Senior administrators at the University of Toronto and the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) continue to debate the acceptable limits of free speech on campus in the aftermath of a lecture delivered in late November by Dr. Warren Farrell.

The lecture was marked by a sizable protest and heavy police presence, during which a group of protestors blocked the entrance to the lecture hall where Farrell was scheduled to speak.

“We have at the University of Toronto a wide range of contentious events, in which views are expressed that are offensive to some,” said Provost Cheryl Misak in a December 11 statement. “Our primary aim with respect to these events is to ensure that freedom of speech is protected, including the freedom to protest, as long as the law is respected.”

Police formed a cordon in front of MacLeod auditorium during parts of Farrell's lecture. Q_E_D/TWITTER

In a dueling statement released in the days following Farrell’s lecture, the UTSU condemned the event. “Despite complaints to the University administration, and requests from students to maintain our campus as a safe space free from oppression and discrimination, Dr. Farrell was given a space and forum to spread his misogynistic, hateful theories at U of T,” read the union’s release.

Farrell was invited to speak on campus by a group called Men’s Issues Awareness at the University of Toronto (MIAUT). The group is listed as a registered student club with ULife. Its mission is described as “consciousness-raising, public education and efforts to change public policy” in relation to “men’s issues,” and the group pledges “positive activism to advance a healthier society” and “the highest level of co-operative dialogue with other campus and community organizations engaged in activities of similar aims and goals.” Calls to the contact number listed on MIAUT’s ULife profile were routed to the voicemail inbox of the Canadian Association for Equality, an organization whose name appeared prominently on posters promoting Farrell’s lecture.

UTSU executives said the union had been in contact with the administration to express their concern over the club since early last fall. In spite of the union’s stated opposition, Farrell’s lecture was approved by the Office of Student Life, which vets potentially controversial speakers before they can speak on a U of T campus.

Through a spokesperson, the university declined to elaborate on the vetting procedure in place. Misak’s December 11 release stated in part that “the vast majority of the University of Toronto community understands that freedom of expression is vital to the mission of universities and cannot be reserved for those with whom one agrees.”

In the weeks since the event, the UTSU has urged the administration to make the vetting procedure more stringent. “I support free speech, but there is no right without its limitation,” said UTSU president Shaun Shepherd. “In this case, it’s obvious that [Dr.] Farrell had overstepped that limit a few times, not through what he was saying at the lecture, but the content of his other speeches and books, and the way he approaches these issues. It is sexist at the core.”

Shepherd said he was “ashamed” that the university “keeps poking at this free speech claim.” Misak’s statement concerning Farrell’s lecture suggested that “the disruption of this event by protesters was a threat to free speech.”

“The way I’m viewing this is a test of the clause of these limits. If this isn’t the limit, then what is it? How far can someone go? I strongly believe this has been a breach of the university’s own policy,” said Shepherd. The union has urged the university to “use the [Ontario] Human Rights Code as a guideline in identifying events that may create an unsafe space for its students, staff and faculty.”

The university’s “Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment” cites the Ontario Human Rights Code as one of several “foundational” documents, but also stipulates that within the university’s context, free speech is “the most crucial of all human rights.” A separate document, the “Statement on Free Speech,” adds that “there are limits to the right of free speech” referring specifically to instances “when members of the University use speech as a direct attack that has the effect of preventing the lawful exercise of speech by members or invited guests.”

“We want to ensure that events the university is promoting or allowing should fall in line with the general ethos of the university,” Shepherd said.

“Current policies don’t account strictly enough for situations where students become at risk under the guise of freedom of expression,” said UTSU vice-president, equity, Noor Baig. “In my view, a lot of clarifications around violent language and hate speech need to be made in policies and upheld in practice.”

As this debate over free speech has unfolded, a website called “A Voice for Men” has singled out several female protestors who were among the approximately 100 people who disrupted Farrell’s lecture in November. Three students, including former UTSU president Danielle Sandhu, have been the subject of vitriolic blog posts. The group has also added two students to an online registry hosted on, which publishes the names of women it labels variously as “bigots” and “false rape accusers.”

A Voice for Men has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “woman-hating” and a focal point in an expansive misogynistic online network. Contacted for comment, Farrell said he has “no affiliations with AVfM, and only a hearsay understanding of what they have done.”

The posts on “A Voice for Men” include photos and other personal information gathered from Facebook and Twitter feeds. Although the site claims that the posts do not advocate or endorse violence, those targeted described receiving threatening emails and phone calls, “surveillance” on campus,  and other acts of intimidation and harassment.

“Unfortunately, when contentious issues, such as this one, spill into the world of blogs and internet participation and increasingly involve individuals external to our community, they can very quickly escalate. That has happened in this situation and has resulted in the vilification of a very small number of individual students,” read
Misak’s statement.

The UTSU confirmed that it has been documenting these cases of threats and harassment, and that this documentation has been shared with both the university administration and campus police. “We believe that there must be some member of the U of T community fueling this online witch hunt,” said Shepherd.

“There is no ambiguity here, the Men’s Issues Awareness group and its national affiliate organization, the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) are part of the same broader ‘movement’ as ‘A Voice For Men’,” said Baig. “In fact the CAFE website previously hosted a number of links to AVfM which have more recently been taken down, most likely to feign dissociation.”

“I think it’s fairly clear that there are individuals within the university community with access to locally obtained information who are relaying this information, perhaps even composing the posts themselves,” Baig added.

Baig said that the union attempted to raise the issue of targeted individuals and compromised student safety at a meeting with university administrators on November 28, but the issue was not deemed urgent enough at the time to merit discussion. The topic was raised again at a  December 4 meeting. Baig said it was not until after this second meeting, on December 11, that Provost Misak released her statement (quoted from above), “in which the safety of students seemed to only have been a minor issue on the side.”

In the December 11 statement, Misak wrote that the university “takes these threats seriously and we condemn them. We have reached out to individual students, and will continue to do so, in order to assist them in developing safety plans so that they may go about their academic and other endeavours on our campus safely.” A subsequent statement, released on December 20 and signed by Angela Hildyard, vice-president, human resources and equity and Jill Matus, vice-provost, students, reiterated that the university “deplores” the targeting of individuals and communities, and promised to take legal action as appropriate.

Warren Farrell on Campus

Warren Farrell is a controversial figure whose published works include The Liberated Man, Why Men Are the Way They Are, and The Myth of Male Power. On his visit to U of T campus in November, he gave a speech outlining his theory of how men are disadvantaged in Western society.

Topics discussed during Farrell’s lecture included suicide rates among veterans, custody battles in family court, video game and pornography addiction, rates of male unemployment and underemployment, and violent sports. Farrell 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. He began to include men’s issues in his work about gender in the mid-1980s.



  • Brandon

    inb4 shitshow.

  • Paul Elam

    Where are the police reports, copies of threatening emails, phone records, surveillance complaints (against whom?) and a description of what “other acts of intimidation and harassment” are, exactly, and who do they allege did them? Is there any evidence at all that these are not just wildly false claims? How about a supportive quote from police, or even one person to tell their horror story of how they were harassed? How on earth can all of this stalking and threatening have happened, yet you have not one shred of evidence to support any of it? These are the questions AVFM is going to keep asking, and I will lay money that they are the questions UTSU will dodge every time they are asked.

    • Duncan Auditore

      Not just UTSU, try the vast majority of feminist activists. Or if not dodge, hurl abuse instead…

    • phillip

      not only is there no evidence of this so called harassment and threats, they repeatedly claim mr. farrell has made misogynistic and hateful statements and are using that as the reason that he should not have been allowed to speak, you would think these supposed statement being the cause of all of this they might have quoted or at the pointed to where they were said.

    • Anonymous

      I’m not sure you understand how journalism works, but it entails summarising the evidence available and composing an article that presents the conclusions of the journalist involved, and there are word limits. If the Varsity were to present its evidence, the newspaper would end up a booklet containing the inane drivel of MRAs, and that’s way too much space to devote to most of what you say.

      • al.belush

        >containing the inane drivel of MRAs,

        Lolz, the thing is that there isn’t anything that has some ounce of inane drivel by MRAs, the whole aritcle leaks of Misandry and Male hating, not only th U O T defends feminists blocking free speech but they also try to paint a picture of oppression and harassment where there is none, indeed the issues that were being expressed in that lecture were about male issues (WHich by the way is not a concern to U Of T, feminism or western government, even women) but the views that were expressed in the counter protest were that of discrimination, hate and true harassment of young men trying to attend the lecture, Do you see men blocking the part of feminists in women studies classes? If you have any example of that kindly say write it down, For your misandric enjoyment let me post this video, Get your popcorn out bigot because it is a fun ride for you.

        • OH

          This is right on point, and thank you for sharing the video in all it’s embarrasing glory. It makes me ashamed to be female.

          • Anonymous

            You have no call to be – MRAs will be the first to tell you there is a world of difference between being a woman and being a feminist

        • Anonymous

          People need to watch this video, and see what actually happened instead of reading articles that can’t even be bothered to link anything even remotely resembling a fact.

      • Scott

        This is insipid and shows you don’t actually know how journalism works. If you state a fact, you support it. Insipid.

        • Anonymous

          I work professionally as a journalist, so I think I know what I’m talking about. Every claim we make needs to be fact-checked, as it’s legally necessary. Canadian libel laws are particularly stringent, so you can’t simply make things up or you will expose yourself to a lot of legal trouble (in the US this is a bit different, given the emphasis on freedom of speech, but I’ve never worked there.)

          • gwallan

            In your few words here it is patently clear that you are not a professional of any sort. Were that the case, given your definition in this post, you would be tearing this article to pieces. That you are not is a demonstration of your own principles. Find some integrity and you MAY be able to apply that label to yourself.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            “Professional” just means you profess to know something, and perhaps get paid. Maybe neither are true.

            Goebbels, recall, was also a pro. As are all hookers. So I wouldn’t base too much on your self-credentialing. After all, EVERY feminist swears s/he’s only interested in equality, despite reality.

            Journos forget that most truth comes from poets, novelists, and others not beholden to paymasters.

            I mean, how many “professional” businesspeople miss trends and/or game the system?

            How many “professional” spooks miss important intel?

            How many members of the press push the feminist agenda while claiming to be neutral?

      • phillip

        this is the internet, ever hear of links? also they had space to quote a retracted statement from the SPLC but no space for evidence of anything that is actually pertinent to the article?

      • Paul Elam

        Oh I see, room for the authors conjecture, but not the facts. That’s journalism. Didn’t you mean that’s journalism at “The Varsity”?

      • Anonymous

        FFS, it’s not journalism, it’s the imaginary universe of an english failure.

      • Bojan

        Are you on drugs or something? I’m seriously asking this, I’m concerned about your mental health.

        Where are there “word limits” on a website? I’m sure that U of T can store petabyte of data! They can say in the article “For full details go to this URL”, and that’s it!

        You probably live in a cave and haven’t figured out yet how the Internet works… :(

        • Anonymous

          The Varsity is a print newspaper and has word limits, just like about every print publication out there. I should know, I’m a freelance journalist.


          • Paul Elam

            I don’t think you are. Please link to examples of your work.

          • Lance

            Your assuming the only reason the u of t has not produced evidence is because there are word limits…. Isn’t journalism supposed to be about investigation not assumptions. Go ahead and show us how good you are, go find the evidence.

      • gwallan

        Tommyrot. Journalists report the news. They do not invent it. One of the most marked changes through my lifetime has been the diminished integrity of journalism in this regard. The will be no more Bernsteins or Woodwards. The honourable journalist is a thing long gone.

        If you, fakefighter, and others like you are the future of that profession then the bottom has already been reached.

    • DannyboyCdnMra

      Most likely wild accusations or if there are any of the above listed behaviors they will most likely have been done by feminist agent provocateurs.
      How many more times must feminists be caught lying before people snap out of the Jim Jones femmie kool-aide

  • Rob in Korea

    SO.. Apparently its NOT ok to talk about preventing male suicide, but it IS ok to threaten male homicide. very progressive of you U of T, keep up the good work!

  • Anonymous

    Wait, the Southern Poverty Law Center calls A Voice for Men a hate group? Is this the same Southern Poverty Law Center that is funded in part by a group that advocates culling 90% of men and putting the rest in concentration camps?

    • Scott

      The very same.

    • Kimski

      Yes, another group of feminist “sweethearts”, that has done nothing wrong and should not be held accountable for any of their hatred, solely based on them being women..
      /sarcasm off.

    • mensrights reddit

      “Is this the same Southern Poverty Law Center that is funded in part by a
      group that advocates culling 90% of men and putting the rest in
      concentration camps?”

      got a source for that?

      • Suzanne McCarley
        • Goatfish

          I don’t see how this answers the question though. It doesn’t seem to mention the Southern Poverty Law Center anywhere.

          • Andrew Richards

            They’re a major financial contributor to the SPLC. That’s the link to it. As for the details of the SPLC’s questionable record when it comes to perpetuating hate, you might find this page and subsequent articles interesting:

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            The de rigueur ruse: a feminist demands citation, gets it, then ignores it. It’s a waste of time to provide data to data-hating “gender politics” operatives.

            Nothing prevents feminists from doing unbiased research. They just prefer mouthing misandric ones.

            The men’s movement will never convert feminists. It’s impossible. That’s why it doesn’t bother. Instead it will grow a bigger army than NOW and out-manoeuvre, out-vote, and out-last it.

            Fifty years was time enough for feminism to grow a brain and heart. It refused, thinking males would go along with, say, government supplanting fathers. Feminists forgot that it’s mostly male taxes that fund their anti-male programs.

            It will be interesting to see how long muffin lasts in her GoGrrrrrl, Inc. corner office when men stop caring. Let the “We can do everything men can” tribe wash their high-rise’s windows; drill for oil; long-haul truck drive; etc.

            Interesting, too, to watch females finally do their “fair share” of filling our national military cemeteries.”

            Heretofore, feminists demanded (and mostly got) the cushiest male positions without paying an equal price. Them days is ending. The men’s movement, among other things, will storm traditional female bastions. No longer will guys define themselves by what they do to earn “female attention.” Divorced guys will get custody of children (perhaps preferentially until, you know, parity is reached). They won’t define themselves by work, either, but let degreed women be the working stiffs while guys, at to long last, do what makes themselves happy. They will hand their shovels and rifles to “the ladies.” No more women having all the options, men the obligations. Males will treat their lives and feelings as being equal to “teh wimminz.”

            Guys have, for the most part, accommodated feminism for 5 decades. In turn, feminism metastasized, demanding more-more-more. It continually bashes men, continuously engages in one-sided “don’t hit back, we’re girls” battles-of-the-sexes. Well, guys have had enough and are fighting back.

            Feminists went a bridge too far. They danced and cheered as they threw more and more things that mattered to men on bonfires. Did they really expect no blow-back?

            If it’s one thing men know “upclose-and-personal,” it’s war. They didn’t begin this one, but will most likely end it. Not, of course physically, but by countering feminism wherever it rears its ugly, addled pate. Not like feminists did in Toronto (that is, not by seeking to silence or shame them into non-existence), but countering every lie they utter.

            Which is considerable, After all, what eructation by feminists has NOT been a lie?

    • Joseph Taylor

      Also, look up the SPLC’s Morris Dees quote: “If I told what I was
      doing there I would have to kill you.” It has to do with Elohim City and
      the still unsolved massacre (yes, still unsolved, definitely) at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

    • Andrew Richards

      Not to mention the same SPLC that accused S.A.V.E. of trying to reduce funding for the plight of battered women because they want the plights of both battered men and battered women to be treated with equal credibility, justice ans compassion. But then I guess that fact is a little too “politically inconvenient” for some, including Mr Bredin.

      • Danny

        Yes the same SPLC that accused of using lurid and disturbing titles for stories…..titles that are copied and pasted verbatim from the sources they link to.

    • Smith

      Actually, they backpedalled on that, IIRC, and said they never actually called MRAs a hate group.

  • JJAB91

    Honestly you are fucking stupid if you take the SPLC seriously. They called ‘A Voice for Men’ a “Hate group” for addressing legitimate issues but give places like ‘RadFemHub’ where posters advocate genocide a pass. What the fuck?

    • Joseph Taylor

      I respectfully disagree. The SPLC deserves to be taken seriously. It is extremely well-funded and is dedicating to eradicating the natural rights of Americans enshrined in the constitution. They promote the setting up of an authoritarian system and support a wide range of anti-Bill of Rights positions. Keep an eye on ‘em. The influence TV-addled government bureaucrats who have, increasingly, a license to kill without warrant or propable cause. The SPLC is fervently and influentially anti-liberty.

  • Duncan Auditore

    Quite typical of many modern day feminists, is that if you don’t agree with everything you say regarding gender issues, you are a misogynistic pig who hates women. There are just as many “mens issues” as there are “womens issues”, and this lecture was intended to raise the profile of mens issues to a point closer to womens issues (which are, for some reason, classed as more important). The irony in this is that in condemning this lecture as sexist (despite it being pro-equality regarding the treatment of men in modern society), the condemner(s) are themselves, being sexist, as they are refusing to allow mens issues to be on a level equal with that of womens issues.

  • Anonymous

    You keep talking about hateful speech, so I have a question.

    Does screaming at students “rape enabling f**king scum” as they try to exercise their right to hear what others have to say, qualify?

    How about hateful actions?

    Does the actions of the protesters – when they physically prevented others from exercising their right to hear what others have to say, qualify?

  • Luke Fisher

    The hypocrisy of the UTSU is most apparent. They are perfectly happy with free speech and slanderous accusations so long as they’re the ones who get to define what constitutes free speech.

    Feminism should not have the monopoly on the gender discussion. There are specific issues that face men and AVfM and others are working hard to raise awareness for them while exposing the lies and obfuscations of feminists.

  • bowspearer

    When Ms McKenzie-Mohr emailed Paul Elam regarding this article and requesting a comment from him (however it seems that contrary to her claims in that email, she was not the actual journalist), I felt compelled to ask certain questions of her in the following email (which I have yet to receive a response to):
    Dear Ms McKenzie-Mohr,

    I recently saw your email sent to Mr Elam, and I felt the need to
    respond to the second question you posed to him. Also for the record, I
    have no personal affiliation with Dr Warren Farrell [this pertained to her first question, asking whether AVfM was affiliated in any way,shape or form, with Warren Farrel].

    You asked:

    “2. Do you believe that by profiling several of the female students who
    protested Dr. Farrell’s lecture and featuring one of these students on
    the website you have violated their freedom of speech through vilification and intimidation?”

    I honestly have to question how much of a factor gender bias was, in your asking that question.

    Let’s review the actual event. Dr Farrell was giving a talk on male
    suicide, which numerous government statistics show affects far more men
    than women, and the boys crisis in education – an issue that is of
    concern with pedagogical academics. Regardless of people’s opinions on the man, they were the sole issues being discussed.

    However those attending the event faced baseless accusations of
    being rape
    apologists [I was unaware that preventing male suicide and male low
    academic achievement required legalising rape] and condoning incest
    [likewise I was unaware that perpetuating pedophilia was directly
    required to deal with these issues], and were subjected to violence and
    intimidation in the process of the doors to the venue being blocked. I
    would add to present a human perspective, that one of those attending
    who was the victim of hate speech had lost 2 male friends to suicide
    within the past couple of years and was there looking for answers.

    As you appear concerned with freedom of speech and therefore I presume,
    equality, let’s reverse the genders of this situation for a minute.
    Instead of violently abusive women (with the aid of some violently
    abusive men) hurling abuse and intimidating men attending a seminar
    dealing with the issues of male suicide and what is universally
    acknowledged in pedagogical academic circles as the “boys crisis in education”, let’s pretend the gender
    roles were reversed.

    Let’s pretend for a minute that it was
    abusive men (with the aid of some violently abusive women) hurling abuse
    at women attending a seminar dealing with female suicide and dealing
    with a universally academically acknowledged, widespread epidemic of low
    educational outcomes for women. Furthermore, let’s pretend that whilst
    attending this event, they were baselessly accused of being rape and
    incest apologists whilst being subjected to violence and intimidation
    whilst blocking those women from attending that seminar. Let’s pretend
    also that one of those attending who was pilloried was a young woman –
    there because 2 of her girlfriends had committed suicide and she was
    seeking answers.

    Would you
    suggest that naming and shaming such bigotry was a violation of the
    abusive individuals’ free speech, or would you be correctly describing
    it as was – which in that case would be the public naming and shaming of
    blatant and vile misogyny? I’m highly confident that you would be
    vocally doing the later.

    As you are not, I find myself asking 2 questions:

    1. As you take issue with the naming and shaming of such vile misandry
    (the gender reversal of misogyny), do you believe that blatant hate
    speech should be an acceptable form of “freedom of speech” and be allowed to be
    carried out with complete impunity?

    2. If this is not the case, do you believe in the chauvinistic view of:

    a) women – namely that they should be perpetually infantalised by
    society and treated like innocent children when they are guilty of
    injustice (which feminism merely manipulates and compounds with the
    notion of “all women are victims”) and therefore be able to act in ways
    we would never tolerate a man acting with complete impunity [I should also point out that such attitudes are INCREDIBLY misogynistic as they perpetuate a paternalistic culture against women and therefore deny them agency]?


    b) men – namely that they are disposable (which feminism has covered up
    and manipulated with the notion of “all men are abusers”) and should be
    held to impossibly high hypergamic standards, valued only in terms of
    their ability to provide, ability to protect and sexual prowess and that
    serious issues facing men and boys (eg male suicide; an epidemic of low
    educational outcomes; violence against men being treated as a joke;
    battered men being treated as a gestalt of urban
    myth/perpetual-predator/cheap,filthy, worthless sluts; children as young
    as 12 paying child support to female pedophiles when the rape results
    in a child, etc) should be met with not only ridicule but blatant hate

    Feminists often go on about equality, yet equality means treating both
    men and women as adults- both in agency to enable authentic
    self-actualisation in both men and women, and accountability for
    injustices they perpetuate.

    These women did not merely protest something they disagreed with – the
    engaged in violent hate speech against male issues which if properly
    addressed would in no way be to the detriment of women.

    As such I would ask why you seek to defend the bigots in this case. Is it because
    their victims have a penis and they have a vagina? Would you tolerate
    bigots getting a free pass because they had a penis and their victims
    have a vagina? We both know the answer is that you wouldn’t.

    Therefore why seek to defend bigots in this case when the ideology
    driving such arbitrary and unconditional protection based on gender is the very reason women were relegated to the kitchen and
    bedroom for centuries? Furthermore as a male survivor of child abuse,
    rape and domestic violence entirely at the hands of women, I am all too
    painfully aware, through the scars I will carry for life, of the damage
    that can be done when injustice gets a free pass because the perpetrator
    has a vagina.

    I would
    be very interested to see whether the response I receive is a thoughtful
    one or a dogmatic one or if I even receive a response at all.


    Andrew from Australia

    • bowspearer

      I should add that I have yet to receive a response to this email and judging by the article, I doubt I would as I suspect it’s somewhat “politically inconvenient” for the University of Toronto.

    • veto

      I nearly stood up and applauded at this, the MRM needs more like you. I doubt you’ll get a response though, there is very little that one as dogmatic as the author of this article can say to defend their point of view. Cognitive dissonance eat your heart out.

    • Luke Fisher

      I’m somewhat at a loss for words for how awesome that was. It’s sad that you probably won’t get a reply but you did and excellent job nonetheless. There needs to be more people doing things like this to bring attention to the failure of feminism and serious issues that men face.

    • Becky

      This. Is. Awesome. Unfortunately, many feminists will file this under TL;DNR because it will make them uncomfortable. This was so well said, it deserves lots of love.

    • Anonymous

      ” Dr Farrell was giving a talk on male suicide, which numerous government statistics show affects far more men
      than women”
      Ya think?

      • Andrew Richards

        katie, I’d recommend reading the “Maculinities in Politics and War” by Tosh, Dudink and Hagemann. One thing they say is that were women’s issues are acknowledged and addressed, men’s issues are “quietly accepted and ignored”.

        The interesting thing is that this attitude is the very male disposability which Dr Farrell was talking about and apparently constitutes as hate speech according to the protestors.

        • JDS

          Thank you for saying “the protestors” instead of “feminists”. That distinction is an important one.

          • Andrew Richards

            The distinction is a trivial one. The fact is that the protestors were pursuing a radically fundamental feminist agenda with the protest. Before you think I agree with you, I am using the word “radical” in terms of it’s traditional meaning (rather than the modern meaning) which is etymologically derived from the Latin word “radix” or root.

          • JDS

            How was the protestors’ agenda fundamentally feminist? Sorry, I haven’t read much literature from either side.

          • Andrew Richards

            The problem is that you have based your understanding of feminism on a dictionary rather than fundamentalist feminist doctrine. If you want to see what feminism stands for at a fundamental level, read this:

            Then compare that to the writings of Valerie Solanas, Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin who were the pioneers in women’s studies and whose fringe element has never been disowned by the mainstream at large. Start with the SCUM Manifesto- see for yourself why MRAs have such a visceral reaction to feminists. I suspect you’ll be horrified at the similarities and in turn the ideological foundations of the movement you claim to be a member of.

          • JDS

            “The problem is that you have based your understanding of feminism on a dictionary rather than fundamentalist feminist doctrine”

            I can see what you mean by that but hopefully you see my side of the problem as well. In my day-to-day life if someone asks “are you a feminist?” I know what they mean is “do you support equal rights?” and I should feel comfortable with saying “yes”.

            I guess I’ll just start saying “I support the dictionary definition” or something.

            I’ll look through that literature. It seems interesting.

          • Andrew Richards

            I totally understand where you’re coming from. For your whole life you’ve been indoctrinated to believe that feminism stood for one thing when it in fact stands for another. I completely understand your dogmatic response to it because in a sense, you’ve been brainwashed into that belief. Countless people have which is why the chauvinism it perpetuates is given a free pass.

            Honestly, I’d respond with 2 things here. First up, you’re clearly an egalitarian so why not call yourself that.

            Secondly, why not respond when asked that “why would I support an ideology which is about as pro-women as footbinding?”

            When they do a double-take,point out that in perpetuating a notion of women as perpetual victims, they are in fact perpetuating the very misogynistic and chauvinistic infantalisation of women which has led to the paternalism of women that relegated them to the domains of the kitchen and bedroom for centuries.

            When they deny that, ask them to cite feminist articles which disagree with the “women as perpetual victims” ideology. If they somehow manage to name a few (virtually impossible btw), point out that they’re in the extreme minority.

            If you get back a dogmatic “but women are oppressed” response, point out that their response is a manifestation of their own deep-seeded misogyny.

            If they accuse you of wanting to oppress women, point out that unlike traditionalists and feminists, you believe women should be treated as adults rather than children.

            I’m confident you’ll get many people thinking doing so, just as I appear to have gotten you thinking.

          • JDS

            I’ll probably take a different tack because I don’t necessarily agree with everything you say (also because I don’t want to be in arguments all day, everyday). IMO There are too many gray areas in history to blame any single person/ideology and either way it seems we agree on the most important point of all: equality is a right, regardless of sex.

            I don’t think I was brainwashed, I think I was raised by people who believed in first-wave feminism, which is much, much different from some (maybe more than some) of the more recent stuff.

            I appreciate the conversation, I really do.

          • Andrew Richards

            The problem is though that First Wave feminism is ideologically fallacious as it fails to break free of male disposability and female infantalisation. Unless a movement wanting agency for women (and therefore equality) is able to do that, then despite its best efforts to the contrary, it will merely entrench female infantalisation and in the process the very culture of paternalism that is attempting to be opposed. It’s about as effective and rational as waging war for peace or being sexually promiscuous to regain your virginity.

          • JDS

            Last comment before I really have to finish my readings.

            I just wanted to sum up my feelings from this discussion and reading the comment thread. First of all, it seems like we agree at the most basic level: equality is essential. That’s something I’ve believed since I was able to think for myself.

            I think my difficulties were entirely based on the use of certain words in certain contexts. Feminism has meant something very simple (and good) to me. The word itself was a reminder that women and men are equal. My mom was one of 3 women in her graduating class at law school and she sometimes mentions the poor treatment she received from professors and fellow students. To me, the word “feminism” meant being against that kind of behaviour just like how I was against asians/blacks/hispanics being mistreated because of their race.

            I was only vaguely aware of the movements from the 70s, which I find interesting but, based on the beliefs of my peer group, not as influential today as they once were (thankfully).

            I haven’t spent enough time looking into NOW but I certainly will once I have the chance.

            I don’t think my fundamental beliefs have changed due to this talk. What will probably happen is that I change the way I describe my beliefs with regards to gender equality. What I’ve come away with, more than anything, is that certain words carry a shitload of baggage (both good and bad).

            All in all, satisfying and challenging. Everything a good conversation should be.

          • Andrew Richards

            “What I’ve come away with, more than anything, is that certain words carry a shitload of baggage (both good and bad).”

            Then while you’re close to the mark, you’re also heavily off it. As a Jew, whom I would presume has a keen sense of history pertaining to the Holocaust, I would remind you of the tactics of Goebels.

            Goebel’s approach was best summed up by ” Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

            Take a look at feminism. Phrases like “the wage gap myth” which has been debunked as Communist rhetoric, “the patriarchy” and “violence against women” are catchphrases which all have some element of truth to them, but either twist that element of truth into a blatant lie or get “selective” with the whole story.

            Furthermore like all propaganda, it plays on fear, keeps people in perpetual fear, personifies that fear in the form of an “other” and then wraps it up in innocent terms.

            Look at terms like “ethnic clensing” (sounds like a form of spring cleaning) “the law for the prevention of genetically diseased offspring” (sounds like the sick are being cured). They and others like them superficially appear altruistic in order to cover up something far more sinister that they represent.

            Feminism, which superficially claims to be about equality on one hand but actually advocates for the genocide and and public, mandatory sterilisation of men and children on the other, is a classic example of this.

            It’s not simply about baggage – it’s about certain groups with an agenda understanding the power of language and using it as a weapon.

          • Andrew Richards

            As for what I said about brainwashing, I’ll throw this quote attributed to Einstein into the mix: “Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.” The same principle applies to the “life lessons” we get from authority figures growing up.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            >”I’ll probably take a different tack…I don’t want to be in arguments all day, everyday).”

            Confirming that those who DO speak up for men are far from “all-powerful.”

            Perhaps you can afford to duck “arguments” because the current situation favors you. Like the plantation owner who didn’t want to be bothered “all day, every day” with Abolition discussions.

            Silence often favors and enforces oppression.

            One extreme is the 24/7 advocate. The other, the Good German. We’re all somewhere on that continuum.


          • Suzanne McCarley

            The correct answer is, “No I’m not a feminist. I support EQUAL rights.”

          • JDS

            Okay, after some brief research I think I’ve figured out where I stand. Seems I align with first-wave feminism (people like Mary Wollstonecraft) which is focused on achieving/maintaining equal rights.

            The blog you posted only has 20 followers so I’m not convinced it’s a particularly popular idea (luckily for me). That being said, Solanas and Daly do seem pretty disturbed. Haven’t checked out Dworkin yet.

            This is pretty interesting!

          • Andrew Richards

            The elephant in the room there is, where do you stand on men’s issues if you’re a first wave feminist? Certainly from a women’s rights perspective it’s admirable, but you have to remember that the first wavers also entrenched female infantalisation and male disposability. That said I will give her props for recognising that all advocacy should seek to avoid harming others as “collateral damage” at all costs.

            Take a look at their justifications for outlawing abortions- they claimed that abortions were legalised be cause it was men that were the driving force for them. Yet 100 years later, with feminists aggressively pushing for abortion in the wake of Roe vs Wade, that notion was found to be patently false.

            Don’t get me wrong, I think Mary Shelley was definitely well intentioned, but the problem was that she and the first wavers still failed to break free of traditionalist gender attitudes.

            The irony is that the best hope for equality for women lies with the Men’s Rights Movement for 2 reasons. You cannot properly unpack and address paternalism against women and the infantalisation driving it without also addressing the male disposability also affecting it.

            Secondly though, there is a femininity model which has found it’s home in the Men’s Rights Movement known as Zeta femininity – a complimentary model to Zeta Masculinity. Just as Zeta masculinity throws off the shackles of male disposability, so too does Zeta femininity throw off the shackles of female infantalisation.

            In short, it demands that women be treated like adults rather than children – from which point it is a very short journey to women being given full and authentic agency.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            > “Seems I align with first-wave feminism (people like Mary Wollstonecraft) which is focused on achieving/maintaining equal rights.”

            Notice that women’s groups never EVER talk about equal responsibilities? Instead, they preen and pout atop pedestals, expecting/demanding that men do all the dirty, dangerous things in life.

            Not one brave-feisty-equal feminist (the non-gay ones, at least) in a million will ever initiate sexual relations with men. That is, though an affirmative-action CEO, Ms. Inyerface will never, in her entire pampered life, do what an Oklahoma farm boy must to get a prom date. The risk is just too much for unicorn-riding corporate princesses.

            At the same time, they swear they’re rough-and-tought, equal to Navy SEALs, and will protect the country “just like men.”

            Feminism is a confederacy of misandric dolts. It breed intellectualoid boneheads bullies. It pretends women are equal whlle demanding Patriarchy/Government-funded programs/laws that favor Team Vagina. That is, it insists females are basically mentally-impaired children.

          • No Seriously

            Don’t insult science fiction like that!

          • Andrew Richards

            Why not? Scifi has been able to be exploited as a platform for spreading eugenics (to bring up just one example) since HG Wells and Aldous Huxley used it for that very purpose. Even fiction is far from politically and ideologically neutral.

          • No Seriously

            It was a joke, obviously. So you should probably lighten the fuck up, douche.

          • Andrew Richards

            Looks like I got to second base now (insults) for digging too deeply into the truth. Guess I should feel honoured.

          • Joseph Taylor

            There’s more of this stuff. Some extremely interesting. See: “What is Misandric Fixation?” (The Unknown History of MISANDRY). Pathological misandry takes many forms, sometimes mere phobia, sometimes political, sometimes serial murder.

      • Kelly Jessop

        Wow, you’re incredibly spiteful.

    • LanceMacho

      Thanks Andrew.
      Good words.
      I have no other words but my thanks.

      Be strong.

    • Kelly Jessop


  • Greg Canning

    Everyone should watch this version of events at UT

    It clearly shows the protestors disobeying the lawful orders of the police, being physically affronting and verbally abusive to the police and those wishing to attend the lecture. It shows both male and female police officers using the utmost restraint in the performance of their duty of enforcing the law, that is allowing those who wished to attend an approved lecture not to have their rights of assembly and free speech curtailed by a violent mob. Speaking about the issues facing men and boys is a basic human right, and doing so does noting to jeopardise “campus as a safe space free from oppression and discrimination” rather the actions of the protestors created a dangerous, oppressive and intimidating environment for those who simply wanted to attend a lecture by a widely know and acclaimed academic.

  • Declan Lyons

    Good, ol’ fashioned impartial journalism.

    Hehe! Sarcasm.

  • AnonUK

    Just wanted to get a comment – any comment – in before comments here are closed and deleted (and to be able to say, “Called it!”) since that’s what usually happens when challenges to the feminist narrative crop up in places dedicated to maintaining that narrative in the face of any and all conflicting evidence.

    Please prove me wrong, thank you.

    • Anonymous

      One suspects the article is been cached and saved to read for years to come.

    • DannyboyCdnMra

      lol no worries will be grabbing screen grabs and saving whole pages. Feminists have a long history of shutting down public scrutiny of their hate movement.

      • Anonymous

        Erika Jarvis.

        • DannyboyCdnMra

          yes am well aware of went down with her situation as well.
          Guess she got so scared of the violent feminists she actually turned her twitter account to private.

    • Anonymous

      The rad-fem perspective is not the only feminist perspective.

      • Suzanne McCarley

        It’s the only powerful one.

      • Kimski

        Oh, the usual ‘not all feminists are like that’-argument.

        It doesn’t matter if they’re not all like that, when the majority follow in the footsteps of those who are like that, without actually knowing anything about the ideology they support.

        You have been lied to all your life, and you’re so doused in their propaganda and dogma, that you’re completely incapable of seeing it yourself.

        Googl the Agent Orange files, and go see for yourself what you’re actually supporting. You might also like to know, that the people exposed on those pages are placed in governments around the globe, as well as other institutions where the biased gender hate laws are passed or carried out.

  • That Other POV

    “Despite complaints to the University administration, and requests from
    students to maintain our campus as a safe space free from oppression and
    discrimination, Dr. Farrell was given a space and forum to spread his
    misogynistic, hateful theories at U of T,” read the union’s release. >>>>> So, let me get this straight. (1.) Students requested of the administration that freedom from oppression and discrimination be maintained; (2.) Students then began an overt campaign to oppress and discriminate; (3.) Students then complained that the administration would not join in oppressing and discriminating. I am fortunate enough to have consumed the full presentation presented at the event. I challenge any of those childish students who were behaving like a bunch of spoiled preschool children to find any hate and sexism that occurred anywhere at the event location besides those instances enacted by the protesters themselves. They made a mockery of the fight for gender equality. They beautifully brought home the point that men’s rights advocates are trying to make.

  • Reality

    “Dr. Farrell was given a space and forum to spread his misogynistic, hateful theories at U of T”

    What a joke. There needs to be some serious reevaluation on the members of the Student’s Union that released this statement. Sexist, misandric people shouldn’t be allowed to run a defining group at a university.

    • Anonymous

      What’s funny is that, that statement is coming from the people who were yelling at other peoples faces “You’re fucking scum!”.

      But clearly the guy just trying to put on the lecture is the hateful one.

  • al.belush

    Woop, Woop The above article is Feminism in a nutshell, The real oppressors, dicrimination enablers and male haters, Who says that Misandry is not real should read this article. Men have no right to free speech but a bigot like Vanja has free speech to shout her lungs out at young men by labelling that “Rape Enabling FUCKING SCUM” I am lost at words, What passes for freedom of speech now a days.

    • JDS

      Technically that’s not feminism in a nutshell. The nutshell would be the actual definition: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes” (from Merriam-Webster).

      What those protesters practiced was not feminism. In fact, real feminism should be supported by anyone with basic intelligence and a sense of social justice (just as male issues should). Choose your language carefully, when you say “this is feminism in a nutshell” you group a lot of rational, useful ideas in with irrational ones.

      • phillip

        what those protesters practiced was the feminism taught in classrooms and practiced by organizations like NOW. the dictionary definition is false. feminism is an ideology not something which can be surmised into a single sentence. the ‘real feminsm’ you’re talking about is what MRAs practice.

        • JDS

          The dictionary definition shouldn’t be deemed false if people misuse the word. The definitions of facism and communism haven’t been changed just because the ideas were used for evil by groups of people.

          I would argue that it’s even MORE important to uphold the original definition of feminism. If you start to think it means something other than it’s official definition then you’ll never be able to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you. Your personal feelings (or anyone’s personal feelings) about what a word means should have zero bearing on its actual meaning.

          Discourse is important. It’s how we figure things out, which is why language needs to be specific and maintain that specificity. In medicine, words need one definition otherwise people would be hurt by misdiagnosis and mistreatment. Discourse dies when people don’t define their terms.

          I know you don’t want to associate feminism with anything good but look at it this way: when you demand that the word is used properly you TAKE IT AWAY from radical groups (like the one that advocates male genocide (can’t remember the name)). They no longer get to hide behind a positive ideal.

          Similarly, I don’t associate the MRA movement with radical groups of chauvinists. The ideas inherent in the movement (namely “equality for all”) deserve a better voice.

          • phillip

            i agree with you entirely except with feminism the groups not following the base ideal of equality aren’t *only* the obscure radical ones they’re the ones in academe and government and as such clinging to the dictionary definition gives validity to these hateful groups.

          • JDS

            Then I think you need to use a different word to refer to those people. If they claim to be feminists but don’t act accordingly then you should call them out on that, rather than refer to them as ‘feminists’ and get actual feminists upset at the bastardization of their term.

            IMO It’s all about communication. You believe the sexes should have equal rights, so do feminists. It’s easy to forget about the subtlety of language when we post comments on the internet but when someone reads your comment and feels unjustly attacked… well what’s the point in commenting? It just creates a wider divide between two people who agree with one another. It’s counter-productive.

          • phillip

            the point is that you by supporting equality under the name of feminism give validity to what is actually the mainstream of feminism which is not about equality and its described aptly why in numerous comments in this thread

          • JDS

            Then I guess I simply don’t agree with you. I was raised by two feminists: a man and a woman. My teachers have been feminists, my friends are feminists and I consider myself a feminist. I’ll be a feminist as long as that’s the definition that appears in the dictionary because, as far as I know, that book is the most important tool for rational discourse we have.

            Words and lanuage are distorted constantly and it ruins our ability to communicate. I sincerely hope you start making distinctions between feminists and radical hate groups. Please, you have some important and useful ideas but I can’t read your mind.

          • Andrew Richards

            “Then I guess I simply don’t agree with you. I was raised by two
            feminists: a man and a woman. My teachers have been feminists, my
            friends are feminists and I consider myself a feminist.”

            So by your own admission, you are dealing with dogmatic indoctrination in terms of your worldview of feminism.

            “I’ll be a feminist as long as that’s the definition that appears in the
            dictionary because, as far as I know, that book is the most important
            tool for rational discourse we have.”

            And yet you appear oblivious to the obvious. The old saying is “knowledge is power”. So therefore

            “Words and language are distorted constantly and it ruins our ability to communicate.”

            You’ve just contradicted your own argument Lodatz. You’re entierely right about language being distorted, however you’ve failed to grasp that that distortion can and does go right back to the initial coining of terms.

            As you’re Jewish, I’ll pick a real head spinner for you and look at the term “antisemitism”. The term is inherently understood by the masses to refer to discrimination against Jews. However the term “semite” refers to Hebrews, Assyrians, Arabs and Phoenicians – in other words, people of Middle Eastern ethnicity. So then why the discrepancy?

            Ready for something really ironic? It was due to eugenics – the same eugenics which was the ideological impetus for the Holocaust. Under eugenics, Jews were fviewed similarly to “half castes” whilst the rest of those of Middle Eastern ethnicity were essentially viewed as “savages. Ergo much like the policies of the Stolen Generation here in Australia starkly differentiated between fully Indigenous people and half-castes, so too did eugenics differentiate between Jews and everyone else of Middle Eastern ethnicity. If you want evidence of this, read “Anticipations” written by H.G. Wells in 1901. Wells was notorious for using scifi to push his ideas as he initially failed to get them published as non-fiction, however “Anticipations” is entirely non-fiction.

            Hows that for a sick irony – the Zionist usage of “antisemitism” actually perpetuates eugenics.

            To tie that back into the definition of feminism, the parallels are striking. What happened when that definition was coined in terms of the public perception, was that the movement’s more noble aspects were focused on, but the genocidal and violent aspects of it were disregarded. Why?

            The answer is that through the lens of female infantalisation, women are seen as perpetually weak, pathetic and helpless, childlike creatures, perpetually incapable of inflicting such violence, even if they wanted to.

            The irony is that female infantalisation is the ideological impetus behind the paternalism of women by society – the very reason for the ingrained denial of agency for women. Noticing a similar irony to the aforementioned one.

            In short, if you want to think critically, you need to include the dictionary in the list of things you are skeptical about – particularly when definitions are politically driven.

          • SJThomas

            Again, your job.
            You don’t like being confused with bigoted assholes, then you deal with it.

            I really cannot fathom the line of thought you’re running with here. You are literally hiding behind semantics and demanding that other individuals tailor their arguments in order to avoid hurting your feelings.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            Since you are a proud, self-defined “feminist” in a feminist land (raised, educated, no doubt funded by feminism)… and insist that feminism seeks only equality… please enumerate “men’s issues” for us.

            Then tell us what you, your parents, and other feminists have done to insure male equality.

            We’ll wait right over here. Let us know when you’re ready.

          • Anonymous

            No they don’t — that’s like saying that “communism” is about “communal living and owned property” and has nothing to do with dictatorial rule — when virtually every empirical sign points to the opposite outcome.

            And words matter. Feminists know this rule of thumb better than most (otherwise they wouldn’t have protested so vehemently against a man speaking about Men’s rights, or whine incessantly about the use of the word “slut”). A movement based on a gendered word (i.e. FEMinism) which in practice frequently supports women to the disadvantage of men over and over again isn’t just a coincidence, no matter how many times you seem to try to hand wave that point away. It’s literally built into the word, and our feminist policies, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly benefit females.

            Feminism doesn’t equal equality. Equalism equals equality. Period. If you believe in equality you believe in equalism, or humanism. Certainly NOT feminism.

          • Scott Rockin Mclelland

            JDS , i get where you are coming from , but its not our place to differentiate , feminists are the ones who in silence have offered a tacit acceptance to there radical element , this falls on feminists to prove they are not all bigots .

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            If you want to say feminists seek rights for WOMEN, fine. Feminism, after all, has “fem” in it.

            A movement stressing equal rights for both men and women would be called Egalitarianism. Or Humanism.

            The MRM is fighting short-term for “men’s rights” (to even the playing field per custody, reproduction, etc.). Long term, for the rights/responsibilites of both sexes.

            Since feminism has had a monopoly on social issues for 5 decades, I suspect it might be some time before guys spend much time/effort on Muffin’s “self-esteem” issues.

            Just sayin.’

          • Nutz

            Judge them by their actions, not the words. NOW and feminist groups like them have actively fought AGAINST equality when it suited them, namely when it would remove female privilege (particularly in family law).

          • JDS

            Then don’t call them feminists. Take away the label and all of a sudden they lose their credibility. A guy who calls himself “anti-immigration” but thinks Hispanics are lazy loses credibility when you call him what he is: a racist.

          • SJThomas

            Do your own work. You want to defend feminism, you start drumming out bigoted assholes. We’re not your babysitters.

          • JDS

            Working on it.

          • Andrew Richards

            Good luck. You’ll need it.

          • SJThomas

            Then props. Equality isn’t zero-sum, and men are just as entitled to advocate on their own behalf as women are for theirs.

          • JDS

            I think you’d find that most people agree with you, including most people who call themselves/identify as feminists.

            I guess my only reason for wading into this comment section was to get an idea of what you guys believe. I had a suspiscion it was almost identical to my own beliefs and the beliefs of many of my friends who also identify as feminist. I was right.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            > “I think you’d find that most people agree with you, including most people who call themselves/identify as feminists.”

            Right. And for a half -century, during endless male-bashing (treating fathers like dirt; demonizing male sexuality; etc), what did “real feminists” do? Did they make sure guys and gals got treated equally?

            Nope. Instead, they acted like Good Germans… because it benefitted them.

            Absent a men’s movement, feminists would continue letting their movement metastasize. It’s only now, when men are gathering and fighting back, that feminists suddenly whine, “b-b-b-b-but we’re not like that!”

            Where were the marches to make women register with Selective Service? The usual response? “There’s no draft.” So why are only males still FORCED to sign up, facing stiff finds and more? And what would/will happen if a draft IS enacted? Why, feminists will say, “Damn the luck! We’d just loooooove to do what boys must but, er, women aren’t registered now. And it’s an emergency; no time to start registering lasses…”

            If feminists were actually interested in equality, they would have championed men’s rights from the git-go. Instead, they selfishly, solipsistically, and sexistly looked at only half the equation (the female half) and cast men to the dogs. After, of course, castigating them.

            Alas, the game has changed. Join in if you wish. Or not. The MRM doesn’t really care. It’s marching with or without you.

            Feminism is a failed philosophy. It had 5 decades to self-correct. It chose to continue demonizing half the world. It is the enemy, one that has not faced real opposition.

            Until now.

            Even five years ago, Comments section like this would have been filled with snarky, man-hating posts. The new fed-up-being-ignored/bashed pro-male responses here are but the tip of the iceberg.

            Feminists better get used to being confronted. Not like the bullies in Toronto, of course, but in civil discourse, politics, etc. Having seen “nice guys” played for saps, men changed their stance.

            And tactics.

          • Andrew Richards

            Lodatz, allow me to turn that back on you. The reason these people are called feminists is because mainstream feminism has quietly condoned and accepted the actions of radicals for decades now.

            If you want to change that, then start by working towards the mainstream “cutting out the cancer” of radicals.

            Furthermore I’ll add something highly telling. Thefemitheist who along with FEMEN, is arguably the spiritual successor to the Andrea Dworkins, Mary Dalys and Valerie Solanases of this world, has openly supported the protestors. Your own Provost has failed to publicly condemn the protestors instead defaulting to supporting them playing the victim card and in doing so has perpetuated misogyny. How is any of this holding radicals to account and making them separate from feminism.

            Until such time as mainstream feminism denounces and disowns such radicals en masse, then by their own actions, they will have been including these protestors as being amongst their ranks.

          • Smith

            It’s not who they are underneath, but what they do that defines them.

            If enough people are going around doing bad things in the name of feminism, they’re feminists. That’s how language works. Also;


            Note the second definition. “Women’s rights and interests”.

            I know full well that there are actual egalitarian feminists. They’re just vastly outnumbered. In fact, some of them do actually associate “MRA” with radical groups of chauvinists (a word which is unisex, by the way). In fact, proposals from the outside on how to exclude the radicals from the movement have been met with mixed results from feminists.






            Notice the disproportionate amount of focus on “cooperate with MRAs” and attacking them while ignoring the entire rest of the post. I’d like to point out that PoN is run by seven people, none of whom are MRAs. One is even a feminist, though she does acknowledge the failings of feminism.

            Keep in mind that feminism in general has had radicals from the very start. Even the UK’s suffragates used violence and arson, and that’s swept under the rug and they’re hailed as heroes, despite the tiny little fact that they wanted the vote for landed women, and the vote at the time was restricted to landed men. Oh, and little things like pressuring men without the vote into going to war; look up the “White Feather Girls”.

            Also, Erin Pizzey opened the first women’s shelter in the UK. When she found that women were often abusers, she tried to open shelters for men. Not only did she have problems getting funding, she was harassed so badly that she left the UK. People issued death threats to her, her family, and killed her dog. She says it was feminists. Even today, men’s DV funding and support makes up only a small fraction of women’s, despite studies showing men make up a large amount of victims. Good luck finding feminists, mainstream or radical, talking about it. There are plenty of men who have stories of calling a shelter and being ignored. And plenty of men who have called the cops on their SO and ended up arrested. In some places, the policies say that even if a woman initiates, it’s likely in preemptive self-defense. Or the defense of a child. Or a pet.

            This is based on surveys done of “abused” women who claimed that they had initiated, but it was in self-defense. The Duluth model say only women are abused and only men abuse, and is used even today by many feminists and, even more chillingly, government agencies and officials.

            Every time you see a feminist mock MRAs and use the word “fedora” non-ironically, that’s a pretty sure sign they don’t know what they’re talking about, since MRAs never really used the fedora as a symbol, any more than feminists burn bras.

            No, I’m not an MRA. I believe both genders are oppressed.

        • JDS

          Also, I forgot to respond to this: “what those protesters practiced was the feminism taught in classrooms…”.

          Not in my classrooms. Not at all.

          • Andrew Richards

            So you’re saying you aren’t taught about the Patriarchy (which denies subordinate masculinities) and/or the Kyriarchy (which denies hegemonic femininities) being the fundamental basis for all gender-based oppression in society?

          • JDS

            Yeah. Never heard of that. I study immunology.
            By the way, I’m reading all your responses but not necessarily responding. Very interesting stuff.
            Also, who’s Lodatz?

          • Andrew Richards

            I’m glad I’m giving you some food for thought. There are so many layers of socialised control men and women have been subjected to out due to socialised gender constructions initially driven out of biological concerns.

            Case in point, the early Australian colonial society has been correctly criticised for initially viewing female convicts as “damned whores” and then shifting to the view of “God’s police”. However in this critique, very few people givve proper though to who they were policing (men) or how that “policing” turned male sexuality into a form of socialised control.

            As for the name “Lodatz”, it’s what your screen name is coming up as.

          • JDS

            Really? Weird. It should say JDS.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            JDS is a sterling example of NAFALT-pleaders. They insist that “Not All Feminists Are Like That.”

            You cannot reach them. Don’t even try. But DO observe. Note the ways of arguing; the avoidance of facts; the appeal to feelings; the blithe assurance of intellectual blindness; the nuclear-powered Rationalization Hamster.

            Feminism invaded (facing little opposition) academe, producing millions of indoctrinated “thousand-yard-stare” idealogues. They’re gender politics “pod people.” Get to know them. Do NOT try to enlighten them. They are too far gone. It’d be like trying to teach pigs to sing.

      • Anonymous

        Or, we could define feminism by what it actually does. Not to be totally cliche but “actions speak louder than words”.

        Look at statements by NOW (the biggest feminist organization in the americas), on what they think about shared custody and stuff of the sort.

        As I said, look at what they do and what they lobby for, not at a dictionary definition that hasn’t been relevant for the past 2 decades.

        • JDS

          See my response to philip. Proper discourse is important. If it breaks down we all lose.

          • Anonymous

            We lose when obstinate individuals argue that sophistry is more important than the actions of a particular group.

            BTW, the National Organization for Women (the largest political group dedicated to feminism in the United States) isn’t generally considered a radical feminist group. We’re presenting misandric policies from them.

          • SJThomas

            Proper discourse already lost. This is not a new issue, it’s just that it’s finally being argued in a manner that can’t be brushed aside so easily.
            Malcolm X said it best:
            “We declare our right on this earth…to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.”

      • Petra Fayedmanm

        “Stalin, Mao, etc. did not practice REAL Communism. Real Communism, like real feminism, is practice by Queen Boaninnerhaid on the Planet Vagisaurus.”

      • Smith

        The protestors actually said they were there under the auspices of the Women’s Studies program. Please, we’ve all heard the NAFALT defense before. If the radicals are dominating the public image, and you’re doing nothing about it besides protesting weakly when they reflect badly on feminism as a whole, it seems rather dishonest.

  • AnonUK

    Here’s a radical idea, why not link to footage of the protest [] as well as to a video of Warren Farrell’s presentation at U of T [] and let interested parties make up their own minds about just who is promoting “hate speech” on campus?

    It’s a crazy idea, but it might just work…

    • Steven Bennett

      Thank you! I was thinking the same, but you’ve saved me the effort. Haha. Yes, quite surreal to compare the two videos!

    • Mujibar Sirajul

      Anyone on the fence needs to watch both of these videos. The claims the protesters were making about the content of the talk is easily refuted by watching the actual talk, which was all about mental health and challenges faced by young men.

      There was no hate speech, rape promotion, rape apologetics or anything else the protesters claimed they were trying to stop.

      The evidence is right here in plain view of everyone who needs to see it and it’s patently obvious that the only hate and oppression was coming from the protesters who should have done some basic research before organizing this event.

    • Kelly Jessop

      Please watch these two videos.

  • sv34

    Wow, too much to ask for an article that explains the reality of what went down that night? Guess we know where not to send our kids for their indoctrinatiob . . . I mean education. I give it 15 hours or less before comments are closed and scrubbed so no one can see what’s been said. Is all of Canada this bad for men and boys?

  • SJThomas

    We have the right to a safe space, without these uppity niggers men.

    Also, did you actually read that SPLC list? It included a pick up artist, for fuck sake. I seriously cannot fathom how you people can legitimately think like this, it is absurd.

    • Anonymous

      This is appalling. You want to talk about safe space? Any person who uses racial slurs in their argument for safe space clearly has not even the slightest understanding of what that term actually means. If you had any semblance of decency I would strongly recommend deleting this comment. That is doubtful however, so I won’t hold my breath.

      • Slab.Bulkhead

        You didn’t see what the point of that was? He was likening the fear of men to the fear of those of African or Jamaican descent you dolt.

        No, really, it’s okay though. I’m used to spoon-feeding my baby cousins.

      • SJThomas

        I’d say anyone who uses slurs in general in their argument for safe space clearly has not even the slightest understanding of what that term actually means. What was it? Oh yes: “You are fucking scum, rape apologist, incest supporting women hating fucking scum.”

        And no, i will not be taking down my comment, and for good reason. It perfectly illustrates the sheer, unbridled hatred that has been perpetuated throughout this sorry episode. The word is taboo because is a hateful epithet from a time in which black people were institutionally treated like second-class citizens.
        When, among other things, a police presence was required for them to even enter a fucking university building.

        • Anonymous

          Citing one example of hateful rhetoric does not justify use of another. Also, if you think that the word you used is not offensive anymore, then you are sorely mistaken. It’s taboo for a reason, and that is because it’s incredibly offensive.

          • SJThomas

            Oh dear, someone likes to impute malice.

            “Also, if you think that the word you used is not offensive anymore, then you are sorely mistaken. It’s taboo for a reason, and that is because it’s incredibly offensive.”

            Please indicate where I implied that it is no longer an offensive term. Quite frankly, it would have been pointless to use it if it wasn’t. That was, y’know, the intention.

            “Citing one example of hateful rhetoric does not justify use of another.” No shit. I wasn’t employing ‘hateful rhetoric’, i was condemning it.

            I will concede that drawing comparisons between hateful rhetoric should be unnecessary; people shouldn’t need a precedent to recognize bigotry.

            Unfortunately though, this appears to be idealism. People cannot fathom hate, bigotry and oppression without a roadmap. Ironically, it seems to be what you’re doing at the moment: Representing outrage against a term you perceive as prima-facie offensive whilst ignoring/ minimising something that is equally offensive, and without actually considering the implications.

            Using language to shame and dehumanize people is an evil practice, that is the point. It isn’t what i did. That your only reaction in this entire event is abhorrence of a term used in contrast is rather telling.

    • Ali

      What a shocking, foul-mouthed little boy you are.

      • SJThomas

        “STFU: What a shocking, foul-mouthed little boy you are.”

        I just wanted to note that someone calling themselves STFU is calling me ‘foul mouthed’. Note: use more abbreviations.

        • Kimski

          Congratulations! You made it to second base, where the shaming tactics are introduced, when everything else fails.

          Expect the threats of violence to be delivered soon.


          • SJThomas

            I did enjoy the ‘little boy’ remark, i must admit. There’s nothing quite as invigorating as a good ad hominem.

          • Kimski

            Just means you’re winning the argument.
            Not that there was any doubt, mind you.

            Noticed how they keep changing the subject, every time you get them into a corner, btw?

            If you keep insisting on them adressing the issue at hand, the violent responses and the hissy fits will begin. Enablers of hate ideologies are usually consistently predictable.

        • Ali

          Thats weird, i put my display name up as “Ali” because Ali is my name. And you are foul-mouthed.

          • SJThomas

            Eh, disqus is being frustrating. Was showing as STFU at the time.

            And seriously, the foul-mouthed thing. Please take my advice and get over it. If you have an issue with the manner in which i used a word, elucidate. If you’re upset because a word is simply verboten i have limited sympathy for you.

          • Andrew Richards

            If he’s “foul-mouthed” then it’s the feminists and the racists you have to blame, as they are the ones whose vernacular he was raising to demonstrate entrenched bigotry.

            What he was doing was illustrating a startling parallel between what the civil rights protestors experienced in the middle of last century and what the men’s rights movement experiences today.

            In the 60s, members of the civil rights movement were often referred to as “uppity niggers” as a shaming tactic designed to silence them in their calls for equality and for society to treat African Americans as people rather than disposable.

            Similarly the terms “male” and “misogynist” have become similar shaming tactics for the men’s rights movement, where men is merely a derivative of the word male. Before you claim that male and its synonyms haven’t been denigrated into slurs in the western world, I would point out the following phrase: “typical male[/man]”.

            The fact is that SJThomas was only “foul-mouthed” in the sense of openly commenting on society’s “foul-mouth”.

            As you seem to take issue with this Ali, I must ask – do you believe that bigotry should be given a free pass?

  • info

    It is terrible that feminazis are so strong in Canada that free speech is at risk and many newspapers are like Pravda

    • Ali

      Feminazi? I certainly hope you’re not attempting to equate calls for equity with the Nazi regime, info. Because that would be insane, info. That would be insane.

      • phillip

        nazis came to power through the practice of defining an enemy of the jews and whats come to be called ‘othering’ in which ‘those other people are bad and we are good’ or those jews are the enemy and we are for justice

        feminism came to power through the practice of making an enemy of men and whats come to be called ‘othering’ in which ‘ those other people are bad and we are good’ or those men are bad and we are for justice

        • Ali

          And then there was that time that feminists systematically exterminated millions of men. And now you see the limits of analogizing Nazis.

          • Anderson Davies

            The ‘best interests of the child’ ..

            “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of thepeople.”
            Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf

            Feminism. Nazism.
            Nazism. Feminism.

          • JDS

            Hey. I’m Jewish. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t equate feminism (definition from Merriam-Webster: ‘the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes’) with a government that murdered members of my family.

            Besides being offensive, it makes your argument seem ridiculous. I’d love to have a conversation about men’s issues because I honestly think they’re important but it’s tough to get past that kind of rhetoric.

            Seriously, talking like that will only appeal to people who already agree with you and that’s pointless.

          • Andrew Richards

            Yes and I suffer from a learning disability and I have no problem whatsoever with the comparison being made. Feminism at a fundamental level has repeatedly called for male genocide and mandatory sterilisation on the grounds of men being “inferior”. As such comparisons to Nazism are entirely valid.

            Furthermore the only thing ridiculous is your sheer ignorance of the movement. It’s like trying to distance Hitler’s economic recovery plan for Germany from the Nazi Euthanasia Program and the subsequent aspects of the Holocaust which followed it. You can’t distance one aspect of a movement from another simply because it’s inconvenient – especially when the movement at large has made every attempt publicly to take a “live and let live” approach to such eugenics rather than removing it from the movement like the cancer it is.

          • phillip

            i’m not jewish but nazis still killed members of my family, to recognize ideological similarities is to prevent such ideologies from taking hold as firmly as nazis did ever again.

          • Anonymous

            FYI,Nazis dreamt about killing millions,Mary Daly dreamt about killing Billions of men.

          • Ali

            Anderson, you aren’t seriously suggesting that a supposed congruence of rhetoric, out of context, in one specific instance justifies a fair comparison, are you?

          • Scott Rockin Mclelland

            Ali , i will find the link later , but there was an instance covered on the avfm when one of its contributers with permission hung posters stating that mens rights are also human rights , the feminists who came to remove them called themselves femistazi .

          • phillip

            feminism systematically annihilated millions of families.

          • Ali

            Explain yourself, Phillip.

          • phillip

            erin pizzey stepped away from feminism for the express reason that they had a clearly stated goal of destroying families, removing fathers, promoting the idea that fathers are not necessary to families, no fault divorce, the list goes on and on.

          • Kelly Jessop

            Well they’ve certainly called for it.

          • Kimski

            Go check out “the White Feather Campaign” of WW1, where the original suffragettes handed out white feathers to young men who had not yet enlisted, as a sign of cowardize, thereby shaming them into joining the army to be slaughtered on the battlefield.

            A grand total of 65 million men died in that war, and any one of them that didn’t enlist voluntarily right away, was handed a white feather at some point.

            Btw. most of them were not old enough to vote, which came with the obligation to fight and die, which it still does for men, while the women back home obtained the same “priviledge” without any obligations, whatsoever.

            So, let’s talk about systematic extermination of men, and especially it’s enablers. Anytime will do..

          • Proud Male

            Yeah and i’m sure the jewish people in eastern europe in the 1930s thought things wouldn’t ever get that far until it actually happened.

            Thing is many Radical Feminists have openly called for the extermination of men or the reduction of the male population. This is the real hate speech. Not some out of context quote about incest.

            My question to the folks who protested, would you have blocked the door if an above described Radical Feminist were scheduled to speak on your campus? Would you have screamed and shouted at the women walking in to attend her speech.

            Something tells me you wouldn’t, but please correct me if i’m wrong.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            Meanwhile, hysterically defining rape as THE worst crime evah is considered cool beans.

            COP: “Mr. and Mrs. Jones, I have bad news and good news. First, Cupcake was brutally cut in half by a chainsaw, then fed alive to a woodchipper. Thankfully, no one touched her vajayjay without permission.”

            Do feminists have any clue what their message that rape-equals-death means? If a loon faces capital punishment for raping, s/he has nothing to lose by murdering, too.

            The girl in India did NOT die from penile insertions. She died because her intestines were destroyed by an iron bar. Apparently women’s groups would have been okay with just that.

            Feminists treat undocumented access to vaginal real estate like death, yet condemn families who get upset when Snowflake sullies her “gold pot” (supposedly the only thing that makes females valuable) with slutsex.

            And, of course, whenever a male sex organ gets amputated it’s considered funny. So should feminists, in the interest of equality, joke about the Indian girl, too? Say…

            “Was it the sex or just bad curry she couldn’t stomach?”

            Men endlessly urged to heed the female condition will eventually notice their own. That’s happening now. Me-me-me feminists don’t like it, not one bit.


      • Andrew Richards

        Exactly what part of measures such as calling for the genocide of over 90% of all men (keeping the rest of the male population alive for breeding stock) and the public milking and sterilisation of both men and boys from the time they reach puberty, counts as “equality” to you? Before you say this isn’t the face of feminism, I would point out that such notions are not only advocated for by feminist “heroes” such as Valerie Solanas and their spiritual successors such as the femitheist, but are notions which every feminist past and present has either overtly or covertly supported or given cover to.

        The fact is that feminists fall into three categories. The first category of feminists are the above – those who openly advocate for such measures.

        The second category are those who do not openly call for such genocidal measures, but quietly support them as they get this second group of feminists the gains they seek. The glaring evidence of this is that to my knowledge, the feminist movement in the majority has never openly and vehemently rejected the genocidal aspects of the likes of Valerie Solanas and Mary Daly. If it was made, it has never been made public to anywhere near a large enough extent for it to be common knowledge. The usual spin response people get is “we’re a very large tree with many branches.” Yet as any gardiner knows, analagously speaking, if diseased branches of a tree are not pruned, the entire tree becomes sick.

        The third category of feminists are what I would call misguided egalitarians. These individuals simply want genuine equality for women and I would agree that this on its own is highly admirable. The problem is that many of this third category have no idea what feminism stands for at a fundamental level and so they identify as feminist as they’ve been falsely led to believe that feminism is about authentic equality.

        The problem is that in doing so, they give cover to the former 2 categories and in doing so, unwittingly become the equivalents of those who made videos painting the concentration camps as “holiday camps”. For anyone who wants to quote Godwin’s Law here, I would remind you that this is in relation to an ideology which calls for the mandatory, public milking and sterilisation of children and genocide of almost all men on the planet – with the tiny number kept alive literally treated as breeding stock.

        To this third category, I would recommend investigating the concept of Zeta femininity, which actually treats women as adults and is women’s best chance at breaking through the chauvinistic paternalism of women in society – the very paternalism which feminism perpetuates.

        I can imagine what many people are saying here. “But feminism opposes the patriarchy and misogyny.”

        However it actually compounds it and ideologically speaking, is quite literally as pro equality for women as footbinding is, as that very statement illustrates.

        By taking a zeitgeist-based stance and equating all men, even homeless men, to the ultra rich and powerful of the banking and arms cartels and equating all women, even those such as Hillary Clinton, to homeless women (“all men are the oppressors, all women are the victims”), feminism, through reducing women to poor, pathetic, helpless perpetual victims, actually compounds the chauvinism of not only male disposability (“women and children to the lifeboats”) but female infantalisation which is the ideological foundation for the paternalism in society which has denied women agency for so long in society.

        For anyone wishing to dispute this, how many feminist articles are written from the “women as perpetual victims” premise? Can you name even one in the past 5 years that wasn’t written around that paradigm? Can you name 5? If you can, are they in the minority or the majority?

        Furthermore for anyone wishing to respond to this with something along the lines of “but women are the oppressed victims of men and society”, you would only be demonstrating the aforementoined, misogynistic and chauvinistic infantalisation of women that is responsible for the paternalism of women that has denied them agency for so long.

        So actually ALi,

        • JDS

          I would only like to respond with the definition of the word feminism from Merriam-Webster: ‘the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes’.

          Anything that falls outside of that isn’t feminism and to call it such is offensive to real feminists. Using real definitions are important, without them we can’t communicate.

          Also, when you use ‘feminism’ to refer to an organization that advocates male genocide you give that group more power than it deserves. They aren’t feminists, don’t call them that because when you do I (a ‘dictionary definition feminist’) feel lumped in with them. You can imagine how that feels. It would be like calling every German person a Nazi.

          • Andrew Richards

            The problem Lodatz, is that the response of mainstream feminism to the extreme elements, is one of culpable condoning. The standard response of “we’re a very large tree with many branches”, directly implies that whilst ideas might be different, the rest of the “tree” has no problem with said ideas existing.

            Furthermore as the recent debacle over the changing dictionary definition of misogyny in Australia shows, dictionary definitions are far from constant and their etymology is driven by political power. After all, it is language, rather than knowledge, that is the real power as language is the tool used to share and retain knowledge.

            You might want to reflect on that in light of the highly sanitised definition of feminism you currently cling to.

            Lastly though I want to directly deal with your last sentence: ” It would be like calling every German person a Nazi.”

            The vast majority of Germans were not members of the Nazi Party, but did support Hitler (remember that he was originally voted into power with Mein Kampf had been written for almost a decade by that time). It’s actually a highly fitting analogy in light of the “tree” analogy defense by feminists, to draw that parallel actually.

          • JDS

            I’m not “clinging” to any definition of the word. I just use the one I find in the dictionary. If that definition changes then I’ll change with it. You’re right that definitions can (and do) change but this one, as of yet, hasn’t and everyone I know who identifies as “feminist” believes in the dictionary definition. That means that when I, and many others, read comments like the ones on this article I feel like my beliefs are being attacked. I know they aren’t because, as I’ve discovered from several others in other comment threads, you all seem to believe in equality.

            Language IS important, especially when you’re trying to convince people who don’t agree with you. Hell, maybe you find that you agreed all along but your/their choice of language was getting in the way.

            To be honest, I’ve never heard the “we’re a very large tree” response. It seems like the sort of thing I’d disagree with. It also seems like the sort of thing a radical group would say to appear more neutral.

            (a quibble: I meant it would be akin to calling all modern-day Germans “Nazis” but I think you got my point)

          • Anonymous

            Your comments are being attacked because feminism in practice ISN’T about equality. And your tacit acceptance of a movement whose name is etymologically based DEFINITIONALLY on the gendered root word common to female, while simultaneously being absurdly pro-female in practice demonstrates a fairly convenient obstinance on your part.

            Indeed, the FIRST women’s studies class I ever took made, as a central tenet, the point that gendered nouns (using “he” for all pronouns , “mankind” for humans, occupation + “man” for all genders, etc.), despite their dictionary definitions of being non-gendered by denotation, are an example of an absurdly gender biased culture. It’s almost feminism 101. Yet the word Feminism itself is above that criticism, despite its mainstream advocates pushing repeatedly for pro-female policies at the expense of men? Hypocrisy much?

            You see our problem. You are indeed “clinging”.

          • Andrew Richards

            A few things here. First off I understand what you’re saying. I don’t want you to take this as an insult, but your problem here is that you suffer from double ignorance on this issue – referring to Pluto’s treatise on the concept. If you’re not familiar with it then I thoroughly recommend checking it out as it can be one of the greatest tools a person can have in breaking through socialised indoctrination and control and having a liberated and critically thinking mind free of socialised controls – not just on this issue but on any issue in society.

            What’s driving that double ignorance in this case is language. Take disease for example. In the Holocaust, “disease” referred to being Jewish. Now in that situation would you have tolerated that definition, being Jewish yourself? Of course not. Yet wouldn’t a member of Hitler Youth for example, have the same difficulty with rejecting that definition as you’re having with rejecting the dictionary definition of feminism? So why dogmatically cling to a dictionary definition when it should be obvious from what people have been saying between the definition and the reality?

            The tree analogy has come up numerous times here in Australia, mainly on a program out here called “Q&A” which is claimed to be a democratic discourse but in practice is a heavily censored exercise in propaganda. However the analogy aside, ask yourself where the movement in the mainstream is condemning the rhetoric of the fundamentalists and disowning them. You’ll run into trouble finding even a remotely large body of evidence there – if any at all.

            As for your quibble, I’d point to to the rise of Neo-Nazism in recent years in Germany to point out that your argument there isn’t so cut and dry.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            > “I’m not ‘clinging’ to any definition of the word. I just use the one I find in the dictionary.”

            Which one? Wikipedia? WikiWords? Funk & Wagnalls? OED? M-W? Which edition?

            One hundred people swear they meet the “dictionary” definition of “patriot.” Yet each urges different actions. One wants to kill all aliens. Another wants to kill all Earthlings. Another wants the government to administer ice water enemas to former CEOs. And so on.

            How can there be so many manifestations of one definition?

            BECAUSE they are only words.

            It’s why every country in a European war could claim to be Christian and know God was on “their side.” It’s why the USA said “all men were equal” and meant it. It was implied in the “unwritten definition” that slaves were excluded.

            Just like the unwritten feminist cosmology is that “men have all the power,” Ergo, no need to worry about male “equality.” That men’s suffering and inequality was real did not concern feminists who “knew” men had it better. HOW did they know? By feminist fiat/definition.

            Just like some folks “know” the moon is made of green cheese.

            It’s easy to mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

            How could Jews be mass murdered, like rats, with a pesticide (Zyklon-B)? Easy. Goebbels and others DEFINED them as such!

            Shultz: “It’s looking bad for the Jews.”

            Gunther: “Not to worry. Unlike us, they are rats.”

            > ” I feel like my beliefs are being attacked.”

            Imagine, then, the plight of men whose lives and liberty, finances and freedom, safety and security actually WERE attacked by feminist social policies!

            > “Language IS important…”

            Not as much as reality.

            Ever have someone SAY something they didn’t mean? Anyone ever make a verbal commitment they didn’t keep? Chamberlain had a written promise from Adolf that Germany only wanted peace.

            How’d that work out?

            How’s it working out with “we only want equality” feminism?

            > “I’ve never heard the ‘we’re a very large tree’ response.”

            Educate yourself more.

          • Anonymous

            Again, JDS, the national organization for women is the largest feminist organization in the united states, and certainly not considered a “radical feminist group” — and not surprisingly people here can point to a myriad of policies from that group that were misandric in nature.

            But your nonsensical, almost biblical adherence to dictionary definitions in the face of contrary empirical evidence is amusing.

          • JDS

            Why are you being so confrontational?

            I use the dictionary definition because people shouldn’t be allowed to label themselves with positive words and ideals when their behaviour clearly suggests otherwise. I call myself a “feminist” because I believe in equality. I also call myself a “masculist” (using Farrell’s definition of the word from Wikipedia) for the same reason.

            I don’t care if they’re in the majority (and I don’t believe they are), it isn’t fair for them to label anti-equality policies as “feminist”.

          • Andrew Richards

            The problem is that when the mainstream of a movement believes in certain things, it is that which defines what it is in reality. Sure you can point to dictionary definitions as idealised theoretical possiblities, however much as with many things in life, there is a wide canyon between idealised theory and practical reality.

            As to why people are confrontational, you need to recognise just how counterintuitive being an MRA is. Even if you reject feminism, you still have traditionalism, which only differs from feminism in practice in terms of how it believes male disposability and female infantalisation should be perpetuated.

            To shift from from that insidous paradigm, requires life delivering a significant “red pill”. Some men have been the victims of the corruption and chauvinism of the family court. Others have faced malicious false accusations (which in turn harm victims of legitimate cases of abuse and rape). Others like myself are child abuse, rape and domestic violence survivors at the hands of women.

            Now if you reversed the genders of those examples, wouldn’t you agree with the notion of “why shouldn’t those women be angry at the injustice they face”? So then why should it be any different when a man is angry and confrontational for those very reasons.

            I realise this whole experience has really turned your paradigm on its head Lodatz, however if you truly want equality, then you’ll find that you need to shed so much of your set of indoctrinated social gender values that we are all brainwashed with by society growing up.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not being “confrontational”; I’m legitimately criticizing your absurd, almost cultish adherence to dictionary definitions (while innately NOT considering the dictionary definitions of the root words from which your word comes from).

            Words matter, and in the game of sophistry, if something is called “feminism” and coincidentally promotes, on the whole, pro-women policies at the expense of men, it’s certainly NOT about equality. That’s precisely why we’re taught (by feminists ironically) that gendered nouns and the use of the word “slut” are powerful indicators of gender bias and should be neutralized linguistically. Yet hypocritically, this rule CANNOT apply to feminism itself. And yea, when the largest feminist organization in north america repeatedly proposes misandric public policy, it’s fair game to characterize their founding movement by their actions.

            BTW, the “definition” of feminism was defined by feminists themselves — a conflict of interest if there ever was one. It’s not like Shakespeare was using the word “feminism” as a synonym for “equalism” in MacBeth or something.

          • Petra Fayedmanm

            The National Socialist German Workers’ Party created the autobahn, jets, color film, magnetic tape recorders, the Volkswagen, and a slew of other peachy keen things.

            Don’t YOU like highways?

            Its leader was a vegetarian teetotaller who loved children and dogs (at least the pure German ones),

            Anyway, like “real” feminists wanting only equality, real Nazis just wanted “space” for the Volk to live in. Period. Anyone who critques either group based on deeds rather than definitions must hate women and/or be antiteutonic.


          • Smith

            I would only like to respond that you are using only one of the two definitions.


            You can’t keep moving the goalposts. These women think they’re feminists. That’s why they’re called “radical feminists”. You can try and argue that they don’t represent mainstream beliefs, but few people argue that “radical islam” doesnt’ share on many of the same beliefs of moderate islam.

            Oh, and all Nazis were German. All Germans were not Nazis. All radfems are feminists, but all feminists are not radfems. The biggest difference is that Germany is quite ashamed of their history, to the extent that the denounce it whenever possible. Feminists tend to only denounce radfems when directly asked, or claim they’re not true feminists.

            What I find interesting is that for all the feminists who go NAFALT, I’ve never seen one who said it to an actual radical feminist.

      • Anderson Davies

        Hermann Goering … “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

        Feminists … “The people can always be brought to
        the bidding of the feminist leaders. All you have to do is tell them that women and children are being attacked (by men) and denounce those who protest as ‘supporters of abuse’ and for exposing women and children to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

        Feminism. Nazism.
        Nazism. Feminism.

      • Joseph Taylor

        People use this term to refer to authoritarian big government philosophy, class (economic, ethnic, sex, etc.) profiling characteristic of marxist feminist false claims and false accusations. Few people believe marxist feminism is about equality any more than Bolshevism was about equality (regardless of public relations propaganda). We observe a great deal of evidence (copiously documented) of supremacism and little interest in authentic equality. Cultural marxism (“feminism”) is not the same as German National Socialism (“Nazism”) but it shares many, many characteristics. Scapegoatism and profiling are central to both of these authoritarianism-directed ideologies.

      • Kelly Jessop

        No, I think he means the demonisation and calls for the eradication of men that permeates feminist theory.

  • Dean Esmay

    It would be nice to see what proof, if any, that anyone was threatened or got violent except the thugs who attempted to stop free speech from happening. It would be nice to get a statement from the university or the students’ association as to whether or not they take female-on-male violence seriously at all. It would also have been nice to know what, if anything, Warren Farrell ever said that was so offensive, and where he is supposed to have said it.

    (More than a quarter century ago he mentioned in passing that 3% of incest survivors (6 out of 200) reported it having been a positive experience, and added the caveat that this did not justify incest. It has since been endlessly repeated as “advocacy for incest.” Was there anything else?)

    • No Seriously

      It WOULD be nice Dean, except that’d require something horrific, disgusting and misogynistic: facts

      • Kimski

        And honesty… Both are seriously in demand in this hatched job of an article, which backpedals at lightspeed and for very good reasons

        Just wanted to add my 2 cents before the article gets erased because of the overwhelming amount of ‘patriarchal’ rational and logical comments, which feminist bigots find so very ‘oppressing’ of their emotionally driven perceptions of reality.

        I’d like to add that SPLC retracted their statemen about AVfM being a hatesite, when held accountable, because that seems to have eluded the attention of the writer of this article, and very predictably so. Not that it means so much, when taken into consideration that SPLC is financially funded by the RadFemHub, a website for likeminded bigots, where eugenics and extermination of men and women are the primary agenda.

        Regarding the protesters that were later singled out, it is perfectly safe to say that they were just given a much larger audience to the bigotry and gender hatred that were revealed on their different websites, along with that witnessed at the demonstration itself.

        Perhaps the more obvious problem lies in the fact, that they didn’t want their fathers and brothers to know the extend of damage they have been submitted to, by the educational staff at the womens studies on U of T, along with the majority of other universities in the anglosphere, that teaches young women how to become perpetual victims.

  • Steven Bennett

    This {article} is what a feminist looks like.

    • Alex

      notice how they tend to be fat and ugly too?

      • Ali

        Shame on you.

      • Anonymous

        Sorry Alex while that may be true radical feminists like manboobz will mine quote something like that and put it out as proof that all mra’s or people sympathetic to the cause hate women, live in their mothers basements, etc, etc, etc

      • Kimski

        I think you hit a sore spot, Alex. Ali doesn’t like you anymore, apparently.

        Incidentally, do you know how they get that way?

        See, it starts with them obsessing over some imperfection in their looks, which they blame for not being able to get a date, when the real problem is that their pesonality just sucks.
        Then it turns into them substituting food with the sex they’re not getting. Hence the obesity.
        After a while that turns into blaming men for both, which in turn feminism then provides them with an excuse to go completely overboard with, until it is every man on the planets fault, that they’re incapable of taking a realistic view of themselves. (That usually happens when you’re raised to believe you’re a special snowflake or a princess.)

        And voila! -You got yourself a hardcore feminist. Destined to grow fatter, more bitter, and spend their every waking hour spreading more hate, until they finally die in the sole company of their cat, regretting how their lives turned out.
        It’s really quite pathetic when you think about it, because at no time does self examination enter the equation…It’s always someone else’s fault.

  • Andy Bob

    Threats and harassment? Those
    violent bigots are playing the re-usable victim cards that were issued the
    moment the nurses shouted, “It’s a girl!” Provost Misak insists on
    infantilizing these dangerous females who gleefully advocate gendercide and
    cruelty – she even offers them safety plans.

    What a shame you didn’t offer any safety plans to the male targets of these

    Both Shaun Shepherd and Noor Baig have the temerity to make veiled threats
    against anyone who dares to relay information or speak out against the actions
    of these registered bigots. What kind of a gulag are you running? Wake up
    ladies. The days of sweeping aside feminist crimes against freedom of speech
    are over. The MRM has you surrounded

    My advice is to forget about safety plans and start teaching something far more
    important: the fact that actions have consequences.

    Stop flaying your credibility with false accusations – there have been no
    threats or harassment. Advocating violence is not tolerated at AVfM. We leave
    that to the feminists.

  • Mark Jones

    “Topics discussed during Farrell’s lecture included suicide rates among veterans, custody battles in family court, video game and pornography addiction, rates of male unemployment and underemployment, and violent sports.”

    Real hate speech indeed.

    “The UTSU confirmed that it has been documenting these cases of threats and harassment, and that this documentation has been shared with both the university administration and campus police.”
    So these students claim to be threatened and you call the “campus police”? Not the real police? Just shows how serious these threats must be.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      …and apparently even the “campus police” haven’t brought forth evidence of any threats.

    • Edward

      While I do think the actions of the UTSU are ignorant and bigoted, your point about the campus police is misinformed. In Canada the “campus police” is normally a small police detachment specifically tasked with handling the campus. They usually don’t carry firearms, but in every other respect are the same as any other police officers. Thus, unlike the private security many universities in the US use, they *are* “real police”. Bringing a complaint or issue to them is the exact same as bringing it to the local police department, except that they’re better-equipped to handle campus issues.

      That being said, it’s highly doubtful that any of the claims being made have any significant merit.

  • Anonymous

    “Despite complaints to the University administration, and requests from
    students to maintain our campus as a safe space free from oppression and

    I didn’t know this was a satire piece. It all makes sense now!

  • Arthur Coccolin

    So saying “suicide is bad” is a violation and an abuse to free speech, but threats false accusations (Got evidence? Didn’t think so.) and blocking the passage (by the way, isn’t there some freedom of movement thing in your country/state?) do NOT constitute any form of harassment at all?
    Silly ‘Murika, needing some lessons about bigotry and double standards.

    Astonished by the infantility from the U of T,
    Arthur from Brazil.

    • Carlo

      I agree with you, but you know this happened in Canada right?

      • gwallan

        I’m in Australia and it looks just as disgusting from here as it does from Brazil.

      • Kimski

        I’m in Denmark, Scandinavia, and I agree. It looks just as disgusting from here, as any other place on the planet.

        I originate from Vancouver, and always wanted to go back to my place of birth.No way I’m hoping for that anymore.

        Wtf happened to you guys back home?

  • Len Firewood

    Actually it was UTSU that crossed boundary of acceptable limits on free speech. They attempted to physically prevent people wanting to listen to the talk from getting into the venue that plus tearing down and physically defacing posters announcing the even adds up to nothing less than censorship.

  • Lodatz

    I’m glad to see so many others have spoken up to point out the ridiculous bias of this article.

  • Nothing Much

    This has more conjecture than a women’s studies text.
    Also, to correct your slander, the Southern Poverty Law Center retracted their label of A Voice for Men.

    • Anonymous

      Slander is for speech.

      • Nothing Much

        Correction: Libel. Funny thing though, language is common and my message got across.

        Unsurprisingly you didn’t address the tiny problem that the SPLC retracted their claim. Instead you made a pedantic correction on a comment I wrote in 15 seconds. Typical.

      • Nothing Much

        “It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.”

        Also: “The SPLC, as a matter of fact, did not formally add any of the groups profiled in the article to the list of 1018 hate groups that it counts as of 2011. Nor did it deny that many of the issues that the Mens Movement cares about–criticism of the family court system, false rape accusations and the like–have legitimacy.”

        Arthur Goldwag, the author of said SPLC article.

        You were saying?

        • Brad Evoy

          lol, Cherry-picking quotes in articles is awesome.

          Allow me to finish that quote:
          “But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.

          Thomas James Ball, for example, who was hailed as a martyr on so many men’s rights forums, called for arson attacks on courthouses and police stations. The Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik wrote extensively about the evils of feminism. We included as much as we did about because it is so intimidating to its targets, not all of whom are criminals.”

          So, do try again – the SPLC did not change its stance.

          • Nothing Much

            You’re right they didn’t change their stance. Because AVFM was never on the list to begin with, as what I quoted says. AVFM was never labelled a hate group. I win, male feminist.

            Also: What does Thomas Ball have to do with AVFM? What does Anders Brevik have to do with AVFM? So AVFM is guilty because a deplorable person doesn’t like feminism?

            You’re a college student and you can’t even help yourself from poisoning the well. Great education.

          • Brad Evoy

            Question: How are you right when the SPLC didn’t retract a statement, but pretty obviously pointed out issues with AVFM and elicited examples of people this site has lionized in the past?

            While you obviously want to play a game of spin about what groups like this have said, you’re not actually representing what SPLC actually did say about groups like your own. Being snide doesn’t actually make you correct, as much as you’d like this to be so.

          • Nothing Much

            “A Voice for Men has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “woman-hating” and a focal point in an expansive misogynistic online network. ” – From the article

            “”It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit.”
            – From the SPLC


          • Brad Evoy

            Again, if you actually read the rest of the blog i’d not be so pleased with yourself. The SPLC writer seems to be somewhat pleased by the initial outrage and, aside from this quote, doubles down on much of their thought from the first article. If that’s the most of a win you can make, I’d start measuring victories in millimetres rather than by bounds.

          • Anonymous

            And it should be mentioned, brad, that the SPLC has used its status to peg groups they disagree with (mainly conservative groups as they are a far leftist group) as “hate groups” in attempts to destroy them.

            Your probably not openminded but you can read the article:

            “Southern Poverty Law Center tag conservative organizations as hate groups”

            One more thing, the SPLC’s “evidence” of “misogyny” came from a guy (radical male feminist) called ‘manboobz’. Sorry but that organization has lost all credibility but I am sure that wont matter to you libs and feminists.

          • Kelly Jessop

            I’m sorry but the issue was with whether AVFM was labelled a hate site. This article has dishonestly claimed that it was. And trying to associate Anders Brevik with them and the men’s movement is absolutely disgusting.

          • Anonymous

            Where in your quote does it mention labeling anything a hate group?

          • Falland

            Who cares what the SPLC said anyway? They are not God, just a bunch of burnt out hippies who perfected the art of smearing anyone they disagree with as racists. Their expertise on Men’s Rights
            can be summed up as, “men bad, women good.”

          • Jordan Bates

            It matters because defenders of feminism will often try to pass off what the SPLC says as credible. They think it’s hard evidence. You may have noticed feminism and fact usually get into fights when in the same room.

          • Falland

            Much to their dismay and the dismay of feminists, the SPLC’s
            entre into the Manosphere was a spectacular flop. It was more of a drive by smear than anything, they were in and out before they could lose any more of their already tarnished reputation. Being out of their league, they retreated back to what they do best, vicious race-baiting as a way to raise funds so they can destroy conservatives while enriching themselves. Ironically, they should be on our side. They could regain part of their past glory by supporting the Men’s Rights Movement but that would be antithetical to their whole left wing bent and the political coalition they have so diligently constructed, so like Smaug the Dragon, they went back to their lair to sit on their pile of gold.

      • Kimski

        Wrong, cupcake.
        Go two comments down and read the SPLC retraction for yourself.
        I further suggest that you get your facts straight before engaging in conversations with adults, who are actually capable of telling the difference between an obvios feminist hatched job and the truth.
        It might actually do you some good later in life..

      • Anonymous

        Correct your fairy tales, you failed arts major.

      • Kelly Jessop

        Will you please respond to the comment from ‘Nothing Much’ refuting your claim?

      • Petra Fayedmanm

        Keep showing your ignorance.

        As for the founder of SPLC:

        “Dees has faced criticism that he uses too much of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s fundraising intake as personal income – and even accusations that the SPLC exists mostly as a fundraising vehicle. A 2000 article by Ken Silverstein in Harper’s Magazine, titled ‘The Church of Morris Dees’, alleged that Dees kept the SPLC focused on fighting anti-minority groups like the KKK, instead of on issues like homelessness, mostly because of the greater fundraising potential of the former. The article also claimed that the SPLC ‘spends twice as much on fund-raising–$5.76 million last year–as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses.’

        In 2005, Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden called Dees ‘nothing more than a scam artist.’ However, Pruden made this comment after the Southern Poverty Law Center accused him of using The Washington Times to push ‘extremist, neo-Confederate ideas.’

        Stephen Bright, an Atlanta-based civil rights attorney, wrote in 2007 that Dees was ‘a con man and fraud,’ who ‘has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people–some of moderate or low incomes–who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation.’ ”

        Also, read this:

        • No Seriously

          You’re probably going to have to define ‘read’ to fakefighter. Pretty sure (s)he’s never encountered that word before.

  • scott

    This piece is clearly written by a student who did not bother to do her homework. It is full of false information, glossing over of important data, and has an extremely chilling tone towards free speach. For instance, the SPLC has retracted it’s statements about the website when it was discovered they were paid by women’s organizations to villify the men’s movement. Shame on the author, and shame on the editors for not even lifting a finger to do fact checking.

    • Anonymous

      *His homework. It was written by a man, not a woman.

      • Andrew Richards

        That’s actually contentious. The Varsity originally had Taryn McKenzie-Mohr investigate this issue. Is “Simon Bredin” merely a convenient pseudonym in this case (even if there is an actual Simon Bredin working for the Varsity) or did the responses Ms McKenzie -Mohr recieved either make her pull out of writing a hit piece, or cause her to write such an even handed and informed piece that the editors at the Varsity had her replaced?

  • scott

    The “There are limits on free speech” and “a speaker saying something I don’t agree with creates and unsafe space” are specious arguments. As a matter of fact, they are the EXACT same arguments radical islamists use to silence people who would point out shortcomings or speak ill of Muhammed. Canada is going down a very slippery slope when it captiulates to the thought police.

  • Slab.Bulkhead

    Misogyny: What happens when a woman doesn’t get exactly what she wants.

    • Anonymous

      no, no, NO – when a FEMINIST doesn’t get exactly what she wants. Please don’t tar an entire gender because of a few individuals.

      • Suzanne McCarley

        A few? It is “a few” women who are NOT steeped (consciously or otherwise) in feminism. You appear to be among us, but don’t kid yourself; those “few individuals” are running the show.

  • Hardy Weinberg

    Ok so I have read through this article and most of the
    comments. Thanks Simon, for writing this, it is obvious based on the comments
    that you actually tried to interview all parties, but some were unwilling to
    comment. So it is their own fault that their viewpoints are not shown.

    That being said, let me first say, I am a UofT student,
    unlike the other folks in the comments section, I am actually part of the UofT
    community. This is where i live and learn, and like many uoft community
    members, I care what happens on campus as it directly affects me. It is obvious
    based on the comments and the “outing” articles from AVfM, that this
    is a large movement external to the university that is attempting to impose
    their views on campus. In other articles, the same folks comment trying to make
    connections between those articles and “mens issues” , including the
    article about the remembrance of the women at L’Ecole Polytechnique. Now, can these men’s rights group attempt to impose their views on campus? Sure they can, but the strategy of outing female activists, spamming articles and twitter accounts and the anti feminist rhetoric is the fastest way to lose support and gain the ire from
    students. I like many others on campus have no issue with a discussion and
    advocacy on men’s issues, but delegitimizing and demonizing other groups,
    including the UTSU and university administration, makes you come off as right wing nuts.

    Next, I am quite concerned with the suggestion in this
    article about the regulation of what events can and cannot be on campus. The
    last thing I want is to give the administration and OSM free reign to decide
    what events can and cannot be held on campus. There are a number of events that
    the university has spoken out against as being “offensive”: Israel
    Apartheid week (IAW) and MunkOUT. I do not want the university to shut down
    those events, even though I am not a fan of IAW. We have hate speech laws in
    this country and the OSM has policies. Events that are within both, should be
    allowed to exist on campus. Also, I fully support people’s right to protest
    said events. The university, should protect the rights of both sides and
    provide security. I attended both the protest and farrell event and although i disagreed with farrell, I felt that laws were not broken on either side. What concerned me the most was what happened after, harassment, spamming, outing of female activists, etc. This completely turned me off and my immediate reaction was, if a rights group cannot respect individual rights of others, then they should be prosecuted.

    Anyway, I think the solution to the problem of these radical
    MRA folks harassing and outing women on campus is with students and UofT
    community members. I am not in support of the admin stepping in, but I am in
    support of students putting aside their differences (yes including dislike for
    UTSU) and standing up for the safety and security for targeted individuals on
    campus. Let CAFE host their events on campus, but it is our responsibility as
    UofT community members to speak out against attacks on female students.

    • Anonymous

      I attended both the protest and farrell event and although i disagreed
      with farrell, I felt that laws were not broken on either side.

      You must have been wearing blinders mate and it is confirmed when you state you disagree with Dr. Farrell on male suicide and boys education?

      • Hardy Weinberg

        Ah thanks for pointing that out, perhaps a more apt statement is that I disagreed with some of Dr. Farrell’s premises and statements. I also was uncomfortable with the shoulder massage given to your neighbour. Thanks for the correction and your rhetoric :)

        • AnonUK

          Hang on, you say you attended both the protest and the Farrell event. Does that mean that you picketed the event – attempting to stop it from taking place by blocking the entrance – and then went inside to listen to the lecture? Meaning that you attempted to close down an event that you’d bought a ticket for?

          Am I understanding you correctly, because… wtf?

          • phillip

            a casual carousal of his twitter says he wanted to see boyz2men,
            whatever that is but is angry that ‘crazy kenny rogers'(dr. farrell) was there
            instead. furthermore based on all the unsubstantiated accusations toward
            dr. farrell on his twitter he’s making an attempt at trying to appear
            rational here so that he can laugh to his buddies about how did he put it
            again ‘the creepy MRAs’ is just oh so creepy. also based off his twitter
            he’s blatantly lying about attending the talk as he calls police
            preventing people from blocking the doors ‘assaulting protestors’ and
            ‘supporting sexism’

          • Anonymous

            Could be one of the guys seen blocking the door.

    • phillip

      “although i disagreed with farrell” so you disagree that suicide is a problem?

      also, you think mens rights groups are in the wrong for trying to get their message onto university campuses but feminism is allowed to reign supreme on campus? double standards much?

      the outing of the members of the enraged violent mob(i won’t legitimize their violent, hateful behavior by calling them protestors or activists) is not illegal nor is it harassment in any way, they’re simply pointing out public statements made online and in their angry violent mob that are hateful, bigoted, and in support of violence. furthermore they’re outing anyone they can identify I’m sure AVfM(and it has been stated) would be overjoyed to find out the info on any of the male members of the angry violent mob.
      also you mention laws pertaining to hate speech and how this talk doesn’t fall under that category but there’s also laws pertaining to acceptable behavior in a protest and this angry violent mob broke just about every single one of them.

      • Hardy Weinberg

        I think the mens rights advocates like yourself should pay more attention to what I have written. I have no problem with external people advocating something on campus, I do have a problem when they don’t follow the policies of the university or the law. I also have problems when they launch personal attacks against community members. Finally, I stated that I see the solution to the problems I mentioned above as being in the hands of uoft community as a whole and not just the administration.

        If you would like to out male members it is your choice (I am a male member who attended the protest, and like other UofT community members I was not violent), be warned that the more members of the uoft community you out, the more resistance you will face from the community. Be smart, back off from harassing and outing students. Focus your cause on being palatable to our community.

        • Paul Elam

          “Focus your cause on being palatable to our community” Have you any idea how ridiculous an expectation that is? Similar advice was given to African American’s during the civil rights movement by Whites that didn’t like them being so uppity.

          Additionally, some members of your community were outed because their conduct was outrageous, illegal and immoral. They were not harassed, they were the harassers. Try to “allow” that to sink in.

          And a last suggestion. If you don’t want members of your community to be featured for their bigoted conduct aimed at repressing free speech, then the solution to that is simple. Quit trying to push your bigotry on others against their will. If you do that AVFM will do all we can to bring attention to it because it is the right thing to do. Whether any or all of your community object to it is irrelevant, except to the extent that those objections point to the cultural problem at your school.

        • phillip

          “I do have a problem when they don’t follow the policies of the university or the law.” as i stated mens rights groups are not breaking any laws, pointing out public comments(and actions) made by people and showing how hateful and bigoted these are is not illegal, its called honesty. the only reason a person would be afraid of ‘being outed’ is because they KNOW that they have behaved in a hateful bigoted manner. i’m sure there were some protestors present who were not violent but that doesnt cancel out the fact that a great deal of them were. also, you have a problem with the law being broken, eh? how about all the laws that were broken by the so called ‘protestors’?
          if its a community that wants to defend and support bigots then it can fuck right off, no offense.

        • Suzanne McCarley

          “…be warned that the more members of the uoft community you out, the more resistance you will face from the community.”

          Oh please. How naive. Do you think MRAs are the least bit concerned about “resistance?”

          Sweetie, we ARE resistance.

          Not something your you’re accustomed to, is it?

          • DannyboyCdnMra

            “Sweetie, we ARE resistance.”

            Damn straight Sue,

            And the resistance to feminism business is-a-boomin.

        • Not buying it

          Just because you are a student at U of T , it doesn’t mean you are impartial, specially when an ideological demagogue (male feminist) like you, who participated with his compatriots in misandry & violent protest against his fellow school mates just because you don’t agree with what being discussed at the event it doesn’t give the right to stop people from hearing a different point. Of view, I believe you are one of the degenerates, anti-free speech , real scum bags that were their.

    • Bahram Farzady

      “Next, I am quite concerned with the suggestion in this
      article about the regulation of what events can and cannot be on campus. The last thing I want is to give the administration and OSM free reign to decide what events can and cannot be held on campus.”

      Funny, I’m supposed to meet with OSM, David Newman and Shannon Howes today to discuss the event with Norman Finkelstein on the 23rd of January from 7-9pm (hopefully in OISE’s auditorium–although OSM won’t confirm the booking–>it’ll still be there).

      Like always, I agree with Hardy. The administration should let the law (although I believe hate speech laws infringe on our charter rights) and ‘activism v. activism’ handle these sorts of things. The MRAs are losing support naturally, in exactly the ways Hardy points out. We don’t need to stop them from speaking. We need to realize they’re nuts, pay them no attention and forget about them.

      Remember the Simpsons (Halloween) episode with the advertisements that came to life and started terrorizing the town. Springfield just stopped paying attention to them and they died. Be more like Lisa and less like Homer.

      • SJThomas

        That would be lovely. I congratulate you on your realization that you don’t need to stop people speaking.

        • Bahram

          ‘realization.’ I have and always will be a champion of a strong reading of our charter (as equivalent to the Bill of Rights) and stand behind people who have stupid, immoral or simply unfounded opinions.

          • SJThomas

            “stand behind people who have stupid, immoral or simply unfounded opinions.”

            I am fond of grapes. Yeah, it’s utterly irrelevant to the argument, but i figured if we’re throwing random crap around i might as well chime in with it.

            Unless of course your implication was that Men’s Rights were based upon stupid, immoral or unfounded opinions. That’d be a silly conclusion to draw however, because if you were going to write that you’d have explicitly said that. And of course pointed these opinions out.

            That’s an… interesting perspective to take on free speech and censorship. I’ve always been of the view that people should be free to a voice without censure, but i’ve certainly never stood behind stupid, immoral or simply unfounded opinions. I’ve defended the individuals right to voice them, i just tend to criticize their statements after the fact.

            Y’know, like i’m doing in this comments section.

      • Hardy Weinberg

        Surprised to hear that Finklestein is being blocked from speaking. His views are more “moderate” that illan pape and I went to his talk I think last year at OISE. Good luck Bahram, and it is always good to hear from you, and it seems our views often align. :) BTW add me on facebook on twitter if you have it, always like conversing with my friends at GSU. :)

        • Bahram

          Yeah, the administration aren’t trying to stop Fink from speaking. I guess I read in too much to them wanting to meet with me to talk about it… although, they did try to change the venue (unsuccessfully). I don’t have either facebook or twitter. I want to know who you really are…. I think I do.

    • Brad Evoy

      Oi, oh Hardy… it’s sad when the parody/fake account makes the most reasonable, even-handed post of the lot here. The shrieking of the MRAs here – almost none from the campus community – speaks volumes, really.

      Thanks to you and Simon for taking on this topic. Ultimately, as many in these groups blatantly skirt around the criticism they receive and hide behind empty statistics.

      • phillip

        go fuck yourself you contemptible sack of human filth.
        you call ridiculously high suicide rates among men ‘empty statistics’ what a piece of shit is man that when they kill themselves in troves the world shrugs with utter indifference.

        • Brad Evoy

          In short: Cool story, bro.

          PS. High suicide rates should be addressed through actual mental health awareness programs, not making the argument that this is somehow a male-centric issue. Especially if you’re arguing that’s a problem on other issues, from other people. Kinda makes you look like a hypocrite.

          • phillip

            men commit suicide at a rate 5 times higher than women so it happens to be an issue that mens rights organizations look at. yes mental health awareness programs… kind of like a lecture by a professional at a university talking about the causes of high suicide rates among men? oh wait thats hate speech… my bad.
            what makes it a male issue is made clear in dr. farrells talk in which he describes that at early ages there is parody of suicide rates between gender and then the gap widens as the age increases, which raises the very valid question of what causes male suicide rates to increase compared to women in such a way?

          • JDS

            Well don’t forget that women *attempt* suicide 3 times more often than males. The issue of suicide isn’t quite as gendered as it appears.

            Also, my actual lectures HAVE discussed high male suicide rates (it comes up even in non-sociology/-psychology courses). The topic isn’t taboo at UofT. Personally, I don’t understand the logic behind these protests but please don’t assume it’s indicative of the thought process of the entire university.

          • Andrew Richards

            The “logic” behind them is that fundamental feminism views any male issues being raised as the height of “low blows” as they only see men as oppressors and therefore any public discourse of men’s issues is an insult to the “genuine” issues of women as compared to men.

            I put it to you that you have fallen into the trap of labelling your desire for equality (which is highly admirable) with the name of a movement which advocates not only for misandrist genocide but for further entrenching chauvinism and misogyny through perpetuating the notion of “women as perpetual victims” and in doing so, perpetuating the culture of female paternalism which has relegated women to the bedroom and the kitchen for centuries.

            As such, I would recommend actually getting hold of books like the SCUM Manifesto and actually seeing what feminism stands for at its core. I would also recommend checking out the concept of the Zeta female. I suspect you’ll find it most compatible with your beliefs.

          • phillip

            “The issue of suicide isn’t quite as gendered as it appears.” the gendered part is that an *attempt* doesn’t leave a body behind.

            i recognize that there is a wide variety of ideas and thoughts present in a university, the problems persists though that the administration seems to have zero issue with the actions or comments of those students, some of who by their own admission were sent there at the behest of their gender studies teachers which although isn’t indicative of the thought process of the entire university it is indicative of the thought process of an entire department of the university.

          • Anonymous

            Sure it is a gendered issue. Men die far more often than women from suicide. Period. Medical professionals, and society at large, should be triaging imminent death (male suicide) before non-lethal calls for help (female suicide).

          • AgentmraOrangemrm

            Oh! You mean the same Mental Health Awareness Programs the feminist in the video was talking about? You know…those mental health programs that are noticeably feminist spaces and have no problem telling men what pieces of shit they are? There you go! Hypocrite that….hypocrite.

          • Anonymous

            Yep, let’s not focus on the gender that overwhelmingly commits suicide. Because that’s great medicine. But let’s DEFINITELY focus on gender for things like Breast Cancer (which proportionally kills less women than Prostate Cancer does for men — oops) and Violence against women (which proportionally affects men far more than women — oops again), because that’s when gender is important.

            Hypocritical indeed.

      • SJThomas

        1. “almost none from the campus community – speaks volumes, really.” Interesting conjecture there. You must have referenced the University internet handle listings.

        2. “Ultimately, as many in these groups blatantly skirt around the criticism they receive and hide behind empty statistics.” Oooh, rhetorical flourish. Colour me impressed. Care to indicate what you mean by this? Which of the statistics are empty? I presume, given the context, you’re discussing male suicide rates and education outcomes. How are these statistics empty?

        • Brad Evoy

          To address your points:

          1.) Actually, that comes from the sheer volume of comments – Varsity articles are never hit this hard with them and frankly, most of the folks here are using some pretty familiar aliases from the AVFM site. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that folks were monitoring the Varsity for articles like this to flash flood articles such as this for comments.

          2.) I’d be referring to the general tendency of the MRM to skew statistics to create the inference that Mens’ Issues are either:
          – Due to women.
          – Greater than women’s issues.

          Which covers a lot, really. I mean, rather than examining issues of class or race or many other extremely valid vectors of actual oppression, folks here seem focused on some imagined oppression due to one’s inherent ‘maleness’. I’m still waiting to be convinced of that one.

          3.) Any reference to the statements of the SPLC seem to stand on these groups. Said group did criticize the MRM and folks are avoiding said criticism solely on the basis of what? That they didn’t call AVFM a hate group outright? Oh, well that’s quite the honour there. If folks in a so-called movement, any movement, can’t look at such things – they’re worst than their critics could ever portray them.

          • Scott Gustafson

            Again, point out one empty statistic. Just one will do. Only one statistic that is false, skewed or empty. Please. Just a single one.

          • lcoye2002

            So. . .since AVfM members predicted, with startling accuracy, the mental gymnastics that would accompany an article defending an illegal protest, and since said members were waiting (albeit cynically) for a university-level appraisal of the event, AND since the article was exactly as pathetic as was predicted, you find it “speaks volumes” that some of them would show up to complain. I feel like this is a compliment in disguise.

            Men’s Issues are:
            – (largely) Due to feminism.
            – Just as valid as women’s issues.

            Surprisingly, both of those are hotly contentious, but it doesn’t sound as good as how you put it, amirite?

            “Which covers a lot, really. I mean, rather than examining issues of class or race or many other extremely valid vectors of actual oppression, folks here seem focused on some imagined oppression due to one’s inherent ‘maleness’. I’m still waiting to be convinced of that one.”

            What I love about this is that I KNOW you almost wrote “class or race or sex” and had a wiley coyote moment, before quickly parsing it mentally and going into obscure gyrations to avoid the dangerous idea that males might have issues. Then, in an orwellian bit of double-speak, implied that male oppression is “imagined”, while female oppression is “actual”. Some genders really ARE (extremely) more equal than others. Great job on this one, U of T.

            “Criticize the MRM” is giving them more credit than they deserve. Calling any group a “hate group” doesn’t actually address anything they say, and further, referencing one group calling another group a “hate group” doesn’t lend an ounce of credence to your own claims, or the claims of the article we’re met discussing.

          • Brad Evoy

            You’re a funny guy – how sharp you think you must be – even though your analysis of both my concerns and feminism are stuck in some mid-1980s intellectual tract.

            I get that you want to blame women for all your problems and perhaps you are some not-so well off smuck without many places to turn in life, perhaps hate is all you have left. Such things, historically, are common in economic depression and periods of lax growth. Yet, it is pretty pathetic to come by an attempt to intimidate an editor of a student paper and pretty pathetic to attempt to appear to have a local consensus when its blindly obvious you and others here are just hurt AVFM readers who needed someone to lash out at today. I get it, I’ve trolled your sites long enough to get that sense and its not one all too unfamiliar to any insular, mostly online community.

            Still, that doesn’t excuse a damn thing. While nothing I say will get through to you folks, I’m not going to sit back as you trammel around and attempt to harass and harangue your way to some Pyrrhic victory over, apparently, my fellow students.

            Thanks, though, for pretty openly admitting your hatred of women above, even while attempting to hold up the veil of equity that you attempt to use as your shield. Funny enough too, I haven’t actually called the MRM a hate movement and I’m actually sympathetic to some of the issues (if certainly not the vile proposed causes or roots) that you raise. Rather, I have and will continue to point out that the critiques of the MRM by groups like the SPLC and others stand well against what folks state here. Equally, the stats raised on many issues – especially education – lack context and are skewed outside important other factors, like – again – race, class, etc.

            So look, and I say this not to you, but every MRM person about here: Our campuses aren’t simply going to roll over while folks attack. You might attack, you might flood online comments, you might intimidate directly or indirectly – ultimately, though. this place is one of and for the students of UofT. It is ourselves that make this campus what it is, not you all.

          • phillip

            you claim to be familiar with the MRM but then make a comment like “I get that you want to blame women for all your problems” its been state repeatedly just about everywhere including my previous comment FEMINISM != WOMEN, feminists(men and women) working under a flawed, hateful ideology have enacted policies and social and cultural perceptions of men which have led to the rampant misandry there is today. so yes FEMINISM is the cause of most of the issue the MRM deals with but once more FEMINISM IS NOT WOMEN.

            “it is pretty pathetic to come by an attempt to intimidate” this is whats called projection all MRAs are doing here is speaking the truth and fact and people like you pay lip service to mens issues but really dont give a a shit about them. when what those ‘protesters’ did and what people like you do is intimidate anyone dissenters into silence.

            “Thanks, though, for pretty openly admitting your hatred of women above” nowhere does he even mention women in his comment where is this open admission of hatred towards them?

            “if certainly not the vile proposed causes or roots” so what are the ‘real’ causes and roots? this is becoming a common theme here wild claims and accusations with nothing to back it up.

            “lack context and are skewed outside important other factors, like – again – race, class, etc” this is becoming a common theme here wild claims and accusations with nothing to back it up. in reality the writers at AVfM make open admission that many of the issues affect minorities and the poor more but the fact that it affects them more doesnt mean anything really, minority men are treated worse than majority men but both are still living in a misandric culture, these issues affect them both and reducing it to race or class is a pointless endeavor in the overall scheme of things.

            “his place is one of and for the students of UofT.” well UofT is government funded therefore any taxpaying citizen has the right to criticize it

            “You might attack, you might flood online comments, you might intimidate directly or indirectly”[retranslated] “YOUR TRUTH IS AN ATTACK, FACTS INTIMIDATE ME ;_;”

          • DannyboyCdnMra

            Yup common sense definitely isn’t your strong suit.
            “I get that you want to blame women for all your problems”

            See feminism is an ideology a misandric one at that. That is what the MRM has always made a point of.

            See we really dislike both types of feminists the male ones as well. Btw that would be you.

            So right there your claim that we wish to place all our troubles at the feet of women is patently false.

            Women on the other hand are a demographic of society.

            How much $ are your parents paying for your education?
            Or how much of my tax dollars did I loan you via a student loan?

            The U of T is a publicly funded institution and if I chose to have a say on what all is going on there, I will say it.
            I will poster it.
            I will youtube it.
            I will write about it.
            It is owned by the citizens of Canada you moron.

            We bought and paid for it with our tax dollars.

          • phillip

            1. AVfM founder paul elam was contacted by someone from the varsity asking him questions which suspiciously are left out of this article and as such the AVfM community has been aware of a coming article for a while now. although being a student at UofT doesn’t magically make you right and everyone else wrong regarding issues that involve UofT.

            2.”the general tendency of the MRM to skew statistics to create the inference that Mens’ Issues are either:
            – Due to women.
            – Greater than women’s issues.”

            this is simply false, many mens issues are due to feminism promoting hatred(and often violence) towards men, this does not equate to being ‘due to women’ as feminism is an ideology not a gender. secondly i’ve never seen an MRA claim mens issues are more important than womens issues in fact they explicitly state ‘mens issues are jut as important as womens issues’ and state that the problem is that womens issues have a gigantic billion dollar industry of feminism behind them and men barely have a voice(hence the name a voice for men, clever dontcha think?)

            3.”If folks in a so-called movement, any movement, can’t look at such things….” well if you had even a slight idea of what you’re talking about you would know that the SPLC’s comments have not only been ‘looked at’ but responded to and half heartedly retracted, of course not ENTIRELY but then again the SPLC takes money from radfemhub who advocate for the eugenic murder of all men even stating that mens bodies should be boiled down for glue, which really brings into question the validity of their statements.

          • SJThomas

            1. Oh, certainly. That there was going to be a smear piece was already known information (2nd Jan:

            So it’s not particularly surprising, considering the significance of the attacks from your neck of the woods. Does that mean that there are ‘almost none from the campus community’ voicing dissent? No. It just means that there are more people than normal posting.

            2.Haha, ok this is my fault, i shouldn’t have given you wriggle room by asking ‘Care to indicate what you mean by this?’

            Ok, try two for the remainder of the question, i’ll be awaiting your answer:

            “Which of the statistics are empty? I presume, given the context, you’re discussing male suicide rates and education outcomes. How are these statistics empty?”

            3. You seem to be familiar with AVFM, so i would suggest you look there for the responses, and also the youtube responses (Girlwriteswhat and JohntheOther both covered the SPLC in detail.
            Some examples:






          • Anonymous

            Yo Brad, again, why not point out which statistics are “skewed”? Or do baseless accusations suffice as facts for the shrieking feminist brigade, of which you seem to be a part?

            And yea, “bro”, if the SPLC didn’t call a group a hate group, it didn’t call a group a hate group. Brush up on the logic of tautologies and then get back to us.

          • DannyboyCdnMra

            yah the splc also put Roosh a pick up artist on the same list.
            His hate, he may not call back a gal who isn’t good in the sack,, yup the splc is such a solid reference to use.
            And yes I fly the AVfM flag high and with pride.
            Google has a wonderful little option called notify me, no need to monitor anything.
            I know you’re university educated, common sense just isn’t your strong suit.

      • Scott Gustafson

        point out one false statistic. Just one.

      • DannyboyCdnMra

        Lmao google Domestic violence lies from Ottawa and then get back to me about those empty statistics.
        Yes a feminist organization in our nations capital spreading fraudulent and patently false statistics.
        Sorry to destroy your feminist induced fantasy.
        Do try and pick up some critical thinking abilities while you are at school Brad.

    • SJThomas

      Outing. I’m interested, what do you mean by outing?

      Are you outraged that the ‘activists’ were not allowed to maintain their anonymity? Is there a right being infringed wherein a protester should not be recognized as a protester?

    • Addison Timlin

      Careful, your feminist biases and obvious disdain for mens rights groups are glaring

  • Anonymous

    Judging by the (phony) outrage you’d think Warren Farrell was advocating for the torture and death of puppies and kittens or something.

    • Anonymous

      He has advocated date rape at least once, and 20% of North American women are raped in their lifetimes (number varies depending on source but I’ve usually seen 20-30% for rape + around 98% for lower-level harassment), soooo yes he is potentially causing/perpetuating further violence.

      • phillip

        “He has advocated date rape at least once” [citation needed]

        • Anonymous

          let me google that for you

          • DannyboyCdnMra

            We’re all waiting Katie but we already know the answer.

            You really should learn critical thinking and stop blindly believing feminist propaganda.

            Looks like you’ve had 3 hours to produce this alleged statement and yet???

            See Katie you are what is wrong with society today.

            You blindly believe anything feminism says to the point where now you have painted yourself in a verbal corner.

            My bet is and am fairly certain on this is this quote does not nor has it ever existed. I know the quote the U of T feminists used and it does not in any way shape or form condone date rape.

            It does examine sexual roles in the past and present. But you already knew that didn’t you because you are a university student right? You already did your own research and found it right?

            We’re all waiting Katie not even those who organized that violent lil fiasco against Dr Farrell are able to produce this alleged quote but hey you go girl and do what those 100 or so could not do, now or the 1000’s who could not do it in the past.

          • Kimski

            Ho-hum..She sure is taking her time, isn’t she?
            Must be nice to have a group of useful idiots, that you present with a lie and go: Sic ‘em! -After which they just run with it, like a bunch of chickens without head.
            I’d say she didn’t just manage to paint herself into a verbal corner. She succeeded in proving just how much of a puppet on a string she really is, for those with the real agenda standing behind her.

          • DannyboyCdnMra

            true that.

          • No Seriously

            Typical feminist mouthpiece. Assert anything and everything under the sun then run and hide when asked to back it up

      • Andrew Richards

        Has he advocated for it, or simply looked at the nuances of it?

        Certainly noone should be violated against their will. Noone, including Dr Farrell, would dispute that.

        However the scenarios range quite dramatically in terms of when consent is withdrawn (including AFTER sex took place). Should people be allowed to claim rape when they give initial consent and then don’t withdraw said consent during the entirety of sex (the exception being if she was in a domestic violence situation where there was an established climate of fear)? How is that kind of infantalisation of women anything less than chauvinistic?

        What about when people are drunk? Yes a woman might be so drunk she’s “got beer goggles on” but what if he’s also that drunk and also “has beer goggles on” to the same extent? Why should he be accountable for his drunken behaviour but she be completely unaccountable for it?

        These are just 2 examples that people try and shoehorn into a predatory male-on-female rape scenario.

        Furthermore the entire definition of rape reeks of chauvinism. By basing rape around penetration, the myth that women cannot rape men is perpetuated – with it the notion that a penis equates to arbitrary consent (could you imagine people saying that about the vagina, the clitoris or the nipples). In fact this chauvinismk is so deeply ingrained that in North America there are several instances of boys as young as 12 being statutorily raped and then being forced to pay child support when it results in a child. That’s right child sex victims forced to pay their pedophiles money for 20 years. I don’t know about you, but I class that as a one hell of a “scarlet letter”.

        As a rape survivor I would love nothing more than for rape to disappear from our society, but doing that means examining the issue in its entirety – even when things get too complex for our liking.

      • DannyboyCdnMra

        Lets see those citations please.
        Put your money where your mouth is because we have people in the MRM who know Warren’s work verbatim.
        If you can’t produce your citations you get an F
        But then again you’re a woman going by your name so they will turn around and affirmative action you to a passing grade.

      • Kelly Jessop

        This is an outright lie.

      • Mark Neil

        The quote used to make the claim he advocates date rape is a quote mined, second half of a sentence found out of the context of the paragraph/chapter discussing sexual interactions. It would be hard pressed to claim he’s advocating rape if the whole sentence, let alone the whole paragraph/chapter was included. The quote comes from “The myth of male power” believe, for next time someone asks for proof and you don’t know what to do, because you just accepted the accusation at face value and didn’t bother to ask your fellow feminists why they believed it.

      • Anonymous

        Congrats… you can read extremely biased conclusions to studies without actually looking at numbers.

        Did you know, that using the exact same study (that I assume you are referencing), that just as many men were raped as women? That’s assuming that you define “forced to penetrate” as rape, which they actually don’t… but who am I to say that a guy being drugged, bound and gagged and forced to penetrate a girl should actually be considered rape.

        Did you also know that if we actually include prison rape, that men are actually raped more often than women are?

        I’ll also point out the fact that men are far more likely to be victims of violence in general, and rape is included in that.

        Also, because I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are an intelligent person, I’ll give you a chance to go and read the quote where the supposedly “advocates date rape”, instead of just listening to the one-line “talking points” of people who think it is acceptable to go around and yell “you’re fucking scum” at peoples faces.

      • mdoddr

        He “advocated date rape”? Advocated? Really? When? Where’s your quote? What did he say?

        this is the only bad thing you can say about him and it’s utter BS.

        • Kimski

          Analytical thinking is not part of the curriculum at universities anymore. You people are simply expecting too much of them. They only know how to base their ‘facts’ on idiosyncrasies, hearsay and ‘feelings’, while basing their thought processes entirely on the limbic systems of their brains.

      • Anonymous

        Can you site any instance of Warren Farrell advocating date rape?
        I didn’t think so.
        If 20% of all women in NA are raped in their lifetimes (not including having sex when they really didn’t feel like it), that means at least 30 million women in the US alone are victims of rape – quite an epidemic we have on our hands there missy.

        But if you say it’s true, I suppose that makes it true.

      • Petra Fayedmanm

        Did you also know, according to the Book of Fembotulism, that 110% of women died fighting Xenu when he attacked Earth’s hemorrhoids (volcanoes)… only patriarchal pigs refuse to fund an intergalactic memorial?

        Feminism’s anti-intellectualism and facts-phobia is a wonder behold. Never EVER try to disabuse its hysterical adherents of their “beliefs.” It’s impossible. Only interact to inform sane people who might be reading the Comments section.

        Feminist are immune to reason. The condition MAKES them feminists.

  • Humanista

    This article is pure misandry. It is important to look at the article as a whole, and understand that is characteristic of other hate movements that have insidiously fused themselves into an otherwise civil society.
    We have made progress in so many social issues over the last decades. Do we not know better than to simply point fingers?
    So why do men’s issues carry no merit? Why are these important issues supressed to no end? Are we not human beings too? Or are we simply utilities? Disposible? Misandry is so ingrained into women’s (and men’s) subconscious that people don’t even see it anymore; it’s just a part of their daily lives.
    Dr. Farrell is trying to change this attitude through his lectures. He has spent years researching and identifying the social and economic areas where men fall short. If that is hate speech, then I guess every man I know is a “hate moger.” But that would fit the baseless demarcation of the the feminists perfectly, wouldn’t it? In contrast, RadFem and other eugenic-promoting sites, or events such as “straight HATE day” in Sweden are all non-hate movements, with ethical, morally superior goals right?
    Men have, for sixty years, listened to women. We’ve addressed your “issues” and made great strides to enact change. We gave you credibility, and now we thought that when issues concerning our rights, freedoms, and injustices perpetrated against us were brought to the table, you would fight with us, understanding that these collective rights and freedoms were universal and that we would fight together for change.

    But time is truth. Feminism today is an anachronism; its rotten underbelly exposing itself, ironically, through its own actions of hate and oppression. Most women care nothing for the well-being of men, and the women that do support us are ridiculed (even threatened with death) to no end. Rape enabling scum? Of course I am (according to you). And if I’m not a rape enabler, I might be one someday, based on feminism’s twisted logic. So throw me into the Juden fresser….
    The men’s rights movement isn’t going away any time soon ladies, no matter how much you hate, lie about, and pervert our plight .
    Concordia University

    • Ali

      Juden fresser? tut.

  • eddy.canuck

    I linked here from AVfM because I couldn’t believe the bleating claim that somehow it was a Men’s Group at UofT was being criticized for promoting a well-regarded speaker like Warren Farrell (who if you listen to him must be the most gentle, kind-hearted and objective fellow ever to be mis-labelled as a raging mysoginist) and not that raging group of femnazi’s spewing hatred who tried to stop him. So this article is an incredible piece of hypocrisy.

    No – Sandu and her crew have done all the damage to themselves by their own behaviour – and for that I am grateful to see them exposed. This article is part of their sad attempts at hiding that truth. (As to charges of “hateful threats” – I doubt they have been from any MRA’s and are most likely your own “agents provocateurs” so Paul Elam is right to say “prove it”)

  • Anonymous

    I take no issue with AVfM identifying the violent, abusive misandrist in that video. I do take issue with the fact that it isn’t being used as evidence against them by the police.

  • harrywoodape

    The protest activity seen in the Youtube video of the event shows a violent hate group trying to intimidate and harrass people interested in hearing Dr. Farrell speak. The people in the video are brazen and arrogant in proclaiming their hatred for men’s rights. A Voice For Men is a website that allows free speech and doesn’t resort to lies to stifle free speech. The website did much good in publishing identities of the people that can be seen in the video calling attendees “Fucking scum” and “Rape Apologists” while they assault police and block entrances. Some of them pretend to be things they are not. In the interest of free speech and teaching responsibility…I am glad that A Voice for Men chose to publicize what is going on at U of T…that is a real story. If U of T and it’s student union were interested in being honest and promoting free speech while paying attention to students espousing hate speech…it would thank A Voice for Men and endorse it’s students to make up their own minds by visiting the site.

  • Oliver Crangle

    You guys are fantastic liars and terrible journalists


    You contact Warren Farrell, but the only quote you have from him is regarding AVFM. Though this entire article and the protest was about his speech and his past writings, you either fail to ask him about the protest, his speech, or his past writings, or you refuse to quote it.

    I take that back.

    You guys are fantastic liars and will be terrific journalists.

    Go fuck yourselves.

    • JDS

      Too be fair, the article wasn’t really about him or his talk. It was meant to be a report on the events surrounding the protest and specifically what those events mean for free speech at UofT.

  • Hayden

    Where can I get some of the Kool-aid?

  • Sig

    I smell feminists making false claims relating to violence – standard behaviour for them.

  • MarkinTO

    Whole lot of mangina’s around here.

  • STFU

    But… but… but… YOU DON’T EVEN GO HERE!

    Hey MRAs who aren’t even UofT students, and who clearly aren’t welcome on our campus,

    Please go back to where you came from and stop spreading your false statistics and hate speech on our campus.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————–> AVFM

    • Kimski

      Grow up.

    • Anonymous

      is this what they teach you at U of T?

      • JDS

        Nope. Some people (on both sides of the issue) just aren’t interested in actual discussion. Sorry about that.

        • Anonymous

          in the protest the feminists declared that they are not interested in discussion and that they are just going to shut down an event,seems that part of your curriculum is how to shout off others,is this what the Academia has become,a graveyard of ideas and free speech?

          • Anonymous

            Well at least U of T and U of O.

          • No Seriously

            York as well

          • Anonymous

            My apologies for not including York.
            Are not most universities just socialist hate indoctrination centres

          • No Seriously

            It’s unfortunate, but true. The idealized centre of life, knowledge and creativity has been corrupted horrifically. It’s such a shame. The places that produced such glorious works for the betterment of humanity are now just Same-think Schoolrooms.

    • DannyboyCdnMra

      thanks for the invite will be there with AVFM posters in hand.

      I live in Hamilton btw and am a short hop skip and a jump away from your campus.

      Heads up I carry 2 or 3 recording devices on me all the time, I’ve experienced violent feminists already. Then there is my dog, Jeb, he gets a lil testy when people make menacing gestures towards me.

      Oh and one other thing about the lying bit, go ask the Ottawa Coalition to end violence against women how there last paper “hidden from plain sight” is doing or better yet why not look at how my video exposes their lies in black and white print.

      Enjoy the video and do try and pick your jaw up off the floor when you discover just who is lying about things.

      Special wave from me out to Trina Forrester and Prof Holly Johnson.

      How are you doing lately liars?

    • Anonymous

      Listen you baby faced punk english major. I paid for your buildings and I paid for your classrooms. I was there first and you are really turning UofT into the biggest joke in canada.

  • DannyboyCdnMra

    “Although the site claims that the posts do not advocate or endorse violence, those targeted described receiving threatening emails and phone calls, “surveillance” on campus, and other acts of intimidation and harassment.”

    As a mod on the forum for AVfM, I can state that there is a ZERO tolerance policy on the calling for violence by anyone, man, woman or dog if you got one intelligent enough to type.

    If those lying, hateful feminists didn’t want to be exposed for their misandric actions they should have kept their misandric mouths shut.
    But they couldn’t and as such they are now under the purview of public scrutiny, as they rightfully deserve to be.
    Their words, their hate, their actions, they own them and if they are ashamed of them well too bad learn your lesson and get on with life.
    I wonder how those poor lil feminists would react if the sexes were reversed, we’d probably see bonfires of bras burning for weeks on end with violent feminist protests following.
    And if they didn’t like the posters for Warren they are going to completely blow a gasket when I show up with AVfM posters in hand.
    I am only an hour away down the qew in Hamilton.
    Feminism sought to divide men and women, now good men and women are tired of it, no longer allowing feminism to get a free pass.
    If the exposing of feminism’s hateful ways cause a few of them to shed some tears well too bad, they made their bed now they can lay in it.

  • Jack Day

    What a load of crap and pure conjecture. I for one am so sick of this… The very instant any man stands up and communicates about any issue that pertains to men and boys, out come the feminist hate mongers with trumped up lies, vitriol and PC misdirection.
    We saw the same thing here in Vancouver when the Simon Fraser University had the audacity to setup the first Men’s Center. Forget the fact that men have needs and the right to explore them, ascertain meaning and direction, and that Every university in the land already has centers for women.
    This feminist cancer has gone too far within our societies and stories like this only serve to confirm these facts. It’s time to put an end to this!

    Today’s feminism has decayed to a doctrine of pure hate and violence.
    Feminism Harms Everybody!

    LIVE with Warren Farrell and Erin Pizzey

  • DannyboyCdnMra

    Hey why don’t you know, you as a reporter do a foia request for the police reports on the alleged threats against the individuals who are crying crocodile tears now.

    You are a reporter aren’t you?

    You do desire to expose the truth don’t you?

    You have heard of journalistic integrity haven’t you?

    I know you are afraid of the femmie faction no worries you can join Erika as a hallmark card writer.

    My bet is it is the femmie faction producing more fraudulent claims of abuse.

    I wonder will Toronto Police Services hold them accountable when the individuals are caught.

    Will Toronto Police Service uphold their oath under S 45 of the Police services act in which they swear an oath to the constitution of Canada and in Which you will Find S 15 equality under the rule of law.

    I know the Hamilton Police Services aren’t and have it documented with their own police report.
    About time these feminists were given true equality, equal jail time.

  • DannyZeta

    I’m so ashamed of my alma mater, I can’t believe what’s become of UofT. A english major gets a pedestal for weaving fairy tales to defend a mob of unruly, sexist and bigoted CUPE / socialist activists illegally blocking a fire exit and interfering in a public event.

    That’s it, I’m voting with my wallet and never donating another penny to this craphole.

  • DannyZeta

    Not only will I never donate another penny to this failed institution but I will refuse to even consider ever hiring a UofT student again.

    • JDS

      That seems harsh. You should judge people on their merits. Roughly 100 people protested that event. Over 60,000 attend the university.

      • Anonymous

        it means that 60,000 students cannot stand against 100 bigots..this a recipe for corruption and dictatorship.

      • Anonymous

        Prepare yourself for a harsh world that doesn’t care about your feelings. I can do whatever I want with my money and I’d rather not work with the daily reminder of the failed institution that I once had so much hope for.

        Such a shame. Clean up the trash.

    • ZetaDanny

      Oh no! guise, the mighty Zeta won’t let us work for him! We should bow down and ask for forgiveness!

  • Anonymous

    I suggest every single person reading this article to go actually watch the video of the protest. They are so quick to say that Dr Farrell promotes hate speech, yet they won’t actually quote him. There is also no mention of the feminist protesters calling attendees such (apparently non-hateful things according to that retard of a union president) as “fucking scum.. incest supporting – misogynist fucking scum”… to which the only reply was “I’m just here to figure out why my two friends might have committed suicide”.

    As I said, watch the video, watch the lecture, and judge for yourself. Hopefully you’ll see how spineless the student union is and which “side” is the one spreading hate-speech.

  • Harrywoodape

    Sounds like UofT bosses are being taken over by the misandric UTSU. The Varsity is clearly printing a biased article citing the approaches to have student safety concerns addressed prior to the event. This is building a case against the University based on the phony premise that the safety of the protesters is in danger from men.
    Ladies and gentlemen, we have an extreme hate group that appears to be scoffing at the University leadership and demanding “protection”…from scrutiny and facts it seems.

    • Anonymous

      Even the students of UofT don’t support these losers. They need to be shown the door to the back alley to live with the trash where they belong.

    • Actual U of T Student

      And I’m not saying this because I work for the CFS and UTSU.

  • Aimee Quenneville

    Feminism: NounThe advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

    Troll: Noun

    A mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance.

    Really, if you’re claiming that there are just as many ‘men’s issues’ as women’s issues, you may be mathematically correct. You have issues like ‘addictions to pornography and video games’, to quote Farrell, and we have issues like rampant rape, victim-blaming and economic disadvantaging. But you’re correct, we do all have issues. It’s just that ours are a little more serious than yours.

    • bobk

      Let’s pretend that you are correct and not just speaking from a position of total denial. How does your perceived self-importance and victimhood in any way excuse the kind of blatant attack against the right of Dr. Farrell to give a lecture and for those who are interested to attend? How does calling men “scum” to their faces simply for wanting to attend a lecture “advocate for women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men?”

      • Aimee Quenneville

        Actually, I condemned blocking entrances to a university-approved event because I believe it is an affront to democratic free speech. You’re clearly very stupid, because the only position I could NOT possibly be speaking from at this point is denial. I appreciate that there are massive flaws in the ways that men and women are socialized and I work in a law firm that fights for the rights, predominately, of men who have been sexually victimized as children. But to insinuate that men have it ‘worse’ in modernity is ridiculous. Look at the pay gap. Look at the frequency of sexual abuse. Look at the fact that I can’t walk down the street without having my ass grabbed on my way to school. I don’t want that world for my daughters and I will teach my sons better. I will teach them that they can cry when they are upset and that it is not emasculating to seek help when needed. Will you do the same for your kids? Or are all women just lying bitches?

        All we want is an equal place in society and we don’t have it yet. We should all be trying to fix the multitude of issues facing both men and women.

        • SJThomas

          “We should all be trying to fix the multitude of issues facing both men and women.”
          You mean those trivial issues you don’t believe are worth addressing? ” It’s just that ours are a little more serious than yours.”

          Yeah, we’ll keep advocating for ourselves, thank you. The notion of people like Amanda Marcotte telling men what is and isn’t important strikes me as something i’m not bothered with.


          I’ve read a lot concerning the pay gap (when someone tells you a statistic that significant, you’re bound to check it out). From what i’ve seen, the pay-gap as portrayed is often a poorly conflated statistic comparing average male income with average female income. This however becomes statistically inaccurate, unless:

          There were equal amounts of women as men performing the same jobs (not simply area’s of employment, i.e. ‘labourer’), in the same locations (different local demand, different rate), on the same timeshifts (more hours = more money, different shifts get better pay), with the same qualifications (specifically, not generally), with the same experience (qualitative and quantitative), With the exact vocational emphasis (Two Doctors, for example, can have differently valued specialties).

        • Anonymous

          Sorry, in the society in which we live (“modern” north america), the average male not only statistically has it worse than the average female, but he also is culturally condemned for even voicing those problems (example: you).

          Actually look at stats instead of parroting feminist nonsense, bolstered by absurdly hyperbolic anecdotal evidence (“I can’t walk down the street without having my ass grabbed on my way to school”), before you starting doing your routine feminist shaming ritual. The problem with people of your ilk is that simply attempting to shut down conversation by proclaiming a monopoly on “victimhood” doesn’t work anymore. The evidence is against you.

        • John A


          Who said men had it worse? Men have serious issues, such as suicide, workplace death, war deaths and being denied access to their children during and after marriage break up. I had three young friends suicide, from age 18 to 23.

          So when men ask for rights and the platform to speak on their issues, they deserve to be heard and heard fairly. This is precisely what so many people who call themselves ‘feminists’ want to stop. The shrieking, abusive protesters wanted to stop any discussion of men’s rights before they started. Women do not have exclusive rights to victim-hood. Men do not want to claim exclusive rights to victim-hood, most of us just want to be heard and our problems addressed.

        • DannyboyCdnMra

          So tell me How many police reports have you filed for assault?

          I mean you mention you have your ass grabbed all the time so produce some evidence. You work in a law office you claim.

          Hell go do a pre-enquete hearing. and bring back your proof it happened.

          The video and photographic capabilities of today’s cell phones make it very easy to catch criminals in the act.
          The frequency of sexual abuse yah funny thing about that is that when it is a woman who is the abuser it isn’t believed. I’ve talked to plenty of people about that and there are lots of female predators out there, but thanks to feminism much like the female domestic abuser it is kept in the dark hushed at every instance.
          The pay gap has been debunked time and time again.
          There isn’t any unless your a male under the age of thirty and then its men who are earning less.
          And please feminism is long over due to be shuffled off this earthly plane and tossed into the garbage can of history much like fascism or communism.
          You will teach your sons, how about teaching your daughters it is just as bad for them to engage in domestic violence?
          How about teaching them that genital mutilation is wrong for both sexes?
          You may work in a law firm but you know nothing of justice or equality except for the feminist indoctrination you have been programmed with.
          Your just to damn lazy or afraid to look up the real facts.

        • Kimski

          “Look at the pay gap. Look at the frequency of sexual abuse. Look at the fact that I can’t walk down the street without having my ass grabbed on my way to school.”

          You’re compairing THAT to dying in wars, on the job, and as homeless on the streets???!!!!!

          Jesus Christ!! Talk about priviledge!!!

    • Anonymous

      Aimee, thanks for the non sequitur dictionary definitions.

      Now go look up “evidence” and “gathering”, and try to give us something more than hackneyed feminist drivel derived from a 1990’s women’s liberation handbook.

      Thanks. And no, your issues aren’t nearly as serious as ours.

      • Aimee Quenneville

        And what would those issues be that are so much more serious? What makes your privileged life so difficult?

        • Anonymous

          Are you serious?

          Relative to the average female, the average male is more likely to be homeless, be a victim of violence, commit suicide, be murdered, die on the job, be incarcerated, be falsely incarcerated, be raped (due to incarceration), die of cancer, die of occupational death, die in general of all things, and are less likely to graduate high school, graduate college, be employed overall, make less income if 32 or younger while having less federal dollars dedicated to their diseases, controlling a minority of the electorate, and receiving far fewer social payouts over their lifetimes despite paying more into the system over their lives (because of that pesky dying thing).

          Switch “female” for “white” and “male” for “black” and you get precisely the same results. I suppose we should be helping white people from that black “privilege” too, eh?

          And thanks, entitled western white chick (possibly the most entitled large scale cohort in the history of the world) for talking about my privilege. Your group certainly knows a ton about possessing privilege.

          • DannyboyCdnMra

            effing beautiful

        • Andrew Richards

          By “privileged” of course, you mean a society founded on female infantalisation and male disposability, best emphasised by the old saying “women and children to the lifeboats [whilst the men can go to hell for all we care]”.

          Seriously, if you actually care about equality, I put it to you that you need to recognise and reject not only your deep seeded and misandristic views of male disposabiltiy, but also your deep seeded misogynistic views of female infantalisation.

    • Hugh Jazz


      • Anonymous

        JDS, because the bias in our culture is NOT against women, and that bias needs to be addressed in a civilized progressive society. You know, the way we addressed other gender (and race) issues before. It’s not always “both sides are wrong and we all need to get together and sing”; oftentimes one side has a legitimate grievance, while the other (generally in power) simply promotes an extension of the status quo.

        Quotes from girls like Aimee demonstrate this nonsense fairly well — virtually every statistic judging the health of a cohort shows that the average male is doing worse than the average female (and if you switch male and female for “black” and “white”, you get the same results). Yet, according to our token female here, female problems are “a little more serious than” those of men. Give me a freaking break.

        When we culturally start truly addressing men’s issues seriously, then we can all be friends. Until then, more men will be victimized by violence, disease, and death than women, and those advocating for their rights won’t be quiet simply because feminists enjoy having power.

    • Andrew Richards

      Aimee, your blatant chauvinism is astounding.

      You want to talk about male issues. Try being a battered man, male rape victim of male child abuse victim of a female child abuser in this world and the victim blaming we face on a daily basis!

      As a battered man, I can tell you from experience that society treats you like a combination of perpetual liar, urban myth and cheap, filthy worthless slut! One one hand we’re emasculated for “getting beaten up by a girl” which by the way is comedy according to Hollywood, or we “had it coming to us”. Police arrest procedures through things like “primary aggressor laws” and gender profiling, result in the ARBITRARY arrest of men on a police callout to a domestic disturbance, resulting in inevitable prison beatings and rape.

      But apparently according to chauvinists like you that’s perfectly acceptable with the victim has a penis and the perpetrator has a vagina. Of course, you’d be rioting in the streets if the perpetrator had a penis and the victim had a vagina.

      Oh and beforev you try and LIE and claim we’re a tiny fraction of DV victims, Richard Gelles, Erin Pizzey and other experts in the field have been stating for years that domestic violence occurs equally between men and women, both in victimhood and perpetration.

      Don’t even get me started on rape. The moment someone suggests that how a woman dresses can equate to arbitrary consent, yet the moment a man is raped, everyone has no problem with regarding a penis as arbitrary consent. Imagine the outrage if someone suggested that a woman’s vagina, clitoris or nipples equated to consent. Even our definition of rape is chauvinistically based around penetration and dismisses envelopment entirely.

      Yet apparently where rape apologetics is abhorrent in the case of female rape victims, it is perfectly acceptable to society where male rape victims are concerned. Yet when you read the statistics propperly in places like the US (including recognising that female on male rape is categorised as “other sexual abuse”) then the reporting statistics show 1.3% of women being raped and 1.1% of men being raped. In both cases, members of the opposite sex were reported as the perpetrator in a high percentage of cases.

      It’s so twisted that it even involves pedophile apologetics. Our attitudes to male sexuality are so perverse that not only do we view male statutory rape as a “rite of passage” but there have been numerous cases in the US of children as young as 12 being statutorily raped and then being forced to pay the pedophile child support.

      That’s right our family courts brand child sex victims with scarlet letters in the form of paying their pedophiles for 20 years and in doing so, by financially enabling and facilitating said pedophiles, are effectively a giant pedophile ring.

      Yet according to you, these issues, which when factoring in the comparitively extreme and unique reporting difficulties male abuse victims face, are “trivial” to you.

      This is blatant rape, domestic violence and pedophile apologetics on your part, regardless of how unwitting it might have been. Furthermore your entire post, in trivialising these issues, is in and of itself, victim blaming.

      With the culture of shame and silence male survivors like myself face (one which women haven’t experienced in over 30 years), is it any wonder so many men are suicidal (and yes I have narrowly averted committing suicide numerous times in the past).

  • Hardy Weinberg

    I wonder if Shaun Shephard had another breakdown?

  • Joseph Taylor

    The protest videotape disclosed one protestor using a “pre-crime”
    profiling method to make public accusations/projections that lecture attendees
    were, by their very interest in attending, identifiable as future felons. I
    know of no writers of A Voice for Men who advocate violence. In fact I believe
    all writers for this site are vocal in their condemnation of violence,
    including violence committed by men, and violence committed as women.

    But even more importantly I believe AVfM is consistent in condemning eugenics
    and “social change” protocols that result in mass murder such as a in
    the socialist dictatorships of the Soviet Union, Khymer Rouge, German National
    Socialism, Fascist Italy (yes Mussolini identified himself as a lifetime
    socialist) as well as the collectivist social engineering eugenics-based crimes
    in the USA against Native American Indians, Japanese-Americans and African
    Americans. The hate ideology called “misandry,” based in many
    respects on 19th eugenics theories, will continue to be discussed on AVfM and
    notable announcements made by public misandrists are newsworthy.

    Public statements such as “Kill all the men” and “You [referring
    to lecture attendees] are f*****g scum” and “These are the f*****g
    men who are going to rape people” made by organized (professional?) trained
    change agents are indeed newsworthy and of some genuine, even if minor,
    historical importance to future historians. I am pleased that these utterances, with the sources duly identified and properly documented, have been preserved in a database and will be available to future scholars of
    organized (funded? professional?) progressive eugenics-related misandry.

  • Actual U of T Student

    I’m curious as to how much MRA propaganda would be spewed all over this article if we were required to login with our UTORID in order to comment. I’m not sure that the views reflected in the comments really capture the perspective of U of T students, definitely none that I know.

    But of course, MRAs would probably suggest that I am exclusively friends with a bunch of radical feminists. Sigh.

    • phillip

      ironic that your response to the responses to an article supposedly talking about free speech you seem to want to silence the entire world except for your specific community

      • Anonymous

        Completely agreed.

    • light

      true say.

    • Anonymous

      Did JDS just change his name to “Actual U of T Student”? What an inane thing to do.

      • Actual U of T Student

        Screw you, guy.

        • Anonymous

          It seemed like that’s what happened — apologies if that’s not the case.

    • bobk

      Yes, how dare other people express opinions about the abhorrent behaviour of a group of UoT students or the comically one sided article defending them!

      • Actual U of T Student

        I wish to redact this comment – is there anyway I can do that?

    • Andrew Richards

      But then define propaganda. If anything, the article itself is propaganda. By your own admission you’ve said that those of us who are MRAs believe in equality (which we do – unlike feminists, we have no issues whatsoever with casting out the violent and the genuinely misogynistic), so if anything wouldn’t that make the contributions of MRAs much more aligned with fact.

      Compare that with your own Provost’s statements and this article? Would the response be identical if the genders in the situation were reversed. We both know it would be radically different. Yet because the protestors were either women or men defending women (that’s right, these were adults, not children like the propaganda would argue), everyone chauvinistically rushes in to protect them out of a sense of paternalism.

      I wouldn’t say you’re friends with a bunch of radical feminists. I would say however, to talk in terms of an analogy of the Matrix, that you’re having a tough time adjusting to the “red pill”.

    • bobk

      Oh, and if the attitudes of people like Sophia Guo and Vanja Krajina capture the perspective of U of T students, then you deserve all the bad press you get.

    • DannyboyCdnMra

      No problem just refund my tax money and you can keep your echo chamber of misandry.

  • Joseph Taylor

    Does “the targeting of individuals and communities” refer to Warren Farrell (individual) and non-marxist men (communities)?

  • Joseph Taylor

    There was a claim that Farrell promotes “misogynistic, hateful theories.” It goes without saying that to ordinary non-authoritarians (non-marxists), Farrell’s observations are neither hateful nor misogynistic. But more importantly, unlike genocidal theories of collectivist dialectical materialists, Farrell is not a “theory” guy. He attempts to deal with facts. Certainly he interprets the facts. But he is not an authoritarian. He is not a promoter of theories. You will see the theory-worshippers are commonly authoritarians (such as marxists who promote surveillance state, re-education, and thought police, class profiling, ethnic profiling, and sex [incorrectly called “gender” by marxists] profiling.

  • Alex

    stopped reading about a 1/3 of the way in, could already tell what it contains. which is mostly about how the protesters were exercising their right to free speech and were later vilified for no reason by people who have nothing better to do than be hateful. makes me want to skip most of college level education, the money involved, and teach myself. or stay in indiana at some community college for the duration, which should leave me able to avoid half this shit if things go well after a point. heart-bleeders

    • SJThomas

      If that’s all you managed to get out of this, then i agree with you: tertiary education is not for you. Do consider freeing up the spot for someone with critical faculties.

      • Alex

        didnt realize higher education was for people who could pull 3 different meanings out of something that doesn’t have 3. that’s all i managed to get out of this article because that’s all there is in it and i’m not wasting my time trying to find out otherwise. can use it on more useful things

        • Kimski

          Go back to sleep, Alex.
          Don’t let us keep you up.

          -And don’t come around bitching about it, when you get screwed in divorce court in a couple of years.

    • DannyboyCdnMra

      Go ahead and stay down there in the states. Your in for a bumpy ride.
      Try looking up the dear colleague letter on how if colleges and universities down there don’t remove due process and the presumption of innocence for an accused sexual offender they won’t get title 9 funding.
      False allegations of rape never happen, you’ll be fine, honest, really the feminists say so and you can trust them right.
      And that is the tip of the iceberg. SJ is right tertiary education is not for you, go to trade school you’ll do alright.

  • Adam McPhee

    By the links to AVfM on CAFE’s website, do you meant the links in my article? They are still there (, but are there as no more than a means of directing people to the stuff which the UTSU discussed in their response to Warren Farrell (I also linked the UTSU’s response as you have) so they could educate themselves if they wished.

    As I linked to the UTSU, does that mean I am affiliated with them? I linked to all the same pages they used to cite their Warren Farrell quotes. So by giving the UTSU, AVfM, Warren Farrell’s entire speech, links to and definitions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, does that mean that I have affiliations with all of the above?

    Should people not have access to all the information being discussed in order to come to their own conclusions instead of being spoon-fed how they should feel? That was the intent of my article, and my linking directly to AVfM is no different than your mentioning them here, sans link (I saved people a trip to google, you did not, that is all).

  • LanceMacho


    Of what value is this smear journalism at its worse? Not only does it waste over a third of its space attacking unrelated web-sites, but it give plenty of space to two highly-biased UTSU leaders who were part of an illegal blockade of an authorized event – as UTSU said in a press release: “Members of the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) Executive Committee joined other concerned students, student representatives, and human rights advocates in an information picket outside the event last Friday.”

    This was no “information picket” – IT WAS AN UNRULY MOB that required 20 Police Officers to clear it. UTSU’s supported blockade violated the rights of those attempting to attend as
    well as violating various fire-codes and University rules.

    UTSU: “The picket was met with aggression from those attending the event and eventually a large police presence.” NO! The only aggression was FROM THE PICKETERS, and the police presence was called in to restore order. The video in on YouTube for all to see, and UTSU is responsible for allowing its executive to participate in a gross violation of the freedom of speech as well as promoting an environment where peaceful attendees were verbally and emotionally assaulted as well as threatened with physical violence FROM PICKETERS.

    So much for UTSU’s stated aim of ” maintain(ing) our campus as a safe space free from oppression and discrimination.”

    But no words in the Varsity about that! No, it is about Dr. Farrell’s “push on the limits” of free speech that is “the issue”.

    Funny how the article did not give a single quote from Dr. Farrell, and only gave a laundry list of some of his topics in the very last paragraph.

    Please, quote from Dr. Farrell’s speech and prove he is pushing the boundaries. Until then, you have a report that should fail first-year journalism school.

  • Hovard

    feminism reminds me of the taliban

  • Mr5306

    A truly pathetic and biased article.

  • Jordan Bates

    Wow, I’m a reader of AVfM and I’ve read about articles bashing the site. This is the first time I’ve ever actually encountered one. I guess this means some people will go there and find the “red pill”. You’ll know what I mean if you visit the site, if you don’t already know.

    Also found it interesting that the article doesn’t talk about anything Warren Farrell actually says. Our author just posts some quotes saying he’s a horrible man. This is entertaining to say the least, because it really exposes the weakness of their position against Farrell.

    On another note, no one mentions that the protesters blocked the doors and wouldn’t let people into the building. Further, anyone they encountered trying to get in they violently outed as “fucking scum,” or “rape, incest, and child abuse supporters.” I’m not even fucking joking with you. There are videos all over Youtube, check it out.

  • Courba

    For the life of me, I cannot understand how any self-respecting male student at the U of T is not upset at the blatant lies and misandry from the Student Union.

    You want to talk about hate speech? Visit a women’s studies class.

    And I do not post at AVFM, for the record.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting that nowhere in the article is a sample of Warren Farrell’s supposed hate speech. This is just the standard way for feminists to shout down opposition.

  • Danbing

    On the front page of The Varsity, not a single article has more than 5 comments.

    This article has 319 comments so far. That should tell you something.

  • Dbears

    The videos of these protestors prove a very salient point that is clearly lost on non-progressive feminists: when confronted with an angry, Violent woman the average man on the street does not reciprocate the violence or the insults– or reciprocate in any way, in fact

  • Proud Male

    I just want to ask the people who protested Warren Farrell a question.

    If a Radical Feminist who was on record as having advocated the reduction of the male population came to speak at your campus would you blockade the door? Would you have shouted and screamed obscenities at the women coming to see her speak?

    Because that is real hate speech. Not some out of context quote about incest.

  • Petra Fayedmanm

    Absolutely stunning bias demonstrated by clueless Canadian feminists, male and female. They feel free to publicly harass males, defy the police, physically intimidate anyone trying to hear another side of an issue… all the while claiming to be powerless.

    They argle-bargle about “diversity,” respecting “other voices,” and being “inclusive.” Yet they practice otherwise. The event showed the reality of closed-minded feminist hysteria…and its need to “control” everything. Feminists shreik about “narratives” and “dialogues” and so on, then freeze out anyone who points out the empress wears no clothes.

    Any illusion that feminists are “only interested in equality” was shattered by the video showing their thugs in action: brainwashed twerps who think bullying publically in the Internet Era will go unnoticed.

    Welcome to the 21st century, man-haters! The men’s movement is on the march, doesn’t need permission from “wimmins studies” galoofs, and will bring equality whether the pampered snowsflakes of feminism like it or not.

    Feminists used to throw tantrums and hold their breath livid that some used to think women unable to handle higher education and its base in reason, logic, and critical thinking. Today feminists get hysterical whenever they step outside their shaming, misandric, feelings-uber-alles echo chamber.

    The year 2013 will be a very good year for egalitarians. For feminists, not so much.

  • Shocked – Frankfurt German

    The simple lack of maturity both the protesters and this article demonstrate is staggering. I seriously hope that this doesn’t reflect the standard of education provided at U of T or for that matter the level of intelligence of the average student.

  • Erik Wedin

    WOW WOW WOW! This has to be the record in “Lying by omission” “Non-objective reporting” and fallacies like “guilt by association” I have ever seen. Here are some examples of subjects taken up – and the answer based on facts.

    * UTSU say they support free speech – But then they dont
    * Warren Farrell says he has nothing to do with AVfM – And he doesnt.
    * AVfM says they do not condonce violence – And no violence has been conconed.

    The protestors however did condone violence and Police had to be called to the place. Never to meet any AVfM violence – ONLY to face violence from the people who say they like free speech BUT only THEIR free speech.

    Is a university a SCHOOL or a POLITICAL PARTY, this article supports the latter opinion.

  • UTSU sucks

    Wow such a lopsided review of things…

  • UTSU sucks

    Ya’ll got Daddy issues

  • Censor This

    Poor article. Bias, lame, uninformed, stereotyping, political views, opinions, unacademic, street talk, colloquial, informal, disinformation, lies, anger, hate.

  • dsf


  • katewerk

    “Shut up”, they argued.

  • jerry

    Better check the SPLC website; they took that lie down as soon as it embarrassed them

  • jerry

    Earth to misguided feminists at U of T: Freedom of speech means exactly that, no more, no less. Unless it’s “Fire” in a crowded theater, ALL SPEECH IS FREE, and if anyone disagrees, STAND UP AND SAY SO. Make your point, if you have one, instead of trying to silence us (good luck hiding the truth). Just look at the comments in your own newspaper!

  • Foxy

    Wow… I mean, I knew mobs can get stupid and violent without reasons fast. I knew students can go way overboard with their pitch forks and senseless aggression. I just didn’t think it would happen to UTSU. I’m getting out of this mess of an organization as fast as I can — But I hope that those of you who stay would put your voting powers to use and turn this organization around. It’s not called University of Toronto Radical Feminists Union, it is called the Student Union, it’s a blatant betrayal of its name for it to take side on such radical views like this, and it reflects very badly on all U of T students.

    Feminism is about gender equality, yes? Equal opportunity, no discrimination, yes? Women going out to work without meeting a frown, being a strong aggressive professional without fingers pointing at their backs, yes? Then why should men be expected by the society to “do what men do” and be discriminated against due to their gender? If men want to air the issue of being unfairly treated (such as not allowed to sit beside young children, implying every man is a potential criminal), if men want to reinvent their image in the society (which is what radical feminists want to begin with, yes?), they get stormed by angry students whose reasons or compassion are nowhere to be found? As a liberal feminist I’m disgusted by how some people blatantly despite the core values of the ideology: gender equality. And equality is never one sided, that’s why it is E.Q.U.A.L.I.T.Y.

    On a positive note, this incident probably brings more coverage towards men’s issues. In fact, it is EXACTLY the reason that there should be a men’s issue talk. Hopefully more people will hear the story and realize the incredibly awkward situation that this is.