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

[LadySybilLikesSloeGin]

I'm just... "Justice for Men and Boys"

"The human rights of men and boys in the United Kingdom have been increasingly assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions for over 30 years, as they have across much of the developed world. J4MB is the only political party in the English-speaking world campaigning for the human rights of men and boys, including the right of all children to enjoy good access to both parents following family breakdowns, and the restoration of fatherhood and strong families."

j4mb.wordpress.com

I find this interesting because MB seems to be following the same path as Charlotte Rose of the Sexual Freedom Party. They both know they will never get elected and will probably lose their deposits but the whole thing of single interest parties is to get questions raised about those issues. The Greens were a single issue party with no traction years ago but have become much more influential not just as a political party but also it get the issues they first wanted addressed higher on the political agenda. The MB and CR parties are designed to do the same thing over the years.

The monster raving loonies stood every election with no hope of winning and no real agenda but these parties will appeal to some people and if that creates any traction in the future it will be interesting to see. If a feminist party was created and stood at elections you would expect in the first 2 or 3 general elections to lose deposits but it could highlight key issues providing we get all the facts straight to demonstrate those points. And we have the right to create a party, yes we will get people laughing at it the same way people laugh at MB and UKIP but that goes with the territory.

Sweden's feminist political party wants a "man tax"

Oh that's interesting - there's a party in Sweden who proposed a tax on men to offset the extra costs caused by domestic violence.

I can see where they're coming from - but I've never liked that whole punish the entire class for one person's actions thing... not sure that I think it's a good idea at a population level either.

I suppose the issue is that it would be fair to tax those who actually did the violence rather than blanket taxing all men, but I very much doubt that would be legal, and would likely only make the problem worse all round (poverty increases violence I believe)

Monster Raving Loony party was a genuine political statement - a protest vote against the political establishment.

J4MB is a vote for misogyny.

MB might have more chance if he wore a colourful suit and a top hat though

UKIP is a vote for racism (at least in my opinion) doesn't mean people won't vote that way. And yet 3 elections ago who the heck were UKIP? If enough disenchanted people who like what MB stands for it wont matter how small a minority it really is the politicians are only interested in staying in power and if something will garner a vote they will try it no matter how stupid it is. After the whole pink bus thing it didn't matter about upsetting some women with the message sent by segregation it was intended to target a group of people and gather votes. So if one thing gets people to vote be it a vote against the system or MRA ideology some politicians will take up on it.

I am no fan of MB, in fact in some statements he comes across as someone who would want to lower the age of consent and I know what I think of those type of people. But he will get support from a section of men who have issues be it access to their children or lack of funding for homelessness or even suicide rates among men. There will be those who identify with those issues and if it gets a message across to Labour or Conservative then we may see some of it taken on board.

Belated comeback: LadySybil, I hope you realise my comment about women lying was an interpretation of the misogynist gentleman's post, not because I think they actually do?

Of course

Phew!

Regarding sausageeggbacon11's posts above, I was introduced recently to the concept of the Overton Window. If you throw a policy about often enough people get used to hearing about it and gradually it becomes less outrageous, until eventually it reaches the realm of the acceptable and can be legislated upon. It can work for either good or ill; for example once upon a time it seemed so obvious that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or go to university, or be bishops, or earn the same amount as men because, well, they're women innit? After a lot of spadework attitudes gradually shifted and people began to think "well, why not actually"; then it became law and the sky didn't fall in, and nowadays nearly everyone (in this hemisphere at least) thinks it would be weird if they didn't. Or it can work the opposite way, which is what our MRA friends are attempting.

I don't think there's ever been an idea that was too off the wall to appeal to some of the people some of the time, sometimes to enough people for long enough for it to become law, so yeah, what they're doing probably does stand a (hopefully miniscule) chance of being successful. For evil to flourish, all it takes is for good women to do nothing.

Yy Annie.

I never knew the name Annie but I know the theory and yes it has worked in the past something the Green's have been successful with. MB obviously understands the principle and is trying to use it. The sexual Freedom party are trying the same thing. Single agenda politics are not and I doubt have ever been intended to mainstream at the outset. I wonder how many of the original Green party thought they would be where they are now? It really depends on how smart these people are at burying their true message inside rhetoric.

Now we come to a crossroads, do we put together a party of our own and if we do what happens to those women who are alienated? Same as MB alienating some men there will be things that a feminist party would want that not all women would sign up to. And on this the men are a little ahead no just because they have people standing but because they are organising globally which unless I missed something we are not. Sweden has a feminist party but because it is driven by radicals some of the policies are busy alienating large sections of the population. A tax on all men to punish a few will not be universally applauded and there will be loud voices against it.

So if/when a feminist party is started then our voices will be a little better at being heard but at the moment the message the politicians are hearing is not something I would want them to act on.

I think sausageeggbacon11 and Anniegetyourgun have expressed the same understanding of what they think that Mike Buchanan was trying to achieve with his J4MB party, as I reached myself. It was an example of single issue electoral activism like my own, except that Mike has a grand unification theory, anti-feminism, which I don't.

Although I am not aligned with Mike, and my politics are non-gendered, I stood for parliament myself (for the fourth time in my life!), at the same time as Mike, as "Let every child have both parents" candidate for North Cornwall (which isn't a gendered issue). The respect and friendship I earned from the main party candidates, including the one who became our new MP, helped to make the exercise worthwhile, a point that Sausage and Annie will understand.

At one time, whilst officially the leader of a registered political party myself, I used to drink socially in Wetherspoons, with the leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party, in Fleet, a town in which the Women's Suffrage movement used to hold meetings about a century beforehand.

I blogged (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) in response to Mike's J4MB manifesto under the title "Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel" on my JohnAllman.UK blog.

Erm, isn't this a zombie thread, John?

It's a pretty old thread, I grant you, QuiteIrregular. I'd forgotten all about it. Out of the blue, I noticed (to my surprise) a couple of referrals from this thread to my blog today. When I visited the thread to find out why, I didn't find out why, but I did notice some quite intelligent discussion, and decided to say that I agreed with the main thrust of it.

I don't suppose this will rekindle the thread generally, but Sausage and Annie may appreciate my expression of appreciation of their earlier contribution, almost three months ago.

I'm not a regular Mumsnet contributor. I used to read Mumsnet for practical information about child-rearing, without commenting, but nowadays have no contact with my youngest son (a sore point). I noticed this one thread, during the election period, because I was a candidate myself, and I have networked with Mike Buchanan in the past, and blogged a bit about gender issues.

If it creates a problem, when somebody adds an afterthought to an old thread, by promoting the old thread to the top of the recent threads listing, I guess we'd both better shut up!

I'm not at all flattered to be namechecked above, actually. Reading back this thread (since I have the memory of a sieve) I note I was an enthusiastic part of the lynch mob which handed you your arse back in April. I would be delighted to hand it to you again, lightly fried with a side salad. Just because it appears we both believe the loony gentleman referred to in the OP is completely barkin' does not mean we would have an intellectual meeting point on any other issue, least of all about domestic violence... about most aspects of parenthood... oh, and did you really say that about homosexuality? Must have, it's on your own website Do potter off, dear.