The manifesto of the political group’ Justice for Men and Boys’ (J4MB) presents itself as a counter to feminism and gender-based policy. Still, its proposals rest on a blend of cherry-picked data, gender essentialism, and ideologically driven misinterpretation. This blog post dissects the most controversial sections of the 2022 J4MB manifesto using peer-reviewed evidence, government reports, and a feminist lens.

Mike Buchanan, the Gender Pay Gap, and the Scandinavian Paradox

Mike Buchanan, founder of J4MB, has repeatedly dismissed the gender pay gap as a feminist “myth,” arguing that differences in earnings are due entirely to women’s free choices. He cites the so-called Scandinavian Gender Equality Paradox, which suggests that in countries with the highest levels of gender equality, occupational segregation persists because women gravitate toward people-oriented roles while men choose things-oriented jobs (Stoet & Geary, 2018).

However, this analysis ignores critical structural factors. Occupational segregation is not simply a matter of choice but is shaped by socialisation, gender norms, and systemic undervaluation of female-dominated professions (England, 2010). Studies have shown that when women enter previously male-dominated fields in greater numbers, wages in those fields often decrease, suggesting that society undervalues “women’s work” (Levanon et al., 2009).

Buchanan also mocks the underrepresentation of women in entrepreneurship, claiming they are “risk-averse leeches” dependent on male financial backing. This framing is not only sexist but also ignores data showing that women face greater barriers to investment, are less likely to receive venture capital funding, and often balance caregiving roles alongside business development (British Business Bank, 2022).

He further derides women’s sport as parasitic, arguing women athletes demand equal pay without generating equal revenue. However, this ignores the structural underfunding, unequal media coverage, and gendered dismissal of women’s athleticism. Following the Lionesses’ historic win at the 2022 UEFA Women’s Euro, sexist backlash erupted on social media, with claims they “couldn’t beat a League Two men’s team” (BBC Sport, 2022). Football pundits such as Joey Barton publicly belittled their success, sparking condemnation from MPs and sports equality advocates (Grazia, 2023; Manchester Evening News, 2023). The backlash underscores how gendered contempt persists even at the highest levels of female sporting achievement.

While men’s sports generate higher revenues, the lack of funding, sponsorship, and visibility for women’s leagues historically accounts for this disparity, not a lack of talent or effort (FIFPro, 2021).

Family Courts, False Rape Claims, and the Narrative of Male Disenfranchisement

J4MB’s portrayal of family courts is not only inflammatory but profoundly misleading. The manifesto suggests that courts are “designed to remove fathers” at the “behest of malicious mothers,” framing the entire child custody system as biased against men. Yet this fails to reflect the reality of family law. In most cases, child arrangements are agreed outside court, and when they do go to court, fathers are granted contact in most cases unless safeguarding concerns are present (Cafcass, 2022).

While fathers do report challenges in securing shared custody, feminist scholars and family justice researchers alike advocate for child-centred policies rather than gendered assumptions (Featherstone et al., 2007). The suggestion that courts favour mothers by default ignores the nuances of each case and the principle of ‘best interest of the child.’

Regarding false rape claims, J4MB amplifies fear around wrongful accusations. While false allegations are harmful and must be taken seriously, they remain statistically rare. A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) report in the UK found that false accusations represented less than 3% of cases, and those often involved individuals with complex mental health needs rather than deliberate malicious intent (CPS, 2013).

By elevating rare exceptions as if they represent the norm, J4MB contributes to the social stigma that silences genuine victims of sexual violence, particularly women and girls. This damages both justice and survivor confidence.

Male and Female Genital Cutting: The Limits of Legal and Ethical Equivalence

J4MB argues that male genital mutilation (MGM), commonly referred to as circumcision, is morally and legally equivalent to female genital mutilation (FGM). This claim collapses important distinctions in international law, medical consensus, and the lived reality of affected individuals.

FGM is widely condemned by the WHO, the UN, and global human rights organisations for its life-altering consequences, including chronic pain, infection, and obstetric complications (WHO, 2022). By contrast, medical male circumcision is often performed with anaesthesia, is rarely life-threatening, and has been associated in some contexts with reduced risk of HIV (UNAIDS, 2015).

Calls for bodily autonomy and informed consent in childhood surgeries are valid, but to collapse the FGM/MGM comparison into a claim of systemic anti-male bias ignores context, consequence, and motivation.

Contact Sports and Brain Injury: Advocacy or Alarmism?

The manifesto rightly notes growing concern over traumatic brain injury in contact sports. However, it misrepresents this as a uniquely male crisis, failing to acknowledge current reforms across rugby, football, and boxing to protect young athletes of all genders (FA, 2020; World Rugby, 2022).

J4MB frames these issues as “state violence” against boys. However, this ignores the growing inclusivity of contact sports and the agency of young people and parents in making informed decisions. A more productive approach would emphasise safe sport participation and awareness, not panic or victimhood.

Education, STEM, and the False Narrative of Male Disadvantage

J4MB claims that boys are being “left behind” educationally due to feminism and female privilege. While boys do underperform in some areas, this trend is strongly correlated with socioeconomic status, early years development, and reduced male engagement in teaching, not gender bias in policy (DfE, 2023).

Efforts to encourage women into STEM are not “anti-male.” Women remain underrepresented in physics, engineering, and computing (EngineeringUK, 2023). Closing that gap addresses longstanding institutional barriers, not a conspiracy against boys.

Intimate Partner Violence: A Misleading Gender-Neutralism

J4MB claims intimate partner violence (IPV) is not gendered and cites the PASK study (2013) to argue that women are equally violent. However, this study has been widely criticised for overrepresenting minor, situational violence and underestimating the impact of coercive control, injury, and homicide, where women are disproportionately victims (Walby & Towers, 2017).

Men do experience IPV and need support. But erasing the gendered nature of systemic abuse misrepresents the evidence and can undermine services designed to protect those at highest risk.

Suicide and Men’s Mental Health: A Real Crisis, Misused

The high male suicide rate in the UK is a public health emergency (ONS, 2022). J4MB rightly calls for a national male mental health strategy, but misattributes suicide to feminisation, employment displacement, and state bias.

There is no evidence that women entering male-based jobs causes male suicide. Instead, risk factors include unemployment, social isolation, substance misuse, and cultural norms of stoicism (Cleary, 2012).

Instead of weaponising suicide to critique feminism, we must:

• Promote help-seeking behaviour among men
• Improve crisis services
• Address homelessness, debt, and trauma
• Challenge harmful masculinity norms

Healthcare Provision: Valid Gaps, But Misleading Comparisons

J4MB highlights gaps in men’s health services, particularly around prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and has benefited from strong advocacy and improved PSA testing (Cancer Research UK, 2023).

However, female-specific health issues, like endometriosis or cervical cancer, are comparatively underfunded. Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women but has historically been ignored by NHS commissioners (APPG on Endometriosis, 2020). Cervical screening uptake has declined, and COVID-19 exacerbated barriers to care (PHE, 2021).

Rather than comparing sufferings, a gender-inclusive health strategy is required.

The suggestion that “feminisation” of medicine has harmed GP services is factually false and sexist. Studies show no decline in patient outcomes based on GP gender (BMJ, 2019). Women’s greater representation in medicine reflects educational attainment, not ideological manipulation.

Conclusion: What Equality Really Looks Like

The J4MB manifesto attempts to reframe systemic gender inequalities as male oppression. It draws selectively on evidence, misuses comparative data, and cloaks misogynistic assumptions in the language of fairness.

Equality is not a zero-sum game. Addressing men’s health, education, and wellbeing is vital, but this must be done alongside, not against, feminist gains. Real equity considers context, complexity, and care, not slogans or scapegoats.

Take Action: Evidence, Equity, and Your Voice Matter

The J4MB manifesto may claim to fight for fairness, but its selective arguments, anti-feminist rhetoric, and distorted interpretations of data obscure the truth: equality is not a zero-sum game.

If we want a society where men and women alike thrive, where mental health is prioritised, where family courts serve all parents equitably, and where gender doesn’t determine whose pain matters, then we must demand better.

🔍 Educate yourself. Read widely, follow peer-reviewed research, and question the narratives that pit us against each other.

🎙️ Challenge misinformation. Speak out when myths about false rape claims, wage gaps, or gendered violence are spread as truth.

🤝 Support inclusive campaigns. Whether it’s for men’s mental health, women’s healthcare funding, or equity in sport—support doesn’t mean opposition to another gender. Real progress benefits everyone.

📢 Share this post. Help amplify voices calling for nuance, truth, and integrity in public discourse.

---

Curious Femme is a space for feminist inquiry, critical thinking, and truth-telling. Let’s rewrite the narrative—together.

Would you like me to insert this directly int

References

• World Health Organisation (2022). Female Genital Mutilation. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation
• UNAIDS (2015). Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention
• The Football Association (2020). Heading Guidelines for Youth Football
• Department for Education (2023). Gender and Educational Attainment
• EngineeringUK (2023). Women in Engineering Statistics
• Walby, S. & Towers, J. (2017). Measuring Violence Against Women and Men. Policy Press.
• Office for National Statistics (2022). Suicide in the UK: 2021 Registrations
• Cleary, A. (2012). Suicidal men: A gendered analysis. The Sociological Review, 60(3), 407–426.
• Cancer Research UK (2023). Prostate Cancer Statistics.
• All-Party Parliamentary Group on Endometriosis (2020). Endometriosis Inquiry Report.
• Public Health England (2021). Cervical Screening Coverage Statistics.
• British Medical Journal (2019). Patient Outcomes by Physician Gender.
• England, P. (2010). The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149–166.
• Levanon, A., England, P., & Allison, P. (2009). Occupational Feminisation and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 Census Data. Social Forces, 88(2), 865–891.
• Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593.
• British Business Bank (2022). UK VC & Female Founders Report.
• FIFPro (2021). Raising Our Game: Women’s Football Report.

Written by Curious Femme

Let’s keep asking questions. Let’s keep fighting for evidence-based equality.