In time, Mike Buchanan may come to feel that it was not the most propitious week for his political party, Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them), to launch a general election manifesto premised on unremitting male disadvantage. True, the party made its mark: until last week’s surge in media coverage, few voters will have been aware of a group whose mission, assuming it is not an fabulously ornate satire, appears to be the belittling of the sex alleged to oppress Mr Buchanan, the persecution of feminists in particular and the abomination of certain named individuals, on the basis, you gather, that they have particularly annoyed Mr Buchanan. What, “the vile and disgusting” Janet Street-Porter probably doesn’t wonder, has she done to upset the self-published author of Feminism: The Ugly Truth?

Although its prolixity has caused comment, the name “Justice for men and boys (and the women who love them)”, acronym J4MB, does not begin to capture the surging passions due to add colour to the three campaigns planned by Mr Buchanan. His political discourse puts to shame the most bilious of anonymous, below-the-line commenters. Before long, many more voters should be familiar with his organisation’s gormless/whiny/lying feminists of the month announcements and enthusiasm for personal attacks, to a point that eclipses its more persuasive concerns about, say, male suicide or judgments in the divorce courts.

The treatment of one such J4MB target, Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, is such that it might easily be mistaken for stalking, at least since headlines such as “Will someone change Laura Bates’s diaper” on a blog, were followed by Mr Buchanan, the would-be public servant, bothering the audience in a bookshop where she was about to speak. This feat he proudly recorded: “One cackling young crone claimed loudly that I had no evidence.”

As well as limiting access to abortion and excluding women from company boards and any other careers where they might take men’s jobs, Mr Buchanan hopes, with his election campaign, to inflict especial damage on the Labour party, to which end he is standing against Gloria de Piero. “Life is going to become markedly worse for men and boys if Labour win the next general election,” he writes, “with truly obnoxious bigots such as Yvette Cooper given free rein to roll out yet more radical feminist agendas, including teaching schoolboys to be feminists, ie brainwashing them into becoming lifelong unquestioning slaves to women.”

This covert plan for mastery perhaps explains why Cooper has played, to date, such a deceptively low-key role in formulating Labour’s election strategy. Unless that’s down to her brain. “Feminists – they’re not the sharpest knives in the block, are they?” says Mr Buchanan, who is not the first political campaigner to warn of enslavement by people he considers inferior in intelligence.

Even allowing for the impact of Buchanan’s rhetoric, displayed in a succession of interviews, it was probably unhelpful that his laments about enfeebled men, in contrast to women’s status as “divine creatures”, coincided with repeated evidence that it is apt to be the other way around. In broadcasting, for instance, it emerged, according to Richard Best, author of the new Lords report that “women miss out big time” and “can justifiably feel discriminated against”. At the BBC, his findings unsurprisingly confirmed, “an informal policy of discriminating against older women was in existence”.

As for the welfare of “young crones”, to employ J4MB terminology, a different report has established that one in three female students has been subjected to sexual assault or unwelcome advances at university. Yet another report, Honour Killings in the UK from the Henry Jackson Society, has found that thousands of women and young girls, many of them under 16, are still at risk of serious harm from their families. In 2010, police figures recorded more than 2,800 acts of violence, including acid attacks, kidnapping and mutilation.

Meanwhile, courtesy of the judicial community, it was established that a “manipulative” 16-year-old schoolgirl can be held responsible for the professional and moral transgression of her teacher, a man of 44. Even allowing for the confusion that might easily beset anti-feminist campaigners motivated by unknowable private grudges or bad Child Support Agency experiences, it is hard to imagine, in the light of such reports, what constitutes the array of female privilege that the J4MB membership so passionately resents.

True, these bits of evidence only tell a tiny part of the story of female dominance at the start of 2015. They must not distort the true picture. Women’s achievement at the BBC, for example, is dazzling, when compared with their progress to the heights of banking, the judiciary or politics, where the current sex-ratio must, to any fair-minded anti-feminist, resemble something close to perfection.

In fact, if the upper reaches of every major party in British politics do not represent the J4MB dream, what, short of a women-only curfew, a thorough purge of public life or, failing that, a straightforward cull, would satisfy its members? Admittedly, the Green party’s Natalie Bennett hopes to barge in on the leadership debates, the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon thinks she can run a country and there are rumours of similar insanity on the part of top Cameron Cutie – as the prime minister’s female proteges are formally designated in much of the media stylebook – Theresa May.

But George Osborne is reportedly dedicated to ensuring a male succession and the Lib Dems deserve credit from all anti-feminists, not just for rallying round one notorious, but senior, groper against his numerous female accusers, but for Clegg’s unblemished success rate in keeping Lib Dem women out of the cabinet. Though Farage’s party, scourge of breastfeeding and sluttish housewives, probably enjoys the superior claim to being Buchanan’s direct competitor in the field of concerted female cleansing.

Even within the Labour party, alleged architect of Yvette Cooper’s coming Terror, there are suggestions that J4MB’s reservations about Harriet Harman and, possibly, women in general are shared by senior strategists. How else, notwithstanding Mr Miliband’s shy appearance in the iconic Elle T-shirt, to explain the reports of Harman’s shouting matches with Douglas Alexander, of Miliband’s originally all-male election team, of the exhumation of yet more male advisers (minus the women who love them) from Blair’s football-crazy den? At best, Sun reader Mr Miliband is oblivious to sexist appearances, to an extent that could suggest some sympathy, in his team, with Buchanan’s “not the sharpest knives in the block”.

Since the cause of male dominance continues in such capable hands, it must make sense for Buchanan to apply his talent to more neglected candidates and make his next assault on the feminazi establishment on behalf of, say, a Justice for Etonians and Harrovians (and the women who love them) campaign. That’s supposing he feels Justice for Hedge Fund Managers (and the lapdancers who love them) would not be a more rewarding project. Likewise, lord mayors, members of the Johnson family, Russian plutocrats, Freud Communications, house developers, with their unending struggle against areas of outstanding natural beauty – all these outcasts cry out to Mike for justice. Where men are concerned, his work here is done.