Businesswoman with Businessmen

Men are financing the state’s assaults… on men

The following is an article just published by The Backbencher, an online magazine aimed mainly at young adults with an interest in politics, especially university students.

Men pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK, women only 28%.1 British men collectively paid £64 BILLION more income tax than women in 2012/13, yet the state relentlessly assaults the interests of men, never the interests of women. In our party’s public consultation document2 we list 20 areas in which the state, through its actions and inactions, advantages women (and/or girls) over men (and/or boys).

Feminist politicians and civil servants systematically advantage women at men’s expense, but the mainstream media rarely report on the extent of their manipulations, and it can be difficult to ‘join up the dots’. Let me join a few of them up for you.

Two-thirds of public sector employees are women, and women use the ‘positive action’ provisions in the 2010 Equality Act to preference women over men when recruiting and promoting, where women are ‘under-represented’. While men could conceivably be preferenced over women on the same grounds, they never are.

Men and boys have been disadvantaged by an increasingly feminised education system. Then they’re disadvantaged in entering some employment fields by government initiatives, and grants directed to institutions which preference women over men when recruiting and promoting staff, for example research institutions.3

30+ years ago, the majority of university students being men was deemed ‘a problem to be addressed’ by feminists and other left-wing social engineers, who were then (as today) found in key positions in government, in all political parties, and throughout the civil service. The secondary school system has become ever more feminised. In 1970, 45.4% of secondary school teachers were women; the proportion had risen to 62.3% by 2010.4

The secondary school system has been manipulated to advantage girls over boys, and 60% of undergraduate students today are women. Why is this gender balance not ‘a problem to be addressed’? Because gender equality was never the motivation for increasing the proportion of female university students. Gender equality narratives are smokescreens for feminists’ quests for female supremacy, driven by their misandry (the hatred of men).

Four out of seven unemployed people are men, and unemployment is known to be a bigger driver of suicide among men than women.5 The single largest cause of death of young men in Britain today is suicide. It would be perverse for the government to spend taxpayers’ money encouraging women into historically male-dominated professions, yet that’s exactly what’s been happening for decades, while virtually nothing has been spent encouraging men into female-dominated professions.

Let’s consider women studying STEMM subjects – science, technology, engineering, medicine and mathematics. Huge sums of taxpayers’ money have been spent encouraging women into studying STEMM subjects, and choosing STEMM careers, although few women return to STEMM careers after having children, possibly an indication they weren’t happy working in those fields, and were happy to leave them?

For 30+ years there have been sustained efforts to drive up the proportion of women in medicine, and 70% of medical students today are women. It costs £250,000 – £500,000 to train a doctor. Large parts of the NHS are in crisis today6 because compared with male doctors, female doctors are more likely to:

– quit the profession altogether

– work part-time, whether or not they have children

– opt for the least stressful lines of work, notably general practice (50% of GPs today are women)

– decline to work in the most stressful areas, notably A&E

– decline to work unsocial hours

– retire earlier

It’s been estimated that the NHS gets around half the number of working hours over a career from the average female doctor, compared with the average male doctor. One highly predictable consequence of the influx of female doctors has been a slump in the staffing capacity of the NHS, a problem which has been ‘solved’ through the recruitment of large numbers of foreign doctors, at considerable expense to taxpayers. Many of these doctors are drawn from poor countries which financed their training, and which can ill afford their absence.

There are fields where the government’s efforts at driving women into formerly male-dominated lines of work almost beggar belief. While women have entered medicine in large numbers, few have chosen engineering. Some of the reasons are obvious. Compared with medicine, engineering is:

– less well paid

– less secure (private sector)

– more likely to entail working in unpleasant conditions and/or away from home for extended periods

– less flexible working hours

– less human interaction and appreciation from patients / clients

Legions of taxpayer-funded social engineers are driven by the delusional conviction that men and women are intrinsically the same. They ignore gender-typical preferences, and always seek equality (or superiority) of outcomes for women. We come to the ultimate manifestation of their thinking. At Brunel University, female postgraduate engineering students are eligible for an additional £15,000 p.a. grant solely on account of their gender.7 The grant’s worth considerably more than the annual gross income of a person working full-time on the minimum wage. Male-to-female transsexuals (and those ‘in transition’) are also eligible for the grant.8

So there we have it. Female students have to be bribed to do the course, while male students don’t. Does anyone seriously imagine these women are motivated to work as engineers? For every woman who does the course, a man is denied a place. Let’s remind ourselves that unemployment is the single largest cause of death of young men.

It’s not only the government which seeks to drive women into male-dominated professions at the expense of men. Professional bodies are pursuing the same objective. Some months ago we publicly challenged Nick Baveystock, director of the Institution of Civil Engineers, over the matter.9 The vast majority of ICE’s members must surely be men. Our challenge remains unanswered.

It’s often claimed we ‘need’ more female doctors, engineers, company directors etc. – but do we? I leave you with a link to a video which explores an intriguing question:

If we ‘need’ more women in boardrooms, do we ‘need’ more white sprinters in the Olympics 100 metres final?



About Mike Buchanan

Mike Buchanan is a British men's human rights advocate who leads the political party he launched in 2013, Justice for men & boys (and the women who love them). He was a business executive for 30 years before taking early retirement in 2010. He's written nine books and is also a publisher. His last three books have been concerned with gender and gender politics, the most recent being 'Feminism: the ugly truth' (2012).
In 2012 he launched The Anti-Feminism League and Campaign for Merit in Business. He runs a blog demonstrating that men and boys suffer far more grievously from sexism than women and girls, The Alternative Sexism Project.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Duke

    The American economy is completely busted, and is only functioning because we can put our plastic toaster ovens, and shiny plastic toys…… on the tab with china.
    I remember in high school, there were groups that came into our school, working with young women and developmentally disabled youth…. to start businesses. Not a drop of help for boys to start businesses. Maybe this is why American industry has collapsed????
    America could once again be a first world industrial super power, ( Were going to need interplanetary star fleets soon) but were going to have to start educating our boys again to do it..

    • roeboat72

      It doesn’t help that whenever a recession hits the first jobs lost are usually held by men. Plus once the economy becomes “good” again many of the jobs for men never return. Thus leaving a greater hole in the American economy to fill. When you have idle people unable to be productive, it puts a drain on everything. All while jobs are sent overseas or replaced with women populated positions.

  • Mike Buchanan

    Thanks for publishing this. I know some of the content and arguments will be basic for many if not most AVfM followers, and you may have read some of this material in my previous AVfM articles. My main interest in having it published on AVfM was to show a piece addressed to non-MHRAs – in this case, mainly university students with an interest in politics. After my recent Durham University debate (with Julie Bindel) an engaging young man, Daniel Pryor – a Politics, Philosophy & Economics student – approached me, said he’d enjoyed the debate, and asked me if I’d pen a 1,000 word article for the online publication of which he’s the Deputy Editor, ‘The Backbencher’. This article was the result.

    Earlier today the publication emailed out a list of this week’s articles. This article was at the top of the list with the following ‘taster':

    “Men Are Financing The State’s Assaults…On Men

    Men pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK – women only 28%. British men collectively paid £64 BILLION more income tax than women in 2012/13, yet the state relentlessly assaults the interests of men: never the interests of women.

    Read the remarkable claims here.”

    I was struck by the phrase ‘remarkable claims’ haha!

    • Fredrik

      I think it’s one of your best articles. It made me ponder the question of why the government (doing similar here in the U.S.) is making such poor investments in people who lack drive for a particular profession, and are less suited for it than someone who has the right passion but the wrong plumbing. Who votes for such waste, and why? The article implicitly answers the question, since the demographic that is paying less taxes is naturally going to be less concerned with the return on investment of someone else’s money.

      • JJ

        The reason why governments on either side, of either pond, are backing these idiots is because they can drive the female vote to the voters polls.

        When they lose that power, they will lose their influence, and governments will look for their next sugar mommy. Be it one with a vagina, shortstick, or both for that matter. The government only says it liked traditional values in the past because that was what sold.

        Now, the latest bogus progressive slant is what sells. Eventually, the modern progressives, will be tomorrow’s stupid conservatives. Like our current batch of conservative “genius,” they were the ones smoking the dope and ganja express in the sixties to seem cool. Now they are trying to share their collective “experience” with us all.

        Personally, I wish they would all just take their nonsense and pound sand. Of course, all I see are bigger idiots to replace the current batch we got. And I don’t see a demographic of voters who are not willing dupes to something.

        A dynamic, monolithic block of intellectually sustained voters from all walks of life, that read, write, and don’t give a fuck about stupid are what we need to maintain any democracies. Imagine, a large percentage of voters with this type of mentality consisting of our media apparatus, and I fail to see any politician doing an interview. We don’t have that, instead, we have a monolithic block of idiots who either favor a government that gets them killed quickly through war, or the other who spread their legs to collect welfare.

        Speaking of which, am I the only one who has seen the movie Idiocracy?

    • gateman

      Brilliant article. Do you have the welfare take of men vs women?

  • Duke

    Maybe thats what modern MRA’s are mike both in the US and UK… We are the quantum leap forward!!!

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Anything short of full reimbursement to males of unreasonable tax overcharge (and under-servicing) would be unreasonable. The government, if it does not issue the cheques within short order, will be subject to investigation for mass human rights violations as well as coercive, violent (such as child kidnapping), crimes against humanity.

    I see no reason to go another year under the rule of people who are following the formula of incremental German National Socialist Party-style anti-human rights agendas.

    If the elected officials do not act, it is perhaps going to lead to intervention by International military forces (United Nations) in an effort to end the crimes. This ought to be avoided. It would be much better to get the indictments going within the national system, make the arrests and prosecute the trials of all the public servants involved in crimes against humanity. This is the moderate solution, but the crimes have been going on far too long, so it is necessary to act soon if one wants to effectuate the moderate approach.

    • Duke

      Our path is clearly “un-sustainable”, as we have reached the debt ceiling with China.
      America has to focus more on helping poor boys start a ship building industry, and spend less on funding for the start up of basket weaving industries.
      Its really that simple.

    • feeriker

      The government, if it does not issue the cheques within short order, 

      Cheques? From near-bankrupt governments dealing in fiat scrip? I’ll take my compensation in gold bullion, thank you.

  • toothless

    women are discriminated against in taxation.This misogynistic practice need to end now !
    women hold up half the sky!

  • Katsuni

    Most women simply aren’t interested in the same things men are. I don’t mean in terms of what they find interesting in a job, but rather, what they find valuable as a reward for that job.

    Men like money and prestige, as well as a rewarding job where they get to solve puzzles and feel that they’ve put in a good day’s work, typically. This isn’t going to fit for all men, obviously, but it’s pretty commonplace.

    Women generally focus upon things which prevent their social life from suffering, such as low hours, flexible shifts, shifts which are social, working with people, directly seeing the people they help with their work and so on. Money and puzzle solving are near the bottom of the list for most women.

    I considered going into high energy particle physics when I was considering my options. There were a few things that kept me away from it… namely that I’d be stuck dealing with bureaucracy for funding constantly, there’s no “physicist” job title… you have to be a professor and teach it rather than focus on the stuff you studied, maybe 100 people on the planet would even understand what I was working on, and any awesome breakthroughs I made would be meaningless to 99% of the world’s population, so no one would even care. The shifts are ridiculously long, and it consumes your life without giving you much you can discuss with friends or family since it goes over their heads.

    In short… it wasn’t worth it to me. I could have worked on it, but there were so many downsides it wasn’t really appealing. I personally liked the puzzles concept, with the whole unraveling the secrets of the universe and such, but as a career path, it just simply fails to provide some of the major things I value. I share a bit of a commonality with both the “traditionally male” and the “traditionally female” due to my upbringing, but the STEMM fields just honestly don’t appeal to me enough compared to other options which appeal to a larger range of my values.

    In the end, if you have to bribe someone to do the job, and constantly pressure them to do it, then they honestly don’t want to do that job and you shouldn’t be trying to force the matter on them.

    I thought the whole point about feminism was supposedly “women’s choice”? If that’s true, then why does feminism get so pissed off when women don’t choose “correctly”? Furthermore, if feminism is so insistent that women should be in the STEMM fields, then why are almost all of the feminists taking gender studies courses instead? Hrm…

    EDIT: Forgot to mention =P

    When it comes to the whole taxation thing, it mostly follows who does the most work. If we assumed that women are being paid 77 cents on the dollar to men, then this would imply women pay 77 cents on the dollar to men per hour of work. This would imply women should be paying 38.5% of taxes, and men 61.5%.

    Therein lies the problem… men simply flat out work more hours, even despite the fact that there are now more women in the workplace then men. This very simply illustrates that men work more than women, and therefore do harder work, for longer weekly hours, and therefore get paid more proportionately.

    This isn’t the full argument, but even with the limited subset of data we have, of taxes and the supposed wage gap, that the wage gap’s existence is explained without needing to resort to anything further. It’s a very simple concept: you work harder for longer hours, you get paid more per hour, go figure, it’s called overtime and hazard pay.

    It’s obviously a much more complex scenario than that, but at even a cursory glance, it explains itself with very little effort.

    • Mike Buchanan

      Katsuni, thanks. In the UK as in many countries women have flooded into some STEMM subjects – notably medicine, which ticks many women’s ‘boxes’ job-wise – but not others e.g. engineering. So pressing has the ‘need’ to get more women to study engineering at postgraduate level become, Brunel University now offers additional grants of £15,000 p.a. – well above the gross annual minimum wage of a person working f/t – to female postgraduate engineering students SOLELY ON THE GROUNDS OF GENDER:

      • Bombay

        In actuality they are making the salaries in STEM even higher. There will be less people in the field with less men entering and more trained people leaving (women). This policy will widen the supposed pay gap.

      • lula69

        These policies have led to chemistry departments closing. First they lured a wave of female students then those left because the female mind gets easily bored by hard science. Then the chemistry departments found themselves with high attrition rates and low graduation rates leading to their demise. Genderist social engineering is foolish.

        • Mike Buchanan

          Good point. I graduated with a chemistry degree 35 years ago and I know (from official statistics) that few women working in STEMM subjects return to STEMM careers after having children. What better indicator could we ask for to show women are happy to leave STEMM careers behind them? And in the meantime men are deprived of places on STEMM courses, and STEMM careers. Four in seven unemployed British people are men, and a leading cause of unemployment among young men is unemployment. You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to join up the dots here, do you? The state’s policy direction – driving women into historically male-typical fields of work – is killing men in large numbers.

          • Bombay

            ” and a leading cause of unemployment among young men is unemployment.”

            I am sure you mean a leading cause of suicide among young men is unemployment.

          • Mike Buchanan

            Bombay, thank you for the correction. Yes. A thousand times, YES. Driving more women into STEMM careers they don’t want to be driven into SURELY leads to more men being deprived of STEMM careers committing suicide. How could it be otherwise? Who wins from this insane ‘direction of travel’? Not men, not women, not children. Other those these categories of human beings, it all makes perfect sense.

          • Katsuni

            “that few women working in STEMM subjects return to STEMM careers after having children.”

            Another minor issue with this logic; the skills required for a position in most STEMM fields are typically short lived. If you go 2 to 5 years without working or studying in that field, you may as well not have a degree and have to go back to school from scratch.

            To be blunt, it’s neither practical, nor particularly desirable to return to a STEMM career after having taken several years off for raising a child up to school age. By the time a child is old enough to go to kindergarten, it’s already largely too late to reenter the workplace unless you’ve been keeping up on your skills and knowledge the whole time. Women are virtually never told this important information, and even you, yourself, seem to have overlooked it when talking about this very topic, so is it any surprise to see people who leave a career path in the STEMM fields finding themselves unable to return to such?

            To complicate the matter further, anyone who works with hiring new applicants is aware that, if there’s a gap in your resume, especially a several month, or several year gap, it stands out like a sore thumb, making it seem something was wrong and you were undesirable to be hired. Most don’t even look at a resume once a gap such as that exists, and it’s thrown out on the spot. To make matters worse, if you do make it to the interview process, they’ll be sure to ask about such a large gap, and if your answer is you had children, then you’ve just admitted that you’re willing to drop your career at the drop of a hat, so would anyone want to hire someone who may randomly leave a few months later and draw more in maternity leave than they provided to their employer?

            Be careful not to let this devolve into a “women just suck” argument, ignoring all other factors which would apply equally to men in the same situation.

          • feeriker

            . Four in seven unemployed British people are men

            And of the remainder (i.e., the women) has anyone ever asked the question: how many of these are wives or in a “domestic relationship” with a man, upon whom they can depend for support (meaning that working for a living is essentially optional)?

          • Mike Buchanan

            Feeriker, a good question. We know that the government’s policy direction of driving more mothers into paid employment (leaving strangers to bring up their children – the Soviet utopia is here) drives up the male unemployment rate, as Belinda Brown pointed out last year:


          • Jotty

            One major disagreement with Katsuni:

            A university education is not job training. If you treat it as such, you’ve already failed — and, sadly, most of the west treats it that way.

            A university education, ideally, should teach you to be a competent, well-rounded individual that can pick up any skill necessary for a job. You’ll have an area of focus that you’ll be extra-competent in, but that doesn’t mean that you couldn’t pick up unrelated skills for a job completely unrelated to your degree. Obviously, if you’re out of work for a few years, you’re not going to be up on state-of-the-art, so it wouldn’t be very good to try to go straight back into research after a long employment gap, but for just about any other job you should be ok.

        • Katsuni

          I would suggest it’s a little more complex than just “the female mind gets easily bored by hard science”. There are a lot of factors that would come into play, here, and while, on average, women are less interested in hard science, they must’ve had at least some slight interest to bother with it in the first place.

          So what went wrong?

          Well, first off, no responsibility; if you had to pay for your classes by yourself, or if you had to earn your grants and bursaries by performance rather than just being handed it for being female, then you’d have reason to stick it out and work hard. Considering it’s all handed as a freebie, there’s no real responsibility to stay when the going gets tough and the classes become difficult.

          Second, a wide open safety net; if you fear falling, you’ll do your damnedest to avoid it. So long as there’s a wide open safety net which ensures you can’t fall, there’s no real fear of just giving up.

          Third, once these women got into the classes, THAT’S when they were probably hit with the realization of what these careers actually entail: long hours of tedious boredom, largely being isolated, and generally a bunch of things that aren’t really valued by most women in general.

          In this case, you now have people who not only have the means to leave and the lack of social or economic incentive to stay, but they now also have a desire to leave.

          The problem with each of these “incentives for minorities”, be they minorities of gender, of religion, of race, or whatever, is that each of them encourages people to get INTO these fields or positions… but there’s absolutely nothing provided to KEEP them in those fields and positions for any length of time.

          Sure, you increased the number of women applying for chemistry classes tenfold, but you then had a near 100% dropout rate. Huh. Well, no big deal, celebrate anyway because the goal was simply to get them to apply to learn, not to have them actually learn once there, nor to get productive jobs.

          The basic concept is flawed from the start, where, instead of wanting skilled workers who can perform their jobs, they just want X group to apply to Y position, regardless of the value they can bring to that field.

          Regardless, my point is simply that it’s not likely to be as simple as women finding hard science boring; it’s vastly more likely that there are many different factors being applied from all sides which provide no reason to stay, and multiple reasons to leave, while also providing the tools to do so without social or economic drawbacks in so doing.

          If this same perfect storm of provisions were provided to men, I believe you’d see a similar dropout rate.

          Be careful about making assumptions, especially about topics that are touchy and you haven’t thought through very carefully. The last thing we need is for someone to just say “all women are too stupid to deal with hard science” and have the feminists jump all over it, especially when there are perfectly valid other explanations available.

          • tango


      • Gary Trieste

        I do not believe Medicine as a field of interest and occupation should be included in the STEM categories.
        All the other fields are actual sciences and technologies, with fundamental aspects of nature to them.
        Medicine is a more of an applied art than a science, closer to anthropology than anything like physics or engineering. As the song goes, one of these things is not like the other.
        And it is apparent by it being the choice of women as a vocation.
        So, even including it in the STEM acronym is actually a product of feminist thinking IMHO.
        It is not a science, technology or engineering.

  • lula69

    This is a perfect backdrop for why I believe men should demand that the vote be weighed by income tax actually paid.

    It has been shown clearly that women suffrage has immediately increased the state’s budget with the tax payer money of the men. Men paid, men died in war, but women got to decide.

    I know, at AVfM you’re all about “equality under the law” — but in reality, that still doesn’t mean equal responsibility. If you fail to look at this core question: women suffrage, you miss a critical point.

    It is extremely uncomfortable to bring this up, but our friend E. Belford Bax had warned us. So are we going to take this seriously or keep our head in the sand?

    Men need to rise up, and demand some pretty tough changes around here. No way we’re going to get female suffrage revoked, of course, and it would not be just, because it would be sexist. But we must act to get voting rights changed so that the vote is tied to material responsibility. The best and most objective measure for this is income tax actually paid (and be aware of the way that could be tricked by taxable subsidies paid by the state!)

    This is a new idea, I have not read this from anyone but me and one Russian journalist I can’t even read. So I take some pride and stick my head out (I’m not only writing under pseudonym any more.) I ask you to start thinking about this and get men ready to understand this important concept. We won’t be able to move into this direction by normal political process, but when the crisis hits and the state as it is not declares bankruptcy then we need this idea in the heads of a majority of men, so that as an assembly of citizens draws up new constitution, this idea is well floated. I am not an Utopian, think of Iceland, think of Tunisia — new constitutions happen, and citizens are involved. Get this idea out there.


    • Fredrik

      Unfortunately, at the same time, the 1% are already grossly distorting our laws in their own favor. The last thing we need is to give them any more power. You refer to Ernest Belfort Bax, but he was an iconic brocialist, and hardly one to support such a bourgeois notion.

      • lula69

        What 1%? The 1% richest are not paying the most income tax! The majority of the tax burden is carried by the middle class. Here, take this in and digest it:

        “Middle-class Americans–not the rich or the poor–pay the majority of annual tax revenues taken in by the federal government, according to data released in a new Congressional Budget Office study. Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a negative average federal income tax rate.

        Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.

        Households in the top 1 percent for annual income (those earning more than $352,900) paid a healthy 28.1 percent of all federal taxes, but households in the lower income brackets paid relatively little. Those earning less than $34,300 paid only 5.2 percent of all federal taxes, and those earning less than $20,500 carried almost none of the federal tax burden (just 0.8 percent of the total) in 2007.” []

        You see, all you left-leaning MRAs need to realize that you are making a pact with the devil by not taking your red pill about class warfare ideology as well, You will always lose. Bax was a lone voice among the socialists. They laughed him out and August Bebel (in Germany) won with his sentimental women shmooz. And since then, these same leftists oppress you, the man, with their policies, and make you pay for it. Every dollar you funnel into the welfare system defrauds yourself and your brother from a woman’s loyalty.

        My proposal is sound, as the above cited numbers show. People earning $34,300 to $352,900 paid 66.7% of income tax. Let them have 66% of the votes. And the evil corporatists of whom you think are not making $352.900 a year. The 1% richests are in fact not the most industrious and productive ones. But now it is them who have the power. How? By using their free money to manipulate the irresponsible voters. Today’s system is run on the backs of the most productive people, which is men.

        You can not escape this fact and not challenge your left-leaning political standpoint. I recommend to start by stopping using class-warfare bullshit of the 1%.

        • The Horseless Hun

          Indeed, the travails of economics along with socio-political dilemmas cannot be distilled down as to being the sole fault of a certain demographic, the most popular today being (beside men) that evil and malicious 1% whined about and expounded upon by the “hip” and in-group ignoramus, who actually makes for quite a succinct poster child for this current backward, “progressive” day and age. Such hysterics in fact bear a resemblance to those of a certain “ism” which I suspect many MRAs are familiar with. I for one find your proposal worthy of level-headed consideration.

          • Fredrik

            The best slave is a willing one. I hope you like your collar. As for me, my drapetomania is incurable, no matter who holds the lash.

          • lula69

            So Fredrik will vote for Hillary Clinton then? Speaking of the slave collar 😉

            I am amazed how hard it seems to be for a certain segment of red-pillers to understand and debunk victim theories.

            Actually when you consider that making less than $400,000 gross already puts you into the 1% group, is amazing. I know quite a few people who make that money, and they are far, far away from evil exploitative corporatists!

            The real cronies are more like the top 0.1% then, and this shows even more how much that class warfare rhetoric is bankrupting the men’s movement.

            Fredrik, I agree with you that we are all slaves of the Fed and the cream cronies who will always swim on top. But that isn’t even the 1%, yet, by alienating yourself from the 66% in the middle, blindly thinking they are those 0.1% you are really angry about, you are making a huge mistake.

          • Fredrik

            @lula69: “So Fredrik will vote for Hillary Clinton then? Speaking of the slave collar”

            No, I’m a left-libertarian (a.k.a. civil libertarian), as I thought I had made abundantly clear. I could never vote for such an appalling authoritarian. I will be doing my small part to get someone like Elizabeth Warren on the ticket instead, but it’s really swimming against the tide, since Hillary Clinton is also a confirmed corporatist, bathed in banker money

        • Jotty

          My proposal is sound, as the above cited numbers show. People earning $34,300 to $352,900 paid 66.7% of income tax. Let them have 66% of the votes. And the evil corporatists of whom you think are not making $352.900 a year.

          I must not be understanding you correctly, because this is idiotic.

          By this logic, the 1% that pay 28% of income taxes should get 28% of the vote? Is this seriously what you’re suggesting?

          Looking at who paid what in a vacuum is a useless statistic anyway: it’s far more important to look at who paid what relative to what they earned. If you earn 28% of the total income of the US, it makes perfect sense that you should pay 28% of the income tax. I’d have to dig up accurate statistics before making any definitive statements, but I do believe that the 1% actually earn far more than 28% of the income, and own far, far more than 28% of actual “wealth.”

  • Riku


    a feminist threw old debunked data, unreasonable conclusions and quite a lot of smelly bs at you.

    And: have a look at the avfm article here. The link to the backbencher leads to yahoo…

    • Mike Buchanan

      Riku, thanks, I might have missed that otherwise. Apparently women are paid 17.3% less than men for the same jobs haha! Sent in a comment but at times you lose the will to live, responding to those brainwashed idiots!

      • Riku

        You’re welcome :)
        Please change the link at the beginning of this article though, the hyperlink leads to instead of

  • crydiego

    Feminism has reached it’s wall of reality. It has gone as far as it can with junk science and illogical reasoning. When a ideaology, based on lies, tries to excede beyond reality it hits a wall built of bricks of logic.
    Said another way: “Overpopulation occurs when a population of a species exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche.”
    In short, feminism is done! It only suvives now because of government hand outs. You only have to look at their reduced political contributions, lower membership numbers, internal divisions, and weakened collage partisapation; the virus of truth is spreading throughout.
    Meanwhile the MHRM is growing. The time is coming soon when we will not have beg for help by spay painting a picture. We can now start demanding the rights we are guaranteed by our laws.
    If we grow, we win!

  • East1956

    While I can agree with much in the article, based on 24 years involved in UK public sector I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that positive action has caused the gender imbalance. The primary cause of the gender imbalance in the public sector is the low pay (& often low skill requirement) of many roles. The public sector is also the most “family friendly” employer and so attracts large numbers of women with care responsibilities.
    However, in middle & senior management I have witnessed discrimination against male applicants for posts in teams where “feminist” management dominates, and the use of female networks to bully & isolate male employees. Despite much of feminist claims, female managers are largely the same as the former mid-20th C patriarchal management, just as insular and just as liable to be corrupt.
    In certain care provider services there is evidence that males are excluded on the spurious assertion that men may pose a threat to children and vulnerable female adults. Despite being challenged this resurfaces from time to time.
    The other often overlooked cause of the gender imbalance is that many of the predominantly male services were outsourced in the 1980’s & 1990’s.

    • Mike Buchanan

      East 1956, thank you. I agree that low pay may deter many men from the lower-level public sector jobs, but we have to ask why men are thus deterred. The #1 reason – in my view – is that earning a good income is key to attracting and retaining more attractive female partners. So men are simply reacting to a female-constructed paradigm. If women didn’t have a marked preference for men on good incomes, I’m sure many more men would be carers, primary school teachers, and the like.

      I get emails from people (mostly men) telling me women use the provisions of the Equality Act (2010) to recruit and promote women where they’re ‘under-represented’. Their efforts are of course focused on well-paid jobs in pleasant surroundings. I’ve never heard of women seeking to have more women work in minimum-wage jobs in sewage, garbage collection, rodent control…

      • East1956

        Mike, I think it’s a mixed bag.
        Certainly if the public sector promoted itself more effectively to men then I think more men would want to work in it. (The “Man Enough To Be A Nurse” ad campaign demonstrated that amply ). The absence of men in UK public sector recruitment material is blatant, and I think basically says “Men Not Wanted Here!”

        It has been my observation that as women have become middle & snr mgrs there has been a trend away from managerial technical competence and hard management / leadership skills towards a “softer” more nebulous approach that has seriously diminished the quality of work undertaken.

        You are right in stating that women do express preference for men with higher earning capacity to fund their life choices. Public sector employment tends not to afford the elasticity to increase income through overtime that craft trades and the private sector might, and so men often leave for more lucrative private sector work. I found it interesting about 10 years ago when a Home Office report came out stating that women who had deferred marriage and parenthood were now finding it difficult to find men that these career women were looking for men who earned substantially more than themselves. Even more interesting was Bea Campbell’s comment that it is men’s duty to marry these women – amazing!

        The manual “public sector” roles you cite are nearly all privatised or outsourced in UK. Rodent control may be the exception.

        • Mike Buchanan

          East 1956, thank you. I’ve had a lot of emails from men telling me their experiences of working in public sector roles. An example. Although more abuse of children (physical, sexual, even murder) is carried out by women than men, primary school teachers today are almost all women. Men who show an interest in working in the sector are assumed to be paedophiles, not allowed to be alone in a room with children etc. Is it any wonder men won’t work in such professions? One in four boys in the UK today grows up without contact with a father – often at the behest of a malicious mother – then goes to a primary school with few or no male teachers… how can this NOT damage them? In parts of the UK 75% of children are being brought up by single mothers – financed largely by the men who pay 72% of income tax. The state has encouraged women to replace men as partners with men as taxpayers, and of course women have jumped at the offer of money without the need to have a relationship with the source of the money. It’s highway robbery.

  • Mateusz Wacek

    The irony of this is that, if we are going to get equal outcome from the investment (i.e. if we are going to see female doctors put their training to as much good as male doctors), we need to put the same social pressures on women than we do with men. Women would have to be told that their own comfort doesn’t matter, and they need to “woman up” by taking long, stressful shifts. They need to be pressured to earn enough money to support other people, which means also retiring later in life, in addition to working more hours in less pleasant conditions. They will have to be goaded into maintaining full time work, and ridiculed as “dead beats” or “lazy” if they only do part time. All of this, of course, would be called misogyny by feminists.

    • Katsuni

      While it’s true that it would be called misogyny, it doesn’t mean that it is.

      Equality means equal, and honestly, the lack of equality in this nature is problematic for women. As human beings, we need to be pressured to be great, as if you had the ability to slack off, then most people will. It’s been shown time and again in history where someone rises to the top, then gets lazy and everything goes to hell.

      In the current situation, we’re telling women, as a society, that women have no need to put any effort into their lives. You don’t need good grades to get into college; just apply for something with freebie points for women. You don’t need to work hard and pay your own money for that college education, because the government will foot almost the entire bill for you. You don’t need to get good grades in your education because you’ll be handed a job for free just because of being a woman via subsidization. You don’t have to work hard at your job because you can’t be fired since that would be sexism. You don’t even need to learn anything or be competent at your job, because affirmative action ensures you have a better chance of getting a promotion than the guy next to you who’s working twice as hard as you are. If you even so much as consider just ditching your job… no problem, marriage means a guy will pay for you without you ever really having to lift a finger. You don’t need to do housework; that’s sexist, he should work a job AND do the housework to show how nice of a guy he is. If you ever get bored of him, don’t worry about that, either, you can always divorce him, and need never worry about having to earn your way because alimony and child support keeps you safe.

      Without expectations, we have nothing to push us forward, and nothing to make us want to succeed. This isn’t an issue about women, it’s an issue with humanity in general. Most of us can’t be assed to bother setting goals for ourselves without a gun against our back, metaphorically speaking. The few who can provide a meaning for their own lives, are those who were pressured so heavily from an early age that they absolutely must be useful and provide value to the world, or excel in all they do. Is it really surprising, then, that we put this pressure heavily on males, telling guys they need to prove themselves worthy, and then the vast majority of people who are worthy are male? It’s not because women are incapable; it’s because they’ve always had someone telling them to relax, to sit back, be lazy, let someone else do it.

      Feminism hurts women too: women are being held back by never holding them to the requirement of meeting their potential, and never pushing them to be better than they currently are. It’s not that the world should change for women, it’s that women should be given the belief that “I can change my own fate”, and feminism is all about insisting that it’s always the fault of someone else instead.

      Responsibility makes you a better person, and expectations make you strive to meet those expectations. So long as we coddle women, they’ll never be as great as they could be.

      Men can be deadbeats, and it’s a social lashing which is intended to ostracize them, and it keeps them doing their best for the most part. Women who are deadbeats? They don’t get ostracized for being a deadbeat; if anything, you should pity a woman for being a useless human being. And as such… until we have true equality, women will never truly be on par with men as a demographic. That includes equality of responsibility, and equality of social shaming.

      Those who are taught to take responsibility for their own actions gain the power to change their fate. Those who are taught to lay the responsibility for their lives at the feet of others will simply not have the tools to better their position in life. It’s time we stop letting feminism harm women by stealing their capacity for greatness.

      • kelly64

        Magic, I’ve been thinking the same for years. In the early 90’s, I watched (some) female Engineering classmates fail tests, fail assignments, then pass the courses. My graduating class had as many female students coming out as went in. That just doesn’t happen in Engineering, the culling stars immediately.
        In the bright big world, they’ve been promoted through the ranks like prodigal daughters due to the expectations that all firms must have x number of women at the top…. just because.
        For a long while it bothered me, but then I realized that overall, this process is self defeating. The Engineering fields these women are being promoted through are full of smart people who consider most female Engineers as “sub-prime”. I’m sure many other STEMM fields are the same. The really good female Engineers I’ve spoken with are keenly aware of this and rightfully feel feminism is counter productive.
        Thanks again. I wish I had the power to grant wise people like you the loudest of voices.

  • OldGeezer

    “Gender equality narratives are smokescreens for feminists’ quests for female supremacy, driven by their misandry (the hatred of men).”

    That pretty much sums up the entire scenario. And yet many (most?) discussions of feminism continue to cite equality as having something to do both with the feminist mission and with appropriate responses from its opposition. Of course, feminists will accept all such concessions where they tend in the direction of their own aims, but without acknowledgement, and certainly without any curtailment in the pursuit of their true hate-filled objectives.

    It’s outright war, not a negotiation, and men who expect to resolve the issues through some kind of “fair-minded reciprocity” are sadly delusional. Unfortunately, the misguided self-sacrificing tendencies of male “gallantry” and “chivalry” live on, long past their “use by” date … greatly encouraged, it must be said, by powerful beneficiaries other than feminists alone.

  • John Narayan

    If men keep using the banking system and government currency we have only ourselves to blame.

    • Fredrik

      I’ve been looking into digital currencies. I was thinking of trying out bitcoin and litecoin. What would you recommend?

      • John Narayan

        Probably a combination of those plus cash and bata.

        • Fredrik

          Sorry, bata?

  • externalangst

    It may be worse for men paying for their own degradation; since 72% of taxes are paid by men and 66% of government jobs are held by women. Government jobs don’t contribute to revenues received by government. Only non-government jobs contribute to government coffers. Governments then promote gynocentric misandry.

    Also, the misandric culture and the lack of non-gender feminist educated mental health professionals may contribute to the high rates of male suicide. This is scandalous.

    Thanks for this Mike – you do get around!

    • nawotsme

      “the misandric culture and the lack of non gender feminist educated mental health professionals may contribute to the high rates of male suicide”

      In Australia the legal space that has been created where people’s human rights can be abused is simply ignored by the public. The ‘ghosts of the civil dead’ that exist in this space are excellent examples of what happens when feminists have force and coercion as tools to impose their ideology onto others. To look at the situation would expose the human rights abuses occurring under the noses of the public, so it is not done.

      The three deaths that occurred in one year because of medical negligence in our hospitals causes public outrage. The 252 deaths by suicide associated with our mental health hospitals in one year caused very little concern in the public. The differences in the way men and women are ‘treated’ would reveal a great deal about the differences in the number of male and female suicides, but will not be examined.

      Scandalous? I would go further and call it obscene. A situation where men’s lives could be saved, but is ignored because of the uncomfortable truths that would be revealed. A light needs to be shone on this dark corner of our society because there are developments in this area that have the potential to do serious damage to a large number of men and boys. The mental health industry has a cure for masculinity and are expanding the number of people who they can treat for this disease by stealth, and coercion.

      This should concern us all.

  • lula69

    We need to get more men into the movement on these issues. It is an outrage and we should all be marching on our capitals and going into general strike. Seriously, no more discussing with feminists about this.

    I was trying to find out how much men and women pay in taxes in the US, and could not find the answer. But I could find article after article of female whining how they are so disadvantaged and gender biased and then in the FT an article “Why women should pay less taxes” and going in paragraph 2 straight to the solution how to raise taxes on men and lower it on women.

    These women will never stop with their madness unless we all go on strike and starve them out.

    This article is right on and has SO many implications, I talked about voting rights above. But the most serious implication is that none of this will be achievable by simply discussing and lobbying. It can only be achieved by action. We must become better in binding multiple segments of men into the movement to step out with a much more powerful voice.

    • Tiernan

      I got a bug up my rear about the lack of published figures. So, got waaaay too far into finding out.

      Short answer: men pay about 69% of the FIT in the US.

      Longer answer:

      It does take some digging to calculate the percentage of FIT paid by men in the US. I could not find any recent published figures through through Google. Updates in same-sex law changes predominated that search. Gotta go back to 2009.

      Anyhow, the percentage of Federal Income Tax paid by men is approximately the same as in the UK. I came up with 69%, but this is a very rough estimate. The pseudo-AGIs from the IRS don’t match cleanly with the ntu AGI tiers.

      Last publicly available figures through Google I could find for income source by gender is from 2009:

      These are really pseudo-AGIs, since “data for pensions, annuities, and social security benefits are not included and other income items such as interest, dividends, capital gains, rents and royalties have been excluded since they cannot be accurately separated on jointly held accounts.” Capital gains, rents and royalties are on separate tax schedules (not income tax), so I just used the 80% AGI figures to calculate percentages. That is, columns (4),(6),(8), and (10) add up to about 6 trillion, or 79.x% of the 7.6 trillion figure in column (2)

      Use the chart here to calculate the % of FIT paid by AGI tier:

      As one climbs the financial tiers, the percentages skew increasing male (for reasons most of you are already aware).
      The top 1% (from 343,000+) roughly has a pseudo-AGI of 677 billion for men and 141 billion for women. This tier pays 36.73 of the FIT.

      The bottom 50% have pseudo-AGIs of about 457 billion for each gender, that tier paying 2.25% of the FIT.

      I came up with 69.87047957 in my spreadsheet.

      It is a rough estimate since the pseudo-AGIs from the pdf file don’t cleanly match the AGIs from the chart. So, apples and partially-eaten apples are being compared. Also, a caveat, per (

      2009 was an anomaly.
      The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes.
      In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax.

      Overall taxation does mitigate the 69% figure, so out of 2.1 trillion federal revenue, 915 billion was paid in FIT. Approximately 630 billion of that paid by men vs 280 billion for women. (pro-rating the AGI threshold across the pseudo-AGI tiers in the IRS pdf file):

      Medicare taxes (one of the payroll taxes) does skew male since it is 1.45% of the aggregate. And the comparative AGIs between men and women are 3.4 tril vs about 2 trilion. SSI barely skews male, since it is 6.2% of earnings capped at 100,000 or so.

      Given that men pay at least twice as much income tax, is it a mere coincidence that the government may have stopped publishing stats by gender? That could be sexist! (ah, tongue-in-cheek humor plays poorly in text).


      • Mike Buchanan

        Tiernan, thanks for that, very interesting. I doubt there’s a country in the developed world where men collectively don’t pay at least double the income tax that women do, and in many states triple. I’ve tried to get the UK group The Taxpayers’ Alliance (its top people are men) interested in the matter, given how the state assaults men, and they won’t even return emails. I met one of the TPA’s top people outside a BBC studio last year, told him about how men pay 72% of taxes in the UK yet the state assaults men on many fronts and women on none. His response left me speechless:

        ‘My partner’s a woman, so I guess she’s benefitting directly and I’m benefitting indirectly. Cool!’

        • kelly64

          What’s really frustrating to me is that we all find this, and a dozen other injustices tied to the feminist movement and collectively we have no method to channel our efforts. I can spend all day reading about this or that is unfair, feminism of men, unfair child custody, poor us….. Is anything being done? I’m just a Joe, 1 very small voice. How do I get plugged into an activist / lobby group? There are 3 1/2 billion of us and we don’t seem to have anyone who’s going to gather the lawyers, celebrities, rock stars etc to swing the media to swing the public to swing the politicians.

          If we’re (men) paying all the taxes, we must have all the money! Where do we send it to get some change? We’re not a bunch of man hating women who have endless hours to spend trying to get more entitlements, but what we lack in time, we make up for in resources. It sucks, but money does rule.

          So Mike, we need change to happen in the UK, the US and Canada. We need to fund well educated, knowledgeable people who can dedicate all their time to direct a global swing toward equality. Where do we send the cheques?

          • Mike Buchanan

            Kelly64, thank you. To my utter surprise I continue to lead the only men’s rights political party in the world For the past year I’ve tried to encourage people in the US and Canada to launch a political party, so far without success. One reason I’ve been pushing is we found that when you launch a political party, money starts rolling in. It’s the only reason I’ll be able to attend and speak at the AVfM Detroit conference in June.

        • tamerlame

          Tax payers alliance are small minded hypocrites.

  • captive
  • MGTOW-man

    ANOTHER fantastic find by Mike. Keep up the good work on exposing them and for your amplifying the truth that needs to be told. Glad to see it was intended for young college students too. We are nudging our way in…more and more every day.

    I have a question though. Is it correct of me to think that another reason most females do not seek engineering degrees or careers at an equal rate as males do, is because sex-specifically speaking, females aren’t geared toward spatial mental skills to the same extent as males are? Wasn’t it for this reason that feminists (oblivious of nature and reality, of course) sought and won for the SAT scores of American students to no longer reflect spatial-skills-related questions? (Lowering the bar so females—and us males (wink, wink)— can forget that women couldn’t score as high on spatial tasks—which btw, using spatial skills IS engineering).

    Engineering generally involves a lot of spatial skills and application levels such as analysis AND synthesis, mathematics, perhaps physics and chemistry—depending on what is being engineered, of course.

    Is it possible that the evolutionary-molded and directed roles of sex-opposite humans wasn’t intended to be identical? Much overlap for sure. But isn’t it a safe bet that the best group of engineers will be almost always only males, with a woman here or there?

    Not trying to be sexist. Just letting science define what truth is. Subjectivity has to be out, here. Science is revealing more and more truth…that feminists do not want told…for science is not feelings-truth, it is actual-truth that in fact, has NOTHING to do with how we FEEL about any way.

    That is the beauty of it. Totally blind to subjectivity. How could things be more fair? If we allow subjectivity, then whose?

    Food for thought? Perhaps.

    • Mike Buchanan

      Thanks for this, but it wasn’t a ‘find’, it was my own article.

      Of course I too believe there are some gender-typical brain issues when it comes to women being disinclined to go into engineering, but they’re far from the whole story. Let’s compare engineering with medicine, which women have flooded into for 30+ years. 70% of medical students in the UK today are women, and many parts of the NHS are in crisis. The average female doctor puts in half the working hours in her working life compared with the average male doctor. The inevitable capacity crash has been ‘solved’ at great cost to taxpayers (72% of income taxes paid by men, so no problems there) by employing thousands of foreign doctors, often trained in poor countries which can barely afford their absence. I’m probably repeating myself here, apologies for that.

      We should ask why women are so keen on going into medicine but not engineering? The following list occurs to me:

      1. A preference for working in comfortable surroundings (a current government initiative tells girls that most engineering work is office-based, not site-based).

      2. A preference for working within easy reach of home.

      3. A liking for job security (NHS doctor = public sector, engineer = privates sector). Doctors are almost never fired for incompetence, killing patients, that kind of thing.

      4. Medicine is better paid (the average general practitioner in the UK today earns £104,000 = £156,000 p.a.)

      5. A preference for flexible hours (a high proportion of female NHS doctors work part-time, even those who don’t have children)

      6. More ‘people contact’, appreciation from patients…

      7. More automatic respect, whether deserved or not.

      I’m sure there are others!

      • Fredrik

        Why does the U.K. lump medicine in with the STEM fields, which are completely different? I know for a fact that we don’t do that here, because there’s no second “M”. In the U.S., I think that medicine is lumped in with law, management, and post-secondary education as The Professions.

        ETA: Banking might also be one of The Professions. It isn’t well-defined.

      • MGTOW-man

        My apologies, Mike, for misinterpreting the origin of this great piece. My bad. There was some ambiguity, I thought, but the author WAS stated to be you. Thanks for overlooking my fault.

        Not going to go all out trying to prove it, but I believe there is enough literature that supports the less affinity and success most women will have towards STEM specifically due to a discrepancy over spatial abilities…and in some cases, even when the women were given preferential training on top of hiring quotas The very fact that they have targeted STEM subjects, in like fashion as they have disassembled every other natural truth thing they hate and actually WANT to disagree with), amidst their own obliviousness, is at least some additional inference (perhaps unintended) that there really is some natural phenomenon/differential between men and women.

        You know, if women really were better at STEM/spatial skills naturally, as a species, we would be stupid to ignore them. But they are not.
        For this same reason, women’s infiltration into other domains has facilitated the poorer performances in those areas.

        Feminists/women do not care what the fallout is . They only think of themselves now. They want their way—no matter— and just because and even though we are natural biological species with sensible “rules” doesn’t mean that we can’t change it all to revolve around them anyway.

        And we “hate women” because our commonsense, research, love of stability, etc, won’t allow us to toss out the old and bring in the new. We “hate women” because we know the truth, the scientific truth that indeed THEY hate and will destroy—if we let them. Most men are not only letting them, they are helping them! Talk about undermining their own sex! Geeesh!

  • septeus7

    Hello Mr. Buchanan and “A Voice for Men” forum. I’ve recently have become for interested in gender politics and because of various circumstances in my life which have made me notice the lack social support for men in general in modern society. I’ve come to share many of the concerns that MRAs have and I also believe strongly in the development of male birth control and need to for men to have power in the area of having and caring for their children.

    However, I disagree with many of the economic claims made MRAs not because the facts of economic exploitation are wrong but because I am seeing a misdirection of blame onto women and welfare/New Deal state rather the global capitalist devaluation of labor power (mostly male) in society which is the cause the problem. Men are valued for their primarily for their labor and when labor is devalued then it can only follow that a nation’s men will loss the respect and support they deserve as being the providers and builders of society.

    You can call this a left wing viewpoint but I generally think that one the problems we have is deciding a view point is right/left and simply responding to generic expression of political stereotypes rather than dealing with the real problem.

    My major problem with Mr. Buchanan is that it based upon what I call the “Big Lie” in economics.

    In misframing the issue in terms of men pay more taxes so that women receive the benefit via the “redistributive” role of the British State and ignoring the facts of Monetary Sovereignty you understate your point. If you understand Monetary Sovereignty then you understating the level of contempt the state has for it male citizens and male labor.

    Income taxes do not ever fund the Monetary Sovereign State or its spending. All the money taken from men is not needed to allow for spending on women. A monetary sovereign sends first and then it taxes. What I am saying is not an opinion but an accounting fact. Money must be spent into circulation before it can be taxed i.e. removed from private sector holdings.

    The British State has no need to deprive men of their currency holdings in order to have sending on women as the British state issues the currency as an essentially an IOU tax credit from against the future taxes the state levies. For more information on the technical details on stock and flow consistent monetary accounting in the soft currency system used in today’s capitalist economy please reference this article.

    The reality of the situation is better well stated in this essay by economist Roger Malcolm Mitchell.

    My view on from a MRA point of view is the state uses taxation to destroy the wealth of men not because it wants to give those assets to women but because it does not want to recognize or allow men to spend their money on the fruits of their own labor because the state and oligarchy fear what men will do with such freedom if they take the economic red pill and come to understand that men don’t give up monetary resources to support women via the state but rather they can simply go their own way and consume up to the full capacity of the economy to produce.

    What the TPTB really fear is letting men produce, spend, and consume what they want rather than what be conned into thinking they need to support a wife or girlfriend and their have sacrifice themselves because for the good of society because “needs of many.”

    The truth is men are asked to sacrifice not for the benefit of their women but for the benefit of having a tiny number of capitalist bankster bosses who take our production from them using women as a cover their corporation manipulations in order to maintain the gap.

    The problem isn’t that society takes care of women rather that it fears men.