Cassie Jaye and Karen Straughan in Sydney, Australia

This post was provided by Bettina Arndt

Exciting times are coming. Fabulous women are coming to town.

For a start there’s the young filmmaker, Cassie Jaye whose movie, The Red Pill has been causing such a stir. Cassie is speaking at the International Conference on Men’s Issues (ICMI) being held at the Gold Coast, June 9-11 and then she will be in Sydney for a few days. Cassie will be all over our media during her visit. She’s appearing on Channel 10’s The Project on Thursday June 8 and on Weekend Sunrise on June 11, and will be with Andrew Bolt on Sky News, probably on June 12.

But we’ll also be seeing the amazing Karen Straughan. Karen, also known as GirlWritesWhat, is one of the most popular women working for the men’s movement. I first came across her blog back in 2011 when she was a newly divorced waitress and mother of three writing about her astonishment at how easy it would have been for her to destroy her ex-husband. How our biased legal system conspires with vengeful women to punish men they wish to discard. It was powerful stuff.

Karen went on to become a hugely popular advocate for men’s rights. She now has more than 160,000 subscribers on her YouTube channel and her 2011 Vlog on “Feminism and the Disposable Male” video has almost 1.5 million views.

Karen is extraordinary – totally brilliant, well-informed and an incisive, ferocious debater. None of the well-known feminists will debate Karen after seeing what she did to other members of the sisterhood. See Karen demolishing Naomi Wolf on a televised panel discussion.

Or have a look at this wonderful blog where Karen dissects a pathetic attack by a women’s studies professor on The Red Pill.

Now for the exciting events involving Karen – please tell all your friends so they can see her Australian performances.

Karen will be in Sydney for the week prior to the conference. She’ll be doing an hour long interview with my friends Rowan Dean and Ross Cameron, on Sky News’ The Outsiders at 10 am on Sunday June 4. I’m sure that will be well worth watching.

Then on Tuesday June 6 Tuesday night Karen is doing a Q&A with viewers of Mark Latham’s Facebook. Live streaming from 8.00 pm. We want you to all start thinking of questions or comments. You can send in short video questions or written questions/comments (email to bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au) or wait until that evening and post them on the facebook page for Karen to answer. It should be great fun.

Then for our Sydney people – Karen is speaking on Wednesday June 7 at The Sydney Institute on Why Marriage is Too Risky for Men. The event starts at 5.30 pm, level 40, Governor Phillip Tower, 1 Farrer Place, Sydney. Currently this event is reserved for Institute members who can bring one guest but if they don’t get enough people they will allow others in for $10. A few days prior to the event I will alert everyone to the situation through my web site at www.bettinaarndt.com.au, and let you know if non-members are allowed in. You can become a member for $90.00.

Since word got out that Bettina is organising Karen’s visit to Sydney she has been swamped with emails from men offering good money to see Straughan take on Clementine Ford. And now that’s about to happen – Straughan is one of the stars of what promises to be a very lively event on the ABC’s HackLive on June 20, a debate on “Is Male Privilege Bullshit?” Straughan and Cassie Jaye will participate via Skype, joining a panel of locals including Daisy Cousens and… wait for it…Clementine Ford.

Here’s a taste of Karen where she sums up the risks of marriage for men:

“From a woman’s perspective, marriage still provides significant benefits over single life –in fact, marriage as an enterprise has only improved for women since the 1950s. A woman now has the right to say no to sex with her husband. If he’s abusive, she has an entire public-sector industry itching to help her. If a woman decides she doesn’t want to be married to that jerk who doesn’t help with the dishes, has mommy issues and leaves his dirty socks lying all over the place, well, she doesn’t have to be. She won’t be stigmatized, she won’t be financially destroyed and she won’t lose her children. For women, marriage is all benefit and zero risk, and that’s why women are whining about men’s reluctance to tie the knot. But for men, it’s the other way around–no guaranteed benefit, and the kind of risk an adrenaline junkie would eschew.”

And to give you a further taste of Karen Straughan’s brilliant, refreshing take on gender politics, read these extracts:

About women’s privilege

Women are so rarely held accountable for their actions and decisions and burdens to the degree they should be as human beings:

If a woman can’t be successful, it is because the business world is sexist.
If a woman wakes up after getting black-out drunk at a party full of horny young men to discover she was violated, any hint that perhaps getting black-out drunk at a party full of horny young men is maybe not the smartest decision anyone ever made, means you’re blaming the victim and you’re an awful human being.
If a woman takes five years off from the workforce so she can be a stay-at-home mom, and her re-entry into her career is less than spectacular, it’s never because sometimes life comes down to making a choice between something you want and another thing you want more–it’s because government/society doesn’t do enough to help her.

This is MY life. I am the architect of it. If I fuck it up, it isn’t something that merely “happened” to me–I was an active participant in the sequence of decisions that led to the fucking-up. Make no mistake, modern feminism isn’t about women’s rights. It’s about women’s privilege. It may not look like privilege to everyone, but that’s what it is.

On male disposability.

Male disposability has been around since the dawn of time, and it’s based on one very, very straightforward dynamic: when it comes to the well-being of others, women come first, men come last. This is just the way it has always been. Seats in lifeboats, being rescued from burning buildings, who gets to eat. Society places men dead last every time, and, society expects men to place themselves dead last every time.

Domestic violence

Violence against women in any form has been a HUGE cash cow for feminism. The more they inflate their claims regarding its pervasiveness in society, the more money pours in, and the more power they have to tinker with legislation and policy.

Women lying about rape

Pretending women never lie about rape is not only dishonest, it sends a despicable message to victims. “Women never lie about rape,” tells victims they should always be believed, on the spot, and therefore the normal investigative process is a revictimization rather than a necessary evil….A justice system that refuses to punish women who lie about rape is demeaning and belittling the experiences of rape victims, and allowing false accusers to damage the credibility of every legitimate victim without any accountability for the harm they do. And it demeans and belittles a justice system that is supposed to protect ALL victims, including victims of false accusations.

Female self-interest

Feminism has done nothing but exploit this dynamic of the expectation on men to put everybody else before themselves. Especially women. Women’s safety and support, women’s well-being, and women’s emotional needs, always come first. This is the most stunning piece of society-wide manipulative psychology I think I have ever come across. Feminism has been down with old-school chivalry right from the start. They might seem like strange bedfellows, but they’re not. Because both concepts are built on a firm foundation of female self-interest.

Please spread the word about the fresh of fresh air that is about to hit Australian airwaves. I will list their full media schedule on my website just before they arrive. And if you know anyone in the media who might like to interview these wonderful women please contact Bettina Arndt (bettina@bettinaarndt.com)

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 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 originally 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?

This video is a good intro to the nature of this ground-breaking film.

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

Further related articles:

The Cassie Jaye interview: reflections on The Red Pill movie, five years on (2 December 2021)

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, here, here, 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

On bigotry as art (#KillAllMen at NIDA)

NIDA →Productions & Events →#KillAllBlacks

#KillAllBlacks

Date/Time: 19 Oct 2016 – 25 Oct 2016

Eight men create an internet utopia where they discuss the most intimate details of their lives, the most righteous, and the most hilarious. Drinking, sports, work, activism, and how to be an out and proud Klansman. But when one of them disappears after being attacked everything changes. #KillAllBlacks suddenly moves from joke to reality.

OK, relax. I’m just pulling your leg. Australia’s prestigious Institute of Dramatic Arts didn’t really fund and host a production called #KillAllBlacks. That would be bigoted beyond belief. Can you imagine the uproar? Chortle, chortle. As if!

No, in fact they funded and hosted a production called #KillAllMen. It’s still bigoted of course, but the essential difference is that men are a social group that one may now denigrate without fear of repercussion. The #KillAllMen hashtag has quite a history, as discussed in this further blog post.

Oh, I can hear some of you chorus “but there is no comparison at all – men have all that privilege. Look at all those male politicians and CEO’s!“.

Ignoring all those men of colour for a moment, just what percentage of men are politicians or CEO’s? One per cent? Even that?

The writer, Nakkiah Lui, identifies as an aboriginal. One might have thought she would possess an abundance of empathy regarding bigotry. Or at least enough to avoid such a grotesque mis-step. But clearly her feminism trumps her empathy.

Hypocrisy is the short answer, but those preferring the challenge of a TL:DR version can chew on ‘cognitive dissonance‘.

Bigotry dressed up as art is still bigotry. Shame on NIDA

Addendum: Ms. Lui was aware of this post as of the day it was uploaded, and was invited to offer a rebuttal. Subsequent feedback consisted of witless ad hominem delivered in a manner reminiscent of terriers yapping behind a screen door. The one criticism that contained even an ounce of substance, was that I had not seen the play.

How ironic then that feminists have just succeeded in having the Australian screening of a film about mens rights cancelled. A film that, ahem, not one of them had seen.

So on the one hand we have an individual castigated for saying bad words about a feminist production in a personal blog, but with no serious intent of having the play cancelled. On the other hand we have 2,000+ feminists and white knights deliberately setting out to deny everyone the opportunity to experience a production. The former production finished its run, the latter never got started.

Again, this patriarchy of ours sure does work in mysterious ways.

See also:

Hateful Clementine Ford (6 January 2024) Scroll to the last two paragraphs to read about her proposed publicly-funded theatre production

Why it’s not OK to say ‘Kill all men’ (2 December 2021)

Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

A brief introduction to the ‘Diversity Council Australia’

“Diversity Council Australia is the only independent, not-for-profit workplace diversity advisor to business in Australia. We offer a unique knowledge bank of research, practice and expertise across diversity dimensions developed over 30 years of operation. In partnership with our members, our mission is to:

Lead debate on diversity in the public arena;
Develop and promote the latest diversity research, thinking and practice; and
Deliver innovative diversity practice resources and services to enable our members to drive business improvement.

DCA provides diversity advice and strategy to over 300 member organisations, many of whom are Australia’s business diversity leaders and biggest employers.”

Further information is available at DCA’s web site/Facebook page/Twitter account and ACNC register entry

The most recent annual report shows income of approx. $1.5 million, of which approx. $1.1 million was generated by annual subscriptions. Although DCA does not appear to the recipient of government grants like so many other feminist organisations, many member organisations are public sector agencies.

The staff at Diversity Council Australia comprise ten caucasians, nine of whom are female … but everyone has different hairstyles. Diversity? Tick. The DCA’s “employee benefits expense” in 2015 totaled $871,798, with “key management personnel” compensation paid or payable being $203,873.

(Just what is it with these feminist organisations who think that gender parity should only be imposed on other peoples businesses or agencies? The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is a classic example, with plenty more here.)

Background to the DCA’s Annual Diversity Debate 2016

Imagine an organisation called the ‘Alternative Diversity Council Australia‘ which organised a debate entitled ‘Is engaging women the game-changer for gender equality?‘ (It sounds a bit condescending to even pose the question, doesn’t it?) Oh, and the organisers decided not to have any feminists on either team. In case their views were a little too, you know, confronting.

Scarcely imaginable right? The organisers of such an event would be torn to shreds in both the mainstream and social media. It just wouldn’t fly.

But thanks to the arrogance and hypocrisy of contemporary feminism all one needs to do is flip genders and everything is magically ok.

And so on the 8 November 2016 Diversity Council Australia convened their Annual Diversity Debate on the topic of engaging men in gender equality.

Let’s consider the definition of ‘diversity‘, which includes:

The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
Variety; multiformity
The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
A point of difference

And so who were the panelists, and just how diverse a group were they? The panelists were Kate Jenkins, Pip Marlow, Stephen Barrow, Clementine Ford, Benjamin Law, and Michael Flood. At first glance similar demographics … but let’s focus on belief systems with regards to gender issues.

Were there any men’s rights activists (‘MRA’) amongst them? Anti-feminists/non-feminists/egalitarians? Nope, they are all self-professed feminists (or perhaps pro-feminist/white knight in the case of Stephen Barrow). Further, at least three of the panellists are virulently anti-MRA.

Does the panel represent a diversity of perspectives on the issue of gender? Of course it doesn’t. As supporters of the same ideology the panelists represent quite the opposite – they represent a ‘uniformity’ of views.

Further, the invitation to the event sets the parameters of the debate firmly within the realm of feminist-approved topics & answers:

“Progress has been made towards achieving gender equality in the workplace, yet significant issues still remain – such as the persistent gender pay gap, the serious under-representation of women in leadership, and the widespread prevalence of discrimination (for both women and men) when it comes to pregnancy, parental leave or a return to work.”

Let’s consider the definition of ‘engage‘ (as in ‘engage with men’), which is to:

To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
To attract and hold fast
To attract or please
To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
To betroth
To bring troops into conflict

This sounds rather like drafting men into servitude, so perhaps ‘engage’ might not be the best term to use here. And indeed, the model of engagement proposed by the ‘yes’ team was very much a one-sided affair. This came as no surprise given the participation of Kate Jenkins, whose predecessor at the Australian Human Rights Commission was Elizabeth Broderick (also chief architect of the ‘Champions of Change‘ program).

This component of the feminist vision translates into recruiting men in positions of authority as tools to enhance female privilege through the use of shaming and appeals to chivalry. It does not involve any reciprocal responsibility to listen to, understand, or render assistance to men.

I’d prefer to think that engagement, in the context of the DCA debate, would entail a two-way symbiotic relationship between men and women, with each group listening to/asking questions – and then committing to help one another.

On the contrary, the typical model of feminist interaction when people dare mention issues that might be perceived to detrimentally affect them, is to tell men (and their female supporters) to STFU and stop being whiny man-babies or ‘‘pick-me’s’. This latter term is a derogatory label that feminists apply to women who are sympathetic towards men’s rights issues.

The following posts discuss and provide examples as to how feminists typically engage with men in the real world:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Regarding online harassment
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”
White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Regarding the notion of ‘Ironic Misandry’

Put simply, feminists could not care less about helping men, excepting a few situations where benefits to men were collateral spin-offs from the primary goal of enhancing the relative position of women (e.g. paternity leave for men).

And let’s not forget the sponsors of the debate: NAB, Optus, Johnson & Johnson, BAE Systems and Boardroom Media. I look forward to seeing these organisations also support causes that benefit the welfare of men and boys, for example the ‘One in Three‘ organisation.

The outcome of the DCA’s 2016 debate

The following image says it all. Audience members left the event even more biased against men than they were when they arrived. That’s some negative outcome. A result that’s hardly likely to accelerate progress re: mutual respect and gender equality, is it? But to the DCA this was a “great night“.

Here are some of the tweets that emerged from the floor of the debate:

Was there some way in which DCA might have redeemed this otherwise farcical event? Aside from having a diverse and representative discussion panel? Perhaps one thing. Readers might have read elsewhere in this blog about the film The Red Pill, and the problems experienced regarding finding screening venues.

Why couldn’t the Diversity Council have organised a screening of The Red Pill as an adjunct to the debate? What better gesture via which the Council establish credibility, in the broader (non-feminist) community, than to arrange a screening of this notable film concerning issues affecting men and boys.

If the Council truly believed in diversity, in gender equality, and in engaging with men … then they should go ahead and walk the walk … engage.

But they don’t. And they won’t. And the gender debate – and the community – is all the poorer as a result.

(Postscript: It’s now 11 January 2023 and the Diversity Council has blocked me from their Twitter feed. I must be too diverse for their tastes)

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)