@TheVarsity

The Varsity

The University of Toronto's
Student Newspaper Since 1880

Arrest, assaults overshadow “men’s issues” lecture

Protestors organized through Facebook greet controversial speaker Warren Farrell

By Dan Smeenk
Published: 3:24 am, 17 November 2012
Modified: 11 pm, 20 November 2012
Vol CXXXIII, No. 09 under
UPDATED

Around 100 protestors disrupted a lecture given by controversial author and activist Warren Farrell at the MacLeod auditorium at U of T on Friday night.

Farrell, whose works include The Liberated Man, Why Men Are the Way They Are, and The Myth of Male Power, was on campus to give a speech outlining his theory about how males are disadvantaged in Western society. He was hosted by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE).

Police formed a cordon in front of MacLeod auditorium. Q_E_D/TWITTER

Farrell, who describes himself as a former feminist, and the only male ever to have been elected to the Board of the National Organization for Women three times, started to include men’s issues in his work about gender in the mid-1980s.

About fifteen protestors stood in front of the doors before the event, forming a barricade and blocking attendees from entering through the main doors of the auditorium. About two dozen Toronto Police Service officers were present to provide security for the event, including officers on bicycles and on horseback. U of T Campus Police were also present.

One protestor was arrested after a scuffle broke out in front of the auditorium’s doors. He was later released with no charges. Another protestor was cautioned for assault of a police officer at the back entrance. A video posted on YouTube shows event attendees entering the building, and people identified by the videographer as organizers physically assaulting protestors.

There was also significant controversy over the move by protesters to barricade the doors. Many patrons argued that the methods used by the protestors suppressed free speech and stifled debate. The protestors argued that Farrell’s talk was hate speech, and did real damage to women. Demonstrators shouted the slogan “No Hate Speech on Campus” on a number of occasions throughout the night.

Farrell’s lecture centred around ten major themes, including discussion of “men’s issues” such as video game or porn addiction, which disproportionately affects men, and boys’ relative disadvantages in education.

Other topics included the devaluing of male sexuality and life. Farrell argued that increasing rates of male impotence, increased suicide rates, and instances of men seen as heroes for taking risks with their bodies and lives, were all evidence of the disposability of men. Farrell also argued that it should be more socially acceptable for men to contribute to their families apart from working full-time.

The lecture was delayed by the crowd of protestors, who had organized on Facebook through a coalition group calling themselves “U of T Students United Against Sexism.” Protestors accused Farrell and the men’s issues awareness movement of misogyny, and of protecting and denying male privilege.

“We recognize that they [the men’s issues awareness movement] are really messed up … men are at a point of privilege, so we need to recognize privilege and become an ally [of women’s rights],” said Guled Arale, Scarborough Campus Students’ Union vice-president, external during a speech about 20 minutes before the event was scheduled to start.

Other protestors were more measured in their criticism.

Peter Hogarth, who created the Facebook page, accused the men’s issues awareness movement of splitting problems strictly along gender lines. “We [protestors] don’t want to say the gains of women have come at the expense of men, but rather the issues that men’s groups talk about are real; we’re interested [in] general equality,” he said.

Zack Morgenstern, a second-year U of T student present at the protest, said that his issue was not so much with Farrell himself, but instead promotes feminism as a more relevant issue than men’s rights.

Brad, a recently-graduated U of T graduate student, paid for his ticket to see Farrell speak. He said that gender issues were “symmetric … while women have suffered in many ways, men have as well.”

A section of Farrell’s book The Myth of Male Power that deals with date rape drew particularly vehement condemnation from the protestors. The part in question is drawn from the first words of a subsection of the book called “Date Fraud and Date Lying.”

“If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says ‘no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying,” wrote Farrell in the 1993 book.

Farrell follows this section in his book with his own personal experience, and a set of survey statistics to illustrate this point. In an interview with The Varsity, Farrell said that he does not blame date rape on its victims, and that he only made the point that there was an “evolution of misunderstandings between communication and litigation.” He also added an example that a verbal “yes” said in the tone of “no” also means no.

“I didn’t know what they were talking about in regards to promoting rape culture,” said Iain Dwyer, a member of the CAFE board of directors, in response to claims from U of T Students Against Sexism. CAFE, he said, does not “disregard misogyny … we want to address gender issues.”

A protestor, who identified themselves as a member of ‘U of T Students Against Sexism’ submitted the following video, allegedly taken at Friday’s event:

  • Anonymous

    This is not new: A mob-ruled group that is “against sexism” engages in sexism (not to mention near-violence and abusive language): They tried to stop a man from speaking peacefully about the long-ignored male view on gender issues.

    Leave it to The Varsity to report not what Warren Farrell says but what the sexist protesters say. Here are some of the ideas Farrell puts forth:

    “The Doctrinaire Institute for Women’s Policy Research”
    http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-doctrinaire-institute-for-womens-policy-research/

    • Anonymous

      No, it’s not new. Earlier this year the students at Simon Fraser University, earmarking a small budget to start a mens center, got significant opposition from feminist groups with accusations that it would be a place of hegemonic masculinity, homophobia and misogyny. Recently, an MRA named John the other encountered a mob tearing down the posters he had put up for his website, posters he had gotten permission from the construction company to put up. Posters that said “men’s rights are human rights”.

      Here is a video on this UoT event plus the Poster tear down:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb9FZn6Lqg0

      And the SFU event:

      http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/20/robyn-urback-on-shocking-anti-male-hatred-on-the-sfu-campus/

  • 95

    Is that Danielle Sandhutsu in the video?

    • 96

      “We are all University Students, we don’t want this person on Campus”

      Lol, fail argument, the girl arguing next to you, Danielle Sandhu, isn’t.

      • Anonymous

        She’s a grad student, 96 fail

        • 95

          Weird, her degree is taking her 96 years to complete… trololol.

    • Bethany Baby

      Because she totally speaks for everyone on Campus, guys.

      Like, for real. She was elected to speak on all of our behalves… oh, wait.

  • Ninderthana

    Feminism: The belief that gender equality can be achieved by focusing solely on the needs and wants of one.

    • K

      Yes, because females are more disadvantaged in most cases in comparison to males. Are you really this dense?

      • Bethany Baby

        Not in Canada, they aren’t. By most statistical measures of general welfare, the average Canadian woman is significantly better off than the average Canadian man.

        Life expectancy, homelessness, workplace deaths, incarceration rates, suicide rates, criminal victimization rates, college graduation rates, etc.

        The only measure where women are behind is individual income, and this is no longer the case for women under 30.

      • Mike

        Are you really that dense? Thanks for playing….idiot.

      • Hanna

        Finally, someone with a brain on this site.

        • MRO

          Hanna,

          You are a useless idiot. If there was a cow on a paddock with your limited intelligence then she would have been taken straight to the slaughterhouse.

          • Hanna

            MRO, I think there is some confusion. I am supporting K in his or her statement. And that makes me “a useless idiot” ? I believe you are just trying to piss people off. But perhaps you aren’t interested in listening to reason. Rather you would be happy to eat up my valuable time to strut your ego. However, if you do have a mind for reason, read on.

            Ninderthana makes a critisism of feminism that is just not grounded in fact. Feminism is about achieving equality, at least the type I adhere to. Naturally women’s needs must be considered achieve this equality as women have been marginalized for the better part of human existence. Men do have distinct issues that need to be dealt with(porn addiction, video games…) but not at the expense of women. For instance, it is not mentioned that while men commit the suicides more often than women, women attempt suicide far more than men do. And “date lying”, “date fraud”? The man is a lunatic.

            K is making a statement that is generally true throughout the world: women are more disadvantaged than men. This is true. I wish it wasn’t. Yes, Bethany has a great counter arguement, but it fails to take into account rates of sexual assault and eating disorders in women(astronomically high rates in comparison to men).

          • MRO

            Hanna,

            Don’t trot out feminazi lies and portray them as facts. You’re dealing with a pro here, so that sort of crap won’t wash with me. I’ve taken the time to study gender issues extensively. The statistics do not make back up your claims, my dear.

            I’ve compiled a comprehensive analysis of most gender issues on my site:

            http://www.mens-rights.net

            Unlike you, I validate everything I say by citing my sources.

            It is true that women attempt suicide more often, but very of them are serious attempts. Most of them are cries of attention from conniving women. If they truly wanted to kill themselves then they would choose a method that would get the job done. If you seriously think they really wanted to die but accidentally failed to get the job done then what you’re saying is women are dumb as shit, as only a complete moron could fail at something that isn’t exactly rocket science.

            Women have not been disadvantaged in the western world. They were treated differently in the past, but for good reasons that seems to escape the minds of today’s uneducated youths. The only reason women can mimic men in many areas of life these days is because men invented devices that have made physical strength, endurance and bravery redundant. In the past, most jobs required brute strength and were extremely dangerous. You’re kidding yourself if you think a woman from the 16th century could do all the things that men had to do with the limited technology that was available at the time. If it wasn’t for industrialisation and the urbanisation that has resulted from it, then we would still be living rurally, meaning we would mostly be living on farms. There weren’t any cars and fridges back in those days, so working in the yard to maintain the livestock and crops food is something that families had to do every day. It would have been suicidal to take women of childbearing age and put them in the few positions of the workforce that didn’t require brute strength, as the child mortality rate back then was very high: a woman could have 8 children, but only 2 or 3 of them might have made it to their 18th birthday. You cannot judge the world back then by the way we live today. To do so is to be extremely ignorant and uneducated.

  • Ninderthana

    First wave feminism blamed all women’s problems on men
    Second wave feminism blamed all the World’s problems on men
    Third wave Feminism blames all of men’s problems on men.

    • Anonymous

      Kinda reminds me of this video, where a KKK speech talks about the “immigration issue” hurting black people too. Whenever I see patriarchy hurts men too, I think of this video with a chuckle

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=afW3DWL-UxM#t=70s

    • Hanna

      Quite a misinformed statement. I won’t try to argue with someone so obviously simpleminded and brainwashed. What is really disturbing is how many likes this statement has. I don’t think I want to know where all these people come from.

  • Ninderthana

    A quote about feminism and men:

    “Any movement [feminism] that proudly ignores the suffering of half of humanity [men] is evil.”

    • Ksenia

      Right, so the homosexual movement is ignoring the suffering of heterosexuals? and the civil rights movement was ignoring the suffering of poor ol’ white people? Your quote is idiotic.

      • Anonymous

        Homosexual movement? No ones stopping anyone from sticking their junk anywhere they want. Just don’t expect praise or validation. No one has to like what anyone else does. Civil rights? You weren’t even born. As far as the poor ol’ white people, why there’s loads of us. For most of us bad old white folks, college is a fancy building on a hill where over-privileged, elite aristocrats like yourself tell us evil white folks how bad we are as we scrounge for our next meal and turn the termostat up to a blistering 52 degrees in the winter. Go back to you dorm that daddy paid for and sip a perrier water to quench your thirst while you write another thesis on the bad old white man.

        • Jonathan Smyth

          Excuse me? I sip only Cristal; Perrier is a bourgeois drink. And Daddy paid for nothing, he’s the Dean.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tcm-Thecommonman/100003595839285 Tcm Thecommonman

        There is a difference between Feminists choosing to focus on women by themselves, and creating a narrative that women should be the only sex the world focuses on and actively preventing others to look into men’s issues. I believe this is what he meant, albeit poorly worded.

      • MRO

        The entire fag movement ignored the suffering of Jesse Dirkhising. Poor little Jessie was sodomised to death by a couple of fags in Arkansas. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) went out of its way to intimidate the media into not publicising the story. Fox News eventually publicised the story, leading to GLAAD calling them homophobic. This is the same GLAAD that trotted out the lie that Mathew Sheppard was killed for no other reason than he was a fag, even though all of the evidence proves he was killed in a botched drug deal. Even the prosecutor at the trial of Shepard’s alleged killer pointed out that it was a drug deal that went sour.

        Fags want to rape children and account for 30% of paedophiles, even though only 2 to 4% of men are fags. Many of the most prominent fag groups are pro-paedphilia, and support groups such as NAMBLA. The founder of the modern day fag movement, Harry Hay, openly supported NAMBLA and walked alongside them at public rallies.

        Fags routinely seek out underage boys for sex. They target homeless boys, give them a feed, throw a bit of money at them, then they rape them up the arse.

        The United Nations supported the fag groups that supported NAMBLA. It wasn’t until the U.S. Government threatened to stop funding the U.N. that they stopped supporting the pro-paedophilia fag groups.

        • Dan

          If you think Jesse Dirkhising is representative of homosexuals, which is what you seem to imply by saying there was a conspiracy by homosexual advocacy groups to cover up his crimes, no one can even have a rational discussion with you.

          • MRO

            If you think the fag groups such as GLAAD didn’t try to cover up the murder of Jesse Dirkhising then you are an ideologically driven idiot. There’s plenty of evidence showing that GLAAD bullied and intimidated television networks into remaining silent about the case.

            http://www.freedomisknowledge.com/otw/jesse.htm

            He was a boy who was raped to death by a couple of fags: one of them sat on a staircase and wanked his cock while the other raped Jesse up the arse. The poor thing suffocated to death.

            Sorry, but I don’t know how to deal with an ideolgically driven nutjob
            like you. You’re just as dumb as the string bean bullies at the
            university.

            Jesse Dirkhising wasn’t a homosexual, idiot!

          • Hanna

            Don’t bother arguing with someone who uses the term “fag.”

          • MRO

            Hanna,

            You’re such a moron.

            Take your stupid argumentum ad hominems and shove them up and c*nt.

            The bloke you’re talking to thinks Jesse Dirkhising is a fag who committed murder, even then I made it quite clear that Jesse was the victim of a homicide that was perpetrated by two fags. That’s the sort of twit you’re talking to.

            Poor little Jesse was just 13-years-old, yet the fags from GLAAD treated him like a bit of shit. They believe that a drugged up adult fag who got what he deserved for messing with druggies is more important than a 13-year-old boy. That’s how highly fags view children. No doubt you or one of your fag enabling friends probably believe that fags should be allowed to adopt, even though they put drugged up adult fags ahead of defenceless children who are preyed on by fags.

    • Hanna

      Hey, sorry to break it to you, you’re a fucking lunatic. Feminism is about achieving equality between both genders. I can’t believe screw ups like you still exist.

      • MRO

        Hanna,

        If you truly believe that then you’re either crazier than a cut snake or dumber than a box of rocks.

        Feminists have never campaigned for the rights of men. They’ve played an active role in keeping the male pill out of circulation, empowering women and girls at the expense of men and boys, defending violent women who torture and murder men and boys, etc.

        If you think that’s “equality” then your mumma did something wrong when she raised you.

        • Hanna

          proof?

          • Hanna

            evidence?

            I’ve never heard of any of this crazed behaviour. Could I see studies, articles, anything to back up the insanity you are spouting?

          • MRO

            Betty Friedan led the war against the male pill many decades ago:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o

            Affirmative action.

            Feminisation of schools. Emphasis has been taken away from examinations and practical work because girls do better in group work and projects.

            Where I’m from, Australia, women’s health receives almost three times as much funding as men’s health. See for yourself:

            http://www.mens-rights.net/health/funding_research.htm

            The stats I compiled on my page were taken from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

            Most child abuse is perpetrated by women, yet feminists routinely fight to keep fathers out of their childrens’ lives. See for yourself:

            http://www.mens-rights.net/law/violence/abuse.htm

            The stats I compiled on my page were taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Child Maltreatmeant 2008″ and “Child Maltreatment 2009″.

            Lorena Bobbit, Catherine Kieu Becker, the Indian woman from Adelaide South Australia who murdered her husband by setting his penis on fire, have been defended by feminazi groups. So have many other women who mutilated men’s genitalia. Hear about Mary Wrinkler? She murdered her preacher husband because, get this, he got off on her wearing shoes when they had sex. She got a shotgun and shot him in the back. The feminazis not only defended her, but they bought her a car!

  • Anonymous

    I had the chance to take to two female-identified students that came to the event. They told me that they had gone to the event thinking that Farrell was speaking at the protest. After arriving the organizers videographer decided to cover the entrance fees for these two students. When they went inside they realized that it was because there were very few students present (or at least straight from high-school students). These two students left the discussion early but told me that they found the discussion very heavily focused on the binary – as if there was just boys and just girls. They also reported some racist interpretations made from Farrell regarding Asian men. They also reported some tokenistic comments around homophobia (“my brother was bullied because he was gay, that’s why I’m fighting sexism against men” – ummmm). The students I talked to seemed very eager to listen to the speaker and hear his interpretations, but after the event they seemed really concerned that he said the things he said without providing actual evidence or sources to back up claims. They referenced dramatized videos that were obviously scripted and acted out that had no actual substance (see quotation above).

    I write this because some people feel like the men’s awareness group is one that needs to exist. I recognize that the issues they present in promotional material are sometimes very relevant – suicide, depression, mental health, etc. However, there are plenty of groups and campus resources that target these issues within a anti-oppressive framework. And while work can always be improved and expanded, the framework the Men’s Awareness Group uses is not to address the issues above, but to express frustration and hatred towards women, feminists and anti-oppression work. They do this through victim blaming, the building of rape culture and the reenforcement of an increasingly irrelevant binary system.

    What’s most troubling is the University’s inaction to address the concerns that the protesters have made. First, this event was presented as a campus group event despite all of the organizers being non-students. I’m not saying that the wider community shouldn’t have access to the campus, but that they should not have campus group booking fees when less than 10% of the attendance are students, staff or faculty (campus police excluded). The University’s inaction to address the lack of definition and purpose of the group in it’s constitution is also troubling. And most importantly, when provided evidence of various statements made by Farrell that put the blame of women being raped on women the University’s response is “did he specifically endorse rape?”

    “If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying…”

    Now I know that this post is going to be trolled. I recognize that just like Toronto Star, National Post, Globe and Mail and anything google searchable there is going to be a bunch of people (or one person with multiple accounts) who are not affiliated with UofT commenting on this. Let the trolling begin and let’s not given in to the propaganda and hate this “group” is bringing to our campus.

    (See this post and the amount of comments it has received compared to other posts. Trolling does exist: http://socialistworkercanada.com/2012/11/07/why-mens-rights-groups-are-wrong/)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000589931407 Jerry Boggs

      Re Farrell’s quote: “If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying…”

      Do you think this statement endorses rape? If so, can you state just exactly how?

      I believe it would be helpful if you understood that each sex reacts to the other’s behavior. Let me show you what I mean:

      “The Sexual Harassment Quagmire” at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/the-sexual-harassment-quagmire/

      It’s an in-depth look at the sexes’ most destructive behavioral difference.

      • http://twitter.com/Brad_Evoy Brad Evoy

        Ooo! Ooo! I have an answer for that one: ‘Being Sexual’, as you’d term it, is convoluted victim blaming.

        Your attempt to justify misogyny and rape culture is saddening to say the least and the notion that some perception of ‘body language’ gives one the right to ignore direct and absolute verbal instruction is indeed an endorsement of rape. Members of CAFE and folks like yourself are just bigots wearing the mask of equity, misusing statistics and language to some weak and pitiful ends. You sir are a shame to my gender.

        • Bethany Baby

          Rape culture doesn’t exist except in feminist fever dreams.

          I’m not a big fan of these men’s rights people, but can we stop pretending that every feminist dogma is always the gospel truth? Like most “social sciences”, the supposed truths espoused by “feminist theory” are heavy on rhetoric and light on evidence.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mujibar-Sirajul/892730276 Mujibar Sirajul

          He’s speaking of feigned resistance, not actual resistance. You can read the full quote online very easily and he does not support date rape like you people claim.

          He was asked by the Obama admin to advise the white house council on women and girls. He has been active in the women’s rights movement for years.

          Do you think Obama would ask a rape apologist to advise his council on women? Educate yourself, Brad. You are being manipulated by this out of context quote.

          • http://twitter.com/Brad_Evoy Brad Evoy

            Hi there.

            I actually have found the quote in-context and have read much on Farrell as a result of this. I stand by my previous statement. Farrell himself did serve within the American women’s organization NOW, but diverged from them in the late 1970′s pretty sharply. Such statements of a controversial or incredibly hyperbolic nature aren’t unusual for Ferrell and are pretty easily found in his interviews or work.

            Farrell has re-iterated this claim elsewhere and it reeks of false equivalency. To quote the section that follows this claim from that very book: “The purpose of the fraud? To have sexual pleasure without sexual responsibility, and therefore without guilt or shame; to reinforce the belief that he is getting a sexual favor while she is giving a sexual favor, thus that he “owes” her the 5 D’s before sex or some measure of commitment, protection, or respect after sex”.

            It is simply the old trope of the tempting harlot, out to confuse and mislead the pure and noble man. Farrell isn’t a complete buffoon, he raises some interesting questions about the nature of power, but when he reaches into these subjects it just becomes so obvious that he is, in fact, serving as an apologist.

          • Mary Waters

            You and the protesters who participated in the barricade have actually helped to prove Warren Farrell’s point that any criticism of feminism is met with immediate accusations of misogyny without any sort of analysis. You are helping to create the binary that these protesters seem so
            against. You feel your freedom to assemble is more valid then his
            freedom of speech and the freedom of people to inform themselves
            “I actually have found the quote in-context and have read much on Farrell as a result of this. I stand by my previous statement.” that’s great but maybe you should grant other people the same right and respect you wish to have. Allow them to find the quote and context, I’m sure most people will agree with you instead of telling people what to think and quoting more things out of context.
            .

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000589931407 Jerry Boggs

            All well put, Mary, especially: “helped to prove Warren Farrell’s point that any criticism of feminism is met with immediate accusations of misogyny without any sort of analysis.”

            I know Farrell personally. He made that point at least 20 years ago. Too many people had rather shout down a dissident, rather than engage in a reasoned discussion.

            I’m old enough to remember when blacks were shouted down and not allowed to speak.

          • Hanna

            Thank you.

      • Anonymous

        Worry no more, Louis CK can help you solve this dilemma:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mujibar-Sirajul/892730276 Mujibar Sirajul

      I was there and you are flat-out lying about what you claim to have heard. The reason most people were not students is because we are community workers who already have our degrees and work in the field helping young men.

      We were there to learn about issues facing men today and I’m still flabbergasted that people are so angry about a discussion on men’s issues they feel the need to come here with outright lies in an attempt to silence the discussion.

      You should feel absolutely ashamed that you are going out of your way to prevent people from helping men. This is not what feminism was about when I considered myself one. What happened to make everyone so angry and hateful?

      Why do you feel the need to stop people from helping young men?

  • http://twitter.com/9x19 Rishi Maharaj

    Well the way to respond to a point of view you find objectionable is definitely organized thuggery. Can anyone imagine would that this institution would be like if anyone who could put together a mob was allowed to dictate what could or couldn’t be discussed here?

    I’m unsurprised to find Danielle Sandhu, who has never been legitimately elected to represent any one for any reason shouting and yelling that she represents the students of U of T. Maybe one day she will find the courage to replicate the assault and destruction of property that she advocated as UTSU president and finally be removed from this campus.

    • wbp

      Danielle Sandhu did not even know that the speaker was Warren Farrell. She is a joke.

    • Anonymous

      Is she one of the two that denigrated and disrespected the rememberence day ceremony?

    • Sue

      Funny how feminists never point to all the bigoted speech that comes from their leaders or members. They’re too busy playing the blame-game to look in a mirror and realize the truth.
      “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52.
      “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
      “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon
      “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, in, The Future – If There Is One – Is Female.

  • Name

    Who gives a fuck? Attendance was voluntary. If you don’t like his point of view, don’t go his lecture. Just more idiocy from the UTSU lifetime protestors.

  • Hardy Weinberg

    I couldn’t believe I paid 10 bucks for this, I thought it was a Boyz II Men concert, but ended up being a crazy misogynistic speech by Kenny Rogers. I think Kenny Rogers should stick to his music and delicious rotisserie chicken. And I was really pissed off that I was lied to about Boyz II Men!

    Also, I felt this article is a bit sensational and bias as it focused on the one post by q_e_d and not on a broader discussion.

    1) This was NOT a UTSU event, please don’t bring partisan student politics where it doesn’t belong. The UTSU event Friday night was the Diwali celebration at New College. This event was primarily organized by Womens’ rights groups on and off campus. And just because Danielle Sandhu was there does not make it automatically a UTSU event. Sandhu is no longer a member of UTSU and acts as her own independent agent. Like when I see Sandhu on the street, my first thought is not “OMG is there a UTSU event going on at the
    cross-walk?”

    2) A lot of the people inside and outside the event
    were non-UofT community members, although I would hazard a guess the protestersoutside had way more UofT affiliated people than inside. The head of the UofT branch of CAFÉ is Justin Trottier, who is a former uoft student and is widely
    known in the city for his outrageous antics/events intended to instigate
    various groups.

    3) I absolutely condemn blocking doors and the scuffle with the police (be it the
    instigated by the police or by the activists). However I do not condemn the
    right to peacefully protest. There were 100-300 people protesting, of which a
    small minority, mostly people outside UofT, were involved with any assaults and
    arrests. The majority of people at the protest and those who were leaders and representatives
    of various communities and groups were on their best behavior.

    4) The tone of the event did represent a misogynistic/sexist view,
    something that I abhor and I feel should be combated against. As a man, I was
    offended by the stereotype that men sit around and watch porn and play video
    games. I was also offended by his view that men and women fit into little boxes
    in our societies, thus advocating for the creation of glass ceilings and glass
    walls for both genders. His tone and rhetoric was often misogynistic and in
    some cases homophobic or racist (Chinese companies sell Bras to Japanese men).

    For a more indepth analysis of the event, the Ryerson campus
    paper has a better overview than The Varsity. http://www.ryersonian.ca/article/25226/

    And this event was completely antithetical to the message of Boyz II Men, which is to love and respect women.

    • Anonymous

      “And this event was completely antithetical to the message of Boyz II Men, which is to love and respect women.”

      Rather telling that you think the purpose of a boy becoming a man is to cater to women (see, I can misrepresent statements to sound sexist too). Just for clarification, a failure to abide by the feminist rhetoric and to advocate for men, without the ultimate goal of that advocacy being beneficial (or in any way relevant) to women is not misogyny. Women do not need to be the focus of every discussion in order to not be seen as hating them.

  • dielon

    All due respect to the protesters point of view, they don’t have the right to physically stop someone from expressing their opinion or other people to listen to them because that is fascism. You have the right to criticize him for his opinion but to prevent people from listening to him is awful and does more to harm your cause then help. How would like it if a bunch of men prevented a woman’s rights rally from happening? That would not be tolerated and shouldn’t be tolerated. He has the right to peacefully express his opinions on the matter, and you have the right to disagree. Perhaps people were going to see him so that they could be sure that they don’t support him. Reading “Mein Kampf” does not automatically make you a nazi.

    These protesters clearly support censorship and so i cannot in any way shape or form support these protesters. I love how people who label themselves politically correct think they can act as ridiculous as possible without taking any responsibility for their own actions.

    • Concerned Student

      So do you value Dr. Farrel and the MRA Group’s right to expression over that of the protesters? In the end, no protester harmed Dr. Farrel or any of the folks attending nor did they physically attempt to stop Farrel from speaking. They stood, peacefully, in the entrance to a building to express their dissent towards what those folks intended and the ideas they stand for.

      If you respect the freedom of expression of Farrel and his supports, do you not also support that of the protesting students and community members who speak against them? Or, is it rather that you are fine with seeing these protesters attacked by police and supporters. Or is it that you are perfectly ok with censoring their protest? Freedom of expression is a two-way street. No protester among that group attempted any grand act to silence Farrel, they wanted their dissent noted and did so peacefully. If only they could have received the same respect.

      • dielon

        Exactly freedom of expression is a two way street; that’s what i was saying and no i don’t value any person opinion over the others but these protesters seemed to.

        I was not at the event and did not hear about it until reading this article, which says “About fifteen protestors stood in front of the doors before the event, forming a barricade and blocking event attendees from entering through the main doors of the auditorium…Several patrons were able to get in through the back entrance before protestors blocked those doors as well. ” that seems to me to be preventing people from trying to hear what he had to say.

        Perhaps instead of protesting his lecture, it would be more productive for the protesters to a organize their own lecture about their views and probably would have more attends then his lecture. I am now going to read his books to see if i actually disagree with his point of view instead of automatically taking the word of people who have declared him evil. Also, I in no way support police preventing any type of peaceful protest i think we can all agree that that is disguising.

        • Concerned Student

          But is not forming a barricade or standing in a particular place an expression of sorts? While you might not agree or condone their means, perhaps their dissent was just as valid an act as the event itself. Besides, many more protesters seem to have not formed the barricade and did not engage in that fashion – still, all forms of dissent might well be considered valid.

          I too have been and shall be reading Dr. Farrell, but a wrote dismissal of the other side of this discussion on the grounds of their manner of expression is just as problematic, which is what I fear many shall do in this situation.

          • dielon

            No i do not think their dissent is just as valid. They’re preventing peaceful discourse and just because they didn’t cause physical harm to anyone does not mean their behavior is acceptable or i have to agree/support their actions.

            I’m not against all protesters involved, just anyone involved in the barricades, because they clearly see their point of view as more valid then Warren Farrell.

          • Concerned Student

            Well, who claims one has to support either side in this matter? However, it rather seems that your willing to give way to ‘peaceful discourse’ – of which some of Farrell’s suggestions, such as the notion that women cannot be trusted to be truthful with issue of consent (see some lower comments on that) which belie that point – but that peaceful assembly and expression take a slightly backseat.

            But, if you would allow a group to speak freely, then so too should one allow one to express freely (as we have freedom of expression, not speech alone in this nation). The protesters did not cause physical harm, nor did they stop Farrell and others from assembling – they could easily have went elsewhere within campus or outside of it to avoid direct confrontation just as much as the protesters could have done so – but they expect it and (to a degree) desire it as these standoffs create space to make discussions of ‘censorship’ (though, as state, I think both sides can claim that fairly of the other equally) rather than of the actual issues at hand.

            Thus, the protests themselves – as you state – are somewhat counterproductive, but even so that doesn’t de-legitimize that form of expression inherently. Moreover, Warren Farrell likely sees his own view as superior to those against him, as they do to him – this is a realm of ideology, that is to be expected. Some of those who came to see Farrell acted violently as did the police and some of the protesters built an inconvenient barricade. It seems as though still you would put greater concern on the latter than the former.

          • dielon

            I never said i agreed with any of Warren Farrell’s positions, just that he has the right to express them and people have the right to listen to them. I agree with the position of the protesters, all i said was that certain people’s actions in the protest were not acceptable. Preventing people from attending the lecture is not acceptable which certain protesters seemed to have done.
            To quote you “dismissal of the other side of this discussion on the grounds of their
            manner of expression is just as problematic, which is what I fear many
            shall do in this situation.” I completely agree with you. I never dismissed their position, just their actions. If these protesters are going to get the freedom to assemble which of course they should, then they should give the same right to Warren Farrell and the people who wished to hear him speak. By acting inappropriately they have created more people talking about his ideas which seems ironic because that what they were trying to prevent. You seem more concerned about the rights of the protestors then freedom of expression/speech, which do apply to everyone including Warren Farrell.

          • Concerned Student

            Again, I’m not attacking or devaluing the rights of Warren Farrell or any of his supporters, but I am indeed concerned that many in this conversation have been (though, clearly as in these responses not yourself) dismissing the protesters whole positions on the basis of the actions of some. Moreover, I’ve questioned whether there is some manner of equivalency between the actions against Farrell and the manner in which protesters (all of them, not just those barricading) have been treated by supporters and police.

            Obviously, no matter if one condones the actions of the barricading parties or not, their actions have not led to success – as you note.

          • Michael

            Fundamental rights are subject to reasonable limitations. The freedom of expression and peaceful assembly have limitations. One of those limitations is where the exercise unreasonably infringes on the rights of others. In forming a barricade, those protesters were physically attempting to prevent the exercise of the rights of the attendees. This is problematic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Moore/843150611 Dan Moore

            On the contrary….these protestors did the Mens Movement a great service, for which I would like to thank them. This suppression of dissenting views is ENDEMIC to feminist ideologues. They are quite afraid what will happen if too many people hear a viewpoint counter to RadFem propaganda. But, as we are seeing, this xenophobic view is not shared by society in general.

            The simple fact is, Feminism cannot withstand scrutiny. There is not one single facet of Feminist ideology that is not built on lies, misinformation, or distortion of truth. Because of this, Feminists will not (cannot?) engage in any kind of discoure. Instead, they take the approach used by Totalitarians throughout History…they suppress and attack their detractors.

            Here’s something to think about though…

            If they are so correct about everything, why are they so afraid people might listen to other viewpoints? After all, if the Feminist take is the logical/correct one….wouldn’t inviting dissent actually STRENGTHEN their views? And what does it say when they are so afraid of examination, these people who bully politicians into compliance?

            The Mens Rights Movement isn’t going anywhere though, so they might as well get used to it.

          • Anon

            Your idea of ‘freedom of expression’ is ridiculous. “hey could easily have went elsewhere within campus or outside of it to avoid direct confrontation.” That’s not something someone who believes in the Charter would say.

          • fuck patriarchy

            “No i do not think their dissent is just as valid. They’re preventing
            peaceful discourse and just because they didn’t cause physical harm to
            anyone does not mean their behavior is acceptable or i have to
            agree/support their actions.”

            Just because you aren’t aware of the violence Farrell and the Mens Rights Movement perpetrates doesn’t mean they are engaging in “peaceful discourse”. I’m sure many who attended the rally including myself looked into Farrells work and the ideology of MRA’s and then in recognizing the violence these spaces are perpetuating, the violence that is informing events like Fridays and developed their tactic/response based on that. Barricading the door is a survivor-centric response that potentially seek to stop talks like Farrells for what it is, violent and oppressive. Theres no reasoning with the perpetuation of systemic violence (this point is made even more visible through the actions of the police),

          • dielon

            There is no reason to prevent people from hearing what he has to say. You view his opinions as perpetuating violence and you are telling me i have to as well. Don’t tell me what to think. By blocking access to hear his lecture, those particular protesters are telling me what to think as well that is wrong. Freedom of expression does not mean you have the right to prevent another person’s freedom of expression and people’s right to hear it if they wish. After reading many things Warren Farrel has written, i do not agree with most if not all that he has written (as i have not read everything he has written and would like to read more before forming an opinion) he has the right to say whatever he wants to say no matter how hurtful and you have the right to say he is wrong and criticizes his views and protest them. That does not mean every form of protesting is valid even if it is noneviolent.
            “Theres no reasoning with the perpetuation of systemic violence” fair enough.But there doesn’t seem to be any reasoning with people who think they are morally superior in the situation and who tell people what they can and cannot think because that is oppressive.

          • Anon

            How is a talk violent/oppressive?

          • Anon

            No, that is not “an expression of sorts.” It’s just being a baby.

      • Bethany Baby

        Peacefully protesting the event is a completely legitimate exercise of one’s right to freedom of expression.

        Physically barricading the doors to prevent others from exercising their right to freedom of expression is not.

        It’s not that complicated. Of course they try and justify their hypocrisy by labeling it “hate speech.” Which, of course, is defined as anything these people disagree with.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mujibar-Sirajul/892730276 Mujibar Sirajul

        I was there. They were not peaceful. They physically blocked us, called us “rape apologists” and generally tried to intimidate everyone with aggressive behavior and a numbers advantage.

        I was there with a colleague of mine – a woman who works with me helping disadvantaged youth in the community – and she was accused of selling out her own gender for my pleasure. “My” pleasure? She’s a coworker. We went because we have an interest in learning more about the challenges facing men today.

        These people were anything but civil or informed. None of them could actually articulate why they were opposed to this talk and all would only repeat the same catchphrases over and over when asked what their problem was.

        This was shameful and I am embarrassed that, as an activist and a community worker, these people claim to be associated with causes I support.

        There was nothing but hate, anger and violence in that crowd.

      • Anonymous

        “So do you value Dr. Farrel and the MRA Group’s right to expression over that of the protesters? ”

        Last I checked, Dr Farrell, nor any of his supporters, denied the protesters the right to hold their protest. The reverse is not true. You are correlating unequal outcomes as the same.

        “In the end, no protester harmed Dr. Farrel or any of the folks attending nor did they physically attempt to stop Farrel from speaking. ”

        The presentation was delayed for over an hour due to the blockades by the protesters so your assertion nobody was harmed and Farrell was not stopped from speaking are in fact lies.

        “They stood, peacefully, in the entrance to a building to express their dissent towards what those folks intended and the ideas they stand for.”

        They blocked the doors and denied people access. Don’t pretend that is the benevolent actions you described. Your dishonesty about the situation is rather telling. The same arguments are used against MRA’s. Saying the protesters are wrong for blocking the doors and denying others their own freedom of assembly is equated to saying the protesters aren’t allowed to protest… Just like saying men have issues that need to be acknowledged is equated to saying women have no issues.

      • MRO

        Concerned Student,

        You are an attention-seeking idiot.

  • Ashamed to be a U of T student

    This is ridiculous. A group that calls themselves “U of T Students United Against Sexism” goes to great lengths to support sexism. It is not wrong to recognize that sexism affects everybody, and that males also experience and suffer from sexism, that they are disadvantaged in many, many ways. When people try to talk about this, though, all they get are unfounded accusations of misogyny and other evils, as if trying to talk about the problems of a group that is usually ignored in these matters somehow means that you hate all the other groups. No, what their actions really show us is that the people who did this “protesting” (which turned into outright assaulting) are themselves just incredibly sexist, and if they only had the thought to think about their own actions and not treat people of different genders differently, they would realize how sexist they are and hopefully be very ashamed of themselves.

    • Anonymous

      “as if trying to talk about the problems of a group that is usually ignored in these matters somehow means that you hate all the other groups.”

      Acknowledging men have issues too, and that women don’t have a monopoly on gendered problems (or that problems labeled as gendered aren’t actually gendered), you remove their power base. Male guilt can no longer be used as effectively to acquire power, privilege and money. This is unacceptable to some.

  • Tony

    Although this “men’s rights” issue is complete BS and a total joke, who the hell are these protestors? You don’t make a point through actions such as those.

  • Harry

    This just goes to show that ignorance and ideology are not distant cousins, but married at the hip. It’s clear that none of the protestors has ever read anything Mr. Farrell had written. Had they even read the inside leaf of one of his book covers they would have refused to participate in such an asinine demonstration. These idiots can be nothing more than a bunch of followers of one or two other idiots who know absolutely nothing legitimate about anything having to do with gender and the differences thereof and for. My guess is the parents of these brain dead morons should stop financing their way through college and help them find work on a coal barge before they graduate from college with a license to hurt others with stupidity.

  • Anonymous

    Marxist privilege is revealed. Misandry is central to the authoritarian eugenics vision of all the social engineers and community organizers (of both the socialist and neo-con varieties, both globalist). Freedom is despised by politically correct psychopaths who want to control others.

  • Anonymous

    Feminism has a long history of misandry as shown in the video, “Los Misandry” at Youtube. The result of decades of feminist lies and propaganda has been an institutionalization of misandry, leading to a witch-hunting of males as shown in the video “Witch-Hunting Males” at Youtube. :-/

  • Tim Goldich

    In the realm of gender politics, there is feminism on the one hand and on the other hand there is nothing. If he could, Warren Farrell would enter male perspectives into the gender-political equation.
    While acknowledging the men overrepresented at the top, he would also have us spare a thought for the much larger numbers of men overrepresented within the true bottom rungs of society. Apparently, however, our universities are not open-minded enough to hear it. To me it is sad and scary that our universities are so in thrall to the feminist ideological dictatorship that alternate views will not be tolerated let alone embraced. For every one CEO there have been many POWs. If one can tear one’s eyes from the tip of the success pyramid, even for a moment, and look anywhere else, one finds that men suffer comparison with women in virtually every measure of wellbeing (health, longevity, homelessness, imprisonment, sentencing, suicide, substance abuse, work-related fatalities, battlefields, education, child custody, reproductive and parenting rights—the list is endless). I hope that someday it will not be considered “misogynistic” to explore such truths in open forum.

  • fuck censorship/sexism

    It’s sad that the few protesters who participated in the barricades make the issue no longer just about sexism, which is what should be focused on and what people should be discussing. Censorship would not be part of the debate if 15 protestors could learn how to protest in a responsible manner that was more about educating people than just chanting. I do not support the polices’ actions either.

  • Mrs T

    “We [protestors] don’t want to say the gains of women have come at the
    expense of men” Women have more rights in family law than men so yes, those rights have come to women at the expense of men. Parents should be granted equal rights that are not based on their gender because that is sexism masquerading as feminism.

    I’m not against feminism, just the fact that certain people who have labeled themselves feminist don’t think they need to look at their own actions or beliefs.

  • Sandro Pehar

    Ideology is the enemy, Knowledge is Power.

    Here’s a link to Warren Farrell’s Wikipedia Page.
    Take special note in the ‘critical reception’ area.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

  • Anonymous

    As a man, who at least in his own opinion, has always believed and supported complete equality for all genders, races, creeds, cultures, sexual orientation or the like; I can’t begin to tell you how much this type of behaviour (exhibited by the protesters) disturbs and disgusts me.
    Freedom of speech is one of the values I hold most dear, for it to be trampled in such a disgusting fashion is so disheartening to me in such a strong regard that I can’t even put it into words. The people involved in this protest should be ashamed, I don’t know what else to say.

    • Hanna

      As a woman who supports the same, I understand your disgust. However some of the comments made by Warren Farrell are pretty horrific: date fraud? He doesn’t seem to have his head screwed on. Definitely not a great protest, but I can also understand the level of outrage that lead to the protester’s reactionary behaviour. Reading some of the misanformed and anti-women comments on this site is pretty upsetting too. However it is a relief to hear you speak respectfully and coherently on the subject.

      • Anonymous

        Thank you, I think the type of discourse you and I are having is a far more likely to lead to some sort of amicable resolution than the sort of protest we saw. I also agree some of his points are made in a way that is either deliberately offensive or insufficiently senstive but I point the the purpose of free speech in the first place; “Free Speech is not intended to protect popular speech, its intended to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech by definition requires no protection.”

        • Guest

          no*

  • Bora D. Explora

    Funny how those trying to deny others free speech and assembly are the first to talk about how we live in a “police state”…

  • YesIAmDude

    Good too see some people won’t accept Farrell’s misogynistic ramblings.

  • wbp

    I arrived a bit early for Warren Farrell’s lecture. I was astonished to see such a hostile and large group of protestors blocking the doors. The vile things they were saying — calling me a pervert, and WR supports incest. Then the women screaming at the top of their lungs. Both entrances were blocked — and if police were not their, attendees would very likely have been harmed — the hysteria was just unbeleivable. UFT Against Sexism group was acting more sexist than I have ever seen. They need to re evaluate themselves.

  • Tristan

    can’t they listen to what the man has to say first then make an argument? people react to quickly to a premonition without taking into account what he has wrote or said.

  • MRO

    If the young twits who are against the men’s movement are the future leaders of the world, then the world is
    fucked. All they do is trot out the same old catchphrases that were
    blurted out by their moronic “leaders”, without knowing what they mean or
    why they’re repeating them.

    It’s obvious that the retards’ moronic
    “leaders” have seen women ruin men’s lives by falsely
    accusing them of rape and violence. Seeing it occur over and over again,
    and hearing feminists make a living out of saying all men are bad, has
    convinced the idiots that hurling false accusations against men is a
    foolproof way of silencing anyone who confronts the flaws in feminist
    ideology. People might fall for a ploy when it’s used sparingly and
    convincingly, but when it’s pulled out by idiots who can’t get their
    story straight then it’s easy to see through it. Aileen Wournos found
    this out the hard way. Going to the well too often just leads to the
    water drying up.

    I think it’s fair to say that the young manginas and
    and young feminazis who are against the men’s movement are a danger to society. They [manginas/feminazis]
    might be pathetic, stupid and pitiful, but they have strength in numbers
    and friends in high places. No man is safe from these string bean
    bullies. Avoid universities at all costs. If an area of your town is
    frequented by these freaks, avoid it like the plague.

  • MRO

    My sympathies go to all the sane Canadians who have to deal with these nutbag feminazis.

    Don’t the violent, power hungry feminazis and sex starved marginas realise that their evil regime has the potential to create another Marc Lepine?

  • MRO

    If the young twits who are against the men’s movement are the future, then the world is
    fucked. All they do is trot out the same old catchphrases that were
    blurted out by their moronic “leader”, without knowing what they mean or
    why they’re repeating them.

    It’s obvious that the moronic
    “leaders” of these idiots have seen women ruin men’s lives by falsely
    accusing them of rape and violence. Seeing it occur over and over again,
    and hearing feminists make a living out of saying all men are bad, has
    convinced these idiots that hurling false accusations against men is a
    foolproof way of silencing anyone who confronts the flaws in feminist
    ideology. People might fall for a ploy when it’s used sparingly and
    convincingly, but when it’s pulled out by idiots who can’t get their
    story straight then it’s easy to see through it. Aileen Wournos found
    this out the hardy way. Going to the well too often just leads to the
    water drying up.

    I think it’s fair to say that the manginas and
    and young feminazis who are against the men’s movement are a danger to society. They
    might be pathetic, stupid and pitiful, but they have strength in numbers
    and friends in high places. No man is safe from these string bean
    bullies. Avoid universities at all costs. If an area of your town is
    frequented by these freaks, avoid it like the plague whenever they’re
    around.

    It won’t be long until the feminazis, manginas and militant fags who run this evil website take this comment down. They can’t handle real men standing up and speaking the truth about their evil regime.

  • Malthus

    Feminism has devolved from the healthy, humanist request it used to be to a form of mass mental illness whose symptoms are: hysteria, persecution complex, paranoia, cult-like adherence to conspiracy theories (the world-wide patriarchy); psychopathic lack of empathy for anyone but themselves, delusions and schizophrenia.
    What happened at UoT is neither surprising nor shocking- it is feminist norm, These people shouldn’t be blamed or condemned- they should be pitied and treated, just like any other mental patient.

    • MRO

      Malthus is right, but I have no sympathy for the feminazis. They’re vicious beasts who’ve ruined millions of lives. The sooner all feminazis are rounded up and hanged by the government for their crimes against humanity, the better.