More feminist censorship: Cancellation of the Australian premiere of The Red Pill movie

“When feminist filmmaker Cassie Jaye sets out to document the mysterious and polarizing world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. Jaye had only heard about the Men’s Rights Movement as being a misogynist hate-group aiming to turn back the clock on women’s rights, but when she spends a year filming the leaders and followers within the movement, she learns the various ways men are disadvantaged and discriminated against. The Red Pill challenges the audience to pull back the veil, question societal norms, and expose themselves to an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege.” (Source)

The Australian premiere of The Red Pill was to have been in Melbourne in early November 2016. That didn’t happen. A feminist petition on change.org saw Palace Cinemas crumble and give in to their demands to cancel the event. This discussion thread looks at some of the misrepresentations made in the text accompanying that petition.

There were then several change.org petitions underway seeking to have Palace Cinemas reverse its decision, a link to one of which is provided below:

Stop Extremists Censoring What Australians Are Allowed To See. Save The Red Pill screening

More than 8,000 people signed this – almost four times the number of people who signed the petition that saw the screening axed! This petition provides a copy of the letter sent by Palace Cinemas advising that they were cancelling the event. The comments added by petitioners are also quite instructive.

In response to the number of people calling on Palace Cinemas to reverse their decision, feminists then rallied in opposition to make sure the film did not go ahead.

Feminists say publicly that they don’t want The Red Pill screened because of it’s alleged hateful and misogynistic message. That’s only partly true. In actual fact they are more frightened by the prospect of:

a) ordinary people being exposed to an alternative perspective on various gender-related issues, and in particular the public becoming more aware of, and sympathetic towards, the men’s rights movement

b) the public questioning aspects of both the feminist narrative and the actions of feminists in the community. They are quite simply terrified of the prospect, knowing that exposure to those ideas will inevitably further erode the already dwindling level of support for their tainted ideology.

To my knowledge (at the time this blog post was uploaded) no-one in Australia had yet seen The Red Pill. Not the feminists who started and signed the petition, nor Palace Cinemas, no one. All we know about it comes via interviews with the film-maker, a movie trailer and reviews from screenings in the USA. There is no evidence to indicate that the film contains anything offensive or upsetting to the average adult.

This is what feminists do. Not the benign dictionary-definition feminists, I mean the ones in real life. You only need to see how often the ‘censorship’ tag appears in posts in this blog. Censorship and the erasure of dissenting voices, by whatever means, is absolutely a central theme in gender feminism.

What does that tell you about the inherent nature of this ideology? Why do not more people recognise this for the enormous red flag it is, and speak out accordingly?

Update April 2017: Dendy Cinemas in Canberra and Newtown cancelled scheduled screenings of The Red Pill. And again a petition was started calling on the cinema operators to reverse their decision.

Update June 2017: Cassie Jaye visited Australia to speak at the International Conference on Men’s Issues. During her stay she was a guest on Channel 10’s ‘The Project‘ and on Channel 7’s ‘Sunrise‘ program, both of which generated a lot of media attention.

Rachel Corbett (who was on the panel for The Project when Cassie was ‘interviewed’) wrote an article, and this is Paul Elam’s response.

This tweet and the comments appended is typical of the response to the ‘Sunrise‘ interview on social media … zero support for the program hosts

“Extreme misogynists”: Cassie Jaye vs the Aussie media (13 June 2017) Video

Director of “anti-feminist” documentary leaves The Project panel in stunned silence (8 June 2017) Despite this being a feminist forum, most of the reader’s comments are supportive of Cassie Jaye and/or her film.

A remarkably biased and unprofessional interview on ‘Sunrise’ TV show (11 June 2017) The following viewer asserts that many comments were subsequently removed from the Sunrise Facebook page. I can confirm that a video of the segment was not available via their Facebook page when I checked, and there was no relevant entry in their timeline.

Not content with that, in the face of a tsunami of condemnation on social media, Sunrise then demanded that Facebook remove copies of the interview from The Red Pill’s FB page and presumably elsewhere. So rather than do the right thing and apologise, Channel 7 tries to hide the evidence instead. This mishandling of the incident has only served to create further publicity for the film (and again here). Such clowns, and what a great example of why people have lost all faith in the MSM.

 

 

Our feral media attacks Cassie Jaye, by Bettina Arndt (12 June 2017)

A message for Andrew O’Keefe (12 June 2017) Video

Go ahead and see this prize-winning film for yourself:

There are now many avenues via which you can rent or buy The Red Pill.

The Red Pill Movie Facebook page / comments added to the Palace Cinemas Facebook page

IMD movie review page for The Red Pill

Related articles:

Cassie Jaye’s film on the men’s rights movement shocked Australia. Why? (29 July 2017)

A feminist review ‘The Red Pill’ (26 June 2017)

Sargon of Akkad comments on the University of Sydney protest at the Red Pill screenings (16 May 2017) Video, and here is a video on the incident by Karen Straughan

Professor writes dishonest review of The Red Pill Movie, gets REKT by Cassie Jaye’s mother (12 May 2017) Cassie’s mum goes feral at some jerkov named belov, who wrote this article (note the reader’s comments section).

Protesters clash, one arrested, outside The Red Pill screening and The Red Pill: What happened at the Sydney University screening protest (11 May 2017), which were followed by
The Red Pill screening divides campus ‘libertarians’ from pro-women groups (13 May 2017)

Articles in response to Dendy Cinemas shutting down scheduled screenings (April 2017): here, herehere, and here. Some letters to the editor of The Australian can be found here.

University of Sydney Union Board disallows screening of men’s rights film THE RED PILL (11 April 2017) Australia. Further discussion of this matter here

Jaye’s Red Pill documents social failure to promote gender equality (10 April 2017)

Well met, Professor Sullivan (13 March 2017) Video with Karen Straughan

The Red Pill takes top award at Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema (18 January 2017) USA

Feminists you’re wrong. The Red Pill is not a hateful film (17 January 2017)

The Red Pill in Brisbane: a hero’s journey (15 January 2017)

The Red Pill – An uncomfortable but important conversation (9 January 2017)

Feminists, don’t ban The Red Pill, watch it instead (7 January 2017) Even when feminists try really hard to appear mature and empathetic, they fail to convince … e.g. “a movement based on the notion that men and boys, not women, are the real victims of structural inequalities in modern society“. Said by no MRA, ever, Lauren. MRA assert that men and boys are ALSO “victims of structural inequalities in modern society“.

Are the Cards Stacked Against Men?: Censored Filmmaker Speaks Out (4 January 2017) Video

Now playing at a theatre near you: Attack of the feminist killjoys (3 January 2017)

Wedding Reception Under Feminist Attack Over Movie Screening (23 December 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Video interview between Steven Crowder and Cassie Jaye (16 December 2016)

Video regarding the difficulty experienced by organisers in screening The Red Pill in Canada (3 December 2016)

Men are now the downtrodden sex: Feminist (and mother of a son) reluctantly admits women’s fight for equality has gone too far – as two men reveal how they were pushed to the brink of suicide (1 December 2016)

Permission to screen ‘The Red Pill’ at Western Sydney University denied (29 November 2016) The author of this letter to WSU points out the double standard in relation to the University’s screening of ‘The Hunting Ground’

A Young Feminist’s Compassionate View of Men (28 November 2016

Some thoughts on the Berlin screening of ‘The Red Pill’ (17 November 2016)

The Red Pill, by Bettina Arndt (5 November 2016)

Is this the world’s most dangerous feminist? by Bill O’Chee (3 November 2016)

How a feminist petition to stop a film became an own goal (2 November 2016)

Dear Feminists, please stop telling us what to do, by Corrine Barraclough (31 October 2016)

Another feminist petition (31 October 2016) I live in hope that this one will turn out to be a hoax. Failing that these people need the assistance of mental health professionals.

Video interview with the organiser of the Melbourne screening (30 October 2016)

Studio 10 TV show debates the banning of The Red Pill (30 October 2016) It’s concerning to see Jessica Rowe (and others) adopting a view, and imposing it upon others, with so little effort made in terms of research or impartiality.

The Red Pill makes the Cut in Crowded Race for Oscars (29 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article.

Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill too truthful for feminists to tolerate, by Bettina Arndt (29 October 2016) Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Even Clementine Ford thinks the Red Pill should be shown (28 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Security guards hired for Melbourne screening of The Red Pill (27 October 2016)

Will you take the Red Pill? (27 October 2016)

Media coverage of The Red Pill (27 October 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Why Australian Men’s Rights Activists Had Their Bullshit Documentary Banned  (26 October 2016) The article belongs in the bottom of the cat litter tray, but some of the readers comments are good.

The Red Pill film review ~ Inciting compassion for men’s issues (26 October 2016)

Men’s rights group vows to push ahead with documentary screening (25 October 2016)

Cassie Jaye on Feminism and Men’s Rights Activists (24 October 2016) Youtube video

More Reddit/r/mensrights discussion threads on The Red Pill movie

redpill3

Since when did it become acceptable for public servants to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem

Most public sector agencies, and many businesses, develop and enforce policies to guide their employees in the appropriate use of social media. The focus of most such policies is to reduce the likelihood that employees will post something that compromises the organisation that they work for. Conversely, the main criticism of social media policies is their potential to muzzle employees from communicating freely with the public.

A study commissioned by the Australian Electoral Commission recognised that “social media afford(ed) new opportunities for engaging citizens in democratic processes” (p8), but warned that sites can “become ‘digital enclaves’ or ‘echo chambers’ for small groups of like-minded citizens who dominate discussion.” (p29)

Social media policies may make provision to block members of the public who post spam or abusive or threatening messages onto the Facebook page/Twitter stream/etc of the organisation in question.

Few social media policies, however, seem to address the issue of whether staff are allowed to block/ban or remove posts in relation to members of the public who post material that is not offensive, but which may embarass the individual/organisation and/or promote or reflect alternative ideologies or belief systems.

Granted, my research has been limited, but the sole exception I have come across thus far in the public sector is the ‘ACT Government Social Media Policy Guidelines‘. That policy includes the following clause:

“Openness and transparency should be the defaults, meaning blocking users on Twitter and locking Facebook groups designed for public interface is not advisable” (Source – refer page 27)

This topic recently reared its head as a result of my interaction with a government agency known as the Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’).

As readers of this blog would be aware, I maintain an ongoing interest in the operation of the AHRC (example). That being the case I periodically check the relevant social media accounts to maintain an awareness of what is being said and done, and occasionally to comment.

The other day I was surprised to discover this notice upon attempting to view the Twitter stream of the Sex-Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins:

Jenkins2

I looked at my most recent tweets to Ms Jenkins to see if I had inadvertently stepped over the line re: civility. This is what I found:

jenkins1

Fairly tame stuff, huh? As I expected. I challenge Ms Jenkins or anyone else I have communicated with to produce anything that they consider to be so offensive as to justify punitive action. I mean aside from generalised hurt feelings arising from transgressions against cherished ideology.

I’m both a tax-payer and a former public servant, and I would no sooner have binned correspondence from the public/hung up on people/etc than walk to work naked. And make no mistake, blocking constituents on social media is the current-day equivalent of such actions. How things have changed.

I wonder if such action is permissible for federal public servants under the existing legislative/regulatory framework? I wonder how commonly it occurs, and whether anyone actually knows?

I also wonder if the staff who engage in this type of systematic disengagement are more or less likely to hold particular ideological views? This PEW Research article, for example, found that the people most likely to block others on social media held consistent leftist/liberal views.

As I discussed in another blog post, this default position of silencing rather than engaging dissenting voices has become a hallmark of gender feminists.

It must be quite intoxicating to believe that your position is so right, and others so diabolically wrong, that dialogue with unbelievers is not just redundant but seemingly an affront to decency.

General guidelines for public sector staff,  in relation to engagement with the public including via social media, are set out in ‘APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice‘. It contains a number of provisions relevant to this issue such as:

2.2.3 The Directions about this Value require APS employees to engage effectively with the community, working actively to provide responsive, client-focused service delivery. <snip> Employees must also ensure that decisions and interactions with clients are objective and impartial, and in accordance with government policy.

4.5.7 <snip> employees should avoid partisan comment and ensure that their approach to speaking publicly about policies supports public confidence in the capacity of the APS to be impartial.

5.1.3 A real conflict of interest occurs where there is a conflict between the public duty and personal interests of an employee that improperly influences the employee in the performance of his or her duties.

(Postscript: Revised public service social media guidelines were released in August 2017)

The Australian Human Rights Commission comes under the oversight of the Australian Attorney-General. That being the case I approached that Department (the ‘AGD’) as follows:

“Today I noted that I had been blocked from accessing the Twitter stream of a senior member of staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Prior to this occurring I can confirm that I did not communicate in a manner that was abusive, threatening, etc (nor make an excessive number of posts for example) … actions that would reasonably justify being blocked or banned.
Such an action on the part of a senior public servant appears not just unprofessional, but amounts to censorship being applied to stakeholders simply on the basis of holding a dissenting viewpoint.
I am writing to you now to request details of the guidelines under which staff (or agencies themselves) within the AGD are permitted to ban or block members of the public from social media streams or pages. Specifically, is such an action even permissible in the absence of bad language, threats, etc?
I look forward to receiving your timely advice regarding this matter.”

The AGD subsequently replied:

“Thank you for contacting the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (the department). The department is not able to directly assist you. Your enquiry would be more appropriately directed to the Australian Human Rights Commission … “

The social media policy for the Human Rights Commission is provided here. The policy does not clearly state whether staff members are empowered to block people for reasons other than those specified therein – which I did not contravene.

I then directed relevant questions to the Australian Public Service Commission (‘APSC’) and the AHRC. In their initial response the AHRC directed me to their social media policy, which I had already indicated I had read. I replied:

“I am seeking an indication from you as to whether the Commission has either a policy or accepted practice whereby members of staff are empowered make
unillateral decisions to place blocks or bans on members of the public
seeking to access and engage with various online portals estatblished
by the AHRC.

As I indicated in my initial email, my focus is on situations where
there has been no clear contravention of the  standards of behaviour
set out in your policy.  I look forward to receiving your further advice on this matter.”

The subsequent response from the AHRC again directed me to their Social Media Policy. From that I think we can assume that they have either not understood the nature of my concern, or that such concerns are only to be addressed on an ad hoc basis.

In contrast I received useful feedback from Paul Casimir, Director Integrity, Employment Policy Group at the APSC:

“The Australian Public Service Commission has not developed guidance for APS agencies about the circumstances in which it would  be appropriate for an APS employee or an APS agency to block access to a Twitter feed or similar social media platform. This is a matter for individual agencies to consider in each case having regard to a number of factors including, but not limited to, the obligation under the Commissioner’s Directions to engage effectively with the community.

Where an APS employee has acted in a manner inconsistent with the APS Values or Code of Conduct that matter may be referred to the head of that agency for consideration as a potential breach of the Code of  Conduct.

However, it may also be relevant to you to know that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, is a statutory officer appointed under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. As such, she is not an APS employee and is not bound by either the APS Code of Conduct or the APS Values in the way that APS employees are. The excerpts of your blog post from the APS Values and Code of Conduct In Practice do not apply to her.”

rightstalk-access-cropped

My own position on this matter? I don’t take Ms Jenkins gesture personally in the least. I do find it ironic, however, that someone whose job it is to protect rights should be so amenable to the removal of rights. Indeed the Commission is on record as asserting internet access to be a fundamental human right. The possibility that Ms Jenkins action was tainted with a degree of misandry is similarly repellent.

I believe that the sort of waspish and self-indulgent behaviour common to online feminist echo chambers is completely inappropriate when transposed to the digital portal of a public sector agency. In the latter situation the priority should not be shunning and shaming, but rather sharing and engaging. Such as approach should be consistently applied to all interested stakeholders – regardless of their ideological preferences and/or the extent to which their views align with those of the relevant agency or individual managing the account.

A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”

An article by Ruby Hamad has leapt to the front of the field in my ‘Foolish Feminist Articles of 2016’ competition. It’s entitled ‘Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?’. That’s the question, but we don’t have to read too much before we realise that Ruby already knows the answer … men don’t attend because they are disinterested or even contemptuous of women’s issues.

I beg to differ as I think that many men are keenly interested in women’s issues, if only because in most cases these are actually shared issues. It might surprise Ruby to learn that many advocate s for men’s rights were originally very supportive of feminist principles … prior to realising the chasm between dictionary feminism and feminist strategy/priorities IRL. In terms of showing contempt for the opinions of people of other genders, well with feminists I’d say that’s very clearly a case of ‘pot-kettle-black’.

The focus of Ruby’s article was a particular event, the All About Women Festival. “It’s a full day of talks and discussions about ideas that matter to women and provides an important platform for women’s voices … So, invite your friends, your colleagues, your best friend or your sisters.”

Ruby notes “It is astounding to me that men think they have little gain from an event such as this. Men need to hear first-hand what the world is like for women. Men need to listen while women speak.”

Anyhow let’s move on to consider the real reasons why men might have avoided this event, and other similar events in general. I’d also heartily recommend that readers consider the opinions of others as expressed in two related Reddit discussion threads here and here.

The first and most obvious answer is that men/men’s groups weren’t specifically invited to attend the event, a feminist event which is clearly presented as being about women and women’s voices. It’s hardly surprising that men might be disinclined to attend for fear of causing upset by intruding on a womens safe space. In other words some men may not have attended the event out of respect for women.

Secondly, feminist’s have a history of telling men who attend their events to keep their mouth’s shut, even in the case of men who identify as feminists. Why then would men wish to attend an event where they would be denied the opportunity of full and active participation, or perhaps even singled out for abuse?

Here’s one of countless examples of that occurring:

“Professor Tompkins praises Jill Johnston (author of the 1973 classic Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution) for being “what was then called a ‘ball-buster’: a take-no-prisoners, man-hating dyke”:

There’s even a key scene in the film when she gets really mad at a man in the audience and gives him an intense ball-busting dyke response to what simply seems to be his presence. She says: “Like, I feel a hostile male element in here and it’s bothering me…I don’t mind guys being here but I feel a hostile male element and, um, that’s making me, that’s making me agitated.”

When the young man attempts to engage her she explodes at him: “You better get the f–k out of here or I’m going to kick you right in the balls and get you out of here so fast man…. I don’t like your generalizations, man…. So sit down, shut up, or get out. I feel a hostile male vibe in here, and I don’t like it….You don’t feel it and I feel it. You feel something different than I feel!” (Source)

Thirdly, feminist’s themselves rarely attend events discussing mens issues unless to deliberately disrupt the proceedings, and usually after their earlier attempts to have the event cancelled failed (using lobbying and misinformation campaigns). Go ahead and google on ‘feminists disrupt mens event’ to rustle up some examples (here’s something to get you started). Clearly the notion that ‘women need to listen while men speak’ doesn’t fly. Can’t feminists just be grateful that men don’t stoop to reciprocating feminist’s own actions?

Fourthly, feminists, both individually and collectively, routinely use many and varied forms of censorship to block and silence men who endeavour to reach out to women to tell them what the world is like for men. Details in this blog post.

Does anyone else think the underlying message of this article is that feminists have ‘all rights and no responsibility’ when it comes to presenting their case?

And in case anyone thought that only Australian feminists would be sufficiently detached from reality to complain about men not wishing to attend feminist events, here is an example from the northern hemisphere:

SXSW’s Online Harassment Summit was just one more place for men to ignore women – Good solutions found a small audience (13 March 2016)

“Soraya Chemaly of Women’s Media Center remarked toward the end of a panel about women in the media: “It’s mainly women in this room. Probably we don’t need this information.”

Yes, I’m sure women know it all already. Gee, I bet that event would have been loads of fun if the other attendees were all as arrogant as Soraya.

In closing Ruby, maybe this article provides all the answers you need.

See also:

Men, please stop hijacking women’s issues (18 October 2017)

The Feminist Far Left Is Making More Enemies Than Allies, by Claire Connelly (16 March 2017)

Sydney Girls High School prefects hit back after Sydney Boys’ viral video‘ (13 March 2017)

Dear men: Here is your engraved invitation to join the Women’s March on Washington‘ (14 January 2017) See related Reddit discussion thread here

Munk Debates: The End of Men, by Leslie Loftus (21 November 2013)

How a feminist debate was derailed by asking all men to leave (4 December 2012)

Sadly, Australian politicians only find the courage to criticise the feminist lobby after they retire

If any further proof were needed about the extent of power wielded by the feminist lobby in Australia then consider the fact that gender issues are rarely mentioned by politicians unless their views are in lockstep with the feminist position on the relevant matter. As for direct criticism of feminists or feminism … well that’s as rare as the proverbial hen’s tooth.

One of the few exceptions to the above rule that I am aware of is Victorian MP Graham Watt. Whilst his criticism was mute, it was certainly unambiguous. Another is Senator Mitch Fifield who refused to roll over when subjected to a sexist slur in parliament. And another is Queensland MP Tim Mander who highlighted the hypocrisy of leftists/feminists who call for diversity and gender parity but look away when the gender balance favors women (media response).

Most recently, ACT politician Mark Parton ruffled feathers when he claimed that middle-aged white men were being ignored in the rush to diversity.

That this is the case speaks far more about the effectiveness of feminist lobbying and infiltration of the media and public service, than about the actual number of adherents to feminist ideology out in the broader community.

In early 2015 only 18% of Americans considered themselves to be feminists, this figure representing a substantial drop in feminist numbers since 2013. Consider too that most of those identifying as feminists likely only possess a superficial knowledge of feminist theory and its tawdry history. In Britain now the figure is even lower, sitting at just 7%. Nevertheless, the feminist hierarchy has no qualms about claiming to be the font of wisdom with regards to what all women want, and how they should live their lives.

Yet despite this our elected representatives, from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on down … are too busy cowering in fear at the thought of being labelled misogynists to take a stand. Thus they would rather please a screeching minority group than represent the best interests of the majority of their constituents.

This sad trend is addressed in this February 2017 article by British MP Philip Davies wherein he states:

“The recurring theme is the number of MPs in different parties who tell me, privately and in a whisper, “Of course you are absolutely right about this, it is all ridiculous” but – with very few but notable exceptions – will not dare to say so publicly.

This highlights two things. Firstly, most MPs lack courage – even to say things which are just plain common sense.

Secondly, it demonstrates how petrified MPs are at standing up to the increasingly extreme feminist agenda, which no longer seems to argue for equality and thinks it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against men.”

The sitting politicians’ concerns are, unfortunately, understandable when one considers the harsh criticism meted out to those rare individuals who do dare to speak out (related article).

One of those attacked for questioning the feminist-constructed status quo is former MP Gary Johns (example). All Gary had to do was question the merit of providing substantial funding to feminist advocacy groups (in lieu of direct funding of relevant government agencies), and secondly to query why male victims of domestic violence were being ignored.

Another former MP, Bill O’Chee, has written articles highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence (such as this and this).

Mark Latham has attracted wave after wave of abuse after writing about feminism and motherhood, the current political approach to the issue of domestic violence, and celebrity ‘victim’ Rosie Batty. Listed below are a few examples of articles that have heaped scorn upon Mark for daring to offer an opinion contrary to the feminist narrative:

Em Rusciano: Good riddance Mark Latham (17 August 2015)
Men are second-class citizens? Give us a break, by Wendy Tuohy (2 May 2016)

Mark Latham and others in a Sunrise (TV program) panel discussion regarding feminism (1 May 2016) Video

Left bleaters ignore truth about wife beaters (29 February 2016)

In January 2016 Mark again found himself the target of furious feminist and ‘white knight‘ scorn after he commented upon the rampant gender bias and misrepresentation within the domestic violence debate:

Mark Latham attacks Rosie Batty in first podcast for Triple M on new segment called ‘Lathamland’ (22 January 2016)

Mark Latham under fire for Triple M podcast describing domestic violence as ‘coping mechanism’ (22 January 2016) with related reddit discussion threads here and here

Mark Latham’s spray makes him an apologist for perpetrators of violence against women, by Wendy Tuohy (22 January 2016)

Why we can’t and shouldn’t look away from the damage Mark Latham is doing (22 January 2016)

Mark Latham’s spray may be his last on Triple M after backlash over domestic violence comments (22 January 2016)

‘You do believe that Rosie Batty causes more harm than good?’ Mark Latham challenged on Sunrise about controversial domestic violence comments on Triple M… as radio station is slammed for hiring him (23 January 2016)

Rosie Batty responds to Mark Latham’s comments about domestic violence (25 January 2016)

Alan Jones and Mark Latham talk about domestic violence (31 October 2016) Audio. See media follow-up here and in The Australia (behind paywall). Jenna ‘Destroy the Joint‘ Price also had to weigh in with some righteous fury.

In this interview with Bettina Arndt, former politicians Peter Beattie and Peter Reith discuss the non-feminist perspective on domestic violence (10 October 2016).

See ‘Abbott slams “anti-men” policy, but why are other MPs silent?‘ by Corrine Barraclough (3 May 2017). Tony Abbott has not yet retired, but as a former Prime Minister kicking around on the backbench he’s only step removed. Nevertheless, bravo Tony!

Beyond these few courageous individuals the picture is bleak indeed. So much for living in a parliamentary democracy. So much for freedom of speech. So much for teasing apart a problematic issue and discussing new and/or alternative solutions to achieve positive change.

Now shut-up and prostrate yourselves before the wonder and wisdom of 3rd wave feminism.

Other blog posts related to this topic include:

Dealing with men’s issues – The current situation in Australia
Beware the ire of an angry feminist
Going Batty: The making of a champion of the Domestic Violence Industry
Persistent pro-feminist and anti-male bias in the mainstream media
Australian taxpayer-funded organisations that do little/nothing for men (other than demonising them)
On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

#FireClementineFord: A case-study in feminist hypocrisy

In an earlier post I mentioned how feminists routinely assert – or at the very least imply – that women are continually abused by men online. They consistently neglect to mention that many women perpetrate online abuse, and that many of them appear to be feminists/SJW. I have also previously written about the widespread feminist proclivity for silencing those advancing alternative perspectives and/or wilfully dishing-out retribution.

Clementine Ford is a feminist journalist known for the virulently anti-male commentary she disseminates by virtue of her position with Fairfax Media. Should you wish to lodge a complaint in relation to a Fairfax journalist, the first step is to go to the website of the publication that published the offending article. Find and click on the ‘Contact Us’ link, and then send your complaint to the editorial team. For example, with regards to The Age website click on http://www.theage.com.au/support/ and then click on ‘Editorial Feedback’. The next step is to make a complaint to the Australian Press Council.

In late November 2015 Clementine received a message from some fellow called Michael Nolan, who called her a “slut“. She lodged a complaint with his employer which resulted in Michael being fired. Clementine’s version of events is detailed in this article, with a related radio interview here. The incident was also picked up by the international MSM (and note the more than 1,750 readers comments it attracted).

Clementine asserts that there are no consequences for men who threaten women online. That’s demonstrably untrue given that there are laws in place to address such behaviour, as well as actions that can be (and are) taken by ISP’s or web site providers. To the extent that such measures prove ineffective, then any such deficiencies would apply to both male and female trolls. As a consequence it seems pointless to single out men as being immune from repercussions, unless of course the intention is simply to demonise men and build further support  for the women-as-victims narrative.

The feminist response to Clementine’s action sought to have us believe that doxing and punishing people for making actual threats of violence was the focus of their fury. This is little more than a ‘red herring’ to win public support, as the true emphasis appears to be silencing those advancing opinions critical of the feminist narrative. We are talking here about comments that very rarely threaten violence, and whose impact is no more severe than one of hurting the feelings of the recipient feminist.

The feminist rage quickly grew and quickly manifested itself in the creation of an online blacklist of those people whom feminists consider to be trolls … essentially a vigilante response.

I don’t support people using foul or threatening language online under any circumstances. But neither do I champion those who respond to such messages by way of shrill over-reaction. Especially when they themselves have an established track-record of disseminating online abuse. And god knows, Clementine Ford falls well and truly into that category …

“Who among us hasn’t had a daydream of going on a rampage and wiping out a third of the male population, AMIRITE?” (Source)

A sampling of some of Clementine’s other noisome literary offerings is provided below (with a few more listed in this post). I might also point out that Clementine recently saw fit to label another Aussie journalist, Miranda Devine, a f**ing c**t! This is mentioned part way through Miranda’s article about pro-feminist censorship entitled ‘So now banks are censoring columnists?’

Clementine Ford truly is a stunning hypocrite, and a potty-mouthed one at that. And if Michael deserved to lose his job then so too does Clementine. And given her prolific and protracted output of gender hate – far more so. So with that in mind, please consider signing this petition.

ford_hypocrisy8

 

 

 

 

 

 

ford_hypocrisy14

ford_hypocrisy6The response from the online community (to Clementine’s response to Michael Nolan’s comment) was certainly polarised.

Three examples of the anti-feminist response were:

If not for double-standards she’d have none at all, by Tim Blair (1 December 2015)

Rabid feminazi Clementine Ford brags about getting a man fired from his job on Facebook (1 December 2015)

No clemency for Clementine (10 December 2015) Radio interview involving well-known female men’s rights activists, the Honey Badgers

Examples of the voices of the demented feminist sisterhood who quickly rushed to Clementine’s defence include:

Tara Moss says we should stand up against this sort of behaviour (1 December 2015) BUT women are more likely to call women sluts than are men, the man that Clementine complained about did not say she should be “gang raped or murdered“, and as if calling Clementine a slut will “bully her into silence“. Oh please!

Why Clementine Ford is so important to women like me (2 December 2015)

A man lost his job for harassing a woman online? Good (2 December 2015)

Online abuse of writer Clementine Ford highlights how bullying can cost you your job (3 December 2015)

See also:

Clementine Ford’s father is a member of One Nation Party (11 October 2017) ROTFL

Feminist Clementine Ford sparks walkout by refusing to answer schoolboys’ questions (31 August 2017) The Principal at Aquinas should be sacked

Feminist Author to Fan: ‘Have You Killed Any Men Today? If Not, Why Not?’ (27 June 2017) with a further article on this incident by Corrine Barraclough

You can dress her up but you can’t take her out (21 June 2017)

Clementine Ford bullies school boys after giving talk at school (8 May 2017) with related discussion in the ‘Toy Soldiers’ blog

Feminist Clementine Ford thinks her online abuse of a severely Autistic man was totally justified. Oh, and it’s all the fault of men, of course (12 October 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

Clementine Ford leads the charge in the battle for feminism’s final frontier (1 October 2016) Oops, apparently I have this all wrong … Clementine is actually a hero and a champion to the downtrodden.

“Australia’s most prominent feminist” Oh god, if that’s the best the movement can offer up. Someone at ABC clearly has been hitting the Kool-Aid fairly darn hard.prominent

This August 2016 article describes how Clementine Ford attacked Erin Pizzey, the founder of the Women’s Shelter movement (but now campaigns for better recognition/support for male victims of DV. See related Reddit discussion thread here.

Clementine Ford teaching your children (18 July 2016)

Why you should never attack Clementine Ford (16 July 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here

Real change requires work – something not all men understand (1 July 2016)

Being blocked is not the same as being censored, by Clementine Ford (8 April 2016)

More than 1,000 women in secret Facebook group name men who troll women online (4 December 2015) If men did this (in relation to female trolls) it would be denounced as evil, but women do it and it’s meant to be justice, right? Related reddit discussion thread here

#EndViolenceAgainstWomen: Thousands join social media campaign to name the men who troll them online (4 December 2015)

Opinion: Pricking the social and sexist conscience can sometimes hurt (7 December 2015) “… some commentators chose to remind readers that Ford had called people such as former PM Tony Abbott and columnist Miranda Devine crude names too. The huge difference is that Ford owns her words. She does not threaten violence.” Yoo hoo, Karen, Micheal Nolan didn’t threaten violence either.

Neither this article nor this one really say anything new, but do feature some interesting readers comments. This article, on the other hand, sees a male feminist author calling for compromise get shouted down by feminist readers (related discussion thread here).

And here you can read about threats made to a women who had the temerity to express her opposition to Clementine’s position

This earlier article, comparing the management response to reader complaints about Mark Latham versus Clementine Ford, is also quite relevant … as is this profile of Clementine by Mark Dent.

Clementine Ford’s Distorted Vision of Australia‘ by Jim Muldoon (13 May 2015)

‘The Misandry Choir’ (31 December 2012)

And in true feminist fashion:

ford_blockWell, at least I have plenty of company on Clementine’s BlockList – 133,000 other people as of February 2016 – many of whom are women.

ford_blocked

Many more examples of Clementine’s hate and hypocrisy can be found at www.clementineford.com, including this good article by Greg Canning.

ford_hypocrisy1

ford_hypocrisy3 ford_hypocrisy4

ford_hypocrisy7.png

ford_moresame

ford_hypocrisy11 ford_hypocrisy12

ford_hypocrisy13

DanielAndrewsMP Clementine with Daniel Andrews MP, Premier of Victoria prior to appearing together on ABC’s Q&A program. Politicians like Dan appear to care more about the number of followers that someone has on social media, than they do about what a person thinks, says, and stands for. His is an attitude that has no doubt played a big role in bringing about the abysmal and still declining state of politics in this country.

clems_slurs

clementine1clementine2

*That* West Australian Government DV Helpline web page – Some further background

This blog post follows an earlier post of mine entitled ‘Addressing systemic gender bias in the WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support‘. That item discussed the gender bias that is very evident in a particular WA Government web page promoting a domestic violence helpline service.

The same WA government web page was also the focus of this reddit mens rights discussion thread. Within that thread I came across an interesting post from someone with the moniker ‘dragonsandgoblins’. It’s interesting not just in relation to the information about domestic violence that it contains, but also because of how it demonstrates the censorship that occurs in relation to efforts to broaden the DV debate beyond the feminist-framed male perp/female victim model.

Anyway, this is what the author had to say:

“I actually wrote an article inspired by this exact webpage in 2013 that was published by http://rightnow.org.au/. Or at least it was published for about 4 hours before they pulled it. I’ll copy/paste it here because people may as well read it:

This webpage, hosted by the Government of Western Australia Department for Child Protection, contains two short paragraphs describing the domestic helpline services provided by this state government. The women’s helpline offers a range of services for women experiencing domestic violence. The men’s helpline on the other hand is more singularly focused, only offering counselling, and only for “men who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive“.

The Government of WA does not offer a helpline service to male victims, instead assuming that women are the only victims and that men will always be the perpetrators. This is despite a growing body of evidence that males do suffer from domestic and family violence in significant numbers. For example, the Personal Safety Survey (2006) by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) found that, 780,500 women and 325,700 men aged 15 years and over experienced violence from a current or previous partner in the last twenty years. In other words, 29.4 per cent of victims who suffered domestic violence were men. 92.5 per cent (301,400) of these male victims suffered this violence at the hands of a female partner.

The Publications and Resources webpage from the Government of WA provides domestic violence resources aimed at the general public and they are as gendered as the helpline services. Out of the “Freedom From Fear” resources, three fact sheets and one booklet are targeted at the violent party and, excluding the fact sheet “How do I know if I’m abusive?”, they all use gendered language that exclusively refers to the violent party as male and the victim as female. All of them bear subtitles describing themselves as being “for men who want to change”, with no reference to women who may want to do the same. The fact sheet aimed at victims also uses the same gendered language.

WA isn’t alone. For example, NSW Legal Aid offers a Domestic Violence Practitioner Service and a Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Program which aid women and children who are victims in legal matters such as getting Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVOs) and victims’ compensation. The NSW Government Family & Community Services Staying Home Leaving Violence program “…aims to prevent homelessness by working with the Police to remove the perpetrator from the family home so that women and children can remain safely where they are.” If the NSW Government offers similar programs specialising in male victims, I was unable to find them.

The federal government also discriminates against male victims. The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (The National Plan) paints a pitiful picture of the federal stance on male victims. Along with use of gender biased language The National Plan has seen the Commonwealth commit $86 million to support women and children who are victims and only $0.75 million to male victims. This discrepancy in funding is justified through the use of misleading statistics from the ABS Personal Safety Survey.

The section of the page that discusses male victims provides statistics that only 4.4 per cent (21,200) of men who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey were assaulted by a current/previous partner compared with 31 per cent (73,800) of women who were physically assaulted. This is misleading because it doesn’t compare the quantity of male victims to female victims – instead it compares what percentage of all assaults against men were domestic violence to what percentage of all assaults against women were.

Looking at just these numbers – 21,200 male and 73,800 female victims – the divide in funding is twenty-five times greater than the divide in victims. The National Plan claims only “a small proportion of men are victims“, yet the ABS survey shows that they are roughly a quarter of all domestic violence victims. Is that really such a minority as to warrant less than one per cent of the funding committed under The National Plan?

Our state and federal governments are perpetrators of gender discrimination. Those discriminated against are not only men, they are victims. Victims who are denied services and support they need based on their gender.

(I apologise for the fact that some of the figures are out of date (for example I am pretty sure the funding disparity under the national plan has increased since 2013), and any dead links. This is presented unaltered from when it was written in 2013.)”

The author of the paper was then asked “Why was it pulled?” and responded:

“Well it was refined by 3 of their editors and myself before going up. After a while one of them was contacted by the editor in chief who pulled it and asked me to make changes such as explicitly mentioning that women are victims more than men (which I do already, since I actually state numbers), saying that I didn’t want funding for women reduced, and calling DV a gendered crime. He also said that I could be “more critical in relation to statistics”. Note that I only take stats from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, hardly a biased source. He also wanted me to mention that women under report DV. He also said and I quote:

…[the article] can be understood as arguing “men are being discriminated against in favour of women”.

I replied and said that I could make some of these changes but my word count ceiling would need to be increased. I said that I’d be happy to say women under report but I wouldn’t say that without mentioning that men under report too. I also said that I couldn’t avoid the theme that “men are being discriminated against in favour of women” because that is the thesis of the entire piece.

I get the feeling the editor in chief never wanted my article to go up at all because without further discussion he decided that even with changes my article shouldn’t be published because.

Your responses suggest to me that it is likely that even with changes, your article will not be suitable for Right Now. The primary reason for that is that you principally concerned with “the numbers”, as you put it, rather than the human rights debate. This means that you miss the point that these services for female victims of violence are not simply about statistics (the fact that more women are victims of violence in domestic contexts then men) but also about socio-cultural male dominance

In other words, these services exist not only because of the quantity of violence against women, but its gendered nature.

So there’s the rub.

Regarding online harassment

The internet has provided a haven for those inclined to strike out at people in anonymity and usually without fear of repercussion.

The purpose of this blog post is not to propose solutions to this problem, but rather to take a step back and call for an objective, measured and truthful discussion of the relevant issues.

There’s no doubt that women are often targets of online abuse, although there does appear to be a tendency towards embellishment and exaggeration with regards to the nature and extent of such abuse. The author of this article, for example, would have us believe that life on the internet is unbearable for women due to the oppressive behaviour of male trolls.

What is generally absent from articles on this subject is an honest admission that a considerable amount of online abuse is directed at men, and that a substantial proportion of those perpetrating abuse are women/girls. Have a look at the information provided in the chart below, extracted from a 2014 paper by PEW Research. (see 2017 updated here)

Why do so many commentators and ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge these significant points?

Surely not the desire to support the feminist narrative of women as the perpetual victims of an unyielding male patriarchy?

The findings of a survey by Norton  painted a different picture. Unfortunately however the results were compromised by poor methodology, a common problem with pro-feminist research. In this instance the researchers failed to include questions about male victimisation via online abuse.

So why has this issue garnered a large and increasing amount of attention in recent years? Are people becoming nastier? Is that nastiness becoming more gendered in nature?

There are a number of significant factors that need to be considered here.

Firstly there is the thorny issue as to what constitutes actual online abuse or harassment. One end of the spectrum is marked by behaviour that is criminal in nature and intent, for example clear threats to commit violence to the targeted individual.

Further along the scale one encounters behaviour that does not involve actual threats, but is so persistent and pervasive as to be genuinely threatening in nature.

At the other end are interactions that are little more than assertive dissent in relation to a particular idea or opinion being put forward.

More and more we are witnessing the definition of terms such as online abuse and ‘trolls’ expanded to include behaviour and people who seem undeserving of these pejoratives. Also troubling is the fact that the same types of behaviour decried as abuse or trollish when used by conservative/non-feminists, are seen as acceptable or even noble when used by feminists/leftists/SJW. This issue of finessing definitions to suit a narrative is discussed in another blog post.

Why do people, particularly in this case feminists/SJW, so readily misinterpret online communication in this way? I’d suggest that in part it is a deliberate strategy, whilst at other times simply a misunderstanding.

It has been suggested that feminists interpret relatively innocuous messages as hurtful because online communication is a forum where women are truly treated as equals. Men speak to women online as men would speak to other men in real life. It is said that many women are unaccustomed to this gloves-off banter, and interpret it as vindictive rather than as heartfelt and direct. I believe that there is an element of truth to this, although again it is but one of several factors in the mix.

One other reason for exaggerated claims of online hate and abuse is that it provides an excuse to instigate progressively harsher and more intrusive forms of censorship. Censorship is a recurring theme in real-world feminist tactics, and one which I address in another blog post.

Turning again to feminist research, let’s examine a project called the University of NSW ‘Cyberhate Project‘, which is being supported by the Australian Research Council (‘ARC’) with AUD$372,095 of public funding.

I was more than a little concerned to learn that this research project will only survey women. That looks an awful lot like a research project designed with a particular conclusion already firmly in mind. I immediately took this up with the ARC, who dismissed my complaint regarding this obvious ideological bias in the following manner:

“Proposals for ARC funding undergo a rigorous peer review process involving experts in their fields who assess the quality of projects and the capabilities and achievements of applicants.  The planning and  management of ARC-funded research projects is a matter for individual researchers and institutions (in accordance with ARC funding agreements).”

I’m left wondering just how many of those peers were likely either fellow feminists or sympathisers. Hands up who else thinks that this might not be the most effective vetting process in the case of a polarised issue such as this?

(As an aside, consider the suffocating anti-male gender bias evident in this article by another recipient of ARC funding. Is there a pattern here?)

The architect of the Cyberhate Project, Emma Jane, wrote an article entitled ‘Rape Threats and Cyberhate? Vote no to the new digital divide‘, published in a current affairs site called The Conversation.

As is virtually de rigeur at The Conversation, readers comments that were deemed unsupportive of the feminist author’s position were quickly excised. In this case that amounted to at least one in four comments. Of the many I read before they disappeared, none of these were in the least bit threatening or abusive.

I posted one of those comments removed by the moderator. It simply stated:

“Emma, Is it not a fact that men are subject to more online harassment than are women? Is it not a fact that many of the perpetrators of online abuse are women? … Might it therefore not be more accurate to say that the real online divide is one between trolls and the rest of us, rather than between men and women as your paper implies?”

Given that men are subject to a considerable amount of online harassment, they should not be excluded from research on this subject. The fact that the finger of blame is often pointed at men alone, when we know full well that many women perpetrate online harassment/abuse, does tend to stick in this writer’s craw. One might consider at this point the example of Australian radfem Clementine Ford.

As with domestic violence and various other topics, feminists persist in labelling issues as “gendered” when they are not, in order to create support for their global war-against-women conspiracy.

stephanie

What now follows is a collection of links to articles that provide various perspectives on the issue of online harassment/abuse:

Police drop investigation as story of racist death threats against Calgary trustee candidate unravels (14 October 2017)

Caleb Bond: ‘We can’t disregard the viciousness of girls’ (11 September 2017)

Woman charged for posting revenge porn after break-up (27 July 2017)

Male Tory MP’s got most social media abuse (24 July 2017)

Men as Likely To Be Harassed Online as Women (18 July 2017)

Women online are getting used to cyber hate. They need to get used to reporting it (18 July 2017) Emma Jane is at it again, viz. men suffer no online abuse/men are the problem/men have no right to protest online abuse/etc

2017 update to Pew’s 2014 online harassment survey shows, again, that men receive more harassment online than women (12 July 2017) Reddit discussion thread

Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy (December 2017 edition of ‘Personality and Individual Differences’) This study asserts that most trolls are male, but I suspect that the findings may have been compromised by one or more of the following factors:

* small sample size with 2/3 of respondents being women, and who were possibly self-selected
* incorrect assumptions (by survey respondents) regarding the gender of trolls
* differing and possibly gender-based judgments as to what constitutes trolling

The media dangerously misuses the word ‘trolling’ (3 July 2017) This article conveniently neglects to mention that this ‘problem’ has been primarily brought about through misusing the term ‘trolling’ to describe reasonable dissent against the prevailing leftist/feminist narrative.

Reddit mensrights discussion thread related to the June 2015 article in The Conversation (as mentioned earlier)

Revenge porn now affects more than one in five Australians (7 May 2017) with further detail provided in this article in ‘The Conversation’. Note how they try so hard to keep pushing the ‘men are worse’ line, even when the figures don’t support it.

Survey finds men and women equal victims of revenge porn attacks (4 May 2017) Australia

Women troll on dating apps just as often as men (13 March 2017) Australia

FactCheck Q&A: are there laws to protect against ‘revenge porn’ in Australia? (8 March 2017)

Jealous ex-girlfriend who posted revenge porn online threatened former partner’s new lover in terrifying 18-month harassment campaign (8 February 2017) UK. No jail time despite it being her second offence.

Men and Women Are Equally Vulnerable to Online Domestic Abuse: Study (19 January 2017)

Scheming revenge porn mistress avoids jail (13 January 2017)

This one-click ‘rape threat generator’ aims to counter online misogyny (6 January 2017) Another unhelpful and biased offering from Emma Jane

Masculinity and Misogyny in the Digital Age (2016)

Scorned woman uses cop database to harass lover (21 December 2016)

TV star sentenced for stalking market trader she ‘became obsessed with’ (19 December 2016)

Bryce Cartwright was the target of social media posts from an ex-partner (13 December 2016) More on this incident here

Australia tackles revenge porn with new eSafety Commission (23 November 2016) AFAIK this agency’s brief was initially gender-neutral but it quickly assumed a pro-feminist stance, making its focus the online harassment of women and girls.

Charity worker who swapped sex texts with her boss posted revenge porn on his wife’s business page after he dismissed her (8 November 2016)

Real estate agent, 46, ‘sent graphic nude photos of herself to her ex-boyfriend’s teen son (29 September 2016) USA

Playboy Playmate could face jail time for body-shaming Snapchat photo (8 September 2016) See 2017 follow-up article here

London’s LGBT Police Are Harassing Non-PC Twitter Users, Naming Family Members In Tweets (22 August 2016)

Scotland Yard ploughs £2million into new ‘thought police’ unit to snoop on web users and hunt down trolls (14 August 2016)

$150,000 Facebook post that destroyed a former deputy principal’s life (8 August 2016) Australia

What bit about the wrongs of sexual threats against women do courts and men not get? by Emma Jane (4 August 2016) Australian feminist academic rejects court ruling and bays for the blood of young male troll. If we reversed genders there would be silence or support for fair judgement. You know I’m right.

Forgiving family reveal they WON’T press charges against teenage girl who posted embarrassing photo of their son, 15, online the night before he killed himself (25 July 2016)

The solution to online ‘harassment’ is simple: Women should log off (5 July 2016)

American woman guilty of threatening to kill Stephen Hawking (3 July 2016)

The top 20 Australian politicians, with respect to receiving online abuse, are all right wing males (1 July 2016) Australia. Typical feminist take on this issue, for e.g. mis-labels harassment as “online violence” and “sexual violence”, does not provide corresponding statistics for men/boys harassed online, nor divulge that much abuse is perpetrated by women/girls. The implication is, as always, men=bad & women=men’s hapless victims.

Female politicians (sometimes) receive more abuse than male counterparts, apart from when they don’t… (29 June 2016)

‘That Tinder girl’: Olivia Melville speaks out about online harassment (19 June 2016)

An investigation into the online stalking and harassment of female MHRA Jasmin Newman (June 2016) More about Jasmin’s situation in this article

Accused, 62, calls law heavy handed (14 June 2016) NZ

#ReclaimtheInternet: MP Jess Phillips validates worst fears regarding Reclaim The Internet, the UK’s budding government feminist Internet censorship campaign (6 June 2016)

Why does this forum have a feminist icon in the top left? (27 May 2016) The ‘Reclaim the Internet’ campaign was established by British MP’s. One forum visitor questions the appropriateness of using a feminist symbol.

Teal Deer’s analysis of the “online misogyny” data (May 2016) Video presentation

Twitter abuse – ‘50% of misogynistic tweets from women’ (27 May 2016)

When women can be misogynist trolls, we need a feminist internet (26 May 2016)

“It might be the best six months of your life.” Woman banned by judge from social media (11 May 2016) Australia

Virar man ends life as wife shows intimate pictures with lover (28 April 2016) India

Why outing senders of unsolicited dick pics is not the same as ‘revenge porn’ (27 April 2016) Plenty of feminist misrepresentation with nil sources cited to back up the usual women=innocent/men=guilty claims.

Eight things not to say to someone facing online abuse (20 April 2016) See point 4 in this article by misandrist Laura Bates: “Silencing is the end goal of the majority of abuse”. Erm, so all those feminists systematically lodging bogus reports to have people’s social media accounts closed, they would be online abusers then?
Yvette Cooper calls for greater monitoring of online harassment (20 April 2016) UK. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Teen pleads not guilty to charges over livestreaming friend’s rape (20 April 2016) USA

Teenage girls traumatised by revenge-porn network aimed at ‘teaching us a lesson’ (19 April 2016) Australia. Both males/females are targetted by online abuse, including revenge porn, but you won’t read that in this gender-biased MSM offering.

The top secret internet groups where men are forbidden (18 April 2016)

Jilted boutique owner bombarded ex with dozens of naked snaps of herself and an explicit video after he dumped her (16 April 2016)

Candace Owens sought to create a hit-list of people whom she and others identified as trolls (15 April 2016) USA … but then read about how this ill-conceived project was subsequently sabotaged by feminists motivated by jealousy, at ‘How A Torpedoed Kickstarter Campaign Unintentionally Revealed An Unlikely Unit of Cyber-Terrorists‘. The story is continued and summed up nicely in this further article by David King.

The dark side of Guardian comments (12 April 2016) UK

Jilted saleswoman put her ex through revenge porn nightmare by posting explicit images of him online in first ever case of male partner being targeted (9 April 2016) UK. Related Reddit discussion thread here.

Girl gets Instagram revenge on cheating ex (25 March 2016) Reverse the genders in this story and “one poor lass” becomes ‘online harassment by abusive former boyfriend’

Spurned ex-girlfriend, 51, sent explicit revenge porn images of her former lover dressed as a woman to his friends and called him a ‘tranny c***’ on the Facebook page of his car washing business (19 March 2016) UK. See related Reddit discussion thread here

Feminist bullies don’t understand the Internet (13 March 2016) Video which focusses on the Gregory Elliot court case.

Is accepting abuse just part of joining Twitter? by Australian feminist writer Tara Moss (13 March 2016)

“A new survey by the Internet security company Norton (for which I’m an ambassador) shows that nearly half of all Australian women (47 per cent) experience online harassment. That rises to a staggering 76 per cent for women under 30. Unsurprisingly, 70 per cent of women believe online harassment is a significant problem and 60 per cent believe it has got worse in the past year.” And nowhere in this article will you find corresponding statistics in relation to men – the survey didn’t include questions about male victimisation. I wonder why not?

Online harassment of women at risk of becoming ‘established norm’, study finds (8 March 2016) Australia. Guardian article drawing on the Norton survey which air-brushed out male victimisation/female perpetration, and thus robbed the findings of social context. No doubt a good thing from a feminist perspective if that would have diminished the victim status on which their ideology is based.

Taking Steps Towards Online Safety This International Women’s Day (7 March 2016) Online vulnerability is not a gender issue, well not unless you are a high-profile tech company with a distinctly pro-feminist bias.

Social media trolling of female journalists is insidious, report shows (6 March 2016) Australia

Receiving online abuse has now become a badge of honour (2 March 2016) UK

Vaginal knitting – Ms Jenkins said the most hateful comments were surprisingly from women (29 February 201)

Emily Sears and Laura Lux: Why we shame the trolls who send us inappropriate messages (31 January 2016) I don’t support the guys sending ‘dickpics’, but the fact that these particular women flood social media with salacious selfies adds a certain irony, yes? #FeministLogic #Facepalm

An anonymous response to dangerous FOSS Codes of Conduct (24 January 2016) USA

Playing Politics With Online Abuse, by Cathy Young (23 January 2016) USA

Court Sets New Precedent By Ruling Against Woman Who Used Facebook Tagging To Harass Her Ex’s Family (21 January 2016) USA

Mum placed on sex offender register after sharing revenge porn videos of cheating boyfriend (18 January 2016)

Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos: Progressives Shutting Down Discussion by Calling It Harassment (8 January 2016)

Online sexism is so out of control that we can no longer ignore it (17 December 2015) UK

More than 1,000 women in secret Facebook group name men who troll women online (4 December 2015) with related reddit discussion thread here

Sydney man fired after calling feminist writer Clementine Ford a ‘sl**’ (1 December 2015) And Clementine, just what consequences are there for women who “behave like this“? Absolutely none, right? (More on this issue in this blog post)

Domestic violence and Facebook: harassment takes new forms in the social media age (30 November 2015)  Australia. And again, this article ignores female perpetration and male victimisation.

100 Women 2015: Social media ‘fuels gender violence’ (26 November 2015) The suggestion here that women are 27 times more likely to be “abused online” is absurd.

One mother-in-law for sale! How angry wives are exposing their marital strife online (24 November 2015)

A Life Ruined By Feminists And The State: Only The Internet Can Save Canada’s Gregory Alan Elliott (19 November 2015) See also this article by Stephen Beard. See this video for how this saga ended (Greg won in court). An overview providing various linked sources is available here.

Education Department investigates report of students posting teacher’s nude photos on social media (18 November 2015) Australia

My doxxer knows how to use Google, has no idea how to “dox” (14 November 2015)

Politicians rally round MP who faced online abuse after criticising men’s rights debate request (31 October 2015)

Were examples of specific rape threats made public? No. How about a formal complaint to police? Apparently not. “Oh look, another politician ginning up fake threats to boost her feminist cred. Never seen that before….” (Source)

Ashy Bines hits back at online trolls after they attacked her post baby body (27 October 2015) It’s laudable that the article makes clear that the trolls were female.

Fact-checking the UN: Is the Internet dangerous for women? (13 October 2015) Video

Women Who Write About Tech Are Still Being Abused Online (13 October 2015) Female author paints a misleading picture whereby only women online are attacked or criticised. Related reddit discussion thread here

Why Justin Bieber’s naked pictures highlight feminist double standards (12 October 2015)

New UN Plot to Make the Internet a Safe Space EXPOSED…and it was Hiding in Plain Sight (8 October 2015)

How can we stem the tide of online harassment and abuse? (5 October 2015) Australia

The UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings (25 September 2015)

TIL that, despite popular belief, men get threatened to have their private photos exposed online more than women (12% vs. 8%) and have the threats carried out more often than women (63% vs. 50%) and related reddit discussion thread (21 August 2015)

Mean Girls: Why the Only People Women Should Fear Online Are Other Women (10 August 2015)

British Police Chief Will Prioritize Online Abuse Reports Over Burglaries (2 August 2015)

Christie Blatchford: Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech (14 July 2015)

Randi Harper, Part 2: The Fact and Fiction of the Troll Formerly Known as @freebsdgirl (2 July 2015)

Kiwi parliament passes ‘Harmful digital communications bill’ outlawing online nasties (1 July 2015)

Harping On: The Hypocrisy and Lies of Twitter’s Most Notorious ‘Anti-Abuse’ Activist, Randi Harper, Part 1 (29 June 2015)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Online Harassment (21 June 2015) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread. But when the target of abuse is male … well, that’s different (See related reddit discussion thread here)

Why Do Feminists Cook Up Stories About ‘Misogyny’ When They Lose Debates? (11 June 2015)

Boston University prof in racist tweet flap accused of trolling white rape victim (18 May 2015)

Online harassment is a form of violence (8 April 2015)

US college student gets cyber-bullied after expressing concerns about a ‘Check your Privilege’ bulletin board in her Facebook page (2 April 2015)

#TeamHarpy: Another Ugly Story of ‘Progressive’ Vigilantism (27 March 2015)

Emma Watson: Trolls threatened to publish nude photos of me (8 March 2015) This article quotes Emma as saying most of those posting threats were other women, yet this article (in pro-feminist news.com.au) claims that men were to blame. As mentioned earlier, this represents an all-too typical bending of the facts to suit the narrative.

Fake Tinder account proves men aren’t so bad after all (12 February 2015)

Measures taken to combat girls bullying girls online (3 January 2015)

The Good (and the Bad) of Twitter’s New Bid to Stop Harassment (7 November 2014)

Online harassment affects men too (4 November 2014)

Anglicare WA survey finds more than half of male victims of domestic violence were subjected to online shaming (28 October 2014)

Online harassment – PEW Research (22 October 2014) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread

oneway

Men are harassed more than women online (4 September 2014)

Men get more than twice as much abuse as women on Twitter (24 August 2014)

#RevengePorn: Real Numbers Show It’s Not Really A Gender Issue (29 July 2014)

Men and women are equally harassed online

Women troll each other online: How females are just as likely to be abused by their own sex as by men (15 May 2014)

Facebook bullying: 19-year-old men are most frequent victims of trolling (15 March 2013)

#womenagainstfeminism receive hundreds of threats (Scroll down their Facebook timeline to 16 August 2014 for details) Somehow I don’t think it would be men issuing most of the threats … but surely not women?

This June 2014 reddit discussion thread, and linked newspaper article, is about female Twitter trolls

Online Harassment in Context: Trends From Three Youth Internet Safety Surveys (2000, 2005, 2010) Published 2013

Female Stalkers, Part 1: What is Stalking and Can Men Be Stalked by Women? (8 February 2011)

words_trigger

Elsewhere in this blog you might be interested in:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist

On the inability to cope with criticism in a mature manner (You disagree with me = You hate women)

Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)

Harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

What did you call me? On labelling and language in gender discourse

On the censorship of non-feminist perspectives and opinion

On being booted off Facebook

My Facebook account was locked last Friday. I think it happened because someone reported me to Facebook HQ as being guilty of promulgating hate speech and/or perpetrating other vile lapses of the Facebook Terms of Use.

I’d say it was no coincidence that it occurred the day after I had an encounter with a couple of aggressive/threatening women whilst I was commenting on an article in the Facebook page of The Guardian Australia. (Hi, Louise and Rebecca).

It’s not the first time this has happened to me, and I doubt it will be the last. But for the time being at least, I couldn’t be bothered persisting with Facebook.

I didn’t actually say or do anything hateful on that day, or on any other day. I didn’t upload porno. Or threaten anyone. Or even use profanity (unlike the two women in question). But those that reported me didn’t care about Facebook rules per se. They just wanted to stop me, and people like me, expressing our views online. And they sought to have all trace of that which had already been posted, removed.

You see, all of my posts using that Facebook account concerned gender-related issues. More specifically, my stance generally contrasts with the feminist position, and feminists don’t take kindly to dissenting views.

I could try to contact Facebook HQ (as I have attempted in the past) to discover what was alleged, and to rebut those allegations. But that would be difficult/impossible because whilst Facebook has streamlined the reporting process, they clearly don’t want to get involved in time-consuming dispute resolution. Read about another person’s experience with Facebook here.

Given previous feminist campaigns against Facebook, I suspect that Facebook is as wary of feminists as our politicians appear to be. And of course, those who made the allegations against me know this.

People reading this who have crossed swords with feminists online would be rolling their eyes at this point in time. They would be thinking “well what does this person expect? Everyone knows that feminists do that stuff all the time”.

The thing is though, I don’t think people in the broader community are fully awake to this. Not even those people sympathetic to what they understand to be feminist ideals.

So to those who don’t realise how real-world feminists behave, consider this post your very own ‘heads-up’. For I can assure you that many in the feminist movement make it their mission to consistently and persistently block the dissemination of messages that run contrary to the feminist narrative.

Feminists even discuss ways and means of getting people off-line – refer examples here and here. It’s always phrased in noble terms such as stopping “trolling” “online bullying”, etc. But the truth is that in the hard-done-by & perpetual-victim mindset of the fervent gender feminist, ANY dissent constitutes trolling, no matter how tactfully expressed.

And indeed I have seen this scenario played out more times than I care to remember. This blog post talks more about this issue, and indeed the theme is revisited in several other posts.

The various tactics that feminists utilise to try to deny their perceived enemies a voice, include:

  • Blocking specific people from posting on pro-feminist Facebook pages
  • Removing posts from pro-feminist Facebook pages when they disagree with the views being expressed
  • Blocking specific people from accessing/posting to pro-feminist Twitter accounts
  • Lodging exaggerated or false reports with Facebook or Twitter in order to have certain peoples’ accounts suspended/closed
  • Not uploading readers comments to blogs or web sites when they are seen as unsupportive of the feminist position on the matter
  • Removing readers comments from blogs or web sites (ditto)
  • Reporting posts to moderators when they are seen as negative towards the feminist position on the matter
  • Not allowing any readers comments to be posted

What does it say about the credibility of a social movement when its adherents devote so much time and energy to blocking debate and suppressing information, rather that doing the opposite?

The truth is that feminists of this ilk don’t want to engage in debate, and they don’t want to provide a ‘right of reply’ (even after they have attacked a specific organisation or individual). And they certainly don’t want information circulated that provides the contextual background the public needs to properly consider feminist claims/grievances, particularly when it serves as evidence of feminist double-standards or hypocrisy.

Why not? Well in part it’s because this unchecked element of the feminist movement carry such intense feelings of contempt and anger towards those who question their cause. And in part it’s because they realise that their position on many issues simply cannot be supported with facts and logic. Thus they far more to lose from enabling informed debate, than they have to gain.

So they stifle debate, censor, deflect and misrepresent. Because they can. Any way they can. And feel completely justified and exonerated in doing so. Like so many cockroaches scuttling about in dark places.

This is what feminist entitlement looks like.

censorship

See also:

Facebook Bans Clementine Ford From Own Account For 30 Days (21 June 2015) Finally some small consolation … a rare treat indeed … a misandrist ratbag has HER account (briefly) suspended

Guess What, Girls? You Don’t Deserve **** (4 May 2014)

Elsewhere in this blog you will find these posts most relevant to this topic:

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Beware the ire of an angry feminist
The Unbearable Lameness of Being
Domestic Violence NSW censors dissenting views (before lapsing into paranoid delusion)

The Guardian publishes article about the awfulness of people being silenced online, and then silences me

TL:DR version: I posted perfectly civil comments in relation to pro-feminist article in The Guardian that weren’t fully supportive of the author’s position. The article was about the horribleness of women’s voices being silenced online. TG then:

  • deleted my comments from their web site
  • deleted my comments from their Facebook timeline (in relation to post on same article)
  • placed me on their pre-moderation grey-list (where I remain to this day)

And now in more detail

I recently read and commented upon the following article in the web site of the Australian version of The GuardianWomen are silenced online, just as in real life. It will take more than Twitter to change that (23 April 2015)

I would suggest that you read the article now and then come back for a brief discussion.

I submitted a comment on the article which briefly appeared online only to then be removed without trace. It didn’t even get the usual place-marker of “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Well, I have read the “standards” and (hand on heart) my comment did not contravene them.

So just how hypocritical is that? Publish an article bemoaning how people are silenced online only to then silence others. Not that The Guardian is any stranger to employing heavy-handed pro-feminist censorship.

Let’s look at a couple of the readers comments that made it through the wringer:

“I dunno. Speaking as a female here, I’ve never had a problem being bullied by the boys online. If we disagree, I can usually deliver a sufficiently ferocious tongue-lashing to make them cringe back in respect. More often, though, we end up flirting through our discussions.

I’ve also had more than one off-putting experience in heavily-moderated forums. While I’m all for civility and respect for fellow-commenters, emotions will rise, taboo words will be used for emphasis, and respecting diversity needs to include accepting that many people don’t share the Official Civilized View on any given issue. There are otherwise intelligent and moral people who have genuine reasons for supporting racist, sexist, and homophobic viewpoints, often backed by science which is at least as solid as that backing the Politically Correct Ideology. And it’s these off-center, alternative, maverick views which offer the most interesting diversity in the marketplace of ideas. Moderating them out of existence because someone will be offended is the worst way to prevent intelligent conversation.

I know I’m not a typical female. But frankly, “typical females” bore me, and I’m afraid that when internet forums are made safe and secure enough for the lame and timorous, it’s the intellectual equivalent of pulling half the water out of a swimming pool so that it’s safe for the little kids. I’m not a little kid anymore, and I don’t swim in the wading pool.” (Cynndara)

Another reader stated:

“Whilst you may have a some of data, on “who” is posting, your analysis is deeply flawed. Let’s start with the click-bait: “Women are silenced online, just as in real life”

The first analysis of your article shows that women are quiet (vs silenced) online and this probably matches offline behaviour. (Yes, in ANY gender balanced group, the loudest are often males… oh goodness… online news matches)

Sadly, this hyperbole characterises much of the rest of your article. Limited data – eg. a paucity of obviously female pseudonyms on some news commenting sites – are extrapolated to such breath taking gender stereotypes as:

Many women are still doing the primary family management and caring roles, so don’t have time.

Yeah, that’s implied by the data isn’t it? Me (a male name) must be hacking out comments whilst my female-type partner (if I have one) would be cleaning the kitchen and caring for the kiddies! Jeez men are slobs.

Of course, matching the template for a standard gender-based argument, the next sentence completely contradicts this:

On the other hand, women are bigger users than men of Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest, platforms that offer a public voice in a personally controlled social environment.

Whut!? No time to write, but time for FaceBook… yes, of course… no problem, keep that mud slinging…

And so we move on to “hey, but women don’t post because THEY’RE FRIGHTENED!!” (ie. women are abused)

Yes, people – and probably more women – are abused online. although seriously, the “article” that you use to support this – 100,000 tweets mentioning rape – hardly merits mention on scientific grounds, let alone relevance for news-based blogs.

Then we go beyond mere hyperbolic extrapolation of limited data, to explaining the whole news-blog world should be reformed in the image of a single web site, because

moderators silently delete, block and ban rather than facilitate conversation, and journalists don’t take part.

Wrong! Sorry, but even here, on the Guardian, where you’re making this claim article authors DO sometimes contribute. In fact (in my anecdotal experience) the most common authors who respond are those with female-like names! And the Guardian already gives the ability to “up vote” (but not good enough, because they don’t throw in a buzz word like respect…)

Moreover, it is best practice to remove (without trace) reported comments. It does not improve the conversation to tolerate/facilitate trolls.

Here’s a thought: stick to what you can argue from the data, and don’t use a sample to help drive your own barrow. For future research you might consider:
1/ IS there ANY relation to female/male roles on the posting of news items — eg. why is it that most Guardian posts are NOT during evening times and other “males do nothing in the home” time periods, but rather, during normal office hours?

2/ MAYBE (just maybe) women AREN’T INTERESTED on commenting on the news and opinions of random strangers. I’m taking a sample size of one here, in that I actually asked an actual female, rather than impying gender from anonymous poster names, but I say that’s one more than you’ve done.

It could be shocking to internet-gender researchers, but a LOT of people could not care less about commenting into the void, and many females (at least that I talk to) find it quite funny that so many men do so: no-one is hiding 19th century style, they just have whole lives to lead.

3/ TOP posters are irrelevant. They are just loud. Look for meaningful attributions, such as “who becomes a Guardian featured poster” OR “who gets lots of replies”

4/ Keep your abuse tags to where they are relevant. Yes, on Twitter there is a surfeit of abusive idiots. Here, less so. As a male-pseudonym, I get ‘abused’ 2 posts out of 5 or so. Of the most critical, I’d say 50% are female pseudonyms. Why not actually look at (on this site)
(i) the type of articles that attract abusers (I can give you some guesses)
(ii) the type of post that attracts abusers
(iii) the “gender” of abusers.

5/ How many female authors have posted, but then stopped. Preferably with correlation against abusive responses.

At that point, please, feel free to extrapolate.” (Stephen Weaven)

I also subsequently posted a comment on the Facebook entry for this story, which can be found here. That entry is no longer visible in the Guardian’s Facebook timeline, having been removed soon after I posted my comment (shown below). Was this a coincidence? Perhaps, but probably unlikely given that other stories uploaded the same day are still visible.

tayzian

Below again you can see another person’s comment taken from the Facebook entry for the article. This is one that perfectly typifies the entitled feminist mentality that anyone not fully supportive of the feminist position is a “male troll” whose views are unworthy of publication. On the other hand, feminists who “challenge too directly” are victimised when their posts are deleted.

geason

More about the ‘moderation’ of comments at ‘The Conversation’

Long-time readers of this blog would be aware on my concerns in relation to the pro-feminist bias and censorship of dissenting views that routinely occurs at an Australian current affairs web site called ‘The Conversation’.

I’ve had many of my comments removed and am on final warning prior to being banned from the site. On 1 April 2015 a moderator at The Conversation removed yet another comment, one that I added to this article about sexual assault. This is what I wrote:

“It’s deeply ironic that the title of your article is “let’s turn the spotlight on known perpetrators”, but within the first sentence you exclude acknowledgement or consideration of all female perpetrators of sexual assault. On what basis? There’s less reported crimes involving female perps, so it’s OK to just airbrush them out?

I’m also troubled by you referencing the 2013 National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women survey, which didn’t bother to ask respondents about their attitudes towards violence to men. Thus the questions about violence towards women were robbed of context and so we don’t know the extent to which the issue is men’s attitudes towards women, or Australians attitudes towards violence generally.”

As usual my comments were fairly benign in the overall scheme of social discourse. But this time, on impulse I wrote to the two authors of the article to see how they felt about the level and nature of the moderation that was taking place:

“Dear Nicola and Anastasia

I write to you this morning in relation to your article in The Conversation entitled ‘Everyday rape: let’s turn the spotlight on known perpetrators’.

I’m a keen reader of The Conversation and like many other readers often feel compelled to offer a comment on the article presented therein. Also, like many other readers, I am frequently frustrated by the actions of the moderators in removing many of the comments contributed – indeed sometimes most of the comments contributed.

You will have noted that as of now, about half of the comments concerning your article have been removed (including one of mine btw). On this, as on previous occasions, my comments were neither offensive nor irrelevant to the matter being discussed.

I have previously raised my concerns about moderation policy with the relevant people at The Conversation. On those occasions when the moderators do not intervene as readily there have been some very good and quite robust discussions played out with no hint of undue unpleasantness.

Rather than just grumbling about it on this occasion, I was wondering how you – as authors – felt about the situation. Are you being consulted about which comments are removed? I assume not. Do you believe that your article – and indeed your own professional development – would be strengthened by allowing a freer interchange of ideas? My own view is that if one can’t have an honest and robust exchange of alternative viewpoints within a web site run/funded by universities, then where can you?

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your views”

Dr Nicola Henry of Latrobe University, kindly wrote back on 2 April 2015:

“Thanks for your email. I think you raise a valid concern. I’ve read all of the comments that have thus far been removed (including yours). We of course have no say in this, but I did wonder why they were removed and personally wished they had remained on the site so that people can engage in debate about these issues. Sometimes there are very offensive personal attacks and inappropriate comments made on this site – so I can certainly see why moderation is important. In other words, I can understand why comments that contain vilification are removed, but not comments that pose an alternative view.

This is an issue that I discuss with my students who take my subjects – we discuss freedom of speech and censorship and the sometimes difficult lines that exist between offensive/discriminatory and opinionated speech (the latter I personally don’t think should be censored by the way).

I’m sorry I can’t offer you an explanation as to why your comment was removed from the Conversation site, but I can assure you that both Anastasia and I are always up for critical debate (that’s our job!).”

All good there. I wonder if other authors are mostly of the same view? If so then the problem lies with the attitudes of the management team at ‘The Conversation’.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The Conversation is a publicly funded forum for the discussion of current affairs and contemporary issues. It is operated under the auspices of Australian universities.

The Conversation should be about mature, free and open discussion (obviously sans expletives, threats and personal abuse).

The Conversation should not continue to be fettered by political correctness and ideologies du jour like gender feminism.

Here’s a relevant comment that appeared in an October 2015 reddit discussion thread concerning another biased gynocentric article appearing in The Conversation:

“I have opted out of The Conversation. Look at the number of “content removed by moderator” and you can bet that most of them were disagreement with the original article which Cory (the moderator) conflates with “breaching community standards” …

I have written several times to Cory pointing out that their editing is not ‘balanced’ and that they only publish a torrent of hate speech masquerading as academic “research”. His reply was to refer me the “community standards” which is a euphemism for a licence to censor opinions that they don’t like.”

This October 2015 Breitbart article provides an overview as to what is occurring in reader’s comments sections in left-leaning organisations like The Conversation.

And yet thankfully here and here we find evidence of a push-back beginning in some US universities. It’s been a long time coming & there’s such a long way to go.