweden, they were recently forced to make several weeks (8?) of paternity leave non-transferrable, because the vast majority of men would take a couple of weeks off and then transfer the rest of their weeks to their wives. Of course, the wife was under no obligation to accept those extra weeks, yet somehow in the vast majority of cases, this is how things bore out. Even now that a large chunk of paternity leave is non-transferrable, a large number of men do not take the full number of weeks off work. Many men feel an impulse to scale up their efforts at paid work after children, and there’s no reason to believe that this doesn’t have some basis in instinct.

    If, as again, the host conceded, there was a gendered division of labor for thousands of years, the men who felt an impulse to remain at home economically idle after children would have been less successful at supporting their families than those who felt an impulse to scale up their productivity.

    If this is the way men and women naturally tend to behave (on average), if it’s essentially the way the majority are best made content in doing, then how is it an injustice?

    Evolution provides us with systems of impulse and reward that promote our reproductive success. We don’t have sex because it makes babies, we have sex because we enjoy it. We enjoy it because it makes babies. We have evolved to enjoy it because that has historically promoted our reproductive success.

    Women tend to want to stay home longer after a child than men do because THOSE patterns of behavior promoted people’s reproductive success, and the opposite pattern impaired people’s reproductive success.

    If most people are emotionally rewarded by behaving according to these patterns, and emotionally penalized for behaving in the opposite way, then attempting to coerce or engineer a different outcome from top-down policy through a series of incentives and penalties, is not a humane approach.

  20. #20 by karen straughan on March 3, 2015 - 18:12

    I get rape and death threats. Is the host willing to take responsibility for them because the people who made them are arguing some of the same things he has argued in this interview?

    What language should he use? If a woman lies about being raped, she’s a liar. If a woman lies about the number of women raped, she’s a liar. If a woman lies about the number of men who commit rape, she’s a liar.

    I have had people call me a liar, a nazi, a terrorist, a rape apologist. I have had people claim I promote violence against women. I have had people tell me I want women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, or take away women’s right to vote. Every single one of them was arguing the feminist perspective.

    Given that societies prioritize the protection of women, do you think it might be likely that these accusations might encourage someone to take some heinous action against me?

    Surveys have shown that men and women journalists both receive abusive feedback and threats (men slightly more than women).

    I would suggest the host go watch some of the social experiments available on YouTube regarding men behaving in a threatening or abusive manner to women, and women behaving in a threatening or abusive manner toward men–and carefully watch what the bystanders do.

    In the former case, many bystanders intervene, sometimes violently. In the latter, people laugh.

    The host seems inordinately concerned about [female] feminists becoming at risk of violence because of words like “liar”. What of all the men who are called liars, rape apologists, scum, pigs, vermin, etc, and who receive threats? Given the outcomes of those social experiments, I would consider them to be much more at risk of someone acting on that rhetoric.

    I would also suggest that he sit down and read some of the rhetoric unearthed from Radical Hub (a feminist website that has since been abandoned), and read the SCUM Manifesto, and do a side by side comparison to the J4MB website (or any MRA website).

    As for women not being granted the freedom of agency historically, there is certainly an argument there (though a much greyer one than he presented), however, this is not, and should not be, an excuse to continue to hold women less morally accountable now that they have these freedoms.

    Were I interviewed by this host, I would find 90% of what he said to be condescending to women. If I receive a rape threat because of my outspokenness online, that is no better or worse than if Mike does (and there’s significant evidence that the actual risk of follow-through to Mike is higher than to me). If Mike is expected to endure abusive rhetoric with aplomb, so should I be. If Mike’s language and tone poses a potential danger to women, then feminist language and tone (frequently more strident) poses a potential danger to men.

    The host is expressing the same chivalry that was the root of all those things he objects to–women were denied agency because historically, exercising agency often got people killed. Now that those dangers are significantly lesser, both men and women have expressed a desire that women be granted all the benefits of agency, and yet they still argue against women having to bear the costs.

    Baroness Justice Hale, in collaboration with feminist groups in the UK, in 2011, called for women to be *even more leniently treated* by the criminal system. What was once and informal discount women received because of social perceptions became a top-down mandate to hold women less accountable than men. Her justification is that women where women used to be victims of inequality, they are now victims of “a misplaced conception of equality”. In other words, women being treated equally victimizes women.

    A master’s thesis posted online from the university of waterloo looked at perceptions of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women. In the experiment, male and female subjects observed a man interacting with a woman, and then asked how likely such a man might be to beat his spouse or deny a woman a promotion based on her sex.

    Universally, the subjects deemed that men who did not demonstrate benevolent sexism toward women were perceived as hostilely sexist toward women. IOW, if men treated a woman equally, he was seen as hostilely sexist. The effect was partially mitigated by making clear to the subject that he was treating a woman equally for the purpose of promoting women’s equality, but it was not fully mitigated. Even THAT man was seen as more likely to be hostilely sexist toward women than a man who treated a woman better than he treated men.

    And what does the host do here? He claims that calling a woman a liar is too harsh and provocative, and might put her in danger of harm. Has he EVER expressed the same concern (that the rhetoric might lead to harm) when a man is called a liar? He wants evidence that certain behaviors that only women can engage in, and that the law allows them to get away with (paternity fraud, reproductive coercion) are common, and if not, they should not be considered problems.

    When it comes to paternity fraud and reproductive coercion perpetrated by women, these are not only not criminal, the state will extort the victims and hand the victim’s money to the perpetrator.

    Question, host: if the rate of rape went all the way down to 1 in 100,000 women, would you support decriminalizing rape? Just because it’s rare? If not, why not? Because this seems to be his justification for dismissing reforms that J4MB proposes. It barely ever happens, so who cares? I would suspect that for that 1 in 100,000 women who suffered a rape in my hypothetical, the realization that it’s not common would be small comfort were the law to say, “hey, look, we think it’s perfectly fine what that guy did to you. Besides, it barely ever happens. Just get over it.”

    Why must we prove that an injustice is common before we are able to criticize the state for not only enabling it, but endorsing it at the cost of the victims?

    I have to wonder if this host would be as skeptical (as in, taking issue with every single claim) were he talking to a guest who confirmed his biases?

  21. #21 by Turbulentshrew on March 4, 2015 - 16:21

    Harrowing stuff. An outstanding show of restraint from Marsh, as usual. I see how often this guy delights in citing fellow FEMALE misogynists (as if their mere existence would shock anyone onto his side), as his attempt to absolve himself of any responsibility for the hatred he spouts. He thinks it allows him to say “Hey! Even if you think we are just blaming women for everything unjustly… women do it TOO, soooo … blame women.” These people are dinosaurs.

  22. #22 by Ricardo Ka on March 4, 2015 - 18:27

    This was the first Be Reasonable in recent memory where the guest wasn’t a complete nutjob. After Dr. Leo I was expecting more incoherent rambling and bombastic proclamations.

    Mike Buchanan was a refreshing change of pace but his reasoned arguments and solid examples made his points uncomfortably credible.

  23. #23 by Rutabaga5 on March 4, 2015 - 20:36

    Hey Marsh,

    I’ve actually had to write a couple papers summarizing the research on the early gender differences that Mr.Buchanan brought up. They are really fascinating studies and they really do find some genuine differences between boys and girls. HOWEVER! He makes the same mistakes in interpreting the data that pretty much every MRA makes by looking at the data and trying to make it fit his preconceived notions. These differences, while definitely real, are very small and are no where near fully understood yet.

    For example, he brings up the studies that show that very young infants show a gender based difference in their preference for certain stimuli (generally it’s dolls versus cars). He’s right when he says that girls look at dolls longer than boys and boys look at cars longer than girls. What he fails to mention is that BOTH genders prefer the doll over the car. This makes complete sense given that paying attention to human shaped things is very important for human infants while there is no reason why human males should be biologically tuned to look at cars. He also fails to note that these studies ONLY look at how long infants attend to these stimuli. They are unable to say much about why they do, just that they do.

    There are many other possible explanations for why these differences exist other than “women are biologically more empathetic.” At least one study I looked at investigated facial scanning behaviours of infants versus adults. They found that female infants actually scanned faces differently than male ones, and their method of scanning took longer. By adulthood, the female type facial scanning is actually more efficient (faster) than the male one. My point is that this difference in early facial scanning is just one possible explanation for why girl babies seem to scan faces more than boy ones. There is no good scientific reason to believe those studies PROVE that women are naturally more people orientated.

    If you’re interested, I can send you my full paper with all the sources I listed or just my list of sources. It’s a super interesting and super misunderstood field of study and MRAs seriously need to stay the fuck out of it until they’re ready to actually sit down and learn how to study psychology.

    Christian.

  24. #24 by Bill W on March 4, 2015 - 21:40

    I found this a very worrying interview. Mr. Buchanan used an approach often used by extremists. He highlighted several genuine issues such as domestic violence focussed on men and the problem of fathers who are denied access to their children. He then made gross over generalisations which he quoted as evidence and which he linked with logical fallacies and half truths to end up with unpleasant misogynistic nonsense.

    He made several statements which are patently wrong. Marsh handled the interview very well, but, faced with such a well polished presentation conflating genuine issues with hype, distortion and fluent but irrational nonsense which clearly struck a chord with some listeners, left me feeling quite uncomfortable.

  25. #25 by Dodge on March 5, 2015 - 09:51

    “irrational nonsense which clearly struck a chord with some listeners”

    Bill W: it’s common for MRAs to flood the comment sections on articles about feminism or rape – Karen Straughan above is an MRA and she knows Mike Buchanan – I expected more of them here supporting him to be honest.

  26. #26 by Marc N on March 5, 2015 - 16:39

    The guest wants it every way that suits him. So women don’t “really” want careers, because they’re all about caring for children. But it’s discriminatory against men for divorced women to get primary custody for children. You can’t have it both ways;

  27. #27 by Marc N on March 5, 2015 - 16:50

    Women commit fraternity fraud by falsely claiming to be using contraception. Maybe. So why aren’t men using contraception just in case? And if this is truly such a major phenomenon, then men can simply choose to stop engaging in sexual intercourse with women. Why would a man take the risk o having sex with those nasty lying women?

  28. #28 by Falk E. on March 6, 2015 - 10:34

    Hmmm.

    Mike, at least superficially, seems to actually care about factual evidence, which is very refreshing for this show.

    That said, it did seem like he made a lot of assumptions (which says nothing about wether he’s wrong or right).

    Purely based on societal views of Gender, I could see a lot of the issues he brought up being relevant, though I’m wary that as the interview dragged on, Mike’s arguments seemed to be more and more ideological.

    One criticism towards Marsh here: You were really close to gish-galloping in this one. I’d love to see a second round, this time arround you asking him prepared questions.

  29. #29 by Vikki on March 7, 2015 - 09:00

    I listen to every episode of Be Reasonable and I’m always amazed by how you manage to bite your tongue when talking to your guests. It made me laugh that you clearly found it more of a challenge with this guy! Well done though.

  30. #30 by Mark Baker on March 10, 2015 - 21:38

    What is the world’s most powerful aphrodisiac? Whilst Marsh denies it, it is money. A 90 year old smelly, toothless multi-millionaire will get a young attractive wife with no difficulty. A charming, educated if ugly and low wealth 90 year old man will never get a young attractive bride. Not all women are gold diggers but Marsh is being very, very naive in this interview.

  31. #31 by Max Anttila on March 11, 2015 - 01:48

    Hoo boy. These comments. Man. Maybe Marsh should interview some of you.

  32. #32 by Mark Baker on March 11, 2015 - 18:25

    Jamshed Javeed (man) planned to go to Syria and is jailed for 6 years despite having done nothing or even travelled outside the country. Three girls actually go to support ISIL and they will not even be prosecuted. One rule for men and another for women.

    Be reasonable and be consistent.

  33. #33 by Jason Jones on March 13, 2015 - 11:12

    What I really hate about feminists…..is that we actually really need them. When there are no more idiots like this and his supporters we won’t need feminism.

  34. #34 by Alan Boyle on March 14, 2015 - 12:29

    Mark Baker, you are comparing an adult school teacher to three teenage schoolchildren. Yes, there should be different standards, obviously.

  35. #35 by Andy Hendry on March 14, 2015 - 12:53

    Mark Baker :
    Jamshed Javeed (man) planned to go to Syria and is jailed for 6 years despite having done nothing or even travelled outside the country. Three girls actually go to support ISIL and they will not even be prosecuted. One rule for men and another for women.
    Be reasonable and be consistent.

    I’m afraid that you’re quite mistaken there; this girl went to fight against ISIL and is now facing jail time -she may actually already be being held on remand.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/silhan-ozcelik-disgusting-trial-for-young-woman-who-tried-to-fight-against-isis-10105004.html

  36. #36 by Six on March 20, 2015 - 07:53

    I suppose this is the closest we will get to a skeptical exploration of Elevatorgate we will get on this show.

  37. #37 by Michael on March 20, 2015 - 08:42

    To stick up for Mr Buchanan it seems that women do take wealth into consideration when assessing male attractiveness. This was ‘shown’ on myth busters laws of attraction episode. The job title of the man had an effect on how attractive the man was. It may also show in the way footballers seem to have women who think he’s a good catch due to him earning millions over his looks.

  38. #38 by Buckman on May 27, 2015 - 06:31

    The interviewee just wants to have his cake and eat it.

    For example he blames male suicide on women pushing men out of the work place. Yet he also says a pure meritocracy is the only way to run society. So surely if those men are unemployed the solution is for them to work harder and take the jobs from their female competitors.

  39. #39 by Sal on June 3, 2015 - 10:37

    Michael :
    To stick up for Mr Buchanan it seems that women do take wealth into consideration when assessing male attractiveness.

    And it’s true vice versa, Women with expensive jewelry are more attractive to men. Men in suits are more attractive to women. This is social signalling, and you need a proper control to tell the effects between genders to actually draw any meaningful conclusions.

    It’s also unsurprising that a significant portion of women obtain huge amounts of wealth by marrying into it, considering that women hold CEO positions at only about 5% of the top fortune 500 companies. If you take that as a representative sample of the super rich category, if every super rich female married another super rich male from the list, you’d still have 90%(~450) males who can either marry far down on the ladder or stay single.

    So, it’s pretty poor to make generalizations based on personal experience about women’s tendencies to marry richer partners and keep all that money to themselves in their next marriage when your sample size of rich men available is ~20x the size of the rich female sample. Of course, I’m just using fortune 500 CEO’s as a rough estimate, but the numbers should be about right unless somebody can provide any sources to support Mr. Buchanan in this.

    There was a lot of “it’s common knowledge” and “it’s generally agreed” without any citations or papers I can find. I have access to most peer reviewed journals, send me some papers.

  40. #40 by Sal on June 3, 2015 - 11:52

    karen straughan :
    As the host said, for most of history, men and women were assigned different roles. Even if, 10,000 years ago, the assigning of these roles was utterly arbitrary, and 100% socially constructed, this would have altered the natural/sexual selection pressures on men and women.It would have created an environment where women were more likely to pass on their genes if they behaved “like women” and men more likely if they behaved “like men”. People who came by those traits naturally would have an inherent advantage over those who did not, and this would have effected their success. Eventually, people inheriting the desired traits would outnumber those who had to be rigorously trained into them.

    This doesn’t really work because a) 10,00 years is a completely negligible time span in evolutionary terms, and b) Gender roles differ from culture to culture, so the size of the population your talking about is very small for selection like this, and C) you equate the ability to behave “like gender” with “aggregate sex differences in personality traits and preferences”, so even if it could have produced differences, I’m not sure what those changes are .

    karen straughan :
    The host is living in the land of “Should”, while Mike is living in the land of “Is”.

    Perhaps the best way to explain to the host, in terms of “should” might be this:

    If the majority of women are naturally inclined toward X, and the majority of men are naturally inclined toward Y, *should* we be building a society that rewards the outliers and penalizes the majority? How humane would such a society be? How happy would the majority of people in it be?

    Is it an injustice to build a society that acknowledges the “is” while acknowledging and allowing for the outliers?

    Conversely, is it justice to build a society based on encouraging and accommodating the happiness and success of *only* the outliers? At what point does such a society become coercive and unjust to those who are not outliers?

    This argument is problematic, because if you used a studies on how races correlates with test scores instead of gender studies. You would be making an argument about the inherent advantages of one race over another.

    About the reproductive coercion through deceit, there are birth control methods available to men, and men are *not* the only possible victims of this crime. Men can lie about having a vasectomy, sabotage a condom or not to pull out. Why you think only a woman could do this is beyond me.

    As for 10-40% men raising children not their own, find me evidence, and also look for the percentage of single mothers who raise children without any father to pay child support and show that none of that is a result reproductive coercion through deceit or even force.

    I’ll just skip the evidence free evolutionary psychology and death threats because I honestly don’t know where to start or end.

    “I have to wonder if this host would be as skeptical (as in, taking issue with every single claim) were he talking to a guest who confirmed his biases?”

    Karen Straughan, I suggest you go take a look at any other episode of “Be Reasonable” before you criticize the host. The entire point of the podcast is to ask difficult questions about beliefs that the host obviously doesn’t share and come to a better understanding of viewpoints that most of the listeners find pretty ridiculous.

    Also, you really think Marsh of the Merseyside SKEPTICS Society hosts this show with guests that he doesn’t thoroughly question about each of their points?

  41. #41 by Kathy Heyne on October 29, 2016 - 11:18

    ” The increase in female employment has been at the cost of male employment”. No Mr Buchanan. Both the increase in female employment and the decrease in male employment are the direct outcome of Neoliberalist global capitalism.

    But stick with your story as you aspire to high office. It will serve as well as racism.

  42. #42 by Kathy Heyne on October 29, 2016 - 12:49

    I think I’ve just heard the voice of a future British PM. Working class men have been THE losers in global capitalism so his constituency is already out there, waiting for him.

(will not be published)