On the Air Microphone

Mike Buchanan’s interview about positive discrimination, BBC Radio London

I was interviewed recently at some length (16 minutes) on BBC Radio London by veteran broadcaster Jeni Barnett on the topic of positive discrimination (“PD”). The interview is here. I would ask you to read the commentary beneath the audio file before listening to it, for a number of reasons. It has a little background: Kirsty Wark, a leading radical feminist BBC presenter, has been the beneficiary of PD on the grounds of gender, nationality, and age, and is a supporter of PD—hardly surprisingly. The commentary has the times at which various contributors speak, and ends with some insightful (and at times amusing) comments from a J4MB supporter, explaining how and why the overuse of the word “misogyny” by feminists has rendered the word meaningless.

A (male) speaker who writes for the Guardian predictably followed the feminist party line. I was asked the following question at 22:15:

Do you like women, Mike?

It wasn’t an unexpected question, so I was prepared for it and responded accordingly. In most of my BBC Radio interviews the presenters (of both sexes) have alleged or implied that I’m a misogynist. The men—white knights, invariably—are often worse than the women in this respect.

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
  • Dan Slezak

    “The men—white knights, invariably—are often worse than the women in this respect”
    This is the biggest problem we have! How could you throw your own gender under the bus? Every point that was made at that conference was valid! The biggest obstacle for the MHRM is not feminism. Its other men!

    • menrppl2

      our sons will hang there heads in shame when they speak of there fathers, not b/c we had little respect for women, but b/c, we had so little respect for ourselves

      • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

        I have been saying for years now; Change men,change the world. Men are our no. 1 hurdle. If they fail to get women to admire them they freak out b/c poor things…they won’t get to be real men. They place all of their capacity as men into women/ kids. They can’t speak for all males, really, but the pressure is on (for copycats) to fit in. Thus, feminism isn’t winning because it is right. Nope.

    • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

      I wish our movement would recognize the need for much more emphasis here. We will only be as strong as the number of average men who not only support us but who also galvanize with us.

  • Straight Talker

    I heard Mike on this show when it was broadcast, and I was on the radio later in the programme arguing vehemently against ‘positive’ discrimination. The positive should be taken out of the phrase. It’s just discrimination in favour of women and against men.

    • Seele

      Exactly, Straight Talker; discrimination is discrimination, and by adding the word “positive” you are claiming the respective victim and perpetrator status of each party: women are always discriminated against, so it’s time to turn the table. “Substantive Equality” a la LEAF, anyone?

    • alex brown3

      Why should a privileged caste get positive discrimination?

    • Straight Talker

      It’s really easy to get on Radio London for example, and I guess on other talk radio stations, if you have a good point. It’s an excellent way of spreading red pills to quite large audiences, I’ve been on that channel and other talk stations many times. I recommend it! One presenter on another channel, London Broadcasting Company, said he was considering doing a show on the men’s movement after I called in making red pill points. I don’t know if it happened yet, but it will.

      • Mike Brentnall

        The positive should be taken out of the phrase. It’s just discrimination in favour of women and against men.
        Straight Talker
        Can’t beat straight talk. At least feminists are honest about suppressing men in favour of women but not so honest about the underlying reasons why women do not occupy higher salaried work or authoritative positions.

        This is reminiscent of and similar to the 1980s in which the term “reverse discrimination” was bandied about by the 1980s styled Canadian Human Rights Commission. ‘Reverse discrimination’ was the feminist inspired faux moral high ground enacting the promotion of hiring females over males in the private but especially public sector work environments. It implied then as it does now that women were and are excluded from prestigious work environments merely because of sex and not capability, tenure or previous experience.

        discrimination is discrimination, and by adding the word “positive” you are claiming the respective victim and perpetrator status of each party: women are always discriminated against, so it’s time to turn the table.
        Ya, Seele. Like no man in history was ever denied a work opportunity because he wasn’t suitable or trained for it.

        The early and current feminist charge of positive/reverse discrimination can be likened to a time when people once feared that sailing in one direction would lead to a falling off the earth. Advancements in nautical travel let alone photos of our Earth from space travel have shown that, no, ships aren’t going to be cascading into oblivion anytime soon. Like the ancient flat earth beliefs so too will feminist belief and theory be cast aside by the open discussion of better science. This too is inevitable.

        Gotta give Mike Buchanan a load of credit for wading into the denizen of feminist beliefs and the people that parrot them. Good show Mike.
        Soon these people, either in Britain’s BBC, or the CBC in Canada, and governments in both will be out of a job. Faulty ideas, the consciousness manipulation resulting from and the outright lying to perpetuate them will only take one so far. The sooner these bums are gone the better off we’ll all be.

        • Matthew Lane

          “Can’t beat straight talk”

          Sure you can…. You say “Do you like women, Mike?”

          See it works because your name is also Mike. :)

          • Kimski

            A good comeback would have been:
            “If you’re looking for a date, I’m already in a relationship, sweetie. But I certainly appreciate your asking, thank you.”

            Well done, Mr.Buchanan.

          • Matthew Lane

            LOL, yes that would have been funny.

          • Mike Brentnall



            @ 22:30 Mike began handling that unrelated broadside quite well. That did not appear to be a straight question considering Mike had continually presented the results of other peoples’ prior study. His straight answers eventually flummoxed the host.

            However, perhaps it may have been rather unproductive at that point to retort with, “Do you know of or consider gender based activists as those who dislike or hate the opposite sex?”

          • Matthew Lane

            LOL, apparently my attempt at humour failed: I was trying to point out that “Do you like women, Mike” is still an appeal to motive, that the speaker thought could defuse straight talk.

          • Mike Brentnall

            Hey Matthew

            Ya, caught ’em both. More of the latter than the former perhaps. But gave them both a shot. Gotta work on being more stand-up (whilst sitting down).

            You raised a good point though. No matter how noble or sincere, and correct, one’s intent can be impugned out of context by a cornered adversary. How to handle this when it occurs is the break point.

            Listening to Dean Esmay deal with Bucky Turco in another thread was instructional.

            Bucky was just plain awful in conduct and assimilation of what Dean had to say. Bucky had no valid argument. But Dean kept (being the straight man by) repeating the chronology of every event Bucky mistakenly referred to. It appeared to me that eventually Bucky took delight in his ignorance and more delight in his attempt to rankle Dean. Dean excelled at every challenge. Bucky was out-matched. By a long-shot.

            Kudos to both Dean and Mike Buchanan.
            Cheers Matt

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    Smoked her like a cheap cigar Mike. Forced her in the end to resort to pure shaming because she had nothing else. Great job, brother.

    • Mike Buchanan

      Thanks Paul – shaming tactics are such a regular occurrence I knew I had to have something prepared for them.

      • Chris Wedge

        Being wrong, knowing it, and not wanting to stop.
        Really sums it up for them.

        • scanspeak

          Very defensive attitude from the host but what would you expect when a large proportion of these women are in their positions courtesy of gender quotas.

    • Graham Strouse

      I hate to disagree, but I think the tramp won on emotional points and superior elocution. Public discourse is driven primarily by emotional appeal and rhetorical execution, not reason, even if reason is on your side. Mike is smart and has command of the facts but he isn’t a very good public debater. the stammer doesn’t help–I’ve got one too, btw. It hurts me when I’m arguing, even against dipshits. This is an observation, not a condemnation. Some people are better with the written word & some people are better speakers. It’s important to get the best speakers into speaking roles, the best writers into writing roles and the best organizers into organizing roles.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

        She won on emotional points with emotional reasoners. Meh.

  • http://francisdroy.wordpress.com Francis Roy

    Just playing arm-chair critic: I wonder if Mike had used th term “4 times as many men are career oriented,” or was slighly more precise that we’re speaking of external-to-the-home work, or made the distinction that “work” means wage-earning, rather than the energy used to take care of basic living tasks, that he might have staved off the “but what of women’s work in the home” strawman. That having been said, I recognize that live interviews are much different than a written article where one has the advantage of taking the time to choose one’s words, so no negative criticism is implied. It’s just an observation that I can apply in my own future exchanges.

    • Mike Buchanan

      Thanks Francis. I confess the ‘housewife’ angle knocked me off track, annoyingly – especially since I’m quoting Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000) all the time. Like most of my BBC radio interviews this one was done over the phone, which I always find more difficult and stressful than when I’m in a studio. I have another BBC radio interview tomorrow morning, on women in politics. Working hard in advance to try to cover all the possible ‘angles’, but there’s usually at least one shot from an unexpected quarter!

      • http://francisdroy.wordpress.com Francis Roy

        Working hard in advance to try to cover all the possible ‘angles’, but
        there’s usually at least one shot from an unexpected quarter!

        Totally understood. There’s a reason why guys like you speak, and I limit myself to writing, such as it is.

        • Mike Buchanan

          Francis, I too am much happier writing than speaking, I have to say. But to reach a larger audience, the latter is required. And like most people I find that the more of these interviews I do, the easier they become – and people are forgiving of my periodic stammering, I’m pleased to say.

          • Righteous Indignation

            It was Ms. Barnett doing the stammering by the end of this interview.

      • http://francisdroy.wordpress.com Francis Roy

        By the way, if you haven’t been thanked for your hard work on the behalf of men and boys, lately, allow me to be the one that expresses a gratitude that I’m quite certain is a shared by a great many of us. Thank you!

        • Mike Buchanan

          Thanks Roy. Always touched by the appreciation shown by commenters on AVfM and elsewhere. It’s a huge motivator, and helps keeps my spirits up on days they might be inclined to sink!

      • alex brown3

        You where knocked for six because the point was so stupid.

        Females have driven men from their families, yet women still get to act like they are left with the baby and try to emotionally blackmail men.

        Anyone sane listening to your interview would of been on your side you done well.

      • John Rew

        Mike I don’t think you have to win all the time. Just putting those ideas out there is incredibly valuable besides feminists will just move the goal posts anyway. My local paper The Advertiser had a small article about a survey of emergency departments to see if the old chestnut that women have better pain tolerance than men was true. When the results showed that women rated their pain higher than men did for the same problems they simply said that womens bodies obviously sent out higher pain signals. In another article they compared male and female single parents and males were more likely to have jobs. The conclusion was that men were advantaged by this so that even though the women were getting far more assistance they still thought they they were disadvantaged even though they can’t stop going on about how hard it is for working mothers .We all know that if it was the females with the highest job ratio it would be because of lack of commitment by males and more reason to just kick their arses. Sometimes you can’t win you just got to bang away at it . For that reason I’m glad we have you on our side.

        • Mike Buchanan

          Thanks John, good points. In the past 4-5 years I can’t recall even one feminist being able to maintain a rational discussion before exiting or using shaming tactics – hardly surprising given that feminism is a cult and its followers incapable of engaging with contrary evidence-based positions. Indeed I think MHRAs spend too much time engaging with feminists – I’m more guilty than most – and we could use that time better seeking exchanges with people with open minds. Unfortunately with the MSM the only interviews available will almost always be with feminists or their male poodles.

          • Chris Wedge

            Talk AT the enemy, TO the bystander, AMONG the good guys.

            Engaging them isn’t bad at all. Just don’t do it in a dark alley.

          • Righteous Indignation

            Debating feminists on television, radio, youtube etc hopefully does reach open minded people and repetition also helps establish these ideas. There is also an important audience who will immediately recognise the truth in what you are saying — men and boy, and the women who love them, who have suffered from gender discrimination but did not know about the MRM.

          • Righteous Indignation

            But don’t you know “shaming tactics” is “feminist analysis”?

      • Druk

        Anyone reasonable would realize what “work-centered” meant in context, of course. But as the host admitted at the end, she isn’t a reasonable person.

  • http://francisdroy.wordpress.com Francis Roy

    Man, the way she handled the end of the interview was “I have no arguments, so let’s imply that you’re a mysogynist.”, and when that failed, she threw up her hands and essentially implied that while he as many good points, the reason he won the argument wasn’t that his points were good, but that he’s smarter than she. I’ve seen this a lot in comments with Feminists, when you corner then, they start shrieking “OK, you’re right, I’m wrong. I guess that makes me an asshole, are you happy now?”, implying mal-intent, which is just another shaming tactic.

    • realraven2000

      Just the one thing they *don’t* get in that case is that they have actually *lost* the debate.

  • http://menaregood.com/ Tom Golden

    Great job Mike. I thought you handled the “do you like women” question very well. It really shut her down. Loved it. Next question for her might be “do you like men and boys.” LOL I bet no one has ever asked her that before and when she stammers on about how she does indeed like them you can just say, well, your positive discrimination is really hurting them don’t you think? Makes me think that maybe you just don’t like them as much as you like women and girls since you want one group to get the good stuff and the other to just suck it up…..

    • Mike Buchanan

      Thanks Tom, good idea – “Do you like men?” The interviewer’s response will either be ‘”Yes”, or “Some of them”, so I can say the same with respect to women, and make your point about PD harming them.

      • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

        Keeping them on the defensive using their own punishing tactics will throw a wrench in their cake batter. Angry Harry has said if you want to help but don’t know how, “undermine, undermine, undermine. “Keep them fretting.

        You still did great. Thank you for speaking for me too.

        • Mike Buchanan

          Thanks MGTOW-man. Great to meet you at the conference.

  • alex brown3

    This person is against minority candidates getting positive discrimination, but he is for women getting it?

    This is clearly just a pro woman mangina.

    • Chris Wedge

      Awareness that men would be minority candidates as often? For being men? Perhaps.

  • alex brown3

    Men make bombs and guns, women throw babies into the dumpster!

    Men just go about taking lives, women go about creating them? lolol

    I wonder how many lives male technology has saved? Wonder how many women have been saved while giving birth by male technology?

    I suppose it can’t make up for all the bombs and guns we make though!

  • Roby 83

    Excellent. It is a shame that she tried to shame you.

  • Lastango

    “The men—white knights, invariably—are often worse than the women in this respect.”

    I think that’s because the payoff is higher, and so is the fear factor.

    Payoff: as a feminist auxiliary, these men add value to the feminist movement. In turn, they expect a career-enhancing reward. A woman journalist gets less of a payoff; she’s presumed to be a feminist, so she’s already gotten all the career boost she’s going to get out of that status. So it’s baked-in to her job, part of her regular duties. The man, by comparison, gets paid the equivalent of overtime.

    Fear: remember the old bullshit line about women in male-dominated professions having to work twice as hard and be twice as good just to be considered equal? That’s these men. To survive in a feministed workscape in which they are presumed to carry class guilt, they have to be more Catholic than the Pope. Otherwise they’ll come under suspicion. If that happens, they’re washed up, and will be replaced by a token male who plays the game better.

  • DukeLax

    MR Buchanan… you my friend are a leading figure of the MRM in Great Britain!!! Keep pushing forward my friend….We are right behind you!!

  • Andybob

    Gender imbalance?

    Why didn’t Jeni Barnett discuss the gender imbalance of suicide rates, workplace deaths, homelessness or primary custody decisions? It would be very interesting to hear her reasons why we shouldn’t introduce positive discrimination to create gender balance in these areas. It couldn’t possibly be the fact that these issues have more negative impact on men, so are not worthy of her time, could it?

    Ms Barnett could have examined the gender imbalance in HR departments and the sewerage industry, and asked why feminists remain mute on these discrepancies. She could also have taken some of the time she spent focused on the ‘glass ceiling’ to have a glance at the ‘concrete floor’, and asked why there are far greater numbers of men down there than there are sipping champagne while living the life of Riley on the glass ceilings of their corporate penthouses. After all, she’s the one who wanted to discuss gender imbalance – but chose to look at only those examples that matter to her.

    I suppose we should be relieved that Jeni Barnett didn’t assert the need for more female engineers as though it were a national emergency. Mr Buchanan could have relieved her fear that bridges are suddenly going to collapse whenever a feminist complains that their designers don’t have designers.

    Mike Buchanan did an excellent job considering the fact that he was trying to communicate, yet again, with a talking head that simply wasn’t prepared to listen to things she didn’t want to hear.

  • Shrek6

    Mike, well done!

    You certainly shut her down with your response to her ridiculous question, “Do you like women!”
    The woman’s an idiot. Typical raving lunatic feminist with little to no intelligence.

    Mate, I don’t know how you do it. You keep your composure and you are able to spit out those facts under the pressure of real time demand. That’s something I would never be able to do.

    Thanks again for all your hard work and best of luck for tomorrow’s interview!

  • mark mooroolbark

    Brilliant, Mike. It shows incredible courage to continually place your self in a position where you know you are going to be attacked, interrupted and accused of hatred and still manage to make your points calmly and succinctly. You do it all of the time and I really have the greatest respect for you. Thanks.

  • Righteous Indignation

    In the interview preceding Mike’s, Ms. Barnett asked the Guardian reported, “How do you silence those people” who oppose “positive discrimination”. You then so brilliantly shut down her strident attempt to silence you – and she knew it!

    We are indebted to you Mike, for the groundbreaking work you are doing representing men and boys.

    • Turbo

      Exactly. I thought that comment shone like a beacon at night.

      “How do you silence those people”.

      NOT “How do you argue with those people”
      NOT “How do you convince those people”

      No, No. How do you silence those people.
      That is a very feminist tactic, silence all dissent.

  • David Lee

    Nothing surprising about the obligatory white-knighting. It would be career suicide if the men didn’t toe the pro-feminist party line. It dispels the conspiratorial notion that all penis bearers are colluding to keep women out of positions of power and to pay them precisely 77 cents on the dollar for all eternity.

    It’s better this way imo. MRAs have ALWAYS been right about everything since the time of Ernest Belfort Bax. There’s nothing to lose when they agree to have a civil discussion, instead of resorting to censhorship and misrepresentation.

  • Zane

    I think by trying to enforce gender quotas, the feminist movement has actually robbed women of the motivation and competitive spirit necessary for them to succeed on merit. At the same time it reinforces an unspoken cultural stereotype of women: that they are simply not as capable as men. Otherwise, why else would they need special treatment in the form of gender quotas?

    If feminism has succeeded at anything, it’s in characterizing women as weak. Maybe that was the goal all along. It’s certainly worked for them in terms of government spending and gynocentric laws, but are they any happier?

    I thought it was a good interview.

  • Righteous Indignation

    All discrimination is “positive”, for those who perpetrate it.

  • Turbo

    Well done again Mike.

    That woman didn’t want to hear a word you said, but the audience heard it and that is what matters.
    She really made a complete fool of herself by the end of the interview.

  • Magnus

    Good Hypnotoad that woman was annoying.
    It was almost as she had prewritten her arguments beforehand, and just read them up as she went along.

    I also feel she treated you worse than Sunny too, when you both had valid arguments.

    And as someone who has had to work harder to achieve the same as a woman (due to “positive discrimination”) I think the notion of “equalizing the playing field” to be utter crap.
    Obviously though we should try and reach out to more diversely to attract more candidates, but in the end it should be the best applicantor the job. Not the “best applicant who’s Venn diagram overlaps the best)