Feminist mob attempt to shut down talk on equality for males - MOD NOTE POST 10

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Otherwise though, I agree that corporatization of universities, combined with excessive politically-correct censorship, is a bad thing - I'm not sure how prevalent it is mind.

tritium wrote: »

Context IS important here
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html
http://oxfordstudent.com/2014/11/20/abortion-debate-cancelled/

There may be many reasons to dislike the participants, however it could have been Gandhi debating up there and there still would have been objections....

While the university hasn't explicitly agreed that their concerns were related to the protests by groups like cuntry living, the timing is remarkably coincidental...

If you have more women than men attending university and paying extortionate fees then the last thing you want is for accusations of misogyny flying about the place putting off potential profits students.

What really irritates me about people like this is that they're ignoring real sexism and misogyny in their attempts to stifle free speech.

P.S. I'm not even slightly surprised to see Sussex faring poorly here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings/findings

tritium

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If you have more women than men attending university and paying extortionate fees then the last thing you want is for accusations of misogyny flying about the place putting off potential profits students.

What really irritates me about people like this is that they're ignoring real sexism and misogyny in their attempts to stifle free speech.

P.S. I'm not even slightly surprised to see Sussex faring poorly here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings/findings

Good point. It also illustrates one of the most fundamental and ignored gender inequalities- the failure of the wider educational system to address systemic lower achievement by boys.

Interesting to see where some of the 'prestige' colleges sit on that index....

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Context is important here.
The man representing the pro-choice side was arguably a racist, global warming denier, homophobic, Zionist.

What has any of the above got to do with why the debate was cancelled?

The JCR(Student Union) lobbied the university not to host the talk on the basis of "the threat to the emotional and mental wellbeing and safety of the students of the college".
Due to some people not liking the idea of men discussing abortion.

I've yet to find any article that shows that Brendan O'Neills attitudes to Israel or climate change to be a significant issue.

Can't exactly blame a university for not wanting to give him a platform - the same debate with a less-batshít person representing the pro-choice side, would likely have been fine; and there'd have been no shortage of candidates for that position.

As long as the person invited isn't breaking the law, there's no reason why they shouldn't be given a platform.

ancapailldorcha

jackofalltrades wrote: »

As long as the person invited isn't breaking the law, there's no reason why they shouldn't be given a platform.

It would look bad for the University.

jackofalltrades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It would look bad for the University.

Not half as bad as caving into people who feel emotionally threatened by ideas that differ to their own.
Universities should be the last places to give up on the idea of robust and open discourse.

ancapailldorcha

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Not half as bad as caving into people who feel emotionally threatened by ideas that differ to their own.
Universities should be the last places to give up on the idea of robust and open discourse.

You would think but they have shareholders to answer to. Like I said earlier, it's about profit. Debate and the advent of social media is a threat to that.

Roquentin

feminism isnt the problem, fanaticism is.

Pawwed Rig

Roquentin wrote: »

feminism isnt the problem, fanaticism is.

The fanatics are in the mainstream now though. That is a problem

Roquentin

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The fanatics are in the mainstream now though. That is a problem

George Santayana — 'Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.'

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What has any of the above got to do with why the debate was cancelled?

The JCR(Student Union) lobbied the university not to host the talk on the basis of "the threat to the emotional and mental wellbeing and safety of the students of the college".
Due to some people not liking the idea of men discussing abortion.

I've yet to find any article that shows that Brendan O'Neills attitudes to Israel or climate change to be a significant issue.


As long as the person invited isn't breaking the law, there's no reason why they shouldn't be given a platform.

As I saw put well elsewhere, there's no reason to give anybody a free soapbox either; there was nothing stopping them having the debate elsewhere, and it probably would have gone ahead if the debate was not so ridiculously lopsided in selection.

It'd be a bit like having a debate on Israel vs Palestine, with a Zionist defending the Palestinian side, and then complaining when the university cancels that debate.

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It'd be a bit like having a debate on Israel vs Palestine, with a Zionist defending the Palestinian side, and then complaining when the university cancels that debate.

It doesn't look like that at all from my quick read of Brendan O'Neill's speech. He seems to be clearly pro-choice:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-i-am-pro-choice/16221#.VNkZGZ2sVp8

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As I saw put well elsewhere, there's no reason to give anybody a free soapbox either;

And that's up to Oxford Students For Life to decide.

there was nothing stopping them having the debate elsewhere

Why should they, they're a college society after all.

and it probably would have gone ahead if the debate was not so ridiculously lopsided in selection.

And where has this been shown to be a significant concern for the people opposed to the debate?
And since when has this been reason to shut down a debate?

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

It doesn't look like that at all from my quick read of Brendan O'Neill's speech. He seems to be clearly pro-choice:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why-i-am-pro-choice/16221#.VNkZGZ2sVp8

I wasn't trying to imply he was not pro-choice - my analogy there is faulty, so I retract that.

Nonetheless, the guy holds many completely bigoted views, as well as anti-science views - sufficient enough, to raise legitimate concerns, that his anti-feminism may also be rooted in wider bigotry - so he's one of the most non-obvious and worst choices, to pick for a pro-choice position.

They could have picked almost anybody else, and the debate likely would have gone ahead.

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I wasn't trying to imply he was not pro-choice - my analogy there is faulty, so I retract that.

Nonetheless, the guy holds many completely bigoted views, as well as anti-science views - sufficient enough, to raise legitimate concerns, that his anti-feminism may also be rooted in wider bigotry - so he's one of the most non-obvious and worst choices, to pick for a pro-choice position.

They could have picked almost anybody else, and the debate likely would have gone ahead.

It doesn't look like that from reading this article, for example:

NIAMH MCINTYRE

Tuesday 18 November 2014

I helped shut down an abortion debate between two men because my uterus isn't up for their discussion

The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I wasn't trying to imply he was not pro-choice - my analogy there is faulty, so I retract that.

What were you trying to say? That only women should be allowed discuss this?

KomradeBishop wrote:

It'd be a bit like having a debate on Israel vs Palestine, with a Zionist defending the Palestinian side, and then complaining when the university cancels that debate.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And that's up to Oxford Students For Life to decide.

Actually the university decided, and we don't know what exact reason the university based their decision on.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why should they, they're a college society after all.

And where has this been shown to be a significant concern for the people opposed to the debate?
And since when has this been reason to shut down a debate?

If the university rejected it because of the content of the debate, then I'd agree that's bad, but if they rejected it based on the abysmal reputation of one of the participants, then I can't really blame them for not wanting to give him a platform.
I'd view that less as rejecting the debate itself, more that individual person - again, we don't know what exact reason the university used though.

I've been thinking it over and haven't quite made my mind up though, so I'm open to persuasion on that point, as I'm not certain yet exactly how I view rejecting an individual person based on reputation.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

It doesn't look like that from reading this article, for example:


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html

The university cancelled the debate, not those protesting though - they were exercising their free speech, through protesting, as they have a right to.

I personally think her views are sexist though, as I don't think a persons gender affects their qualification/right to enter into such a debate; it's a pet peeve of mine actually, when someone tries to pull that crap, of excluding you from a debate based on gender.

tritium

An interesting report on this from the Huffington post
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/6176846

The last bit is informative if correct

according to student paper the Cherwell, the debate was due to be held at Christ Church college. An email from the presdeitn explained the reason for OSFL being denied permission to host the debate was because "there was insufficient time between today and tomorrow to address some concerns they had about the meeting arising from potential security and welfare issues".

If correct they basically caved under the threat of a security issue. A number of groups had threatened to do more than just stand there with placards- you know, what you and I would usually understand as protest.

Oxford actually seems to have a pretty radical student element, as in could at times be mistaken for a US campus. Last year they also had the controversy over the Ben Sullivan rape accusation.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

They could have picked almost anybody else, and the debate likely would have gone ahead.

Do you have anything to backup this claim with?

...but if they rejected it based on the abysmal reputation of one of the participants, then I can't really blame them for not wanting to give him a platform.

Yet nowhere are either of the speakers reputations brought up as a significant issue.
And lets face it they can't be worse than David Irving, the Holocaust denier who was allowed to speak.

The university cancelled the debate, not those protesting though - they were exercising their free speech, through protesting, as they have a right to.

Womcam said that they would support disruptive protesting.
This goes well beyond free speech and into the territory of silencing opposing opinions.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Do you have anything to backup this claim with?

Yet nowhere are either of the speakers reputations brought up as a significant issue.
And lets face it they can't be worse than David Irving, the Holocaust denier who was allowed to speak.

I'm assuming it's partly down to the guys reputation; not really enough information to say one way or the other though, so I can't back that.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Womcam said that they would support disruptive protesting.
This goes well beyond free speech and into the territory of silencing opposing opinions.

Protesting is protesting. They have a right to exercise their free speech.

newport2

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Protesting is protesting. They have a right to exercise their free speech.

There are many different types of protesting, from peaceful, to disruptive to violent, so to say protesting is protesting is rubbish. If what Jackofalltrades said is true and they were ready and threatening to go beyond peaceful protesting, then that's not what I would class as protesting. It's bullying and intimidation to censor opinions they don't agree with.

Sure they have a right to exercise their free speech.....but to argue that it's ok for them to use it to stifle the free speech of others is just hypocritical.

KomradeBishop

newport2 wrote: »

There are many different types of protesting, from peaceful, to disruptive to violent, so to say protesting is protesting is rubbish. If what Jackofalltrades said is true and they were ready and threatening to go beyond peaceful protesting, then that's not what I would class as protesting. It's bullying and intimidation to censor opinions they don't agree with.

Sure they have a right to exercise their free speech.....but to argue that it's ok for them to use it to stifle the free speech of others is just hypocritical.

I'm not saying I agree with these protesters, but what did they do exactly, that is not covered by free speech?

What exactly were they threatening to do, and what proof is there that they threatened that?

Just because a protest is 'disruptive' doesn't mean it's not peaceful - a handful of people can sit on the road on a busy street, or stand at the entrance to a building, and cause a big disruption, while protesting peacefully.

Lemming

KomradeBishop wrote: »

stand at the entrance to a building, and cause a big disruption, while protesting peacefully.

I think you'll find that doing the above (Bold emphasis is mine above) is not distruption but obstruction, i.e. an attempt to prevent an event proceeding, ergo stifling of voices you disagree with in this case.

Edit: most videos I've seen of "feminists" taking issue with some talk or event or other have been deeply militant and distruptive to the degree of obstruction not protest. So when I see "threats" by so-called "feminist" groups, I am deeply uncomfortable with the thought that they are attempting to nothing but oppress the rights of others. Yet if the police move them on when they get out of hand, they scream oppression whilst being unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions/words. Clearly only their voices and actions are permitted; all else must conform or be attacked brutally.

tritium

iptba wrote: »

It doesn't look like that from reading this article, for example:


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html

Christ, if ever there was a case of a paper not refusing ink. I feel like my own emotional well being needs to be protected after that. Gems such as:

Access to abortion impacts the lives of women, trans and non-binary people every day

Really? How exactly are trans folk part of this? At best you'd have to qualify it with an acknowledgement that, to use her own delightful phrase, many of them don't have uteruses.

Or this:

In organizing against this event, I did not stifle free speech. As a student, I asserted that it would make me feel threatened in my own university; as a woman, I objected to men telling me what I should be allowed to do with my own body.

A1 for self entitlement! -my own university! Yeah, sure never mind the opinions of anyone else who pays fees or goes to lectures. I look forward to hearing next what should be permitted on her own planet, I'm sure she won't be slow to provide it. I'm assuming she'll be just as willing to shut the hell up in case anyone else is feeling threatened in their own university by her particular brand of intolerance.

Intolerant, self entitled fcukwittery of the highest order

KomradeBishop

Lemming wrote: »

I think you'll find that doing the above (Bold emphasis is mine above) is not distruption but obstruction, i.e. an attempt to prevent an event proceeding, ergo stifling of voices you disagree with in this case.

Edit: most videos I've seen of "feminists" taking issue with some talk or event or other have been deeply militant and distruptive to the degree of obstruction not protest. So when I see "threats" by so-called "feminist" groups, I am deeply uncomfortable with the thought that they are attempting to nothing but oppress the rights of others. Yet if the police move them on when they get out of hand, they scream oppression whilst being unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions/words. Clearly only their voices and actions are permitted; all else must conform or be attacked brutally.

What is it that these particular feminists were doing or planning to do though? We don't know whether it was going to be 'disruptive' or 'obstruction' or anything.

Lemming

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What is it that these particular feminists were doing or planning to do though? We don't know whether it was going to be 'disruptive' or 'obstruction' or anything.

that they started issuing threats, and that the university cited "security costs" as a reason for cancelling the event shows that they are following the template as used by UoT groups in obstructing talks they didn't "agree" with. And that neither bodes well for any benefit of the doubt one might consider giving, or for the future of debate in general.

KomradeBishop

Lemming wrote: »

that they started issuing threats, and that the university cited "security costs" as a reason for cancelling the event shows that they are following the template as used by UoT groups in obstructing talks they didn't "agree" with. And that neither bodes well for any benefit of the doubt one might consider giving, or for the future of debate in general.

What threats? I've read the articles available, and didn't see anything about that - link?

Lemming

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What threats? I've read the articles available, and didn't see anything about that - link?

I'll need to reading back through what I've read, but I seem to recall some mention of issuing threats - unspecified - and right now I've got work to get finished so your question will need to remain unanswered for a few hours.

In any case, that the university has cited security costs would also imply they expect trouble from the protesters.

jackofalltrades

From here. I couldn't find a direct link, but this is widely reported.

WomCam called “for an apology from OSFL for hosting this event and urge them to cancel it” and supported a “disruptive protest” if the event goes ahead. WomCam further added “we also support those within Christ Church who are working to stop the event going ahead”.

From the Facebook group "What the f*ck is 'Abortion Culture'?"
The page is no longer available but what they said has been widely reported.
From this website.

A protest group, entitled "What the **** is 'Abortion Culture'?", has been set up in response to the debate, with around 300 people having signed up – the group encourages its members to "take along some non-destructive but oh so disruptive instruments to help demonstrate to the anti-choicers just what we think of their 'debate'."

Seems pretty clear that people were planning on shutting down free speech that they disagreed with.

KomradeBishop

'Disruptive' protest doesn't mean threats...as I explained, 'disruptive' protests can be perfectly peaceful. That quote doesn't make it obvious at all, what they were planning.