Mike , Mike, Mike. Oh dear.

I’ve not read your manifesto but after hearing you, in your own words, explain parts of your manifesto, I have to ask..

Did you think it through, any of it?

I’m only going to unpack two parts of said manifesto, because you brought them to light yourself and if they’re indicative of the rest, well…

Firstly, you mentioned compulsory paternity tests because women regularly commit “paternity fraud” and no man should have to face “forced paternity”.
Ok. Seems fair enough.
But..BUT , well, such paternity testing is already enforceable. If a man is named on a birth certificate and the mother is seeking child maintenance, the alleged father can petition the court for a DNA test, and other agencies can enforce compliance for their own purposes where paternity is disputed.
So your point is?

Secondly, and this did make me laugh, the reduction of the legal abortion limit to 13 weeks.
Apart from the fact that that speaks to many levels of misogyny regarding women’s reproductive rights ,doesn’t this sound another *BUT* klaxon, to you? Even a little?

Isn’t forced maternity also forced paternity?
Well?
Ok, I’ll make this easy… If a woman, as you assert , is wishing to commit “paternity fraud” by lying about taking the pill* , for instance- and the legal abortion limit is 13 weeks (assuming you’d have men legally entitled to force women to terminate)(which I posit you would)- then (knowing this) what potential fraudster worth her salt, is EVER going to announce a pregnancy until AFTER that point has well and truly passed?
And no, there really would be no conclusive way to prove any woman knew she was pregnant before this.
You see, your wish to curtail women’s reproductive rights could massively backfire.

Now, might I parse that if you are so unaware of the legislation , already extant, regarding paternity testing, and cannot see the consequences FOR MEN, of restricting female reproductive autonomy, that the rest of your manifesto might just also be a screed of lazy misogyny and rank buffoonery?

I think this thumbnail guide to your party, provided by the Guardian, has it about right..and certainly the comments thread makes better argument than I ever could…

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2015/jan/14/justice-for-men-and-boys-anti-feminist-party

*If you are so convinced women lie about taking the pill, then why aren’t you entreating men to wear condoms?
As the MALE radio journalist so sagely asked(to the applause of women everywhere)

Finally…

Even the Torygraph are doubtful….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11347194/An-anti-feminist-political-party-is-depressing-news-for-men-and-women.html

And apart from a very short piece, using your political ambitions (before you even had a name for your party) to have a pop at Harriet Harman, even the reliably misogynist Daily Heil has remained silent.

Oh dear.

Special thanks to Ruth Greenberg, who’s interview on this morning’s Andy Whittaker Show , upon which this is based, (BBC Radio Nottingham) can be heard here, at the 2hrs 9m point…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02fww1n

Advertisements