social media – Prawn of the Patriarchy

Since when did it become acceptable for publicly-funded desk jockeys to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem

Most public sector agencies, and no doubt many other organisations, 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 (now former) Sex-Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins:

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:

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.”

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.

(Postscript 7 June 2024: The AHRC blocked me from accessing their Twitter account, with zero communication with me (then or since). You can read my final (benign) posts to them by word-searching on Twitter using my Twitter handle and theirs)

(Postscript July 2023: I note the following statement in the AHRC Submission Policy dated January 2020 – “The Commission also encourages informal submissions via its social media and other online forums“)

Take a look at ‘5 Current issues of ‘Internet censorship’: bullying, discrimination, harassment and freedom of expression‘. So the people that AHRC themself block … are they restricted to those who commit one or more of these five ‘crimes’? That would be *No*, right? The hypocrisy is astounding

(Postscript 7 December 2022: Another now-common practice by woke politicians/bureaucrats/NGO reps is to elect to prevent Twitter readers to submit comments unless authorised to do so (example provided by Queensland politician Shannon Fentiman)

(Postscript 13 October 2018: ‘Should politicians be allowed to block voters on social media?‘)

(Postscript 10 July 2019: ‘Ocasio-Cortez Sued for Blocking People on Twitter‘)

Postscript 7 August 2019: ‘High court rules public servants can be sacked for political social media posts‘. Interesting

Here’s an emerging initiative in the UK – a proposed petition to have their parliament consider this issue of citizens being blocked by public servants on social media. To access the petition related to the text below please click here and here (31 May 2022)

Free Speech Union Wins Six-Figure Settlement For Sacked Civil Servant (28 May 2023) And here’s how things look a further further steps down the pathway we are now on here in Australia

Advocating for men/boys online: Is there benefit to be had in one-on-one interaction with feminists online?

TLDR: I provide the following post for the interest of those sympathetic and/or active in promoting MRA, rather than to provide some kind of a ‘slap in the face’ to those opposed to it. So, based on my experiences to date, do I think that there is a net benefit in interacting with feminists and/or White Knights on social media? My answer to that is an unequivocal ‘no’.

I have noticed some MRA’s spend a great deal of time providing information and/or trading barbs with feminists online. My own online interactions with feminists and their allies have been singularly unproductive. They very rarely provide interesting alternative perspectives or leads to useful sources of information. Instead they offer a narrow and predictable range of ad hominem barbs and child-like taunts, often immediately followed by blocking you.

After these exchanges I get the feeling that I have achieved nothing more than diverting time and energy away from those other things that might have been tackled in the limited time available – for example, targeted lobbying, preparing submissions, etc. Occasionally I’ve also had to expend further time afterwards dealing with subsequent unfounded/exaggerated complaints to moderators, Facebook, etc.

It’s for this reason I prefer to contribute in public forums (e.g. online discussions of articles in MSM) where I try to raise awareness amongst the general public of specific men’s issues, and of related sources of information. Here you find many ‘fence sitters’, who are somewhat curious about gender issues and open to new ideas.

But perhaps if we look at a couple of case-studies:

In this first example what began with a little banter in relation to one of my blog posts, ended with a door slam.

Followed soon thereafter by:

This second example demonstrated pretty much the same pattern as you can see in these few screen grabs:

Anyway I thought I’d take this opportunity to put the question to far more seasoned campaigners than I … once you add up all the time and energy spent dealing with individual feminists, is there a net benefit to be had? Were they interested in your facts? Have you won over any hearts and minds?

Or have you just found yourself, time and time again, switching off your laptop late for dinner … tired and frustrated and thinking that there must be a better way?

If only feminists could play a banjo like this …

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.

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)

On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions

In 1913 a gentleman by the name of Ernest Bax wrote:

“When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” [From The Fraud of Feminism, p.1-2]

In this post I am using a broad definition of censorship that includes blocking or excluding or misrepresenting people/groups or opinions that are at odds with all or part of the feminist narrative.

I should mention that it is not only anti-feminist perspectives that are censored, but also sometimes perspectives offered by men who identify as feminists, or by women who identify as (for example) equity feminists rather than gender feminists.

An example of feminist men being excluded can be seen in this article about a pro-abortion rally in Ireland where men in the audience were told to “know your place” and to remember that “this is a women’s movement“.

Personally, when I read material produced by feminists and see how they respond in online forums, my mind is drawn to the Credit Union Australia adverts shown on Australian TV. In those ads people block out information they don’t want to hear/consider by covering their ears and saying “la la la”. Except that feminists often substitute the la la la with somewhat saltier language.

What is happening is that any view that runs contrary to feminist ideology is branded misogynistic and hateful, and thus automatically unworthy of consideration. In my eyes, alternative viewpoints are not necessarily hateful. Sure they might cause hurt feelings, but that is part and parcel of debate in intelligent adult society.

Feminists say they are addressing both mens and womens issues, and will make the world a better place if we just stay the F**K away and let them do what they need to do. This is a nonsense. Has there been even a single policy change initiated or achieved by feminists that has had a tangible benefit for men collectively? (Cue: sound of crickets)

Good quote about feminism: “That’s what gets me about them — for thirty years, they screamed that slogan [make the personal, political] at the top of their lungs. And then, once men start turning to politics to make the personal political, they start hemming and hawing about whether or not this issue or that one is really a ‘mens’ issue. But somehow, everything on earth is a women’s issue.” (Source)

Let’s be quite clear that we are talking about censorship based on ideology and personal preferences here. I have no problem with moderators taking action against posts that are threatening, incoherent, or peppered with profanity.

So what then are some of the techniques commonly employed by feminists/SJW to isolate those putting forward alternative positions?

Blocking and/or removal of posts or readers comments in online blogs and mainstream media web sites

A major factor in motivating me to create this blog was the annoyance I experience when I’m continually thwarted upon trying to post my views in online fora, for example in blogs, discussion forums, and mainstream news sites like news.com.au.

This blocking or removal of dissenting posts is extremely prevalent in sites related to discussions of gender and feminism. It generally occurs when I, and others like me, put forward perspectives that conflict with cherished notions held by the (usually female feminist) author or moderator. These are people who are, more often than not, singularly unwilling to accommodate alternative positions. I lost track long ago of the number of times this has happened to me … examples here, here, here, here, and here … courteous posts that were either not uploaded, or uploaded but subsequently removed.

This September 2016 article about domestic violence by Rebecca Poulson is an example where readers comments were overwhelmingly critical of the author’s perspective. The author complained on social media of her comments thread being “hijacked”, with many of those comments subsequently being removed by the moderator.

I don’t mean to be pedantic but the use of the term “hijack” demonstrates the sense of entitlement shown by many feminist writers. The definition of this word entails illegal seizure (of an aircraft, ship, or vehicle for e.g.) whilst in transit, and the use of force to make it travel to a different destination. Readers offering their views is neither illegal nor does it involve force, and others are free at any time to offer their own views.

The following collection of reddit discussion threads detail moderator bias and censorship in relation to threads/posts concerning domestic violence and child abuse – See example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5 and example 6 (27 October 2014) Includes the following quote from a moderator responding to a query as to why a post was removed: “It needs to be the right information from the right people. Here’s a shorthand guide: if you are an MRA or TRP, you need not bother posting. If your information may tend to make women look bad, same.”

Let’s consider the experience of another who has had similar experiences:

M the Atheist wrote on 3 September 2013
“… I found a thread about rape and power and spent the time to read the post and all the comments, did not seem too hateful and had some reasonable stuff … I wrote a very reasonable and objective post about rape, power and rape culture (based on one of GWW’s videos). I included data, reason, personal experience and points from GWW’s video; and was surprised that it got posted …

I went back a few hours later to find that my post was removed; and I could not figure out why. I went through great pains to make it neuter, people inclusive, and posited GWW’s hypothesis in what I thought was a well mannered and calm, dispassionate way.

They had also posted and allowed to remain other males’ posts. So why not mine? I then realized that they only allow mens’ posts to remain if they can destroy them or if they are easily group-attacked.”

Something similar also happened to Australian TV personality David Koch when he sought to respond to an attack on him posted in a feminist web site. Another example here from the UK.

Regularly when I debate rape/domestic violence stats or related issues on newspaper websites I get deleted (26 May 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

And why settle for having a single post or web page removed when you can have an entire site taken down? Major ‘Men’s Rights’ Site Shuts Down After Paypal, Amazon Bans (2 October 2018) (Re: ‘Roosh V’)

Reddit

With the exception of reddit/r/mensrights and a few others, there is a high probability that any post made that challenges the leftist or feminist narrative will quickly be made to disappear. It will either be removed by a moderator on their own volition or on the basis of the post being reported by users of the forum. This is not ‘tin-foil hat’ stuff, it happened to me as recently as this morning.

Two other common occurrences on Reddit, involving those making posts that challenge or question the prevailing feminist/SJW commentary, are:

Posts being removed from view to due to down-voting. The speed at which this occurs, plus the large number of votes cast, suggest that this is an organised strategy employed by like-minded activists.
Reddit users being banned from posting in particular forums for posting often remarkably benign comments or questions. Examples of this are provided in reddit/r/mensrights on an almost daily basis.

Reddit discussion thread comparing moderator behaviour in mensrights forum versus feminist-dominated forums
Ask feminists-get banned. Post different view-post removed (Reddit discussion thread, August 2014)

(Postscript August 2021) The removal of the MGTOW1 and MGTOW2 subreddits

Facebook

The same trend is also very evident on Facebook. Many of my posts on the Facebook pages of domestic violence advocacy groups ‘The Foundation to Prevent Violence against women and their children‘ (now called ‘Our Watch‘), and Domestic Violence NSW, were removed and I have been blocked from making any further posts. Why? I thought feminism was meant to be inclusive.

Another common tactic employed by feminists on social media is to lodge reports, which may be exaggerated or completely bogus, about Facebook pages maintained by others. They often do so in a co-ordinated manner with their friends/associates, with the aim of having the relevant pages suspended/removed. And in many cases they are successful.

It would be one thing if the administrators at Facebook were applying these rules and restrictions evenly across the board, but that is not the case. What is happening is that Facebook pages with a conservative or egalitarian or anti-feminist slant are being targetted. Meanwhile a blind eye is being turned to questionable content within pages with a leftist/liberal/SJW or feminist slant.

There are further examples and discussion of this trend in articles listed later, in addition to the following:

Feminists take down AFA Facebook page with 70,000 fans (30 June 2017)
Men’s rights Facebook page, A Voice for Men, removed on day of annual conference (10 July 2016)
Facebook removes A Voice for Men’s page (11 April 2016)
York feminists admit ‘censoring free speech’ in Facebook group (23 October 2014)
Feminists post how-to guide on taking down Facebook pages with false reports

Twitter

Developments on Facebook have helped drive many people, both those with anti-feminist/SJW views and trolls alike, across to Twitter where until recently there was a relatively unimpeded flow of ideas and information. Things are now also tightening up there also, both in terms of actions taken by Twitter staff and other users. For an example of the former, google search to see how Twitter have pursued MRA and anti-feminists such as Milo Yiannopoulos. More recently Twitter has introduced tools to enable greater censorship (see here and here).

Many feminists/SJW not only block those that they encounter, but also make use of shared block-lists. Clementine Ford, for example, blocks 133,000 Twitter accounts and invites other feminists to use her list.

Another Australian feminist, Van Badham, revels in her ability to block in this 2019 article.

This means that a Twitter user can find him/herself blocked from another user’s stream even when they have never had contact with that particular person or group. In some cases this may occur simply because your account was red-flagged due to others that you follow.

I have lost count of the number of times I have been blocked – Here are two examples:

In my first example a feminist journalist by the name of Lindy West blocked me. I don’t know Lindy from a bar of soap, but apparently she considers my views on anything/everything to be unacceptable. Really Lindy? As one cheeky reader commented in response to this article, perhaps you’d be better off blocking Twinkies instead.

At least in my second example I actually had some contact with the blocker (Tara Moss) before the hammer fell. That single solitary tweet is shown below:

Worse still, such arrogant dismissal of alternative views is now spreading to publicly-funded femocrats in the Australian public service.

There are further examples and discussion of this trend in articles listed later, in addition to the following:

DESPERATE: Twitter Now Trying To Quarantine Alt-Right After Failure To Destroy It (29 August 2016)
Milo exposes ‘damaged girl’ Clementine Ford (2 August 2016)
Twitter Bans Conservative Blogger, “Kill Trump” Account Still Active 6 Months Later (22 February 2016)
How authoritarian activists are censoring Twitter (10 April 2015)
Twitter is censoring accounts before a single tweet goes out (12 November 2014)
Twitter to be policed by feminist group (10 November 2014) and a related comment by Cathy Young (21 November 2014)

Lobbying against planned events by anti-feminists or men’s rights advocates and/or disrupting events whilst they are underway

In what is becoming a popular strategy to prevent opposing views being heard, feminists are setting off fire alarms at venues hosting MHRA or anti-feminists speakers. If you want to get some idea of how widespread this form of nuisance ‘activism’ is becoming then google on the words ‘feminist protesters pull fire alarm’. Go ahead – you can start by reading this and this. And only recently feminist protestors disrupted a presentation by CAFE.

See also:

Free Speech Union Wins Six-Figure Settlement For Sacked Civil Servant (28 May 2023) And here’s how things look a further further steps down the pathway we are now on here in Australia

UK feminist, Tessa Dunlop, puts her hand over the mouth of a guy appearing on a TV show with her (29 March 2023) Video

Christina Hoff Sommers debated Roxane Gay in Sydney & Melbourne in late March 2019. Refer this article and linked Twitter stream for now, whilst I try to locate a better review (oh and here’s a SMH offering with reader’s comments). Apparently Gay’s leftist supporters focused on disrupting the event rather than letting an actual debate take place.

Senator Stoker targets Sydney Uni’s handling of the demo against Bettina Arndt (26 October 2018) Video. There is no “crisis” … so expect little/no action from Australian universities and/or relevant gov’t agencies.

A University of Texas function in support of Brett Kavanaugh is disrupted by an unhappy leftist (October 2018) Video

Why Do Feminists Protest Men’s Rights Events? (20 November 2017) Video, with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Protesters clash, one arrested, outside The Red Pill screening (11 May 2017) University of Sydney, Australia

Wellesley College Professors Say Offensive Speakers Like Laura Kipnis ‘Harm’ Students and Shouldn’t Be Invited (22 March 2017) USA

Bucknell Professor threatens his conservative students (13 February 2017) Video

UC Berkeley cancels Milo Yiannopoulos event amid violent protest (1 February 2017) USA with further details in this article

MILO UC Davis Event Cancelled After Leftists Tear Down Barricades, Engage In Violence (13 January 2017) USA

UC Berkeley Extremists Dox Student MILO Event Hosts, Post Personal Details & Workplace Address (12 January 2017) USA

Leftist protestors disrupt Shapiro lecture screaming About Swastikas, Booed Out of Event (17 November 2016)

Columbia U. Students Tear Down Posters Advertising Christina Hoff Sommers Visit (22 October 2016)

Feminists remove flyers advertising an “offensive” talk by Christina Hoff Sommers, claim that their vandalism is “freedom of speech” (1 October 2016)

Milo Yiannopoulos at Depaul: Chicago Shutdown #2 (26 May 2016) USA
Rutgers students protest journalist Milo Yiannopoulos’s visit to campus (10 February 2016) USA with related reddit discussion thread here
See the articles in this other post, regarding actions taken by York University (UK) in November 2015 to stop discussion of male issues on International Men’s Day
Masked feminists pull fire alarm yet again at men’s equality lecture in Ottawa, get kicked out by police (6 October 2015) Reddit discussion thread with linked video.
Speaker shouted down at Portland State (13 May 2014)

Uninviting, heckling and/or ejecting non-feminists or anti-feminists attending feminist events

Warren Farrell protest at University of Toronto (29 November 2012) Canada. Video

Bristol University Feminist Society seeks to ban anti-feminist speaker (7 November 2015) Video
Uninvited (22 October 2015) Suzanne Venker uninvited as speaker at Williams College
Breitbart editor ejected from Amber Rose Slutwalk by police (3 October 2015)
Female Group Ejected From Comic Expo For Criticizing Feminism (18 April 2015)

The term ‘anti-democratic’ is way too insipid to describe this pattern of behaviour. This is something more negative, much darker and more pervasive, and which all but precludes any meaningful dialogue. Indeed the direction in which this is already heading is that any comments that are deemed to be anti-feminist and/or sexist will be made illegal on the grounds of combating hate-speech (example). Opposing this trend, at least for those that have the means to take legal action, is legal precedent such as this.

A curious aspect of feminist censorship is that one of its key functions is to block open debate of their own issues. Even the noisiest feminists only want to be heard when they can control the ‘dialogue’. Otherwise … well this challenge by Milo Yiannopolous to Anita Sarkeesian (thus far) illustrates what shrinking violets even high-profile feminists can be when someone else seizes the initiative. Mike Buchanan’s web site features many examples of his own unacknowledged public challenges to feminists to debate significant issues.

Feminists don’t want to debate issues or engage with their opponents, they want to neutralise them by almost any means necessary. What follows is a brief extract from Rules for Radicals‘ as cited in a blog post by Anne Althouse:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

Some articles on the general issue of the gradual death of free speech and/or the unwillingness of the liberal left to engage constructively

Penguin Random House staff confront publisher about new Jordan Peterson book (25 November 2020)

Inside the near meltdown of Roxane Gay and Christina Hoff Sommers’s Australian tour. The conversation series didn’t work out as planned (April 2019)

The Counterproductive Suppression of Heterodox Views on Race (10 September 2018)

A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech (18 September 2017)

Pro-feminist web site ‘Vice’ blocks archiving of their pages (4 July 2017) Caught out too many times publishing false/misleading ‘information’, so prefer to hit and run (& hide the evidence)?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the cultural erosion of free speech (5 April 2017)

Camille Paglia: Women Aren’t Free Until Speech Is (21 March 2017)

Campus censorship ratchets up, by Matthew Lesh (16 March 2017)

The left’s sickening superiority complex, by Corrine Barraclough (18 February 2017)

American colleges are approaching a constitutional crisis (28 December 2016)

Liberal minds have snapped shut like clams, by Janice Turner (26 November 2016) UK

Milo interviewed by the BBC (30 October 2016) UK. Video

Jonathan Pie tells the people of the left why Donald Trump won (10 November 2016) Video. A CLASSIC

A university professor speaks out (7 October 2016)

Polite disagreement is now “Hate Speech”, by Andrew Bolt (1 October 2016)

Two good articles in The Australian on 24/25 September 2016 (if you can get behind the paywall): ‘What more in the name of love?‘ by David Crowe, and ‘Straight-out hate in politics of identity‘ by Brendan O’Neill. Neither article specifically mentions feminists, yet very accurately describe their tactics.

CNN’s Sally Kohn: It’s ‘good’ if conservatives feel unable to speak on campus (17 September 2016)

Free speech and the media are too often in a marriage of convenience (12 September 2016) Author unsurprisingly neglects to mention that leftists/feminists are probably the worst offenders with regards to this form of bias.

Sydney University accused of bias after lecturers likened conservative politicians to Nazis (22 August 2016) Australia

Why we need to hear what controversial people say and not silence the debate (21 July 2016) Australia. This article appeared in The Conversation, normally a soapbox for SJW/feminists, so no surprise they pulled this article from the front page of their web site in haste.

Rita Panahi says we’re paying a vicious price for free speech (19 July 2016)

Why today’s young women are just so FEEBLE: They can’t cope with ANY ideas that challenge their right-on view of the world, says a top academic (9 June 2016)

Free speech: Under attack (4 June 2016)

Bomb threat ends Milo Yiannopoulos event at UCLA (1 June 2016)

UMass Amherst students throw temper tantrum at free speech event (26 April 2016) USA

Judge Jeanine: The Left Will ‘Stop at Nothing to Prevent Free Speech’ (13 March 2016) USA

Practices such as no-platforming threaten to strangle the roots of freedom (3 March 2016) UK

Guardian closes comments on three topics (1 February 2016)

Online Censorship Website catalogues Censorship Across Social Media (24 December 2015)

When Society Encourages Mean Girls to Bully Boys (26 November 2015)

Prof Greets Incoming Class of Precious Snowflakes with Speech Crushing Their PC Beliefs (5 November 2015) USA

Feminists redefine free speech: “free speech is the right to EDUCATED speech … if you are not involved in being an EDUCATED citizen, you have no right to free speech” and related reddit discussion thread

The Left’s War on Comments sections (27 October 2015)

Free speech is flunking out on college campuses (22 October 2015)

The Anti-Free-Speech Movement at UCLA (15 October 2015) USA

Rise of the Cultural Libertarians (24 August 2015)

Blurred Lines: The Humanitarian Threat to Free Speech (25 June 2015)

Our generation did not invent political correctness, but we can fight it (20 March 2015)

The state of free speech on campus (UK) A Spiked project

Michael Kennedy and John Carpay: Fighting for free speech on campus (2 December 2014)

Freedom of speech on campus is under attack (29 September 2014)

The new conversation: Everyone is talking but is anyone listening?

“Labels are important tools in identifying socio-cultural problems. Privilege exists. Shaming exists. But when we adopt labels, project them onto others, or create new ones, we sometimes take broad social concepts and individualize them. We use labels to silence those who don’t agree with us, which keeps us from engaging in open, honest conversations. Many people with legitimate opinions and solid ideas are afraid to participate because they are afraid they might say the wrong thing, or say the right thing in the wrong way. When people are silenced, the conversation suffers.”

Similar to the above article is this one entitled ‘“No Platform” was once reserved for violent fascists. Now it’s being used to silence debate‘ (18 March 2014) with other good articles on the same topic at ‘The slow death of free speech‘ (19 April 2014) and ‘Free speech withers when we abandon judgement …‘ (21 April 2014)

This other blog post about George Will is also highly relevant to this topic.

Articles/videos specifically about feminists, and their allies, stifling open discussion of gender issues

How dare you? by Will Loconto (28 March 2023)

Academic activists send a published paper down the memory hole (7 September 2018)

“The Google employee behind a ten-page viewpoint diversity manifesto that went viral online has been fired. James Damore, whose manifesto criticizing the politically correct corporate culture at Google prompted outrage from left-wing employees and social justice warriors online, revealed that he had been fired” (Source) More at:

‘Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech’ and ‘The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond‘ (7 August 2017)

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

To Milo or not to Milo? (21 February 2017) How the left neutralised a very annoying thorn in their side. A story rich in hypocrisy given what various feminists/SJW have previously said & done & walked away from without penalty.

7 questions to ask yourself before you leave that comment, by Clem Bastow (7 September 2016) Good comment from reader ‘laborite’

I wish men were as interested in discussing gender issues as women are, by Sonia Orchard (1 September 2016) The outrageous naivity and/or hypocrisy of a feminist asking “Why aren’t men discussing how they’re feeling?”

Anti-feminism: The new heresy (17 August 2016) Reddit discussion thread and linked article

Feminist moderator tell guy to STFU re: his views on how men/women portrayed in the media (August 2016)

The irony of feminist censorship (7 August 2016)

UC Irvine suspends college republicans for a year following Milo event (21 June 2016)

Women’s “Equality” Party deletes/disables all comments and ratings for it’s hateful London elections video therefore opposing both freedom of speech AND democracy (26 April 2016)

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

Truth wins, Feminists lose (25 January 2016) Canada

Lock Him Up! Feminists Call To Put Milo Yiannopoulos Behind Bars (17 January 2016) UK

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

From Liberation to Censorship: Does Modern Feminism Have a Problem with Free Speech? (19 December 2015) Video

Clementine Ford tries to silence men (6 December 2015) Video

Censorship for thee, but not for me: the feminist battle cry (1 December 2015)

Domestic violence and the demonization of men, by Bettina Arndt (14 November 2015) Australia

Why is it so deeply aggravating to find moderators deleting moderate comments? (6 November 2015) Reddit discussion thread

Philip Davies MP: ‘Political correctness is damaging men’ (2 November 2015) UK

Archetypal mangina David Futrelle seeks to undermine credibility of film-maker Cassie Jaye because she dared to produce a fair-minded representation of the men’s rights movement. See here, here and here for example

Woman’s Hour: Feminists complain about feminist censorship (4 October 2015)

Why are we so afraid of an anti-abortion activist? (3 October 2015) Australia

Not all comments are created equal: the case for ending online comments, by Jessica Valenti (10 September 2015)

Chrissie Hynde was right about rape. Now feminists want to silence her (31 August 2015)

In this June 2015 paper the One in Three advocacy group recounts the bias and antagonism that they faced whilst contributing to the Australian Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence

How fainting couch feminism threatens freedom, by Christina H. Sommers (22 June 2015) Video

Nobel Prize-winning scientist, Tim Hunt, says he was forced to resign (15 June 2015) with good follow-up articles here and here.

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

Georgetown University demands College Republicans edit video showing angry feminist protesters (27 April 2015)

Man arrested twice over a Twitter spat with a cabal of feminists (16 April 2015)

Feminist strategy: containing the non-feminist breakout (23 March 2015)

In college and hiding from scary ideas (21 March 2015) and related mensrights discussion thread

Karen Straughan on why feminists must suppress our voices (17 March 2015)

Columbia student newspaper disables sexual assault comments, while picking and choosing opinions published – Reddit discussion thread and linked article

5 Examples of feminist censorship that will make you rethink online bullying (9 December 2014)

The destructive nature of “It happens to men too!” (21 November 2014)

One of BBC’S Top 100 Women in foul-mouthed attack on ‘InsideMan’ magazine (21 November 2014)

Liberal Feminists, Stop Smearing Critics As Rape Apologists (17 November 2014)

Hungarian non-feminist online magazine censored at a blogging competition (15 November 2014)

KSU YESBody raises funds to protest KSUM conference (9 October 2014) Persecution and censorship of the activities of a male students group on USA campus

Another story the Good Men Project didn’t want you to see (15 October 2014)

Feminist hysteria is causing the infantilization of women (9 October 2014)

Feminist Laci Green is trying to censor Youtube without consent (27 September 2014)

The Politics of Denunciation (20 February 2014)

Article by Bill Frezza entitled ‘Drunk Female Guests Are The Gravest Threat To Fraternities’ pulled from Forbes. Reddit discussion and linked cached copy of article (24 September 2014) Further commentary here.

BBC ‘Men are raised to hate women’ (7 August 2013)

Comments removed from the recent Anita Sarkeesian article in The Conversation (23 September 2014)

Janet Bloomfield’s Twitter account blocked – again (9 September 2014) and then Thunder00t’s Twitter account also cancelled (16 September 2014)

‘Erasing Dad’ – A documentary being censored by feminists (Reddit discussion thread, August 2014)

Protesters fail to shut down men’s issue lecture, but celebrate anyway (11 August 2014)

Moderation rates above 10% on gender topics (10 August 2014) Reddit discussion thread

Here is an article with many readers comments about moderation at the Guardian web site (11 August 2014)

Christie Blatchford: The Twitter trial of Gregory Elliot (23 July 2014)

The many fabricated enemies of feminism (22 July 2014)

Form a posse men … There’s wimmin need rescuing … Giddy up! (11 January 2014)

Why men don’t get a say in feminism (6 June 2014)

Time to take on the feminist bullies (7 July 2014)

Dear men, STFU (30 May 2014)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/janice-fiamengo-justin-trottier-on-the-agenda/ and Barbara Kay: A new Salon des Refuses (21 May 2014)

If this is the new women’s movement, it’s no wonder girls don’t want to call themselves ‘feminists’

http://blog.studiobrule.com/2014/04/old-guys-are-not-welcome-at-queens.html with a follow-up post here

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/campus-speech-bullies/3419582098001

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2013/03/now-official-o2-and-symantec-believe-helping-male-victims-of-domestic-violence-and-sex-abuse-is-hate.html

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2013/02/the-48-mens-human-rights-sites-feminists-seek-to-censor.html

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/03/disinvitation_season_begins_on.html

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/news-features/belgium-to-ban-sexist-comments-20140317-34w68.html

http://femalefedupwithfeminism.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/some-thoughts-on-feminists-shutting-down-those-who-dare-to-disagree/

http://underthegoddess.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/why-challenge-to-violence-against-women_26.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.avoiceformen.com/education/equity-without-equity-universities-love-hate-relationship-with-men/

http://mankindglobalmedia.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/video-lesley-stahl-learns-gender.html?spref=tw (On feminist censorship in the scientific community)

And now to close with something a little different, this April 2015 article in The Guardian claims that men post far more comments online (think news and current affairs web sites), and that this has the effect of “silencing” women. The author also claims, amongst other things, that many women are posting online using male names for “protection“. Firstly this begs the questions how could he know how many of those posting were men/women. Secondly it would be counter-productive to assume a male name for this reason when surveys show that men attract significantly more online abuse/harassment than do women. But the best bit is that the moderator removed my comment. They didn’t even leave the usual “Your comment was removed” message. They silenced me!

“The anarchist Bob Black predicted back in 1982 that feminism would eventually become a totalitarian movement to rival history’s most oppressive tyrannies. Most people find this idea absurd due to gynocentrism, “women are wonderful” and neoteny (and frankly, male vanity). However Black made the point that feminism — since its arguments are completely illogical and do not stand up to scrutiny — could not maintain power except through censorship.

Feminists are attempting to turn all of society into a “safe space” for feminists (not women, not children, certainly not men, just feminists). That includes cyberspace. As more and more people debunk feminist ideology online, calls will grow to “end online misogyny,” with predictable results. There is already a huge chilling effect underway.” (Source)