Things will get interesting at the University of Toronto, once again, in the near future:
"The University of Toronto Men’s Issues Awareness Society is hosting a talk by a professor who will discuss why she believes feminism and women’s studies has created a “mean-spirited bias against men” in the humanities. . ..It will be the first public event held by the group since a protesters tried to shut down a speech by their last guest lecturer, controversial author Warren Farrell, calling it “hate speech.”"
That is from a piece recently published in the online
Metro News of Toronto, and I encourage you to read the full article. In fact you should read it slowly and carefully, savoring every drop:
metronews.ca/news/toronto/573522/mens-issues-or-misogyny-controversial-mens-group-to-discuss-womens-studies/Several takeaway points from this article.
First, we learn that the non-feminist revolution is taking a clear, institutional form in Canada -- or at any rate, the beginnings of such. For it seems that pro-male revolutionary cells...er...
campus groups, are springing to vigorous life across our northern neighbor nation. According to a pro-male spokesman cited in the article, men's issues are “something a lot of people are ready to talk about.” And according to my various Canadian contacts, the average man or woman "on the street" is increasingly receptive to such ideas. It is mainly the people in enclaves, institutions and YouTube channels who remain hostile. By the way, the CAFE group mentioned in the article is not affiliated with AVfM. It sprang to life independently. And you will find that the counter-femplex is generating such nodes all across the landscape. The point-source fallacy (or "crosshairs fallacy") is patently a
fail.Janice Fiamengo, the scheduled speaker for the scheduled event, is a woman -- and we know that feminist heads will explode like bombs whenever a woman lines up on the pro-male side. So the sound of distant explosions, late at night when the world is still, will certainly make the game worth the candle.
Overall, Janice Fianmengo sounds like a nice liberal humanist who speaks carefully. I don't know if she calls herself a "feminist", although I surely hope she doesn't. At any rate, we've got a royal turf war happening here, and the feminasties are in a lose-lose dilemma any way you cut it. If they throw another tantrum like they did with Warren Farrell, they will once again prove that they are assholes, and. .
they will lose. But if they play possum and don't do anything much, they will also lose because they will have symbolically surrendered part of their turf to the enemy. And having done as much, they will never again drive the enemy out of feminist mindspace. Oh, the barbarians aren't pouring through the gates of Rome quite yet, but they have surely breeched the frontiers of the empire.
But next, a feminist steps up and would have us understand that. . .
drumroll. . .
feminism is misunderstood! The feminist in question is named Steph Guthrie, and yes, she has a blog:
stephguthrie.com/2013/02/22/what-should-we-call-mrasPsst! On her blog, you might notice that Steph is still using the term "MRA". She is committing both the point-source fallacy and the moral perfection fallacy. You see, "MRA" is a feminist fantasy. It's merely a word they use to
encapsulate the range of worldly forces that are rising up against them. In other words, they use "MRA" to encapsulate the counter-femplex itself -- and that is a futile task!
In the
Metro News article, Steph Guthrie is quoted as delivering the same old feminist boilerplate we have been hearing for years.
Years! "Instead of targeting feminists as the problem, they should be targeting what feminists call ‘the patriarchy’ and become allies of feminists, said Guthrie."
Well. The day that I, Fidelbogen, become an "ally of feminists" is the day that I forfeit my own right to exist. On that day, feel free to shoot me. Oh, and I am being theatrical and hyperbolic here...
aren't I?Steph Guthrie is a casebook example of a
fembot -- to wit, a
FEMinist roBOT. For it is
robotic indeed when they repeat the same tired old crap again and again and again and again and again and again, utterly oblivious to the growing boredom and irritation of their listeners. You see, we are flesh and blood creatures with a flesh and blood capacity to process their message -- and to reject it! But evidently they, being robots, miss that nuance.And they've been at it for half a century. Why, you'd think they would even bore
themselves by now. . .
Toward the end of the article, we find a quotation from a feminist named Heather:
"Heather, who asked her last name be withheld because she doesn’t want to become a target for harassment, said she doesn’t think a talk criticizing women’s studies belongs at the University of Toronto. . . .“That in itself is disrespectful to all of the female students and staff at U of T,” she said."
Well Heather, if we find some female students and staff to disagree with you, would you agree to eat your words?
So Heather, all I've got to say is,
suck it up!But seriously now, do you think that feminism will
ever learn to coexist with the rest of the world?
Of course it won't. If it did, it would
no longer be feminism!
