Van Badham – Prawn of the Patriarchy

How one union got drunk on feminist ‘kool-aid’ (CFMEU)

“The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is Australia’s main trade union in construction, forestry, furnishing products, mining and energy production. The CFMEU has offices in all capital cities in Australia and in many major regional centres with the national office of the union in Melbourne. The union has an estimated 120,000 members and employs around 400 full-time staff and officials.” (Source)

That Wiki entry also tells us that “in August 2010, the CFMEU donated over $1.2 million to political activist group GetUp! to pay for TV airtime for a women’s rights ad-spot condemning Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.” Exactly what benefit its members extracted from that expenditure is unclear.

This union represents sectors of Australian industry whose employees are predominantly male, and I would assume that more than 90% of its members are men. I could not locate this information in the CFMEU web site.

I later learnt that the CFMEU failed to provide a response for the 2010 ACTU Women in Unions survey. They did provide information to the ACTU at a later date, but details of female rank and file membership are not provided in subsequent ACTU reports.

I then unsuccessfully sought clarification about the number of female members from both the CFMEU and the ACTU. Why so coy, guys?

The industry sectors from which the CFMEU draws its members are also notable for the level of workplace death and injury that occurs in each. Those deaths and injuries also affect women, but mostly as dependants of male victims. With regards to fatalities, there were 191 workplace deaths in Australia in 2015, of which approx 95% were men.

If there was a case for an organisation to encourage the support of women in enhancing the welfare of men, then this might well be one. I was therefore surprised to see, on 12 July 2016, the union issue a tweet in support of feminist activist Van Badham featuring the photograph shown below. And here is Van Badham returning the love. Nice.

Granted this is a White Ribbon banner, but presumably its message is supported and promoted by the union. This correspondent’s initial impression is that ‘brown-nosing’ the feminist lobby is accorded a higher priority by the union than is pursuing their core responsibility, the welfare of its own members. Who could wonder why union membership has slumped at the rate that it has?

In the case of domestic violence, the issue about which Van Badham was pontificating on Q&A, at least one third of the victims are men. If we again consider fatalities alone, there were 158 domestic violence-related deaths in 2015, and again 1/3 of these were men.

So although there are more workplace deaths than DV-related deaths, strangely I don’t recall ever seeing feminists carrying banners demanding action on workplace safety.

Worse yet, male victims of domestic violence are routinely ignored, denied or even mocked by feminists and pro-feminist organisations like White Ribbon.

Bear in mind that there would surely be many victimised men within the rank and file membership of the CMFEU. How much support do they receive from their union? SFA, I would suspect. And according to this article it doesn’t look like women get much respect from the union either. Funny thing that.

As I have already said in another post in this blog, it’s high time that there was some quid pro quo with regards to seeking support from women and women’s groups for some of the many issues that have a negative impact on men.

Unfortunately however that’s not how it works at present. The feminist narrative, and all component parts thereof, must be publicly recognised and given the highest priority. Men are expected to drop everything and rush to assist strong, independant women tackle whatever real or imagined obstacles are encountered by them.

Women on the other hand are not to be held responsible for anything, least of all to help construct or support remedies that benefit men. At least that’s how it is with feminists – and theirs are the female voices getting all the airtime in the media.

What a state we now find ourselves in.

Am I saying that unions should be denied a voice in relation in relation to matters affecting the broader community? Of course not. I simply saying that in this case, their priority should be their members, the broader community, and the feminist lobby. In that order, rather than the reverse.

I would say to the CFMEU, ‘wake up to yourselves!’, but I’d most likely be wasting my time doing so. And considering the mood in the reader’s comments sections with respect to articles addressing gender bias, I know that I’d not be alone in recognising the need for a better and fairer approach to these issues.

Regrettably the ideological rot of the regressive left has well and truly set in, and the sort of common sense and decency that was once integral to the Australian character is rapidly becoming just a memory.

Unfortunately the same trend is apparent elsewhere, and in the U.K for example the Trades Union Congress joined forces with hardline feminist group ‘Everyday Sexism’ to produce a survey and report on harassment in the workplace. In addition to other methodological flaws they only surveyed women. Male victims of harassment? None to be found = harassment only affects women. Wrong.

Van Badham’s eye roll: Just hysterical

My post today begins with a panel discussion entitled ‘Have men become second-class citizens’ that featured on the ‘Sunrise’ TV program in Australia.

“Miranda Devine, Mark Latham, Van Badham and Rory Gibson join Sunrise to discuss if women are receiving preferential treatment in today’s society, and if feminism is responsible for men feeling displaced.”

Mark Latham spoke out strongly in the affirmative sparking the usual immediate backlash. Guardian Australia columnist and feminist activist Vanessa ‘Van’ Badham also upset a few people with her anti-male comments, and subsequently received a slew of feedback via social media. You can review her Twitter account to get a sense of the nature of that feedback. I didn’t notice anything of a particularly hurtful or threatening nature. Indeed, the comments she received were considerably tamer than the noisome effluence that is Van’s contribution to social media.

Nevertheless, Van Badham issued the following tweet:

Just as with Clementine Ford, it seems to a case of those who launch the most mud and the sharpest barbs, squealing the loudest when someone dares return fire.

Anyway, shortly thereafter I issued a few tweets in relation to the Sunrise program, one of which is shown below. These were not in response to tweets posted by Van Badham (with whom I have never previously communicated), nor were they specifically directed at her. No matter, because I had revealed myself as being one of ‘them’ rather than one of ‘us’.

Van Badham chose to respond by alerting an Australian law firm who apparently use a marketing slogan “We fight for fair“. She did so in the vain hope of involving me in some sort of legal wrangle. And in so doing she earnt a ‘like’ from her feminist colleague, journalist Wendy Tuohy, who features elsewhere in this blog.

So this is how strong independent women behave? No, but it’s how feminists behave.

This illustrates, yet again, that the default position of most feminists is to do whatever it takes to divert attention away from key issues and discourage public discussion thereof. And this means shutting-down and/or isolating dissenters as quickly possible, one example of this are ongoing coordinated campaigns to shut down anti-feminist Facebook pages.

Why? Because they know that their best hope of retaining credibility/power is to keep as many people as possible from recognising the expansive chasm between the ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, and what is actually being said and done by real-world feminists. Discussion can lead to enlightenment, whilst shunning and censorship is more likely to preserve the status quo.

But of course feminists won’t come out and admit that. They attempt to rationalise their unwillingness to respond to opposing viewpoints in other ways. In this article concerning the same TV program, Clementine Ford states:

“We need to stop wading into these debates and understand that we lose nothing by refusing to participate. We are under no obligation to defend our feminist ideals from anybody, and we certainly have no responsibility to try to ‘prove’ the necessity of them to those who feel threatened by them.”

Those who have taken the time to read other posts in this blog would have noted that the theme of feminist-imposed censorship emerges again and again in the context of many gender-related issues. This is, in itself, a blazing ‘red flag’ with respect to the true nature of contemporary feminism.

Van Badham then joined that rather pathetic group of feminists/SJW who have blocked me from their social media accounts simply for questioning aspects of the misguided ideology to which they still desperately cling …

Shun this person who doesn’t support feminism! Unclean! Unclean!

And predictably Van then demands the opportunity to share, what will no doubt be, a long drawn-out procession of ‘last words’ on the issue:

I have sympathy for Mark Latham. He’s barking at a cloud that’s passed him by (4 May 2016)

Van Badham and Steve Price went head-to-head on Q&A (12 July 2016) See also this article in The Age. Response from Steve Price here.

Van Badham reveals ugly response to Steve Price’s comments about her (14 July 2016) And of course, her own words and behaviour played no role whatsoever with regards to the subsequent public reaction. Yup, sure. Let’s make it all about Steve … and misogyny. And to suggest that Steve’s solitary off-the-cuff comment constitutes “demonisation” is absurd posturing on Van’s part.

Look what I found in a Reddit discussion thread about Van Badham’s stouch with Steve Price … apparently Van wanted to put Tony Abbott underwater. Wait, where have a heard a comment like that before? Oh yes, Eddie McGuire.

From The Spectator, ‘Van Badham and the ugly facts of an ugly matter‘ (15 July 2016)

Readers might care to seek out a tweet by @RitaPanahi on 12 July 2016 for further examples of what Ms Badham considers appropriate to dish out (but not receive). Gems such as:

And on a parting note, an item by Andrew Bolt entitled ‘How Van Badham attacks even children‘ (2 March 2017).

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)