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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow

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 ... t-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 ... se-alarms/


Note that the left-wing Student's Union help organise these mobs and fully support and endorse what they do. Things are so bad for men in Canadian education that other students unions have even altered their constitution to ban men's equality groups:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2 ... ues-group/

[New haven america]

Some feminists are just insane. There are the feminists who believe in equal rights(I agree for equal rights for every one) and some just go insane(Save my balls )

[Jinos]

But remember people, these are not "Real" Feminists.

Cue No True Scotsman and others to come in and dismiss/defend these 'activists.'

[Trotskylvania]

Not a single mention of the actual content of these talks, so you really shouldn't judge either way.

[Conserative Morality]

But remember people, these are not "Real" Feminists.

Cue No True Scotsman and others to come in and dismiss/defend these 'activists.'

FFS

"No True Scotsman" would be "Feminists would never sabotage a peaceful talk!"

"Well, these did."

"Well, no TRUE feminist would sabotage a peaceful talk!"

No True Scotsman is meant to address the redefining of a term after a counterargument is made against a universal claim in order to exclude those that do not fit the arguer's point.

[Eladisia]

It's not the equality of men, it's human equality. Lot's of the crazier feminists use arguments like, "If women have more rights, the whole society benefits," and I don't believe that's fair, I think both sexes deserve to have their issues addressed with fair attention, and that that attitude results in more progress toward solving them.

[Conserative Morality]

Not a single mention of the actual content of these talks, so you really shouldn't judge either way.

Now, acknowledging that I know nothing of the reliability of the "Ottawa Sun"...

If what they claim is true, the actual content of these talks means jack shit. You don't barricade doors and pull fire alarms to protest speech you don't like.

[Condunum]

But remember people, these are not "Real" Feminists.

Cue No True Scotsman and others to come in and dismiss/defend these 'activists.'

...It's not a No True Scotsman to call them radicals, if anything is happening. I didn't watch or read, IDK.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Was whats-his-name (out-of-context/massive-sexist male rights man who had the rape comments?) giving this speech?

Because if so I kind of understand this protest (don't approve, but understand) but if not this just seems like...bitchiness. And I'd say that whether the protestors were male or female.

[Harrietharmman]

Not a single mention of the actual content of these talks, so you really shouldn't judge either way.

Plenty of videos of the talk itself if you want to see what they found so offensive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQzQBTkQZWU

[Avenio]

Slight problem with that narrative.

I was expecting the police officers, the provocative placards, and the rent-a-protesters with neon hair and black face coverings.

I was also expecting the fire alarm to go off—and it did—five minutes after Janice Fiamengo’s lecture started in the nearly full George Ignatieff Theatre at the University of Toronto on Thursday evening.

After all, the last time a person spoke against academic feminism on campus, when Warren Farrell visited in November, approximately 100 protesters barred the doors. They wouldn’t try that again, but I figured they’d try to shut things down, and fire alarms can be effective if, during the confusion, enough people give up and leave.

What I wasn’t expecting was a full house 20 minutes later, after the fire department gave the all clear, or that the controversial University of Ottawa professor would make it all the way through her lecture What’s wrong with women’s studies? without an angry mob attempting to shout her down.

Don’t misunderstand me. They denounced her lecture vigorously, but not until the question and answer period after she spoke. During the lecture, most people were respectfully silent.

The general non-violence of the evening—save for the childish fire alarm routine—is a sign of progress. There were no immediate reports of injuries or arrests. The academic’s voice remained strong. The University of Toronto’s Statement on Freedom of Speech and its Policy on the Disruption of Meetings, mentioned though not read by the moderator, served their purposes well.

So what exactly was so controversial? Few protesters ahead of the meeting could offer specific reasons, except that her talk was promoted by A Voice for Men, whose associates have said some hostile things to women. It’s true that Fiamengo dislikes most of today’s academic feminism, but I think the most offensive thing she said was that, when the Titanic sank, 75 per cent of women survived, but only 18 per cent of men did, because men are somehow naturally heroic.

The rest of the talk was a fairly common critique of feminism. She called it empty, incoherent and dishonest. She said its obsession with violence results in police charging men for assault, while absolving women. She denounced a family law system she says is biased against fathers. She said she is infuriated by “affirmative action where men are passed over time and time again.” She talked about the hypocrisy that women’s studies sees violence around every corner in Canada, but turns a blind eye to the deadly oppression of women and sexual minorities in the Islamic world. And so on.

She also praised a local Toronto feminist, Steph Guthrie, who was interviewed in Metro News about the upcoming talk. Guthrie told the paper that instead of trying to shut Fiamengo down like they did to Warren Farrell, Fiamengo’s detractors should go to the lecture, ask tough questions and debate.

And that’s what many of the would-be hecklers did. In order to stand up to that Q&A microphone and challenge her with dozens of balding men glaring and videotaping, they had to have at least listened to Fiamengo’s arguments well enough to come up with their own rebuttals. That left them scribbling down on notepads and keying into smartphones in eager anticipation while she spoke.

That’s not to say many minds were changed. Many asked questions that betrayed either their admiration or disgust for Fiamengo. In fact, some of them didn’t ask questions at all, and instead just ranted about personal grievances at the hands of those evil women or those evil men.

But there were interesting back-and-forths, including one between a self-identified McGill student who asked Fiamengo to explain why “only 25 per cent of parliament is female-identified.” (I wonder how she knows all 308 member of parliaments’ gender identities, but never mind.) “There’s a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of result,” Fiamengo replied.

Only one person really lost her temper, after making a thought-provoking query about the impact of Fiamengo’s assertion that “children need their fathers” on lesbian parents. Fiamengo responded by suggesting there’s research that children do better in two-parent households. She didn’t like the answer. “That’s heteronormative bullshit,” the woman screamed, before a dramatic exit.

I don’t know that Fiamengo made a sound academic case. What I do know is that she deserves respect for gathering evidence and calmly presenting it. She also offered advice all students should heed. “Educate yourselves so you can challenge [each other],” and, “do it will style, not hatred.”

She’s right on that. The freedom to debate unpopular ideas is something universities have a duty to protect. On Thursday night at the University of Toronto, that ideal was challenged but prevailed.

[Jinos]

But remember people, these are not "Real" Feminists.

Cue No True Scotsman and others to come in and dismiss/defend these 'activists.'

FFS

"No True Scotsman" would be "Feminists would never sabotage a peaceful talk!"

"Well, these did."

"Well, no TRUE feminist would sabotage a peaceful talk!"

No True Scotsman is meant to address the redefining of a term after a counterargument is made against a universal claim in order to exclude those that do not fit the arguer's point.

I'm just preempting the argument.

Given the same thing happened in the last thread that was incredibly similar. (Feminists tried to shutdown an MRA discussion and posters tried to discredit them as not real Feminists).

It's an all too common tactic, since Feminism threads are so prevalent in General.

[Condunum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80/

I was offput by this one at first, but this was quite funny.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not a single mention of the actual content of these talks, so you really shouldn't judge either way.

They are available in full on youtube, and they are exclusively concerned with equal rights.

The fact is that these feminist groups are professional victims. They can't let people question it, and they have to take any action against anything that goes against them, because that's their bottom line.
People like her and gail dines that is. Profiting from the suffering of both genders and screaming at anyone who tries to change anything as being a sexist, while at the same time pushing for reactionary bullshit and shouting down feminist opposistion as being deep cover misogynists / misinformed etc.

Like her batshit anti-porn stance, or the heavy pro-censorship laws she wants passed.
After all, if we make society MORE sexist, we get more fucking money.
These people make me sick.

[Eladisia]

Slight problem with that narrative.

I was expecting the police officers, the provocative placards, and the rent-a-protesters with neon hair and black face coverings.

I was also expecting the fire alarm to go off—and it did—five minutes after Janice Fiamengo’s lecture started in the nearly full George Ignatieff Theatre at the University of Toronto on Thursday evening.

After all, the last time a person spoke against academic feminism on campus, when Warren Farrell visited in November, approximately 100 protesters barred the doors. They wouldn’t try that again, but I figured they’d try to shut things down, and fire alarms can be effective if, during the confusion, enough people give up and leave.

What I wasn’t expecting was a full house 20 minutes later, after the fire department gave the all clear, or that the controversial University of Ottawa professor would make it all the way through her lecture What’s wrong with women’s studies? without an angry mob attempting to shout her down.

Don’t misunderstand me. They denounced her lecture vigorously, but not until the question and answer period after she spoke. During the lecture, most people were respectfully silent.

The general non-violence of the evening—save for the childish fire alarm routine—is a sign of progress. There were no immediate reports of injuries or arrests. The academic’s voice remained strong. The University of Toronto’s Statement on Freedom of Speech and its Policy on the Disruption of Meetings, mentioned though not read by the moderator, served their purposes well.

So what exactly was so controversial? Few protesters ahead of the meeting could offer specific reasons, except that her talk was promoted by A Voice for Men, whose associates have said some hostile things to women. It’s true that Fiamengo dislikes most of today’s academic feminism, but I think the most offensive thing she said was that, when the Titanic sank, 75 per cent of women survived, but only 18 per cent of men did, because men are somehow naturally heroic.

The rest of the talk was a fairly common critique of feminism. She called it empty, incoherent and dishonest. She said its obsession with violence results in police charging men for assault, while absolving women. She denounced a family law system she says is biased against fathers. She said she is infuriated by “affirmative action where men are passed over time and time again.” She talked about the hypocrisy that women’s studies sees violence around every corner in Canada, but turns a blind eye to the deadly oppression of women and sexual minorities in the Islamic world. And so on.

She also praised a local Toronto feminist, Steph Guthrie, who was interviewed in Metro News about the upcoming talk. Guthrie told the paper that instead of trying to shut Fiamengo down like they did to Warren Farrell, Fiamengo’s detractors should go to the lecture, ask tough questions and debate.

And that’s what many of the would-be hecklers did. In order to stand up to that Q&A microphone and challenge her with dozens of balding men glaring and videotaping, they had to have at least listened to Fiamengo’s arguments well enough to come up with their own rebuttals. That left them scribbling down on notepads and keying into smartphones in eager anticipation while she spoke.

That’s not to say many minds were changed. Many asked questions that betrayed either their admiration or disgust for Fiamengo. In fact, some of them didn’t ask questions at all, and instead just ranted about personal grievances at the hands of those evil women or those evil men.

But there were interesting back-and-forths, including one between a self-identified McGill student who asked Fiamengo to explain why “only 25 per cent of parliament is female-identified.” (I wonder how she knows all 308 member of parliaments’ gender identities, but never mind.) “There’s a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of result,” Fiamengo replied.

Only one person really lost her temper, after making a thought-provoking query about the impact of Fiamengo’s assertion that “children need their fathers” on lesbian parents. Fiamengo responded by suggesting there’s research that children do better in two-parent households. She didn’t like the answer. “That’s heteronormative bullshit,” the woman screamed, before a dramatic exit.

I don’t know that Fiamengo made a sound academic case. What I do know is that she deserves respect for gathering evidence and calmly presenting it. She also offered advice all students should heed. “Educate yourselves so you can challenge [each other],” and, “do it will style, not hatred.”

She’s right on that. The freedom to debate unpopular ideas is something universities have a duty to protect. On Thursday night at the University of Toronto, that ideal was challenged but prevailed.

Cool.

[Harrietharmman]

Slight problem with that narrative.

The Flamengo event was last month and the least eventuful of the lot. This is the latest talk in the series, where the speakers were Nathanson and Young.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

All I will say is that, if something truly happened, these particular feminists do not make the entire movement.

[Condunum]

These videos are NSG IRL.

I'm not kidding.

[Occupied Deutschland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80/

I was offput by this one at first, but this was quite funny.

"Fuck-fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck-fucking fuck you you fucking fuck, shut the fuck up! Fucking fuck!"
Was about all I heard from that.

[Ostroeuropa]

I was offput by this one at first, but this was quite funny.

"Fuck-fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck-fucking fuck you you fucking fuck, shut the fuck up! Fucking fuck!"
Was about all I heard from that.

Did you get to the bit where they whip out the insult at one of the people (Who never even mentioned rape or any kind of sex once in his speaking portion) as being a rape apologist?
When you have no argument, shout sexist and fling out insults.

[Tsaraine]

These videos are NSG IRL.

I'm not kidding.

Could be worse. If it were Tumblr IRL, we'd need to send in an army of psychologists, and those guys are expensive.

[Agymnum]

Sometimes, I feel bad that I'm a feminist.

[Condunum]

I was offput by this one at first, but this was quite funny.

"Fuck-fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck-fucking fuck you you fucking fuck, shut the fuck up! Fucking fuck!"
Was about all I heard from that.

The second part was a little disheartening. The MRA seems ot be trying to bait the feminists into calling the "regretting the decision afterwards" scenario [they love so much] rape.

[Eladisia]

All I will say is that, if something truly happened, these particular feminists do not make the entire movement.

Well, that's true of any movement if you judge by an individual basis. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed, though. It looks better if there's more than a Trotsky or Bukharin here and there, and rather a vocal majority.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Fuck-fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck-fucking fuck you you fucking fuck, shut the fuck up! Fucking fuck!"
Was about all I heard from that.

The second part was a little disheartening. The MRA seems ot be trying to bait the feminists into calling the "regretting the decision afterwards" scenario [they love so much] rape.

Where did you get the idea this is an MRA?
The flier explicitly calls for gender equality.