TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

BBC bans men from audience of the only election debate featuring the Justice for Men and Boys party. (and the host is female too!)

JohnKimble111

April 23, 2015
472 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/bbc-radio-nottingham-anti-male-bias/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title BBC bans men from audience of the only election debate featuring the Justice for Men and Boys party. (and the host is female too!)
Author

JohnKimble111

Upvotes 472
Comments 103
Date April 23, 2015 12:49 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/33l7l6/bbc_bans_men_from_audience_of_the_only_election/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/bbc-bans-men-from-audience-of-the-only-election.982041
https://theredarchive.com/post/982041
Top posts by JohnKimble111

Women Should Have to Register for the Draft, Congressional Commission Says

6700 upvotes
March 25, 2020
/r/PussyPassDenied

BBC admits its viral “women write better code” story was fake news

6298 upvotes
December 28, 2016
/r/MensRights

Gender pay gap in modelling sees men paid 75% less than women

6153 upvotes
February 8, 2018
/r/MensRights

Toxic Masculinity

5904 upvotes
March 10, 2018
/r/MensRights

After feminist cry sexism over BBC pay, official review uncovers more underpaid men than women

5789 upvotes
January 31, 2018
/r/MensRights

Controlling girlfriend, 22, who starved and stabbed her partner, banned him from her bed and took over his Facebook account is jailed for more than seven years

3826 upvotes
April 16, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

'If you tell anyone I've cheated, I'll ruin you': Cambridge don is cleared after his PhD student fiancee accused him of assault 'to get back at him' for calling off their wedding after she had affair in Galapagos Islands

3770 upvotes
September 16, 2017
/r/MensRights

Amber Heard loses bid to get $50 million defamation suit by her ex Johnny Depp thrown out

3737 upvotes
March 28, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 67 points68 points69 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

An absolute scandal, they're not even trying to be fair now the election is getting close.

The guy in charge of BBC Radio Nottingham is Mike Bettison, his email should be [email protected]

Demand both an all male audience for a debate in future not to mention a full interview with Ray Barry before the election and also an apology.

You can also find him on Twitter.

Update, Mike reports that the BBC attempted to justify banning men based on the fact that 52% of the electorate is female!

Update 2, in addition to contacting Bettison I strongly suggest people make formal complaints to the BBC. You can do so at the following link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/

[–]raps_caucasionally 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Light a fire up under his ass!

[–]Wargame4life 85 points86 points87 points 11 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

its a fucking disgrace and the BBC is a complete pile of wank, if i was the J4MB blokes i would stear every answer to asking why is the audience entirely female? why have they banned men etc.

just use the opportunity to shine a spotlight on the ridiculous sexism

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The audiance is female because it's a debate about women's issues, but I find it telling that that's the only debate the national broadcaster has invited him to attend.

[–]ckiemnstr345 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He won't really get much time to say anything else because the host and other guests will make sure he's quit and when he does speak he'll be interrupted after the first sentence.

[+]expert02 -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You two have some really shitty spelling and grammar.

[–]Wolfeh2012 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet, the blandness of your vocabulary and non-constructive criticism is a further affront to this conversation.

[+]JCQ -31 points-30 points-29 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Why should they invite men? The debate is specifically about what the parties will do for women, it makes sense that the people asking the questions will be women. The BBC has several debates focused on certain demographics across the country with stuff like only young voters being invited to debates about young voters. Why is it sexism to only have the demographic being talked about present? The whole reason this debate was chosen in the first place is that women are disadvantaged a good deal in the UK system and parties are concerned about the female vote dropping due to this imbalance.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]JCQ -17 points-16 points-15 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

I'm basing it on the number of MPs and ministers in UK government. I suspect a counter-argument would be "women can vote too, there are less female MPs because women don't vote for them"' to which I would point out that 74% of candidates -selected and sponsored by parties out of a pool of potentials- are male this election. Furthermore when you only look at safe seats -areas where results are guaranteed so parties parachute in candidates they want in parliament- the disparity is even greater. This is why I said women were disadvantaged and the saturation of men in politics has gotten the parties a little anxious the female vote will drop, hence stuff like this.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Unless the UK is substantially different than Canada where I live, there's always considerably more males that apply to be candidates than females. There's nothing stopping women from being candidates but ... women.

[–]Kill_Your_Ego 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What does the number of women who choose to run for political office have to do with women being at a disadvantage?

[+]JCQ -15 points-14 points-13 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

It's not the number of women who choose, it's the number of women chosen. If it's a problem that men are under-represented in one debate in one constituency not a problem that women are under-represented throughout the British system?

[–]Kill_Your_Ego 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

You are making the typical feminist assumption that men show an in group bias. That men will make decisions to elevate men. This is not the case. Men actually show a strong out group bias towards women. I mean you really need to do some research into facts and reality. I don't have time to try to educate another prog feminist.

[+]JCQ -14 points-13 points-12 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

You are making the typical feminist assumption that men show an in group bias.

No I'm making the rational assumption that men consistently being selected over women every election is indicative of bias. Clearly that's just me taking crazy pills!

I mean you really need to do some research into facts and reality.

Do you want to show me some? Or wait, is it not your job to educate me?

I noticed you didn't address this at all so I'll put it forward again:

If it's a problem that men are under-represented in one debate in one constituency not a problem that women are under-represented throughout the British system?

[–]Onithyr 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If it's a problem that men are under-represented in one debate in one constituency not a problem that women are under-represented throughout the British system?

The issue isn't simple lack of representation. In the former, men are banned. In the latter, women have no barriers other than the same barriers men also face.

[+]JCQ -12 points-11 points-10 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

In the former, men are banned.

Not being invited to one debate of many regarding a topic completely unrelated to them =/= banned.

In the latter, women have no barriers other than the same barriers men also face.

How don't they? I think not being selected to stand is a pretty big barrier.

[–]Jasperkr672 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Are women who don't vote for female politicians biased too? Do they suffer from "internalised misogyny"?

Equal opportunity isn't the same as equality of outcome. If women really want to go into politics, they'll go. Don't force them to do things they don't want to. Or, you can set a good example and go into politics yourself.

[+]JCQ -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are women who don't vote for female politicians biased too? Do they suffer from "internalised misogyny"?

The bias isn't in the voting process, it's in the selection process. As I've said clearly and repeatedly. If I was complaining about the number of candidates elected your argument there might make sense but I'm not so it doesn't.

Equal opportunity isn't the same as equality of outcome. If women really want to go into politics, they'll go. Don't force them to do things they don't want to

The whole point I'm making is that there isn't equality of opportunity: 26% of the candidates chosen to run for election are women, and a large chunk of these women were only chosen because the area in which they're attempting to run in is one unlikely to be won by the party they're affiliated with anyway.

I also don't know why you're assuming I'm a woman here.

[–]Phoxxent 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe, just maybe, they were shitty candidates.

[–]JCQ -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Really? And they've just been shitty candidates every election for the past 100+ years? It's strange to me how MensRights is showcasing right here the same gender tribalism it accuses feminists of and fails to even acknowledge the idea women might have disadvantages.

[–]AloysiusC 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's irrelevant. Male politicians can and do represent women's interests. Your reasoning is a sexist presumption by which having male genitalia disqualifies one from that ability.

You only need to look at real life to see which sex gets more representation. There's a never ending racket over women's well being. Men are almost never mentioned and if they are, it's to denigrate them or demand more from them.

[–]Wargame4life 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unless there is an equivalent all men version by the BBC its clearly sexist.

as for your justification, are you fucking retarded? under UK law a woman is just as able to vote as a man, so claiming "women are disadvantaged a good deal in the UK system"is complete and utter bullshit, stop pandering to bullshit.

[–]joewilson-MRA 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The BBC has several debates focused on certain demographics across the country

Yes I'm sure they'll have one specifically for men and boys!!!

[–]nanonan 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You don't have to be a woman to care about womens issues. You don't have to be a woman to be affected by legislation passed that deals with womens issues. Why exclude anyone from the audience?

[–]JCQ -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is just as easy for me to say you don't have to be a man to care about men. Why include men in the audience?

The difference is that men were disadvantaged here in one debate while women are disadvantaged across the whole political system.

[–]DavidByron2 57 points58 points59 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This illustrates the bigotry of feminists, that they assume that women will all have one opinion and that men will be the enemies of women and have the opposite opinion. It's really the only reason to exclude men from the audience -- that they think this will bias the audience.

Jokes on them.

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if a female only audience is the best one to be receptive to men's rights, depending on how it's pitched. Why? Because women are allowed to have opinions on sexism in our society and men aren't. A mixed group the men might be checking with the women to see if they are allowed to have an opinion first, and it might become divisive. An all male group might be better than mixed but let's face it men tend to police themselves to make sure they keep to their gender role of protecting women.

I'd actually like to see the experiment run to see which group is more receptive.

Plus of course the BBC just made themselves look incredibly sexist.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

i wouldn't be shocked if half of them show up to argue that men have too many rights and i will bet the farm someone will toss out the word privilege.

[–]DavidByron2 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I guess the set up is weird anyway because the audience isn't any sort of normal group of people at all but ringers put forward by the candidates or something?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nope , the bbc picked the women to ensure no political bias but at the end of the day they are still talking about mens rights while banning men. Read the whole article , if men want to be represented they will have to pick a woman to do that for them , let that sink in.

[–]the-tominator 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The BBC also picked the challenger's TV debate audience, well they got someone to pick them for them, and then they had to admit that it was a biased audience after the debate. I wouldn't trust them at all on audience selection, clearly not even independent companies chosen by the BBC can be fair.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

that they think this will bias the audience.

Jokes on them.

Implying that the audiance will be a representative sample of British women and not the local university's women's studies department.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In accordance with BBC national guidelines regarding due impartiality each audience member must be vetted.

Yeah you wouldn't want the audience skewed in one direction.

That would be a nightmare.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Isn't it illegal to ban a group from a political debate based solely on demographic info like this ?

If it is, sue the BBC.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I doubt it. Not if that demographic are the focus of the debate.

[–]MrShadowfax42 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is technically illegal, but there are loopholes because women are seen as an oppressed minority, even though they are neither.

[–]joewilson-MRA 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well Mike, the fact that the audience is all female and the host too is just further validation why YOU and your candidacy is important. Its for this very reason men and boys need a voice because by default we are silenced.

[–]joewilson-MRA 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

btw.... you can nominate a women for the audience but they need to be "vetted"...in other words they need to make sure they're ardent feminists!

[–]Bluebird_North 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nominate a man who identifies as a woman.

[–]Kill_Your_Ego 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For those who wish to donate to support the only political party that is actually trying to address men's and boy's issues you can do so at the following link:

https://j4mb.wordpress.com/donate/

[–]ZimbaZumba 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Woah, hold on here a moment. All candidates but one were invited for a radio debate?

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-england-32350791

this is unbelievable. And now they are holding a debate aimed at women. Why are you invited to this and not the other? And where is the debate on men? These are some very serious BBC bias issues here, this is an election and they have some very serious legal responsibilities. Use all of this for PR.

I hope to god you have a strategy for this debate. It is crucial you come over as reasonable, caring and appreciative of the issues women also have. Frame you position as being fair and just. You worry about all groups but feel that Mens and Boys need a helping hand these days; the ordinary bloke seems out of the national debate. Appeal to the fact that men are the sons, husbands, brothers and fathers of women. Mothers are the carers in a family and worry about the well being of their men just as much as their women.

Come over as Mr. nice, Mr. Compassionate and Mr. Reasonable against forces that are breaking the family and the role of women. The key to these debates is preparation and strategy of message.

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just posted the link, I'm not a member of J4M&B.

[–]ZimbaZumba 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I was aiming it at J4M&B, but point taken.

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The debate starts in 53 minutes, tune in here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_nottingham

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Program has started, Mike isn't taking any prisoners.

[–]Captain_Yid 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He needs to work on his stutter. It kills his presentation.

[–]baserace 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's unfortunate that he's not a brilliant public speaker, but he's well aware of it and is trying his best to overcome it. I think he mentioned before that he's quite the introvert.

[–]Ikiry 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Is there any recording of the program?

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It will appear on the BBC website shortly (though often blocked for international viewers). Mike will almost certainly have it up on youtube and accessible to all within a few days.

Update, it is now up on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02pc3mc

[–]_pluto_ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

what should I click on at the link? Can't seem to find the segment.

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

May not work if you're not in the UK.

[–]DarthOvious 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Listening to the debate now. I'm not liking the tactic that Mike isn't answering the questions being posed. He could have even answered the education e is only going to look like a trouble maker after this.

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not sure I agree with his tactic, though to be fair the BBC started all the trouble and he's just fighting fire with fire. I think his strategy could have worked with a little more practice.

The real battle is of course isn't that debate but in holding the BBC to account for what they've done here.

[–]DarthOvious 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The BBC certainly did start the trouble, but at the same time they are not going to invite him back if they know he isn't going to stick to the format. The format was predetermined really and I don't really consider it to be an unfair one since the questions could have been answered with men in mind.

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

they are not going to invite him back if they know he isn't going to stick to the format

They don't have any choice thanks to the way they're funded. I'm sure Mike wouldn't have done this on a commercial channel.

[–]DarthOvious 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wasn't aware of that actually. Nice to know they have to invite them to the debates.

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I'm pretty sure they have to, though they conveniently "forgot" to invite Ray Barry (the other J4MB candidate) from the debate with a mixed gender audience.

[–]JayBopara 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Great stuff my Mike. He's something of a modern day hero.

[–]dungone 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The UK is one screwed up country. This is the same place where some politicians want to ban encryption from the internet. And here, their media is brazenly fucking around with their elections, just to make sure that the people who do get elected are a bunch of out of touch shills.

[–]the_leander 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The UK is one screwed up country.

It's a running joke over here that anything that happens in the US, will likely be copied by us 10 years later... Badly.

Not so funny these days.

This is the same place where some politicians want to ban encryption from the internet.

And every time one of them suggests it, their banker friends phone in a friendly reminder of the fact they know where those MP's live and where their children go to school (banking accounts for around 50% of the UK's economy, people would disappear as a result of rendering that impossible). Shortly followed by a call from MI5 reminding said MP that they know where the bodies are buried. Just to be fair - the US trampled on encryption for years themselves, declaring them to be weapons and as such not something to be exported... No one's hands are clean on that issue.

And here, their media is brazenly fucking around with their elections, just to make sure that the people who do get elected are a bunch of out of touch shills.

I would have thought that it was eerily familiar to our cousins across the pond.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an absolute scandal and for this (as well as rigging the previous debate with a largely partisan audience) the BBC needs to be disbanded in it's entirety. The press have no business attempting to rig elections, not for themselves, not for ultra rich owners.

[–]dungone 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, but tu quoque. The UK doesn't need the US to imitate, it can stand on it's own merit as a properly screwed up country.

The US making dumb laws banning the export of encryption algorithms should have been a big red flag to other countries a very long time ago. Every single CS undergraduate gets taught how to write an encryption algorithm, and increasing it's strength is a mere issue of specifying a few more bits in the encryption key (the algorithm stays otherwise the same). The effectiveness of the US law really does rest on the idea that foreign governments are run by absolute idiots who do not know how to pass their own laws to ensure that their IT resources are secured. Which, when it comes to the UK government, appears to be a well-founded theory.

[–]the_leander 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but tu quoque.

Not quite, these days we're strictly followers. Comes from decades of mismanagement at the hands of various governments over the years.

The UK doesn't need the US to immitate

You grossly overestimate the imagination and initiative of our MPs ;)

it can stand out on it's own merit as a properly screwed up country.

True enough, it's just that we seem to follow your lead - as I said our MPs suffer from a stunning lack of imagination.

It does sometimes feel like they purposefully look for the very worst laws and implementation of said laws and say "hey, I've got a great idea - lets do that, only we can make it shittier!"

That said we are in a league of our own when it comes to defence spending I feel (look up the number of issues we've had afflicting our Swiftsure and Trafalgar class nuclear submarines over the years, as well as the fun we had with Astute).

[–]Riktenkay 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Disgustingly sexist behaviour, not that I have any love for this ex-Tory's party, I feel they are likely to do more to harm our cause than help it due to their political leanings. There needs to be a liberal, progressive group standing up for true gender equality. SJWs are going to see a party of right-wingers standing up for men's rights as even more of a reason to hate us.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

SJWs will never not hate us. If we get a bunch of liberal MRAs then they'll hate them too. And call them right wing to boot.

[–]MrShadowfax42 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Liberal progressives nowadays are nothing but walking, talking parodies of themselves. In fact the words "liberal progressive" are so diluted and tainted now that I am proud to be disassociated from them. I'll call myself an MRA and be happy with it.

[–]Kill_Your_Ego -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The sjw's hate us for being born. This quest to try to do something for men but make sure that everyone just likes us is the reason I refuse to identify as an MRA. Of course they hate us. That's been clear for twenty years. Posts like this just keep the MRM from actually doing anything.

Now go check with your mommy and girlfriend to see what the right move is.

[–]Riktenkay 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My mum's the kind of person who would probably vote for these right wing nuts. I don't have a girlfriend, never have, probably never will.

[–]SirSkeptic 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So the BBC seems as biased as our (Australian) ABC.

No political bias obviously means extreme left and misogynistic.

[+]Riktenkay -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

extreme left and misogynistic

As an extremely left wing person, I still like to think those two things are mutually incompatible. Truly left wing politics would be pro-equality, no exceptions. I also think the BBC is far from being extreme left, I'd say it's centrist or even centre-right (I would say the same about the Labour party)

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]_pluto_ 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The idea that BBC is "left wing" is completely laughable. If you mean "embraces diversionary identity politics in order to divide the population" then sure. By that measure the US Democrats, who are mostly funded by bankers and other plutocrats, are also "left wing." But it's not as though they routinely feature people who advocate work co-ops, living wages, taxing the rich, nationalizing industries, ending British imperialism etc. etc.

[–]Riktenkay 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I'm so left-wing I'm just biased but they hardly seem left wing to me. Then again, I'm no expert. People usually accuse them of Labour party favouritism though, and as I said, I consider them centre-right, as does the Political Compass.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Riktenkay 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah okay I guess it's not perfect. Or maybe you're wrong about yourself? Haha.

[–]mrubios 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Enjoy public TV.

[–]huoyuanjiaa 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So many groups around the world pushing the feminist agenda.

[–]victorymonk 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Mike was an idiot in that debate. They ask him about child poverty and he talks about domestic violence. They ask him about early testing in school, he tries to talk about circumcision. I wouldn't vote for him after this debate. Child poverty IS gender neutral question. Not everything is men's right issue.

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

in all fairness he was quite clearly shaken and upset by the blatant dirty tricks of the BBC. I think the point he was trying to make was that the BBC were attempting to marginalise men and he was just trying to do his own thing and not playing by their rules. I agree with your points though.

[–]DarthOvious 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it would have been better to answer the questions posed since he would have least got the airtime to speak. It seemed it would have been a good opportunity since each member actually got space to talk without being interrupted too much on the basis they kept on subject. The question on education he could have even answered from the male perspective in regards to boys under performing at school.

[–]victorymonk 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand and agree with you too. But then again he went into politics (which is very admirable) and politicians should answer the questions that they are being asked. It does mean that media, in this case pro-feminism BBC, sets the rules, but I'm afraid there is no way around it. And there were opening and closing statements where he could talk about anything he wanted. And his opening and closing statements were, in fact, great.

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It does mean that media, in this case pro-feminism BBC, sets the rules, but I'm afraid there is no way around it.

Well the rules in question were almost certainly a breach of the BBC Charter and hence illegal. I'm sure he wouldn't have tried the same thing on a commercial outlet.

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Issues become politically relevant when some candidate differentiates themselves by making that issue part of their platform. It would only be fair if the host asked each candidate to respond to at least one issue out of the other candidates' platforms, but I'm guessing that never happened here. It's better to pull some teeth just to get your issues out there than to let the opponents and a biased host frame the entire debate.

I mean, so you are saying that the BBC went out of theor way to gather up a female-only audience and then went on to ask a bunch of softball gender-neutral feel-good issues? And this doesn't strike you like somewhat of a farce?

[–]Riktenkay 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He's basically a Tory, of course he's an idiot.

[–]baserace 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the problem with a special interest candidate.

I don't think he was very successful trying to shoehorn men and boys issues into general political questions. I suppose the format really doesn't suit the message he's trying to get out there.

Good for him to stand up for the movement, but the bits on child poverty and education in particular were embarrassing. Answer the question, Mike, and gently steer it towards how that effects boys.

[–]ProfessorZ00M 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck this shit, I'm voting UKIP, they won't be pushing this SJW agenda against men.

[–]Sasha_ 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This way I don't pay my TV license.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Listening to the debate now. It seems J4M&B are being given the opportunity to get their views out, thankfully.

[–]victorymonk 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Where? Could you post a link?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here's the Iplayer link

[–]victorymonk 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I read some of his quotes in the article. Is he like the British "Paul Elam"?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Basically yes

[–]smarttypist234 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mike might be controversial but he is definitely no idiot. Even Quetin Letts who is himself no ignoramus has described him as 'bookish':-

"Mr Buchanan is not some fruitcake of the Monster Raving Loony party ilk. A bookish fellow from Bath, full of statistics, he has recently given evidence to a parliamentary select committee. He has also been interviewed on Radio 4 and has spoken at political party conference fringe events about the Establishment’s demands for more women in boardrooms."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2254307/Pro-men-party-Harriet-sights.html

Agree with JohnKimble, he could have answered the questions more directly if he had chosen but the broadcasters had messed him around so much he was no longer playing ball at that point.

[–]adave4allreasons -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Crash it!

[+][deleted] -14 points-13 points-12 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Well men decide stuff on women affairs all the time, you cant have it all.

[–]AloysiusC 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Really? How do men decide stuff on women's affairs and, more pertinently, how do they do that to the exclusion of women?

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There are plenty of examples: lets see, contraceptives, abortion, birth control for starters.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How are men excluding women from those discussions?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

ITs not discussion, its the legislative branches in the govt that make the decisions. "Ya'll" must live under a rock.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're sidestepping the question. Again, how are men excluding women from the decision making the way you're describing it?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

By not including women in them in decision making? HERP DERP.

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't ask you for a repeat of your assertion. I asked you for an explanation of the mechanism involved. Women are free to join any of those decision making processes. They aren't denied access, yet you insist they are. But that's all you do. It's sounding more like a prayer than a fact. The least you can do is offer some kind of an argument.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Guess you bit off more than you could chew, huh?

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter