nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

harrietharmman

Recently in Toronto the highly respected writer, Dr Warren Farrell was to give a talk on what he terms "The Boy Crisis". This includes issues such as schools failing boys, the high suicide rate in young men, family breakdown etc).

Unfortunately, the local feminists and socialists took offence at him addressing such an issue and tried to shut down the talk, deliberately taking a few of his quotes out of context and pretending it was "hate speech". Note, they didn't simply protest, but the blockaded all entrances, shouted abuse at anyone trying to attend and they actually succeeded in their censorship for an hour until the police thankfully intervened.

(warning, video contains foul and abusive language and crazed feminists)

Their conduct is disgusting, and it's pretty disturbing that the Canadian union of public officials even supported this violent mob. Universities are supposed to be all about debate, discussion and free speech, yet the feminists seek the exact opposite of this for Toronto. Furthermore their abusive of police for protecting freedom of speech and doing what they're supposed to is pretty awful, and to simply label opinions they don't' agree with as "hate speech" has to be the lowest form of debate possible.

Some media coverage:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/m.../2017271843001
http://www.cjad.com/blog/TommySchnur...tryID=10471455
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0a6VL1A8dc

Here's the full 2 and half hour event that they were so opposed to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4

Thankfully the whole thing is now backfiring on them and is exposing the hateful side of feminism. The video has gone pretty viral, please send it to your friends so it gets the attention it deserves.

Find more posts tagged with

jane ruffino

patriarchy

Quick Links

Comments

S.L.F

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Because hey believe that their side are severely discriminated against, and the other side has no discrimination at all.

I don't think it is that simple!

In my work in the MHRM I have come across many women who are helping because they can clearly see that men have it worse in many more ways than women do.

I also come across women whose sons have either committed suicide or cannot get access to their own children.

There is only one side, the human race.

S.L.F

Zombrex wrote: »

Well The Myth of Male Power for a start seems, again after a brief Google, rather objectionable thesis. I haven't read the book, so I don't know maybe the title is meant to have some deeper meaning, but if the idea is that male power is a myth then that is ridiculous. Society is utterly dominated by the male perspective.

Society is dominated by men but those men are doing whatever it is women want them to.

You should read this book as well.

The Manipulated Man

She got a lot of hatred shown to her as well back in the 1970's when she wrote the book.

You can see the video of her having a debate with a feminist here.

turbot

Robert Anton Wilson, one of my favourite authors, said that in the late 1960s he collected lots of radical feminist literature and transposed all references for men/male to jew, and had it typed out again.

When he showed the result to people and asked where they thought it came from, they all presumed it was from Nazi germany.

iptba

(October 7 press release from Canada)

http://equalitycanada.com/media-advisory-u-of-t-event-thursday-on-sexual-exploitation-of-boys-requires-police-presence/

Media Advisory: U of T Event Thursday on Sexual Exploitation of Boys Requires Police Presence

MEDIA ADVISORY – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

U of T Event Thursday on Sexual Exploitation of Boys Requires Police Presence
Men’s Issues Events Return to Universities, Often the Scene of Protest

TORONTO, ON – (October 7, 2014) The Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) will continue its “men’s issues” programs at the University of Toronto by sponsoring “Violence and Sexual Abuse Against Men” with therapist Lynne MacDonellthis Thursday, October 9 at 7:00PM at the Koffler House Room 108 at 569 Spadina Crescent.

One in six men have been sexually assaulted and in the Canadian juvenile justice system an incredible 90% of sexual exploitation incidents are perpetrated by female guards against young males.

CAFE’s history of events highlighting provocative but overlooked facts that challenge ideological feminism have led to massive protests. Militants have disrupted events, pulled fire alarms and harassed members of the public, in contravention of University policies and the law.

The University of Toronto has assessed a need for police officers at Thursday’s event and changed the venue to ensure adequate protection. Marketing materials for the event have already been vandalized and stolen.

“It is deeply troubling that an event featuring a female therapist discussing her pioneering work providing mental health support to abused men could be targeted for protest or disruption,” said CAFE Spokesperson Geoff Stone.

“In the name of equality and social justice a contingent of radical ideologues opt to silence and bully perspectives different from their own, even those focused on men’s health.”

The University of Toronto considered charging the police fee to the student group hosting Thursday’s event but have now decided to absorb the cost.

“We are very grateful to the University for understanding that whatever our beliefs, those who value freedom of expression must come together to ensure that universities remain open places where different ideas can be explored and challenged,” said Stone.

“Bankrupting student groups with security fees only rewards and encourages illegal and dangerous behaviour while punishing those who engage in educational and peaceful debate.”

feargale

@iptba:
If roles were reversed I wonder if we would be getting reports of police baton charges and jail terms for offenders,

S.L.F

feargale wrote: »

@iptba:
If roles were reversed I wonder if we would be getting reports of police baton charges and jail terms for offenders,

I don't wonder at all I already know what would happen.

constance tench

S.L.F wrote: »

Society is dominated by men but those men are doing whatever it is women want them to.

You should read this book as well.

The Manipulated Man

She got a lot of hatred shown to her as well back in the 1970's when she wrote the book.

You can see the video of her having a debate with a feminist here.

Excellent debate!

iptba

(October 16 article

Bigoted board members at Sydney University block formation of men’s health group
http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/bigoted-administrators-at-sydney-university-block-formation-of-mens-health-group-kate-bullen/

iptba

(Nov 22 article)

Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the ‘right to be comfortable’

Student unions’ ‘no platform’ policy is expanding to cover pretty much anyone whose views don’t fit prevailing groupthink

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

Seriously?

There seems to be a growing awareness going in the mainstream media around the extremist nature of modern feminism and a growing willingness to speak out against it in the public view.

iptba

(Ireland this time)

Men’s Human Rights Ireland responds to feminist censoring of IMD

December 2, 2014 By Men's Human Rights Ireland —27 Comments

One of our Men’s Human Rights Ireland (MHRI) members was scheduled to deliver an address at Belfast City Hall this past International Men’s Day (IMD) but was abruptly informed at the 11th hour that his speech had been cancelled.

The reason for this cancellation was apparently due to several complaints made against the group that had invited MHRI to speak, Men’s Rights Northern Ireland (MRNI), by the “Belfast Feminist Network” (BFN) under the leadership of one Kellie Turtle, who in her private, closed discussion group expressed outrage that there was even a men’s day in the first place:

continues at: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/mens-human-rights-ireland-responds-to-feminist-censoring-of-imd/

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

(Nov 22 article)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

That came up in another thread the other day - and as usual, took less than a minute to start finding issues:

KomradeBishop wrote:

So, this author, Brendan O'Neill, denies global warming, is against tackling racism in football and denies instances of racism (thinks it's a sign of a 'class war' ), is against same-sex marriage and against campaigns for it.

In that article, he is complaining about feminist students protesting an abortion debate, where no female debater appeared to be invited to debate, and where the person chosen for the pro-choice position, was a borderline racist, who is also against same-sex marriage.

Then he goes on a lengthy rant/whine about students-of-today being against free speech, because they keep exercising their right to free speech by protesting his debates on various topics like:

I’ve been jeered at by students at the University of Cork for criticising gay marriage; cornered and branded a ‘denier’ by students at University College London for suggesting industrial development in Africa should take precedence over combating climate change; lambasted by students at Cambridge (again) for saying it’s bad to boycott Israeli goods.

Pro-Israeli-government there too, nice.

Good company to have there, for backing anti-feminist attacks.

He pretty much just considers other people exercising their right to free speech, by protesting against him, as being a curtailment of free speech, when his lopsided 'debates' end up being cancelled.

Not really any different to students protesting against ardent Zionists hosting 'debates' at their universities, where it's obvious that they're only there to soapbox in favour of Israel.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

(Ireland this time)

Mens Human Rights Northern Ireland had no-less than Paul Elam from AVfM producing content that was going to be a part of their Belfast talk:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Paul Ealm for agreeing to produce a presentation for the Belfast International Mens Day event, It was the right idea and was stopped by those that have a problem with free speech.

https://www.facebook.com/northernirelandmensrights?_fb_noscript=1

So yes, given that they have been supported directly by a scumbag like Paul Elam (see here), and heavily supported by AVfM in general, I'm not surprised people were complaining about the group.

Always with these exaggerated controversies, and links posted in general: With a little bit of searching you can start to find problems.

People who take mens rights seriously, need to start disassociating from people like Elam; the same people who criticize feminists for not distancing from their extremists, seem to actively work with and support the extremists within the mens rights movement.

That's not merely 'failing to distances themselves' like is said to happen with feminists and their extremists, it is actively collaborating with the extremists within the mens rights movement.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That came up in another thread the other day - and as usual, took less than a minute to start finding issues:

He pretty much just considers other people exercising their right to free speech, by protesting against him, as being a curtailment of free speech, when his lopsided 'debates' end up being cancelled.

Not really any different to students protesting against ardent Zionists hosting 'debates' at their universities, where it's obvious that they're only there to soapbox in favour of Israel.

Your usual ad hominem and yet you've offered nothing to discredit the message itself.

I do love you idea of exercising by their right to free speech though- manifest by trying to shut up anyone you disagree with. Strange how your idea of finding issues waxes and wanes depending in how things align with your politics

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Your usual ad hominem and yet you've offered nothing to discredit the message itself.

I do love you idea of exercising by their right to free speech though- manifest by trying to shut up anyone you disagree with. Strange how your idea of finding issues waxes and wanes depending in how things align with your politics

Except I directly debunked his argument, by showing that what he is really complaining about, is students exercising their right to free speech, by protesting against him. The ad-hominem is a bonus (and in this case, is perfectly valid/non-fallacious, for informing people what the author is like, and how lacking in credibility he is).

Show how my idea of finding issues, depends on my politics. You're not averse to making up smears out of nothing, to try and supplement your argument, when there is nothing provided to show any truth to them.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except I directly debunked his argument, by showing that what he is really complaining about, is students exercising their right to free speech, by protesting against him. The ad-hominem is a bonus (and in this case, is perfectly valid/non-fallacious, for informing people what the author is like, and how lacking in credibility he is).

Show how my idea of finding issues, depends on my politics. You're not averse to making up smears out of nothing, to try and supplement your argument, when there is nothing provided to show any truth to them.

No not unless exercising free speech is equivalent to shutting others up by forcing the cancellation of the talk. Now don't get me wrong, ill defend the right to be pro censorship even if it makes me uncomfortable- just don't pretend its a free speech stance.

And on your politics, please let's not get back to the last time we debated an issue on boards and you tied yourself up on embarrassing knots to defend a position you'd preciously stated you'd concede as reprehensible

KomradeBishop

They didn't force anything - they protested (exercising their right to free speech), and the university decided upon themselves to cancel a debate, when they saw how massively lopsided it was.

The two are free to have the debate anywhere else they like, to exercise their free speech - the university doesn't have to be a host to it if they don't want to; if the university doesn't want to represent a debate, from a racism-apologist, Zionist/Israeli-government-apologist, who also opposes same-sex marriage etc., can't blame them at all.

As I said in the original post: Good company you (and others defending him) are keeping there.

It's notable how many mens rights posters (definitely not all of them - there are many reasonable posters), laud and back/defend people with reprehensible views, wherever it suits them; never a hint of criticism towards the people they are defending, even when really appalling crap is pointed out.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's notable how many mens rights posters (definitely not all of them - there are many reasonable posters), laud and back/defend people with reprehensible views, wherever it suits them; never a hint of criticism towards the people they are defending, even when really appalling crap is pointed out.

Just men's rights posters that do that is it?

(I do love the way though that you infer that criticising the actions of a group is equivalent to endorsing those they oppose- I guess that makes anyone who's anti Israeli into a pro Nazi right?)

KomradeBishop

You're doing it right here - yet instead of addressing the criticism, you just give a "well others do it too!" type response, as if that justifies it.

You don't even have any examples of others doing it either - because you know that in no-time, your examples will be knocked down as a misrepresentation; you want to string it out, to try and make the mud stick.
The misrepresentation I predict you will use, if giving examples: Trying to portray people who criticize your flawed arguments, as 'defending' the people you are criticizing, when they are not - possibly coupled with selectively/deliberately ignoring examples, of them also criticising the same people you were.

That's another thing you do all of the time: Make claims - especially 'appeals to hypocrisy' like the above - as a smear, without backing it up with anything, hoping it will stick.
Exactly like you do with your last sentence there - nothing at all to back that up, just a nonsense smear you've thrown out (where I've done nothing like that), hoping it will stick.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're doing it right here - yet instead of addressing the criticism, you just give a "well others do it too!" type response, as if that justifies it.

You don't even have any examples of others doing it either - because you know that in no-time, your examples will be knocked down as a misrepresentation; you want to string it out, to try and make the mud stick.
The misrepresentation I predict you will use, if giving examples: Trying to portray people who criticize your flawed arguments, as 'defending' the people you are criticizing, when they are not - possibly coupled with selectively/deliberately ignoring examples, of them also criticising the same people you were.

That's another thing you do all of the time: Make claims - especially 'appeals to hypocrisy' like the above - as a smear, without backing it up with anything, hoping it will stick.
Exactly like you do with your last sentence there - nothing at all to back that up, just a nonsense smear you've thrown out (where I've done nothing like that), hoping it will stick.

More waffle, a wall of meaningless sound.

If you want examples take a look at some of your own contributions on boards in the last while.

Frankly I couldn't be arsed getting into more trench warfare with you. I find your debating style too dishonest to be worth the effort.

KomradeBishop

A good example of this misrepresentation, which I didn't see first time around:

tritium wrote: »

And on your politics, please let's not get back to the last time we debated an issue on boards and you tied yourself up on embarrassing knots to defend a position you'd preciously stated you'd concede as reprehensible

This is a direct lie from you. I never defended any views, after I had criticized them.

No doubt, you will not quote anything to back up what you claim here, because you are 100% fully aware, that it is a lie.

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

More waffle, a wall of meaningless sound.

If you want examples take a look at some of your own contributions on boards in the last while.

Frankly I couldn't be arsed getting into more trench warfare with you. I find your debating style too dishonest to be worth the effort.

As expected, you shirk when asked to back up your claims/lies - I routinely back up my claims, you throw smears and then balk when asked to back them up.

You directly lie about what others have said, as well as regularly put out misrepresentations, and never back it up with anything - exactly the same as most of the articles you (and others) post, which try to spin up a controversy out of nothing, as an attack on feminism.

Same quality of argument all over Boards on this kind of topic - from many posters, it's basically propagandizing/soapboxing at this stage.

There are many reasonable posters on the topic criticizing feminism though, but so many who engage in tactics like the above, and try to pass it off as respectable/reasonable.

D'Agger

KomradeBishop & tritium - knock it off

If you don't want to go into it - then don't go into it, move on or take it to PM - there's a posting standard here - what you're offering falls below it so pull up the socks please.

Earl Turner

Seems life in American colleges may not be the perpetual rapefest feminists would like you to believe it is.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-30355922

iptba

(December 8 article)

5 Examples Of Feminist Censorship That Will Make You Rethink Online Bullying
By Janet Bloomfield
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/12/5-examples-of-feminist-censorship-that-will-make-you-rethink-online-bullying/

iptba

iptba wrote: »

(Nov 22 article)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

This issue including the banning of an abortion debate involving "two cisgender men" at the University of Oxford is discussed in this new article:

Limits on Free Speech

February 5, 2015
By
Chris Havergal for Times Higher Education
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/05/report-says-british-universities-have-been-too-quick-limit-free-speech

I'm very uncomfortable with the restriction of free speech, particularly in a university environment where one would think freedom of thought should be encouraged.

ancapailldorcha

iptba wrote: »

I'm very uncomfortable with the restriction of free speech, particularly in a university environment where one would think freedom of thought should be encouraged.

I work for the University of Sussex, the last left-wing university in the UK which is hanging by a thread. They've made huge cuts just to keep ticking over which lead to riots in 2012. Why is this relevant? Well, universities have transition from being centres for debate and innovation to big businesses though some of the latter still takes place. The coalition removing the cap n fees has aided in facilitating this process. Having actual debates and challenging prevailing opinion opens the doors for accusations of things like racism, sexism and homophobia. We had signs placed on our unisex bathroom doors saying that anyone, be they male, female or transgender. It's absurd. We all of us were sharing the bathroom with no issues whatsoever.
So if you're expecting such passive institutions to stand up and criticise current trends when it might cost them money, forget it.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

This issue including the banning of an abortion debate involving "two cisgender men" at the University of Oxford is discussed in this new article:

I'm very uncomfortable with the restriction of free speech, particularly in a university environment where one would think freedom of thought should be encouraged.

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

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.

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.

iptba

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.

I probably should have posted this above:

Free Speech University Rankings

[..]

The rankings found restrictions on freedom of expression at four out of five British universities. A total of 47 institutions were given a red rating by the rankings, meaning they were deemed to be particularly censorious.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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

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.
.

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...