Feminist Slacktivists Shut-Down Free Speech In Toronto (Feat. Stephanie Guthrie & ArtScape)

One of Toronto’s most entertaining political battles over the past few months has been between radical feminists and ‘men’s rights’ campaigners. Both sides are saddled with angry extremists, so their intolerance for each other has made for some spectacular viewing. The situation leaves many people wondering how far each side is willing to go to take down the other- does their conflict have the potential to get dangerous?

The most recent chapter in their conflict came at the end of May, shortly before the Canadian Association For Equality’s (CAFE) planned fundraising concert on June 1st. This obviously left the feminists displeased, they reacted as expected, pooling their efforts for a slacktivist hate-fest aimed at shutting down CAFE’s concert before it even got started. Their approach was to compare the men’s activists to the horrors of Elliott Rodger’s shooting spree in California. Ultimately the concert was shut-down after venue operators made the (dodgy) claim that it’s against their policy to host political events.

But who’s really dangerous here- the men’s rights activists, or the feminists?

 

http://www.genuinewitty.com/2014/06/11/feminist-slacktivists-shut-down-free-speech-in-toronto-feat-stephanie-guthrie-artscape/#more-30933

Petition to Fire George Will Launched By Wife of White House Media Director

another case of feminazis trying to get a man fired for saying/writing something they don’t like

 

Last week, George Will wrote a column about how progressive politics have fomented “rape culture” on college campuses. The column was not well received by some, or even, as a great many of the histrionic responses would indicate, well understood. I received the following press release yesterday, headlined: “87,000 Call on The Washington Post to Address Sexism, Fire George Will.” A group called UltraViolet was touting the success of an online petition they’d whipped up over the controversy. From the release:

“The past week has seen the Washington Post devolve to violent and shameful rhetoric that normalizes rape and violence against women. In the face of a national epidemic of sexual violence, The Washington Post should take a stand against rape– starting by firing George Will, said Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of UltraViolet. “From mocking survivors to misleading the public on demands for college sexual assault reform and blaming women for violence against them– the Post has left the realm of honest debate and entered the realm of hate-speech and dog whistles.”

 

 

Let’s be clear, absolutely nothing about Will’s column rises to the level of “hate speech” and the bit about dog whistles is absurd. The more relevant question is: Who is UltraViolet co-founder Nita Chaudhary? In 2004, she was the Democratic National Committee’s first director of online. And she is the former campaign director at MoveOn.Org. While with MoveOn.org, Chaudhary aggressively defended the organization’s infamous “General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us” ad. (And no, the irony of revisiting how MoveOn.org was wrong about the surge in Iraq as we’re currently making plans to evacuate the Baghdad embassy is not lost on me.)

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/petition-fire-george-will-launched-wife-white-house-media-director_794902.html

Feminism Is Directly Responsible For The Rise of Men’s Right’s Groups

http://fiusm.com/2014/06/12/feminism-is-directly-responsible-for-the-rise-of-mens-rights-groups/

 

The recent rise of men’s right’s activist groups is due to two primary reasons. 1) Men are responding to some of the double standards and biases introduced in some feminist philosophy. 2) Men have realized the need to increase advocacy and awareness of issues primarily affecting the male gender just as feminism has done the same for the female gender.

Unfortunately, the rise of men’s advocacy groups has been met with an onslaught of bashing, shaming and name-calling from feminist groups. Accusing men’s rights organizations as anti-equality, sexist, misogynist organizations that seek to devalue and discredit the feminist movement in order to maintain the patriarchy. This couldn’t be further from the actual aims and goals of men’s rights groups. On both sides, knee jerk reactionaries and radicals have taken combative stances that have devolved most conversations between men’s rights and feminist groups into simple-minded, irrational and illogical debates diluting into name-calling that don’t get any real talking done.

Some segments of feminism and feminist philosophy have taken an unfair and one-sided approach against men’s rights groups. This is completely counterintuitive to the actual conversations that should be taking place because it marginalizes these men’s groups which is inherently hypocritical and it is ironic that a self-proclaimed feminist would act in such a manner. It only takes a small presence of mind to realize that by marginalizing and side-lining men’s rights groups, one is working against equality rather than for it and as such these people are fighting against their own cause. Men must be included as much women in the conversation for equality.

Men’s rights groups do not seek to discredit or destroy feminism. In fact, I would argue that most members of men’s rights groups could more than likely be considered feminists themselves. They simply felt that mainstream feminist discourse was beginning lose touch with its core philosophy of a truly egalitarian world society.

Feminism has in effect censored some men’s’ rights discussions through its liberal use of misogyny and sexist shaming of anyone who has anything to say that is against or questioning of feminist ideologies or stances.

Feminism has also shunned and turned away men from entering conversations relating to women’s rights citing reasons such as: “It’s not about men, it’s about woman”, “It doesn’t concern men”, “Only women understand and only women can be a part of the discussion” and “They’re purposefully taking away focus from real issues”. This separation and exclusion of men simply furthers an inequality in gender based equality discourses and is counterproductive to the feminist philosophies of equality for all, regardless of gender.

Recent pieces on “Rape Culture” and male feminist apologists have harmed the overall equality conversation by introducing stereotypes against the involuntary act of being a man. Many recent pieces have been skewed to imply mere guilt by association by just being of the male gender. Some pieces going so far as calling all men involuntary enablers of “rape culture.” I have personally read many of these pieces such as this one called: The Gentleman’s Guide to Rape Culture by Zaron Burnett. In this particular piece Zaron argues that ALL men are guilty of certain grievances that are supportive of rape culture. Again, presuming that all men are guilty of supporting rape culture when that is not at all the case.

 

Feminism has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of men’s’ rights groups on the basis of tyranny of the majority, citing the male-centric patriarchy as a reason to exclude men from conversations involving their very own rights and abilities to achieve and maintain happiness. Feminist and men’s rights issues aren’t black and white. In fact, most of the issues are complicated and interrelated and it’s why men should not be excluded from the conversation.

There are a  fair amount of issues concern men nowadays that should not be ignored. Domestic violence, rape, and sexual predator stereotypes are just a few very valid issues affecting men. The feminist movement’s marginalization and discrediting of men’s rights groups is counterintuitive towards a movement that is supposed to stand for equality, not one-sided advocacy.

One of the only ways to truly have an equal and unbiased conversation on equality is to take gender out of the equation either through the dissolution or joining of forces between feminist and men’s rights groups. They could call themselves the “equalists” and fight for the equality of all people, stand against stereotyping and focus on having productive conversations on issues that are not gender exclusive. Obviously this would be an extremely difficult thing to actually do, but we must take a more proactive approach to mediating and have productive conversations between different advocacy groups. Right now enough isn’t being done. The real issues aren’t being looked at nor focused on.