There's a MRA standing for election in my area!!

So in the face off all the statistics that state otherwise you still trot out bollocks that women are as violent as men.
Woman hating dickhead.
I cant even be arsed to debate with you, I'm just too fucking tired.
But I will tell you this, even the males in my life who are super sexist, think men like you and your mates are mugs. The hatred for women shines through.
Did mommy not love you enough?

John allman - I've found your twitter. You are very strange. Sorry to tell you that - I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you.

Do you realise that? Or do you just think you're cleverer than us? With your evangelical christian beliefs and conspiracy theories....

No, JohnAllman, women are not as aggressive as men in intimate relationships or otherwise.

That is explained by over 80% of dv convictions being against men, over 90% of all violence convictions being against men, and over 97% of all sexual violence offences being against men.

@ Anniegetyourgun

" 'Domestic violence – women are as physically aggressive towards opposite-sex intimate partners as men, or more aggressive' - wtf? "

Surprisingly to many, that is actually true, in mainly English-speaking countries with a high standard of living, in the present day. Mike Buchanan is certain to have cited a multitude of respectable sources - academic studies and government crime statistics, for example - to back it up. I've see such data myself, but I'd prefer you to challenge Mike rather than me for HIS authority for that claim of HIS. I'm a Parliamentary candidate elsewhere, with a different manifesto from Mike's.

The interesting question is why people on a website like Mumsnet, whom I expect to be well-educated and resourceful people, even though the name of the site is a bit gendered, off-putting to dads, even though I have found it useful in the past, as a dad ... The interesting question is why even smart, educated people on a website like Mumsnet, find it surprising to be informed that women are as physically aggressive towards opposite-sex intimate partners as men, or more aggressive. So surprising that they cannot bring themselves to believe the simple, easily-proven truth about intimate partner violence not being particularly gendered, as they had been taught, or had assumed. The huge gap between what science has proved (Mike's claim), and what people have been conditioned to believe (in ignorance), is stark.

This gaping gap between truth (intimate partner violence isn't gender-skewed after all) and popular perception (oh yes it is! WTF?) has not occurred entirely spontaneously. This gap has causes.

Research those causes, and you will begin to understand why Mike Buchanan, and Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first refuge for victims of intimate partner violence in the UK (if not in the world), shared a platform last year, at a conference about protecting the human rights that are most often infringed when the victims are men and boys, rather than women and girls.

Victims of injustice to men and boys can be female, as well as male. Ask any grandmother who never sees her granddaughter, because her son's ex-partner has succeeded in parental alienation. Ask .

In response to your points, dv is a gendered issue. 80-90% of convictions for dv are against men, who have been violence against women.

Women started the women's refuge movement in the Uk - Erin Pizzey was there but had some very dubious ideas about women wanting and accepting violence against them, and so was discredited by feminists for obvious reasons.

Most shelter from dv is for women for the reasons that Mike Buchanan endorses as the correct 'order of things'- women are more likely to be the sole carers for their children, more likely to have given up their jobs to look after the children, more likely to be purely dependent on their husbands financially.

Men affected by dv are more likely to still be financially independent, less likely to be the carers of the children.

And MB endorses this - he says it's sociologically correct. Women are carers, men are patriarchal breadwinners. Because: Catherine Hakim says so.

Yonic are you referring to the Mirror article? Isn't Alex Hudson a man?

I haven't read a copy of The Mirror for years but I'm impressed by its online version.

Is there any evidence that the client groups' preferred housing option is for refuges? My experience is that most male DV victims want independent accommodation with visiting support (which already exists).

Or are we just assuming that homelessness organisations have no idea what they are doing when they choose particular forms of provision as the best option?

Is there any actual research showing that male clients who have experienced DV have a preference for refuges?

Of course there should be shelters for men. The thing I have never understood is why the MRAs whinging on and on about a lack of them don't get off their arses and just DO IT, just as women had to do when we wanted shelters.

We've got our first live one! Thanks twitter.

@ Yops

"Where are the men's shelters?'. They get told, quite rightly, that they are perfectly free to go and campaign and raise awareness and funds for themselves. If men want stuff to address men's problems, men should sort it out. Isn't this an example of that?"

The points are

(1) Family violence isn't a gender issue, so there really is no need for shelters that only take men, or which only take women. Ask Erin Pizzey, who started the first shelter, and who is nowadays something of a Men's Rights Activist, who was kind enough to wish me well a few weeks ago, with my plans to stand for Parliament. (I am the "Let ever child have both parents" candidate in North Cornwall.)

(2) Most provision is earmarked for women only. There isn't any provision at all for men to shelter from violent women WITH their children.

(3) Most provision isn't funded from charitable donations, raised from only one gender. Rather, public money is funnelled into the businesses that run shelters.

More of this at
johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/belgium-to-open-its-first-shelter-for-battered-men/

My blog post in response to the puiblication of the Justice For Men and Boys manifesto is called "Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel". It amused my youngest daughter no end. It's published at
johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/masculism/

Damn that wily journalist woman googling stuff!

My friend works at the mirror and went gunning for them a while ago

That's a really well written article. Good research , calmly written allowing the idiot enough rope to hang himself.

That whole thing about men paying more income tax. The reason for that is THEY, ON AVERAGE, EARN MORE, the numpty

And of course women he would approve who are at home, married and looking after children won't be paying tax.

I've paid income tax without a break since age 22 and higher rate tax for at least 25 years but he'd hate me too. I'm probably keeping a deserving man out of a job.

Damaged by life - and it's all the bleddy women's fault.

I agree Boulevard, where would the electoral process be in the UK without the Monster Raving Loony Party, The Pirate Party or The Roman Party (ave!)?

I look forward to their reaping 10's of votes and losing their deposits. Deposits they've had to scrounge off men who are obviously deeply hurt and damaged by life.

Well, I think it's a wonderful endorsement of our democratic system that allows people to assess the validity and credibility of a special interest group and vote for them accordingly.
I look forward to seeing how many votes they gain in the election.
And deposits are pretty cheap nowadays, too...

Well I suppose there aren't very many threads about MB so he has to take what he can.

Or is it if the mountain won't come to mohammed...?

If you can't even fundraise £9k, lets call it £6k and say target met!

He's tweeted the thread because he's self obsessed, and monitors t'internet for his name.

Good that you hit your £6K target for the 95,000 election leaflets, Mike, but wasn't it £9K and 140,000 leaflets 2 days ago?? (If Mohammed won't come to the mountain.....)

You may as well have flushed that money down the loo though. You won't be elected Mike - you have only a very few (rather extreme and scary) followers.

Why has he tweeted the thread? Surely none of the posts can be a surprise to him? Most people are just posting his party's policies (which he presumably is aware of) and pointing out how ridiculous they are. Given how little he is taken seriously, this ridicule can hardly be revelatory to him.