WARNING this video contains adult language and may be NSFW

Sorry, don't know how to play this video :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iARHCxAMAO0

Thoughts?

I feel like I can't find a legitimate reason to protest. (EditLIn this situation, for reasons summed up in the post below mine)

But even if you do protest, I can find absolutely no acceptable reason for any group to 'protest' by blocking doors. Annoying as **** and really not helpful for the actual causes on their posters that they seem to not understand.

Well, modern feminism is an at-best sophomoric attempt at intellectualism and at-worst a malignant academic fraud to publish contentless papers so I'm always deeply suspicious about any of the causes they endorse.

That said, most men's rights writings are just outrageously offensive, misogynistic screed, so I know that if I were the kind of half-wit child who thinks "mmm yes, a gender studies BA is my gateway to long-term financial success" I probably wouldn't be literate or intelligent enough to sort out the Warren Farrells from the skinheads either.

I don't know. What do you think?

I don't know, I'm not educated enough on Warren Farrell or his works to have an opinion on this. I'm trying to learn a bit more.

I feel hesitant to form an opinion because I don't know enough. That video motivated me to learn more though.

Warren Farrell was one of the first male second-wave feminists, who split from the movement when he believed feminists were turning away from advancing the rights of women to eroding the rights of men. He has since written many books about the social consequences masculinity. He is a popular subject of hatred for third-wave and neo-feminists.

Which is practically tautological, because he's a straight white man.

I'm watching Warren Farrell's presentation. The presentation that was being protested.

So far, I honestly agree 100% with him. I feel he is being very fair too.

His ideas about men being perceived as consumable speaks to me in a profound way.

Obviously I wasn't there so I do t know for sure. But it seems like the attitude of shouting down and drowning out opposing views rather than having any real discourse that seems most "younger" people have adopted.

cf. any American who still self-identifies as conservative.

I really want to say that the reason these protests happen is because certain people are afraid of letting someone be heard. Third-wave and neo-feminists have a lot invested in the idea that there is an on-going, systematic, unilateral gender discrimination being levied by the straight white male protestant on every other identity. Warren Farrell's most important message, I think, is that there are real economic, non-discriminatory reasons for the gender wage gap, which contradicts virtually the entire feminist discourse on the subject (a body of work that amounts to "white men only hire white men", stated ad nauseam.)

Here's the dangerous thing, though. A few years ago University of Ottawa students protested Ann Coulter, because they didn't want hate speech on their campus. I actually supported that (successful) protest because I find the things she says to be completely immoral, racist, irresponsible, and so clearly such a cynical marketing effort to target the subliterate racists from the Confederate States of America (n.b. the protests were sparked off because she told a Muslim student at another Canadian university that he should ride a camel instead of flying).

So I guess we're both wrong?

I simply can't fathom the audacity to try and prevent people from going to see Warren Farrell speak. Reminds me of a time in Germany when a certain socialist political group tried to censor the communist's ability to speak, right? Of course, it's not really fair to liken feminists to them. At the same time when you deal with ideas you don't like with right wing solutions and target a specific people group with illogically hateful rhetoric it makes it hard not to.

I don't know how I feel about hate speech or racist ideas. My intuitive side tells me to allow it for the sake of free speech, but that speech can be very harmful. I don't know.




I seem to have missed where you said I'm wrong, do you mind explaining?

I meant me and these protesters.

Edit:

You see this thing all over the place. For example, the most popular and convincing retort used by right-wing Israeli counter-protesters is that the leftists are "born from the seed of Nazis". American conservatives, of course, will shout down virtually any idea as socialism.

It's kind of ironic to view feminism as a right-wing movement, but in a lot of ways it is.

Wow what a smug, *******, douchebaggy way to "protest". This benefits nobody and just wastes time.
This is a disgrace to the word protest and would more aptly be called "stupid". It's also a gigantic act of cowardice- apparently in their minds merely allowing people to listen to the man speak is somehow a threat to themselves.

When my wife was in university, she took an introductory Human Ecology course. Human Ecology is the department where they put all of the 'home economics' type stuff, like fashion. It's very highly geared toward female students, if not outright hostile toward male ones.

When taking this course, she was taught that logic is a fundamentally flawed, "male" way of thinking that has no role in a female academic discourse. That's why their halfwit version of economics and management theory were correct, because even though they didn't make sense, they "felt" right. Their ideas included things like "successful businesswomen never lie" (what, basic game theory says they will? Well money and promotions aren't real success).

And yet we still ask why businesses don't want to pay women as much.

Why can't people just not suck.
I wanna live in a world where I can do whatever I want regardless of where or how or who I was born.

Well, since you're a white male I have some good news for you,

Just to clarify, I want to point out that my university does have a lot of extremely good female professors and researchers in the sciences and humanities, including a prominent analytic philosopher who publishes on nonclassical logics and the philosophy of mathematics (literally the complete opposite of what the HECOL people are teaching).

Hell, one of my female professors disagreed with my management style because it's too touchy-feely and people oriented.

I just wanted to point out that this kind of attitude exists, even if it is isolated to one batch of crazies, and coming from inside academia is probably the most unhelpful and destructive thing you can teach young women.

The whole "open dialogue vs. hate speech" in a public space is definitely something I struggle with at times. When are we wrongly allowing for speech because it is as destructive as physical violence, and when are we wrongly barring for speech in concern of that, or because of ownership (which is another can of worms that really needs re-evaluation these days). In your case, Jon`C, without having been there, I can't tell if that speech was really hateful and destructive or if was simply ideas that don't mesh with your own, as people do react as if they've been targeted with hateful and destructive speech. Not that I really disbelieve you...going off on tangents off tangents here now.

wat

Have you not heard of Ann Coulter? She's an American political pundit who called for a return to poll testing and unironically proposed local fascism.

I think she's allowed to say whatever she wants as loud as she wants, but it's perfectly fair to protest a particular venue hosting her platform for bull**** if for no other reason than being a massive waste of everyone's time.

Here is my problem with "hate speech" or rather the banning of it. It will still exist even if you don't allow it X or Y forum. To me hate speech is not the real problem. The underlying hate that precedes the speech is. It's like putting a band-aid over a festering wound, sure you wont be able to see it, but it will still be there festering and spreading infection.
It just seems like education and refutation of the ideas behind the hateful speech is an infinitely more effective way of dealing with and protecting people against it.
I do understand that that is probably a very "idealistic" way of thinking though.

Ah, I forgot you mentioned it was her. Yeah, I believe you more certainly now.

My general point before still stands though, outside that.

Ann Coulter is the one who cancelled the appearance due to security concerns, but even if she hadn't I think it's perfectly fair for a university (especially a public one) to listen to the majority concerns of its students and faculty. Really the only people who wanted her there was the 20-30 member conservative campus association.

Here is my problem with "hate speech": the fact that most people who talk about it, or criticize the fact that it's illegal in Canada, don't understand the legal definition of it.

It is a crime in Canada to advocate genocide. It is also a crime in Canada to incite hatred against an identifiable group, unless the comments spoken are: 1.) true, or 2.) a good-faith argument, or 3.) the person believes them to be true, or 4.) descriptive, such as in an academic discussion.

An astute reader will notice that the bar for hate speech is the same one set for slander and libel. This is simply the criminalization of the libel of identifiable groups.

that is an excelent point. i guess i really don't have a problem with that. although I still think it is ineffective in dealing with the underlying problem of hate. but, then i guess that is not within the scope of "hate speech" legislation.

I guess my problem, particularly in this case, is that, it would appear that a large portion of the group in that video hold the view that Warren Farrell holds views that in their eyes clash with their own and they are either too lazy or unable to refute what he is actually saying and therefor... hate speech.

I had a thought.
Fascism- the ideal of using force to suppress ideas you find oppose your own.
Thus, could you not call these people literal fascists? Maybe then they would re-think this garbage.

Fascism is a political system which seeks national unity and identity through segregation and national corporatism. It is totalitarian but it is certainly not the "ideal" of censorship by any means.

Considering that their goal is to control the discourse about gender at all levels of society, they would probably be flattered?

The problem with Neo-feminism is that their theories are derived from cultural Marxism. Which is essentially classical Marxism but reapplied to modern social strata. I think many of these people fail to realize that Marxism leads to fairly horrible economic systems, and I'd say it's a fair bet that cultural Marxism would lead to horrible cultures as well.

I think the only relevance Marxism truly has to modern society is that it is completely irrelevant to modern society. We study it because it influenced many people in the 20th century; it's a history topic.



Neo feminists are focusing on the ends rather than the means. Which, as everyone knows turns out ****ing fantastic.



This protest in particular drew my attention because the protesters were blocking people from entering, and beforehand had ripped down posters advertising the event. They were going further than protesting, they were trying to prevent the flow of free speech.



Don't get me started on the socialist witch hunt. If these damned people would take even 10 minutes to learn the basics, they'd know that even the evil Obama is fairly conservative and capitalist when compared to the extremes. Of course, I tried to mention this to my mother (who didn't work, plans to receive social security and medicare, and is receiving healthcare benefits due to my father's union) who could only retort with "But he believes in the redistribution of wealth, right?" Yes, mother, and so do you.

I like how the term "wealth re-distribution" kind of implies that the current distribution is socially or morally optimum.

Re: feminism... I'm not too familiar with any possible militant or "right wing" cadre, but one Marxist-feminist professor did make us read an article by this Nordic European feminist that thought automobiles were an invention of the "Patriarchal Order" (WTF).

I think some feminists are pretty insane, with their logic in some cases requiring them to subscribe to some kind of anti-technology, anti-economic ideology, just to avoid admitting that the world as run by men for several millenia has resulted in any material or "spiritual" gain.

World has problems ==> men are influential ==> get rid of men ==> return to (fictional) past primitive matriarchy.

You literally know nothing about feminism.

Well great, now that we've gone over that fantastic argument, we can close up the thread and be satisfied.

everything in this post is insane, starting with the first line.

Are you implying that Reverend Jones is insane or that the people, who actually do exist, that believe the stuff he was describing are insane?

yes

Probably not, since I'm sure our professor wasn't giving us mainstream articles.

It's taboo to hypothesize that women don't seek power as often as men — you just get shouted down. The only politically correct explanation is the patriarchal order. You know, that thing vague enough to evade meaningful analysis but crystalline enough to perpetuate itself as an 'academic' study.

Ideas aren't considered and discourse is not had unless it supports the narrative behind feminism. Just like religion; just like a million other anti-science movements.

Probably helps to define "power" more precisely.


This is painting with way too broad a brush to be at all a useful statement.[/COLOR]

Perhaps, but if I was someone who didn't fall into that trap then I would hesitate to call myself a feminist because the rest of the group is making me look bad.

you're right! It is mostly the people teaching classes and the youngish people taking them that behave that way.

honestly though in my experience people who are very vocal about feminism, or really any cause are the ones who tend to be a little more on the fringe... unfortunately they are also often the same people who frame the debate and control dialog.

either that or they are late teen/early twenty somethings. and while there are certainly exceptions that age group is incredibly socially and politically stupid.

Agreed, but less angrily, and with the concession that "feminism" is a term that means very different things depending on the context.

Meaning they don't have to listen to their parents but have no education or real life experience.


I agree, 'feminism' as it was used in the 1970's struggle was, as most see it, necessary and a good thing.

I think 'neo-feminist' is the appropriate term for the type of extremist views that go around today.