Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

harrietharmman

Toronto feminists have "protested" yet another academic talk on men's issues, this time one focusing on misandry (previous talks included The Boy Crisis and a critique of women's studies).

Feminist tactics including hurling abuse at those attending, brandishing weapons, shouting in attendees ears with megaphones and setting off the fire alarm thus forcing the evacuation of the building. There have been three such events at the university thus far, and the feminists have targeted all three.

Here's two videos from the most recent event:

Note how many of the mob cover their faces whilst chanting about being able to see through the "disguise" of men's rights activists, such incredible hypocrisy.

Some media coverage:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/10/for-some-feminism-no-longer-about-equality
(sadly that's all there is, just imagine how much there would be if a women's rights event was targeted by masked thugs)

Anyway, feminists obviously don't want anyone to know about the work of Nathanson and Young so lets hope that backfires completely and their work reaches a wider audience thanks to the misandrists in the video.

If anyone knows who keeps pulling the fire alarms, then there's now a $1,000 reward on offer: http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/toronto-offers-1000-reward-for-those-triggering-false-alarms/

iptba

Some "hilarious" feminist humour that was re-blogged a lot and got lots of likes (915 notes which appear to generally be in these two categories although I haven't read down that far):
http://angrygirlcomics.tumblr.com/post/44501675470

Fukuyama

Jesus your one with the red dye job is the most annoying thing I've heard 'speak' in a while.

I think everyone has been in a 'debate' like that. Having someone wave their hand in your face, repeatedly saying "shut the fcuk up" etc... makes it very hard to keep calm and not end up looking like the nut job yourself.

She has a very skewed idea of feminism.

Technically I'm a feminist because I believe both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society. Maternity leave for both, same entry requirements to all jobs, equal pay etc...

But I could never align myself with a group like that and I think most people, men and women feel the same. Extremists hate free speech of others and the shouting down of what seemed like a fairly level headed, softly spoken bloke who wanted to simply talk there typifies it.

The police should have just waded into them with batons.

DarkJager

Maybe they should just exclude females from entering the venue during these events? <snip>

Ziphius

iptba wrote: »

Some "hilarious" feminist humour that was re-blogged a lot and got lots of likes (915 notes which appear to generally be in these two categories although I haven't read down that far):
http://angrygirlcomics.tumblr.com/post/44501675470

From the Blog wrote:

This is a safe zone with a zero tolerance policy for racism, ableism, transphobia, misogyny, homophobia, or any of that other bull****

Christ.

Standman

I think the protest was organised by a communist/feminist group in the university. The same breed that I've seen here in Ireland and other countries that hi-jack every legitimate protest by causing trouble in order to promote their own agenda. These people have revolution on the brain.

Galwayguy35

That one with the dyed hair has a fair aul gob on her all right, there is no need to be going on like that.

Man bashing seems to be getting way too acceptable these days.

Bobby42

Yeah repeatedly screaming "shut the fcuk up" doesn't really open up the floor to reasonable debate.

And the moral high ground attitude is really grating.

Criticising feminism is not necessarily anti women.

iptba

Bobby42 wrote: »

Criticising feminism is not necessarily anti women.

It's interesting how the woman with the loud speaker in video two oscillates between the two:
"Feminism under attack, what do we do?"
"Women under attack, what do we do?"
"Feminism under attack, what do we do?"
"Women under attack, what do we do?"
as if they're one and the same.

I doubt she'd be happy with the equivalent with the genders reversed:
"Masculism under attack, what do we do?"
"Men under attack, what do we do?"
"Masculism under attack, what do we do?"
"Men under attack, what do we do?"

If one can conflate the two, one could say that what the protestors were doing was attacking men.

Three Seasons

Some of those women seem to think that if you want to investigate and highlight false rape claims you somehow are promoting rape. Idiots.

The woman with the red hair needs to see a counsellor.

Daveysil15

Bobby42 wrote: »

Criticising feminism is not necessarily anti women.

And that's the problem. That red-haired woman’s hostility is almost validated by an applauding misandrous culture. Imagine if it was the men that were swearing like that at the women. They’d be ridiculed.

the purple tin

That red headed woman is like a foul mouthed version of Kyle's Mom from southpark. Kept expecting her to scream 'What What Whaaat!!!'

They are doing themselves no favours at all by letting her be their spokesperson. Then again most protests will always have a pushy, attention seeking loudmouth who has to muscle their way into the limelight at all costs.

Randy Shafter

The red haird woman gave me a headache with all her shouting. I thought the points the guy was making and raising were valid enough. I still don't know why they tried to turn it into an issue of race towards the end.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

Technically I'm a feminist because I believe both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society. Maternity leave for both, same entry requirements to all jobs, equal pay etc...

Can you explain why feminism doesn't actually campaign for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society then?

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can you explain why feminism doesn't actually campaign for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society then?

I'm a fan of peeling back the skin on issues like these.

It's 2013. People are educated and have the ability to spot large, well organised groups of idiots when they see one. This is one of those said groups.

I'm willing to bet that the average woman would not like to fall in line behind the woman in that video. She seems domineering and unable to listen to viewpoints which deviate from her own. Within her own group she undoubtedly faces disenfranchise among the 'rank and file'. History tells us that extremist leaders rarely last long and will more than likely cause their own demise.

The reason feminists like this don't campaign for mens' rights is because they're sexist and firmly believe women face the same discrimination they did 150 years ago. They're deluded and don't represent feminism.

Now, stepping outside of their own feminist group, lets look at the bigger picture with them in it.

A strict definition of feminism is that women should be treated equal to men, and visa versa. This does not mean that staffing levels will be exactly 50/50 in all sectors, political parties, military forces etc... It means that each gender will have the same opportunities. I make no apologies when I say certain roles are better suited to certain genders. Obviously this is far from a hard and fast rule - which is why female military personnel is rapidly increasing etc... and we're highly likely to see gender balances come into alignment in Ireland as our economy nears the point of being 70% service based.

However, some sectors will likely remain male dominated, others female dominated. The real issue is getting rid of attached stigmas so that both feel free to participate in a gender neutral environment. And it's happening without the assistance of the kind of people seen in those videos.

Feminisim is being undermined with stupid gender quotas in democratic countries. They're unessecary and a very dangerous toy to begin tinkering with.

Thatcher never hid her contempt for feminist militants, saying: "I owe nothing to women's lib."
And she once commented that "I hate those strident tones we hear from some women's libbers."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/04/10/15/47/i-owe-nothing-to-women-s-lib-thatcher

As much as I disagree with her policies, she was one hell of a leader.

I hate nothing more than someone who complains that the door is shut. This applies to all issues across all genders. I hate even more when collective groups are formed to complain their way to having someone else open the door for them. Anything that was ever achieved, for example the ending of REAL discrimination wasn't done by complaining. Eg. African American discrimination, South African apartheid, etc...

Just kick the f**king thing in.

The caliber of people in that video are extremists and represent their own twisted form of feminism which in itself is sexist. They will never have the capability to do anything more than be a bunch of complaining mouths that make little sense and only annoy normal, law abiding people of the free world.

Margret Thatcher agreed that the days of feminists having to march the streets are long over. Universities, politics, the vote, law enforcement are all wide open to women and men equally. In time a gender balance will be reached. There simply is no issue to be pushed anymore.

I'd much rather we tackle homophobia, racism and corruption.

The woman with the red hair did intrigue me though. How could someone be so insanely stupid and yet believe, so much to the point of being verbally abusive, in what she was saying.

It turns out that she's brainwashed herself on Internets for far too long. Scouring the world wide web for any advertisement where a woman shows cleavage, any newspaper article exploring MRA issues etc....

She writes a personal blog here which seems to mirror the personality of a typical feminazi, in all its sexist, vile glory.

She also seems to contribute to a site by the name of Jezebel. Comments, due to the lack of anything other than total agreement and slack-jawed awe in her brilliance, appear heavily moderated. Here is the article, written by herself, which contains the list she read on in the video.

Her little blog is about the sum of her power.

I think men and women can rest easy that THIS is all we have to contend with. :P

____________

From an operational standpoint the group seem rag-tag and steeped in a whole bunch of other issues with a mix od political ideologies. Their university roots suggest students. Everyone goes through a little extremest phase of rebelling against The Man (or Woman :P ). I imagine there's a core bunch who depend on a splintered rent-a-mob to conduct such stunts (eg. pulling fire alarms).

Generally, evil fails to prevail thanks to the actions of the overwhelming majority of good people, and the few who stand up to represent us. I'd personally love to see their websites, blogs and accounts all hacked, defaced, data deleted and destroyed right on the eve of another such stunt to throw their whole operation out of whack.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

lol, she writes on jezebel?

my god, the perfect storm of what the ****

http://jezebel.com/i-didnt-think-the-****-off-had-anything-to-do-with-he-472456214

Lindy WestUphantom lady1L
I didn't think the "**** off" had anything to do with her being fat. I just think it's rude, whether you're annoyed by people or not. I'm frequently annoyed by people, but I can control myself in public. Thursday 10:42am

The Corinthian

Dean0088, thank you for the reply with which I largely agree. Nonetheless, I asked a question which you failed to actually address; can you explain why feminism doesn't actually campaign for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society then?

When I say feminism, I don't simply mean the extremists, the femnazis, but the mainstream feminist movement; it actually has not campaigned for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society - more correctly it has only done so selectively, for women, which is not campaigning for equality.

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Dean0088, thank you for the reply with which I largely agree. Nonetheless, I asked a question which you failed to actually address; can you explain why feminism doesn't actually campaign for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society then?

When I say feminism, I don't simply mean the extremists, the femnazis, but the mainstream feminist movement; it actually has not campaigned for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society - more correctly it has only done so selectively, for women, which is not campaigning for equality.

I did address it, but I don't think you can see the woods for the trees.

The days of feminism being a huge movement to right what were obvious wrong has long since passed. That much has been recognized by women at the top for a long time.

What pounds pavements now isn't feminism. It's sexism. They're sexist so naturally they won't be campaigning equally. Even non-extremist feminists who protest today are largely (in my experience) sexist and are in favour of short-term, short-sighted sexist laws to right perceived wrongs such as gender imbalances. However they, in fairness, are more open to debate and discussion than the kind seen in those clips. Nevertheless their views deviate wildly from what feminism actually is in the views of actual feminists such as Bell Hooks.

Feminists (true feminists) actually still exist. For example, if I ever find myself in a position of power either in a business or in politics I'll ensure no sexist policies or discrimination (even 'positive' discrimination) exist. If a subordinate makes a sexist suggestion, slur or otherwise displays himself or herself to be sexist then I'll fire that person. Or at least make it my business that they're cornered and nullified of their powers.

Feminism derives its name from the overwhelming female membership and the issues they were tackling which related mostly to females exclusively during the early to mid 20th century. It wound down when their objectives were achieved and other groups adopted the name in the 80s to further their own extremest views and inherit an undeserved sense of legitimacy.

This is not an alien tactic to extremest groups. *cough* IRA *cough*

Today's ACTUAL feminists are more along the lines of humanists. However they still refer to themselves as feminists due to an unfamiliarity with humanism themselves, or because others won't know what they're talking about. They're male and female and have probably never been on a protest in their lives. There is not much left to protest about.

Playboy

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

"Cock dodgers". What do you think they are? People who have a phobia of cockrels?

i actually loled at that!

D'Agger

Right.

I've gone and deleted a number of posts relating to Back seat moderation & personal abuse.

Keep it on topic going forwards please

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

The days of feminism being a huge movement to right what were obvious wrong has long since passed. That much has been recognized by women at the top for a long time.

What pounds pavements now isn't feminism. It's sexism. They're sexist so naturally they won't be campaigning equally. Even non-extremist feminists who protest today are largely (in my experience) sexist and are in favour of short-term, short-sighted sexist laws to right perceived wrongs such as gender imbalances. However they, in fairness, are more open to debate and discussion than the kind seen in those clips. Nevertheless their views deviate wildly from what feminism actually is in the views of actual feminists such as Bell Hooks.

Fair enough. However what you argue smacks of communist arguments, in particular in the wake of the collapse of the USSR, that it was not real communism, but state capitalism.

Perhaps philosophically it wasn't communism, but ultimately it was what 'true' communism had evolved into. Those who held onto the old principles were discarded by history and their version of communism recognised by few other than themselves. Feminism is essentially in the same quandary.

The definition of feminism has changed and as much as you would like to call yourself a 'true' feminist, you've basically lost the popular rights to do so.

One must also ask oneself if this 'evolution' of feminism from a movement for equality to a sexist one for the betterment of only one gender did not have its seeds in the original ideology. It may have been, in theory, about equality, but because this at the time meant only the betterment of only one, disadvantaged, gender likely made it inevitable that it would become what it has become; that the flaw was there from the beginning, all it took was time to expose it.

One analogy I've used in the past is this: Consider a society composed of chimps and gorillas. Gorillas each are allotted 2 bananas and 5 oranges. Chimps each are allotted 4 bananas and 1 orange. Both bananas and oranges are of equal value.

It is clear from this that chimps are unequal to gorillas as overall they have fewer fruit. So consider the chimps campaign to redress this imbalance and as a result both are ultimately allotted with 3 oranges.

Yet the chimps have not actually campaigned for equality in the long run, but for equality only where they were disadvantaged. In the short term their interests and the aim of equality coincided, but as time went on the two diverged. Had they sought equality in the long run they would have had to sacrifice their relative advantage in bananas, so that both they and the gorillas would have 3.

From the beginning, the movement for chimp equality was flawed, because the goals of chimp interests and equality were only aligned so long as the chimps were disadvantaged. However this flaw only became apparent when the chimps achieved their goals, even though it was there from the beginning.

Feminism, even 'true' feminism, suffers from this same flaw. As a result, it was inevitable that it would evolve into the form we have today.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

The days of feminism being a huge movement to right what were obvious wrong has long since passed. That much has been recognized by women at the top for a long time.

What pounds pavements now isn't feminism. It's sexism. They're sexist so naturally they won't be campaigning equally. Even non-extremist feminists who protest today are largely (in my experience) sexist and are in favour of short-term, short-sighted sexist laws to right perceived wrongs such as gender imbalances. However they, in fairness, are more open to debate and discussion than the kind seen in those clips. Nevertheless their views deviate wildly from what feminism actually is in the views of actual feminists such as Bell Hooks.

FWIW, the article linked to in the OP (I'm guessing a lot of people never followed the link) makes a similar type of distinction:

"For some, feminism no longer about equality"
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/10/for-some-feminism-no-longer-about-equality

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough. However what you argue smacks of communist arguments, in particular in the wake of the collapse of the USSR, that it was not real communism, but state capitalism.

Perhaps philosophically it wasn't communism, but ultimately it was what 'true' communism had evolved into. Those who held onto the old principles were discarded by history and their version of communism recognised by few other than themselves. Feminism is essentially in the same quandary.

The definition of feminism has changed and as much as you would like to call yourself a 'true' feminist, you've basically lost the popular rights to do so.

One must also ask oneself if this 'evolution' of feminism from a movement for equality to a sexist one for the betterment of only one gender did not have its seeds in the original ideology. It may have been, in theory, about equality, but because this at the time meant only the betterment of only one, disadvantaged, gender likely made it inevitable that it would become what it has become; that the flaw was there from the beginning, all it took was time to expose it.

One analogy I've used in the past is this: Consider a society composed of chimps and gorillas. Gorillas each are allotted 2 bananas and 5 oranges. Chimps each are allotted 4 bananas and 1 orange. Both bananas and oranges are of equal value.

It is clear from this that chimps are unequal to gorillas as overall they have fewer fruit. So consider the chimps campaign to redress this imbalance and as a result both are ultimately allotted with 3 oranges.

Yet the chimps have not actually campaigned for equality in the long run, but for equality only where they were disadvantaged. In the short term their interests and the aim of equality coincided, but as time went on the two diverged. Had they sought equality in the long run they would have had to sacrifice their relative advantage in bananas, so that both they and the gorillas would have 3.

From the beginning, the movement for chimp equality was flawed, because the goals of chimp interests and equality were only aligned so long as the chimps were disadvantaged. However this flaw only became apparent when the chimps achieved their goals, even though it was there from the beginning.

Feminism, even 'true' feminism, suffers from this same flaw. As a result, it was inevitable that it would evolve into the form we have today.

But aren't they simply ignored as extremists? When we read about isolated cases like this (Toronto) it's easy to assume its the world over.

In that city, about as much as they can manage is anti social behavior at academic events and proposing laughable university policies which never make it through.

Outside of Toronto the ripples get a lot smaller.

I think if a crowd like that assembled in Dublin they'd be laughed at on social media and likely shamed personally.

These caliber of people are the same bunch who sit on the ground, refuse to move, waste hours of everyone's time and then cry for their rights at the first tap of a garda baton. :rolleyes:

It's easy to watch a video, see a dedicated, fanatical mob and fall for their posture of power. In reality, anyone with half a brain (ie. the kind of people who end up in trusted positions of REAL power) simply dismiss them for what they are - extremists.

EDIT: And I agree with what many of the comments on the article linked above said. It's an absolute disgrace that more women don't speak out against these fools. Standing on the sidelines of their movement, whilst agreeing with feminism yet failing to stamp out the extremists, is a dangerous kind of complacency.

I'd draw a parallel between that and a man who turns a blind eye to the sexist screening of candidates, or someone who was a member of the Nazi party for the sake of affiliation.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

It's easy to watch a video, see a dedicated, fanatical mob and fall for their posture of power. In reality, anyone with half a brain (ie. the kind of people who end up in trusted positions of REAL power) simply dismiss them for what they are - extremists.

Perhaps. But many people with real power would be reluctant to challenge feminists on many issues and/or speak up for men's rights.

Fukuyama

iptba wrote: »

Perhaps. But many people with real power would be reluctant to challenge feminists on many issues and/or speak up for men's rights.

I agree with the second part, but not the first part.

What exactly is there to challenge feminists on? There not actually pushing any issues that law makers could solve any more. If you mean directly challenge idiots like those in the OP's video then it's because nobody wants to debate with extremists. A better strategy is to stand up wind of them and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot with their big stupid mouths.

Issues like abortion which some think are feminist issues are not - with few feminist organisations touching it with a bargepole. Those that do are normally going against one another, some pro some anti.

I think the reason why mens rights are not pushed is because they largely mirror the kind of issues those idiots in the video are complaining about. Eg. portrayal in the media. There's nothing lawmakers can do about most issues without infringing on the constitutional rights of others. Anyways, they're mostly non-issues to begin with.

Where men are discriminated against - we're starting to see changes such as increased awareness for fathers rights and the fact that the 'Women in the home' part of the constitution will be up for referendum. This, in my opinion, was as sexist against men as it was women as it provided basis for men HAVING to support ex-wives, as opposed to just their children.

Anyways, I'm rambling off here.

My overall point is that sexism largely now exists in the informal societal fringes we only frequent every now and again. I'm not saying there's no such thing as discrimination in Ireland such as in employment etc. But it's largely over exaggerated with bigoted groups failing to interpret data correctly.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

But aren't they simply ignored as extremists? When we read about isolated cases like this (Toronto) it's easy to assume its the world over.

Are those feminists seeking to introduce "stupid gender quotas" (as you called them) extremists? They're very much the mainstream public face of feminism, from what we can all see, and are even politically recognised.

And as per my last post, this evolution was almost certainly inevitable. If you'd like to address that, I'm all ears.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Perhaps. But many people with real power would be reluctant to challenge feminists on many issues and/or speak up for men's rights.

I agree with the second part, but not the first part.

What exactly is there to challenge feminists on? There not actually pushing any issues that law makers could solve any more. If you mean directly challenge idiots like those in the OP's video then it's because nobody wants to debate with extremists. A better strategy is to stand up wind of them and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot with their big stupid mouths

One example that comes to mind are gender quotas to help women.

Fukuyama

iptba wrote: »

One example that comes to mind are gender quotas to help women.

Can you point out an example of any sexist gender quotas in Ireland?

who_me

Perfect example of equality, if you ask me. It shows women can be just as aggressive, confrontational, illogical and self-serving as we men.

Equality 1 Progress 0

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

Can you point out an example of any sexist gender quotas in Ireland?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/groups-welcome-passing-of-bill-on-gender-quotas-1.539585

Fukuyama

who_me wrote: »

Perfect example of equality, if you ask me. It shows women can be just as aggressive, confrontational, illogical and self-serving as we men.

Equality 1 Progress 0

Um, what?

I can't remember when I've ever gotten in somebody's face like that, screaming shut the fcuk up etc... in a debate. Try doing that in a professional environment and I imagine your ass will be on the curb, male or female.

There's a huge difference between arguing your point and being a cnut.

And if a man had spoken those words and acted like that I'm sure people would have the same opinions of him. A twat.