Anti-feminist Justice For Men And Boys Party enters the General Election...

This kind of party is a disgrace to politics. It's pure misogyny, through and through. What bit shows hatred for women?

Thankfully I have no worries this party will find no success, especially under an electoral system that requires a majority vote in a constituency to earn a parliamentary seat. Their kind of sexism is deeply offensive and so few people hold sexist views to this extreme degree nowadays.

being anti feminist doesn't make you a misogynist

I agree, but its quite clear these jokers are misogynists

I don't agree with their position on abortion or sperm-banks, but they are spot-on in saying the glass-ceiling is a myth, all-women shortlists are wrong and nothing needs to be done to get more women into science, let people do what they want.

Why don't you read what their plans are directly & not through some 3rd party where his views are not represented?

This is a chance to learn how the state disadvantages boys & men (have experienced myself). I do try to educate guys in their 20s (i.e. people who have been or r in employment) & they get it.

Being anti-feminist doesn't mean anti-woman & if there was equality then woman would suffer more, especailly with what our taxes are spent on. A 2011 report by the Fawcett Society showsed how cuts were pushing women out of the workforce, driving down their income - i.e. woman rely on subsidies to be equal. If that's the case then surely more should be spent on how Society is failing boys/men.

https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2015-general-election-manifesto/

Actually I am having fun commenting on http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/an-anti-feminist-party-is-standing-in-the-general-election?
It shows me ignorant people (>90% there) can only make insulting comments, the others I can discuss.

The party is difficult to take seriously. According to the IBT, they regularly cite Wikipedia and other unreliable sources to 'support' their beliefs. They don't even have a proper website.

I fail to see how 'men and boys' are fairly disadvantaged by the system. Their only arguments focus on radical feminist agendas which most liberal feminists dispute anyway. And there are far more liberal feminists than there are radicals. This idea that men and boys are the ones suffering is just self-victimising tripe. I don't understand how your citing of the Fawcett Society report is relevant to this supposed injustice men are facing.

I agree there are issues facing men, but I think it's ludicrous to form a party that exaggerates and blows everything out of proportion.

This kind of party is a disgrace to politics. It's pure misogyny, through and through.

Thankfully I have no worries this party will find no success, especially under an electoral system that requires a majority vote in a constituency to earn a parliamentary seat. Their kind of sexism is deeply offensive and so few people hold sexist views to this extreme degree nowadays.

I agree there are issues facing men, but I think it's ludicrous to form a party that exaggerates and blows everything out of proportion.

Their position of sperm banks seems to simply be to withdraw government backing of such banks. What's wrong with that?

So disagree with feminism and you're sexist and hate women? Did it ever once occur to you that you can vouch for equality without being a feminist?

While I would agree with you there, and would also agree their manifesto is mostly nonsense with sources that have not been referenced, we should not immediately dismiss them. I did read through their full manifesto on their blog site, and realised they actually have sensible proposals which, although socially conservative, are hard to dismiss instantly.

FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME - The government should introduce legislation to prosecute women who have given birth to babies with FAS of inflicting GBH, and if found guilty, give them custodial sentences in line with CPS guidance.

GENITAL MUTILATION - We call for the practice of male GM on individuals under the age of 18 to be made illegal other than on grounds of medical need. Until MGM is made illegal, it should only be performed after the application of local anaesthetic. Only medical practitioners should be permitted to perform the operation, and only in registered medical premises. Taking males under the age of 18 abroad to have MGM performed should be a criminal offence.

MARRIAGE - The government needs to restore the tax advantages that married people used to enjoy. The sum of a couple’s married person’s tax allowances (MPTAs) should exceed the sum of the two individual tax allowances, and it should be made available in full to the bread-winning spouse for couples whose children are under secondary school age. The cost of this to the state would be minimal when compared to the cost of subsidizing nursery school places for young children with working mothers. The signal it would send about the need for a stable home in which young children can be nurtured to become fully rounded adults, based on a committed marriage as a legal and ethical covenant for life, would be significant.

DIVORCE - Following separation, both parents will continue to share equally all of the responsibilities and duties towards their children. The responsibility for deciding when the children will reside with each parent, and financial arrangements for supporting the children, will rest with both parents in equal measure.

HOMELESSNESS - It is iniquitous that people forced out of their family homes after family breakdowns are deemed ‘intentionally homeless’, even when they have left their homes to escape abusive partners. Local Authorities should bear a responsibility for providing them with accommodation, if they are not in a financial position to afford accommodation.

JUSTICE SYSTEM - The government should hold a public inquiry into the matter, with a view to ensuring that the justice system becomes gender-blind. Men and women convicted of the same crimes should be equally likely to face incarceration, and serve the same sentences.

OTHER - Debates about meritocracy versus positive discrimination is used a lot but that is already taking place within the main political parties and society.

It would only be ludicrous if there was not a mass movement doing the same things for the other half of the population which was influencing policy making at the highest level of politics, justice and employment - but as it stands, there is, and it's therefore quite appropriate. Perhaps it will serve to show feminists how 'ludicrous' their own movement is.