[CANCELLED] FREE Screening of "The Red Pill" @ UWS Bankstown, 13:00 3/12/16

Scrooge McDuck on 06/11/2016 - 20:26
Last edited 29/11/2016 - 15:26 by 2 other users

Moved to Forum: Original Link

I cannot comment on the content of this film as I have not seen it. However, my interest in it was piqued by the news reports of its Australian premiere being cancelled after a feminist backlash and change.org petition.

When a feminist filmmaker sets out to document the mysterious and polarising world of the Men’s Rights Movement, she begins to question her own beliefs. The Red Pill chronicles Cassie Jaye’s journey exploring an alternate perspective on gender equality, power and privilege.

Trailer: "The Red Pill" documentary extended sneak preview

http://theredpillmovie.com/

Although this is a university screening non-students are more than welcome to attend.

As a university event, we will NOT be charging admission for entry.

Q & A session after the event with possible men's rights activists in attendance.

Parking:
Parking on campus is available and parking tickets will cost $7 all day, Ticket machines are available in every parking lot. (make sure you display your parking ticket on the dashboard of your car)

Public transport:
Via train, Panania Station is the closest within walking distance.

Bus timetables for available transport to Bullecourt Ave:

East Hills & Milperra to Bankstown

Liverpool to Burwood

Location details:
The event will be held in building 20, room 1.07. 500 seated capacity lecture theatre. The closest carpark to the screening will be P3.

Wheelchair access to the Lecture Theatre is available.

Campus map

Mod 6/11: Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.

Mod2 29/11: As per the Original Link, this event has been cancelled. Moved to the forums for the sake of discussion.

Automotive Movie Movie Ticket

Related Stores

meetup.com
meetup.com

Comments

  • Diji1 on 06/11/2016 - 20:34
    +12

    Uh oh, some people are butt hurt on the internet, this must be an important issue!

    • Scrooge McDuck on 06/11/2016 - 20:39
      +23

      No doubt!

      I'll be there in my Kony 2012 T-shirt.

  • easternculture on 06/11/2016 - 20:38

    yalla habib , fully sick hecktik bro

    easternculture on 06/11/2016 - 20:38 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • Scrooge McDuck on 06/11/2016 - 20:41
      +2

      So I guess you'll be walking to the event?

      • easternculture on 06/11/2016 - 20:42
        +6

        cuz, ill be coming in my WRX so we can do laps around bankstown square after the movie.

    • PainToad on 06/11/2016 - 21:35
      +13

      Maybe, just maybe, they are normal people who don't judge things they haven't seen. Maybe you should try it sometime.

      Or maybe, just maybe, they are males who want to defend their right to free speech (despite this film actually being created by a feminist, who has woken up to the fact that demonizing men is hypocritical).

      Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't attack and stereotype people. Oh I forgot, men don't have the luxury of claiming the entire planet as a 'safe place'.

      • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 22:28
        +1

        Good, I really hope that's irony.

        The entire planet has been a man's Sage space for the entirety of recorded history

        • RockyRaccoon on 06/11/2016 - 22:44
          +10

          True, but playing the same game, isn't the way to change the world.

          And not all men or women see the other as an enemy.

          FairPlay and love are more important than either trying to dominate the other unfairly.

          We are different thanks to good sense.

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 22:47
          +7

          @RockyRaccoon:

          I appreciate the sentiment but in order for our to become a reality, some of the structures and ways of thinking that have led to the current state of inequality need to be broken down first.

          No one who should be listened to is advocating that things are flipped around but ink order for equality to truly happen, men will need to give up some of the privilege that has led to the current status quo of inequality.

          Not revolution, just balancing.

        • Sabs on 06/11/2016 - 23:09
          +10

          @brentsbits: The fact that you are being downvoted for this comment speaks volumes.

          We've still got a LONG way to go.

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 23:12
          +1

          @Sabs:

          I know right?

        • RockyRaccoon on 07/11/2016 - 07:10
          +1

          @brentsbits: Reading the reviews of the film. Sounds like its saying exactly what you are.

          not revolution, just balancing.

          Unfortunately like almost everything in life its hard to get the right balance.

        • PainToad on 07/11/2016 - 07:59
          +29

          Entire planet is man's safe space? Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

          Globally, far more men are killed as soldiers in war.

          In Australia men are twice as likely to be victims of violence and/or murder.

          In Australia men die younger, yet woman's health receives 4 times the funding.

          Men are far more likely to not get custody of their children during a relationship breakdown.

          Men are far more likely to commit suicide.

          Men are far more likely to become homeless.

          I do NOT discredit any women's issues, but that doesn't mean I can't highlight men's issues ASWELL.

          True equality shouldn't involve the genders battling each other. After all, there's only one chromosome that seperates us and the survival of our species is dependant on BOTH of us.

          I will not comment here anymore. Far Too toxic. Don't fight hate, with hate.

        • ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 12:02
          +7

          @PainToad:

          Not to mention females outperforming males in education, more females entering and graduating uni, special scholarships available for females only …

          Sure, encourage females to be educated, but also encourage males…

          Reverse sexism is not really a practical or theoretically cogent response to sexism.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:07

          @RockyRaccoon:

          If that's what it turns out to be then I'll freely about I was wrong. The problem is that the MRA movement is constantly trying to declare equivalency between the issues faced by men and women, when the stats just don't bear it out, which had the effect of derailing any potential productive outcomes.

          There are some legitimate men's rights issues, anyone who says otherwise is talking out their ass but when you have a movement that denies proven issues such as the wage gap,i find out hard to take them seriously to be honest.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:32
          -5

          @PainToad:

          You need to look up what a safe space actually is mate. You are arguing from a false premise.

          Globally, far more men are killed as soldiers in war.

          Come on man. This is a true statement, however when you drop down into it, it becomes a strawman argument. Men are killed disproportionately as soldiers because most militaries do not allow women to serve in combat roles, at least until recently, and there haven't really been any wars for us to get new figures from. Do you support women in the military bring able to serve in front line combat roles?

          In Australia men are twice as likely to be victims of violence and/or murder.

          Another strawman because this is often at the hands of other men. You take care of mal perpetrated violence, these figures will drop drastically. I have no idea why you wouldn't want to work closely with feminists on this issue.

          In Australia men die younger, yet woman's health receives 4 times the funding.

          I know this is true (about the death part) but honestly don't know much more about it. If need to see a breakdown of the cause of death stats before I could formulate an informed opinion on this one. The initial question I'd be asking are "are these stats made up only of disease related deaths?" because of they include the violent death statistics, then it's potentially misleading. No accusation there, I haven't seen the stats on it.

          Men are far more likely to not get custody of their children during a relationship breakdown

          This absolutely needs to be addressed and frankly I don't personally know any feminists that doing agree that it needs addressing.

          Men are far more likely to commit suicide.

          There are many initiatives looking at this already but that's no reason to get complacent. I suspect some part of it is due to issues of toxic masculinity and expectations of men that arise from that but that's certainly not the whole picture by any stretch. Once more I don't know a single feminist that doesn't agree this should be addressed. I've said that twice now and I know feminists from most parts of the spectrum.

          Men are far more likely to become homeless

          I know nothing about this issue specifically so can't comment. I would suspect that a lot of the reasons would be similar to the reasons causing higher rates of suicide but I can't back that up.

          I do NOT discredit any women's issues, but that doesn't mean I can't highlight men's issues ASWELL.

          Which makes you one of the few reasonable ones.

          True equality shouldn't involve the genders battling each other

          You are right, it shouldn't but as long as companies aren't willing to close the pay gap overnight (just one example) then all of those rights have to be fought for, both in the hearts and minds of the populace and in the legislature.

          We men, as a gender, are going to have to get used to the idea that in order for true equality to occur, we are going to have to give some things up in some areas because up until now our societal privilege (which we didn't ask for) had determined that we have been given some things in disproportionate amounts. Anyone who believes in true equality needs to get on board with that idea. I'm not talking about affirmative action or anything but if we are to have a truly level playing field where the truly best person gets the job or whatever, we are going to find that going forwards, women are going to win those jobs more than they are not, proportionately speaking.

          Anyone who says they are for equality needs to be ok with that. If they aren't, they aren't for true equality.

          Good points raised though, nice to have a post to respond to that isn't thinly veiled insults.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 16:42
          +2

          @ozbjunkie:

          Reverse sexism isn't actually a thing. Those university programs and whatnot you are talking about have been (mostly) put in place to redress the imbalance of opportunity that has existed in unis historically. Many of them now are in place to try and increase the number of women in specific fields as well.

          When you say more entering uni, do you have some stats indicating the proportions? Is it just in line with population distribution? Or much more than that? If be interested to know.

          We absolutely need to make sure guys aren't being neglected or being left behind but the stats need to be broken down as to why they aren't graduating first. I know that in my own degree program, the guys who have dropped out are literally not smart enough to do it, it's not a matter of unbalanced resourcing. That's just a single degree program though and certainly can't be used to extrapolate the experience of all students.

          I think too often we see a statistic that we find shocking or unfair but we don't drill down into it enough to determine if it's an accurate picture of what's actually happening. We are all unintentionally guilty of our, usually with the best of intentions too.

        • rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 17:04

          @brentsbits: Serious question, can you give concrete examples of inequalities? (please don't quote bogus studies)

        • mrmark1970 on 07/11/2016 - 17:19

          @rokufan:

          If you can define "bogus studies" then I'll find you some non bogus examples of inequality in the world and in Australia.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:25
          +4

          @rokufan:

          The wage gap, based off ABS statistics and done under the Abbott Government which was notoriously unhelpful to women's issues.

          ABS statistics showing that of the top 200 companies in Australia, 3% have a female Chairman. There's no way that people can suggest that the best person gets the job with stat like that.

          Those are just some concrete ones.

        • rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 17:27
          +1

          @mrmark1970: Let's stick to the developed world. Point me to an Australia law that is prejudiced against woman.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:33
          +1

          @rokufan:

          You aren't going to find one (except maybe about roles in the military).

          The thing is, it's exceptionally easy to get around any law. Want to hire a man and not a woman? Just make sure you interview a couple women and then you can say that you thought the man was better for the job. I'm not saying this happens all the time or even a lot of the time, just pointing out how the law can say a thing but the reality is very different.

          Initially you asked for studies, now you want legislation? They are two very different beasts with drastically differing requirements.

        • rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 17:44
          +2

          @brentsbits: Haha, the favourite feminist myth that will not die. That's easy, google "wage gap myth". It's been debunked by government economists since the 1960s. Men on average earn more because they work longer on average and make career choices that pay more on average (note: average). Woman are paid the same if they have the same qualifications, experience and work same hours - otherwise they have a legal case. Actually there is now evidence that unmarried woman under 30 earn more on average than men, because woman are graduating college at a significantly higher rate than men - and hence leading to higher paid careers.

          I recommend Christina Hoff Sommers (The Factual Feminist). She has short youtube videos which are an excellent resource https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TR_YuDFIFI

        • rokufan on 07/11/2016 - 17:53

          @brentsbits: I said laws because studies will lead to argument about how credible they are, especially in this area given all the "advocacy research".

          So you only have suspicions and anecdotes? That does not make for a solid argument.

          "Want to hire a man and not a woman?"

          If you want to make that argument, the reverse can also be true. I can think of lot's of female dominated businesses and industries.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 17:55

          @rokufan:

          yeeeeeet, it was confirmed by government statisticians in Australia in 2014. Interesting.

          Any quality study has compared same job and same work.

          here's another document from 2014: http://www.graduatecareers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07…

          In which it finds: "The median starting salary for male and female graduates was $55,000 and $52,000 respectively"

          You can't blame that on career choices. That's from 2014 as well.

          Actually there is now evidence that unmarried woman under 30 earn more on average than men

          Please link said evidence.

          She has short youtube videos which are an excellent resource

          I find youtube good for general information but I'd rather go direct to actual studies for hard facts.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 18:00
          +2

          @rokufan:

          I said laws because studies will lead to argument about how credible they are, especially in this area given all the "advocacy research"

          I'm certain they would, the problem with laws is that we all know we can easily violate the spirit while obeying the letter.

          If you want to make that argument, the reverse can also be true

          yes, it absolutely can, the problem is that historically the job market has been skewed towards hiring men, so while it likely does happen in the favour of women, the incidence of it would pale in comparison to the other way around. Unfortunately, we can't get stats on that because to get them, people would need to admit to breaking the law.

          The status quo is currently that men have more opportunities in the workplace, in terms of advancement. No one wants to advance and invest time in a woman to find out that she's pregnant and will be gone for a year. So things have been skewed towards men. It's a representation of the world 50ish years ago but Mad Men was spot on with regards to women in the workplace. 50 years is not enough time to have undone those attitudes because the people in charge in the 60s, were in charge until the 80s or 90s, passing down their biases (even if only by example) means that people are still in charge today who think that way. I refer you back to the statistic of only 3% of women being Chair of company boards.

          So you only have suspicions and anecdotes?

          Suspicion, anecdotes and statistics of proportions of gender in various positions.

        • ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 18:24
          +1

          @brentsbits:

          Reverse sexism isn't actually a thing. - lol.

          And the men dropping out aren't smart enough? Like the chicks who can't get into engineering aren't smart enough. Rite?

          If your position is men lack merit anf women lack opportunity, that means YOU are sexist.

          You'd previously been so cogent… Perhaps you're growing tired of the discussion. No need to put forward indefensible generalisations.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 18:29
          +1

          @ozbjunkie:

          And the men dropping out aren't smart enough?

          Read what I wrote. I said it was just in my degree and that obviously can't be used to represent the experience of all students in all degrees. Seriously man, go to the end of the sentence.

          If your position is men lack merit anf women lack opportunity, that means YOU are sexist

          If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, you'd realise that that's not my position at all. Historically women HAVE lacked opportunity and thus programs need to be in place to address that. Sure, there are heaps more women at uni now but it's not really uni that we want to fix, it's representation of women within professions and that's going to take much more time.

          No need to put forward indefensible generalisations

          Once more, if you'd read what I wrote, you'd realise that that's not what I said.

          You'd previously been so cogent

          which means that perhaps, although you might not agree with me, you might give it a second read to just make sure "did he really say that?"

        • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2016 - 18:44
          +1

          @brentsbits: And that is a wage gap of 5%… That gap could be explained by sexism. Or of course it could be explained by the different jobs men and women take. For example, dangerous jobs are overwhelming performed by men - they are more likely to die and be injured, and presumably they earn extra money for it. ("Over the 2001–02 to 2012–13 period, males accounted for 97% of serious workers’ compensation claims" http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publicat…)

          Despite this small gap and numerous reasons as to why it might be there beyond sexism - the equal payday alliance suggests that women need to work an extra 10 weeks (or stop September 8th) to get the same income as men (ref: http://www.equalpayday.com.au/resources/Documents/2016/BPWA%…)

          So, there's your references - I take it you are out there correcting writers who claim there is a pay gap of 18%…

        • ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 18:58

          @brentsbits:

          How do you know that the men in your degree aren't smart enough? How do you know they haven't simply lacked attention from educators in school?

          I'm willing to entertain the idea that they're not smart enough… But the uni did let them in… According to somebody they appeared smart enough at some point.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:19
          +1

          @mowersfourpeter:

          That gap could be explained by sexism

          It's less blatant sexism and more businesses paying what they have to for graduates. Which for women is less because of a systemic imbalance.

          dangerous jobs are overwhelming performed by men

          In any study that's seriously examined the wage gap, it's only evaluated people doing the same job. So if men are over represented in a field it doesn't matter because if there are 9 guys performing a dangerous job and 1 woman performing the same job and she's getting paid 10% less, the gap is 10%. Same job, not across all industries. ABS statisticians are way better than to fall into little holes like that.

          suggests that women need to work an extra 10 weeks (or stop September 8th) to get the same income as men

          So what. Is a woman having to work an extra 10 weeks because she's a woman acceptable to you? If so, why? If men had to do it would you still be OK with it?

          It doesn't matter if it's even a 1% gap, it shouldn't exist.

          I take it you are out there correcting writers who claim there is a pay gap of 18%

          Why would I correct them when it's the most recent correct figure we have? Unless it's to correct them to 18.2%

          http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4097847.htm (unless you don't consider Lateline a sufficiently credible source)

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:25
          +1

          @ozbjunkie:

          How do you know that the men in your degree aren't smart enough?

          Cause they'd failed twice before and once more and they are out. I should say that not every man dropping out has done it because they weren't smart enough, a 5 year degree takes commitment and that kind of commitment only comes when it's something you really really want to do. There are some that found a new direction. Girls have fallen by the way side as well, most (that I talked to anyway) because they wanted to do something else but I'm sure that a few were covering for not being smart enough.

          How do you know they haven't simply lacked attention from educators in school?

          Right. So you want to blame teachers? Please. Teachers are some of the hardest working people I know. In a thankless job.

          Once you get to uni, it's up to you to do it. No more hand holding. Lecturers don't give a crap if anyone passes or fails (unless it's too many then it threatens their job). By the time you are in uni, it's time to grow up and take responsibility for your own life and stop blaming others for this kind of thing.

          But the uni did let them in

          Well, that's a different issue altogether. Unis are a business, they want as many students as they can have without completely debasing the prestige of the university. Generally speaking, as long as it's not Melbourne or Monash, if you are in the ballpark with pre-requisites done, second round offers aren't too hard to come by.

          According to somebody they appeared smart enough at some point

          There's a massive difference between regurgitating stuff for VCE and learning and integrating knowledge at the university level.

        • ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 19:32

          @brentsbits:

          Actually I agree with all your points above… Unis are a business, assessments differ between high school and uni…

          Really I was trying to mimic feminist arguments which sometimes come across as "girls don't have different preferences, they are discriminated against in stem fields".

          I see above you have rightfully stated that sometimes girls have different interests.

          Of course, I'm not sure why we would want to manipulate those interests by offering special scholarships.

          I wonder how I would feel in hospital, knowing my male nurse was admitted over female nurses because 'equality'.

          I realise the rationale behind providing special scholarships for females is to address existing inequality… And yet there is a reasonable argument that they create a new form of inequality.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2016 - 19:39
          +2

          @brentsbits: Did you read your own link? Because if you did you would have read the following:

          "HELEN CONWAY: Well, that's the national pay gap. So the national pay gap is 18.2 per cent. So what that means is that women on average are earning 18.2 per cent less than men."

          So these figures are not for the same work - they are just comparing average male/female wages. It's like me claiming I am taller than you when I'm standing on a ladder. I agree with you - this stuff is important. Important enough to get right and be accurate about too.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:50
          +1

          @ozbjunkie:

          they are discriminated against in stem fields

          They ARE discriminated against in STEM fields but not with entry requirements or anything like that. It's a bunch of male dominated fields, with all the culture that implies (not necessarily toxic but perhaps not as inclusive as it could be). Many get discouraged at the lack of female lecturers, not because men are bad lecturers but because when we look for a role model, we look for someone like us and imagine that one day that could be us. Historically, there's a lot of sexist attitudes, in terms of the culture (not necessarily hiring practices) and that can be tough to go to work with every day.

          So, they are historically under represented in the field, not because unis won't let them in or because it's overtly hostile, it's just tough to want to do something for the rest of your life when you are constantly the outsider.

          I see above you have rightfully stated that sometimes girls have different interests

          Definitely. Equality is about them being ABLE to go and do it if they want to without any extra hurdles or problems to deal with based on what they are.

          knowing my male nurse was admitted over female nurses because 'equality'

          What do you mean? There are plenty of male nurses and they are just as good at the job as their female counterparts (and vice versa). If you get through the uni degree, you know what you are doing.

          I realise the rationale behind providing special scholarships for females is to address existing inequality

          And historic inequality, which takes time to fix.

          And yet there is a reasonable argument that they create a new form of inequality

          I can see what you are thinking but I don't think it's reasonable at all. Take a completely different example.

          There's three muscles in the lower leg that all start with Peroneus (longus, brevis and tertius). When I learned my anatomy, that's what they were called. There is a move to call them Fibularis (longus, brevis and tertius) because that fits a bit better with naming conventions. I now teach anatomy and I have to make a point to tell students that they are called either at the moment. The reason for this is that up until about five years ago, they were called peroneus etc. That's how I and everyone of my vintage has learned it. We are heading out into our particular fields and will be in them for 50 years or more. We will be teaching others etc. The name will take 100 years or more to change, if it ever does fully because there will always be people who learned the old name, or learned from someone who taught the old name.

          It's the same with attitudes in the workplace. They aren't going to change in five years or even twenty five years because the people who did things the old way will continue doing so, only changing as much as they have to and passing those habits and biases on to the people following after them. This is why any effort at changing the systemic nature of these issues happens over a very long period.

        • ozbjunkie on 07/11/2016 - 20:03
          +2

          @brentsbits:

          What I do find curious is that we offer special scholarships for women but not men.

          Special arts grants for women and not men.

          Special spaces for women and not men.

          A greater deal of funding for women's issues, compared to men.

          And much talk of equality where it would benefit women, but less when it would benefit men.

          If equality is really the aim, why don't we hear complaints about a lack of female Garbos, a lack of female Busdrivers, a lack of female plumbers etc…

          And where is the feminist outrage as a lack of males in primary education, nursing, etc?

          If feminism is really about equality… Why do most feminist have only the women's issues at the top of the list?

          And these same feminists are right about so many things… And ignorant about others… Willfully so.

        • kasp on 07/11/2016 - 20:18
          +1

          @brentsbits:

          The paygap is a bit of a myth. Business's are driven by profit and well if you could reduce wages by 30% hiring a woman thats a huge incentive to hire a woman over a man. The main problem is that women take time off to have children.

          I work in a female dominated company and we have the pay gap here as well. However it's split between women with children and those without funny that. Even our companies extraordinarily generous maternity leave program as well as understanding still can't do anything to bridge a gap when someone take 1-2 years off to have a child, 2-5 when they have more than one and well some don't come back. Unless you think someone with more experience doesn't deserve more pay than someone with a lot less.Even if you said they should be paid the same the other person has had 2 or so years of pay rises in the interim.

          Now that is not to say there are some boys clubs out there but businesses aren't boys clubs and are driven by profit. If they could cut wages by 30% that would get over whatever prejudice they have. Hell they outsource their support to other countries to save wages that would probably be similar to the pay gap in order to offer a far inferior service that will piss their customers off and risk losing business.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 20:19
          +1

          @ozbjunkie:

          OK. Seriously.

          The reason why there's so much stuff for women only is because those grants and whatnot are about redressing the imbalances brought about by the privilege that men have had and still have on a day to day basis. We didn't ask for it, we don't deserve it but we have it and the fact of the matter, and it is fact, is that men have more opportunities purely based on the fact that they were born male.

          Having that privilege is really only a problem if you deny it exists.

          If equality is really the aim, why don't we hear complaints about a lack of female Garbos, a lack of female Busdrivers, a lack of female plumbers etc…

          This is a question that gets trotted out time after time. The reason we don't hear complaints about it is because equality is about equality of opportunity. So if a woman did want to apply to be a garbo and could do the work, she'd have an equal chance of getting the job. Not many people (men or women) want that job. Equality of opportunity is about being able to pursue what you want to do and have just as much opportunity to land whatever job it is that you want as the next person, regardless of gender, colour, religion or sexuality. Why don't we hear people complaining about those roles? Because they aren't jobs that everyone wants. If a plumber was a high profile job that was competitive to get into and more women wanted to do it but men were being selected over them because of perceived weakness or whatever then we would hear about it. Please note, equality of opportunity is not enforced equality. If a woman wants to be a garbo and weighs 40kg, she can't do the work and shouldn't get the job. If she's 100kg of solid muscle, she can do it as well as any man and should have the same opportunity to get it without bias.

          And where is the feminist outrage as a lack of males in primary education, nursing, etc?

          Because men can enter into those fields if they wish to. That's what privilege is. There's no barrier to entry. Their mates might make fun of them or whatever but no one would look at them and refuse them the job because they are a man. Once more, equality of opportunity. If a man wants one of those jobs, he has as much (or possible more) chance of getting it.

          Why do most feminist have only the women's issues at the top of the list?

          because they are the issues that are most systemic. Also, they might be about equality but they are primarily going to be about bringing equality for men. Men have enough people going in to bat for them already without expecting women to do it too. It's feminism, of course they have an agenda. They are about bringing about equality for women and that's what they will fight and campaign for. Any reasonable feminist will also support men's issues as well (such as family court etc) but they won't campaign for it, they have a big enough job on their plate.

          Just the very question reveals a mindset where the expectation is that other people will also campaign for your issues. It doesn't make you a bad person but it's what privilege looks like. We expect things that if we really get down to it we aren't actually entitled to.

          And ignorant about others… Willfully so

          I'm not sure I agree with you there. I mean sure, they are more for their issues than men's ones but honestly, there are so many issues to address to just bring women up to parity with men that they can only fight for so many things. So, they'll campaign for their stuff and donate to their friend's Movember fundraising.

        • Jackson on 07/11/2016 - 21:11

          [@ozbjunkie]k(/comment/4149638/redir): and now they have more erectile tissue, and enjoy sex more than we do! What next?

    • COR80 on 06/11/2016 - 21:42
      +16

      So if a film doesn't tow the feminist line, it must only be "neckbeards" interested in it? No doubt you'd have the film banned and/or censored if you could; freedom of speech is OK so long as no one disagrees with your opinions, ay.

      There's certainly a stench around your comment.

      • NosDan on 06/11/2016 - 21:46
        -2

        forgive them for they do not understand they are still blue pilled… they know not of what they are speaking :)

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 22:24
          +11

          Dude. Men aren't a disadvantaged group in our society.

          "When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"

        • NosDan on 06/11/2016 - 22:28
          -1

          @brentsbits: no, if you had any idea of that MRA's are all about you would know they are all about equality.

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 22:30
          +11

          @nosdan:

          If that were true, they probably wouldn't resort to threats of doxxing, rape and death on a regular basis.

          What MRAs want is to maintain the status quo, not equality

        • NosDan on 06/11/2016 - 22:32

          @brentsbits: classic dunning kurger….

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 22:36
          +8

          @nosdan:

          Ah well, see? All you are interested in is ad hominem attacks, rather than addressing any issues raised.

          You wonder why you guys get called babies all the time when all you can do is call people names?

          Just a hint for you. Attack the argument, not the person, otherwise you just look like a butthole

        • 2be8 on 06/11/2016 - 22:37
          +6

          @nosdan: To quite Dunning:
          "The presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as it’s been come to be called, is that one should pause to worry about one’s own certainty, not the certainty of others."

        • phobaphobic on 07/11/2016 - 13:33
          +6

          @brentsbits: Oppressed men are an oppressed group though. Not necessarily because they are men, but rather because their circumstances aren't taken seriously because they happen to be men.

          It's nobody's fault, but some steps need to be taken to correct the issues.

        • picklewizard on 07/11/2016 - 13:54
          +3

          @nosdan: I joined an MRA subreddit. I thought it would be things about how airlines won't let unaccompanied minors sit next to adult men on planes and the likes.

          I can most certainly assure you, MRAs are absolutely not, in any way, about equality.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2016 - 18:50
          +2

          @brentsbits:
          I agree that men as a whole are an advantaged group in society - but writing "When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression" - even though you put it in quotes, doesn't make it true. I never understand this about people like you. You're on the right side of history, so why not take the time to properly make your case? You don't need to resort to trite ad hominem attacks and catch phrases. Unless of course you're more interested in promoting your brand as a feminist than genuinely promoting the feminist cause.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:33

          @phobaphobic:

          Oppressed men are an oppressed group though

          I can get on board with that, as long as you don't go confusing or conflating it by dropping the first word, so it just reads men are an oppressed group. Because we aren't.

          their circumstances aren't taken seriously because they happen to be men

          100%. The problem is that most people from the MRA section seem to think that if domestic violence is being looked at from a gendered perspective that it's actively oppressing them. It's not. If domestic violence becomes absolutely unacceptable to everyone, then you will see a corresponding drop in violence against men as well. If we go even further and make violence in our everyday lives unacceptable, you see a lot of the issues that men's rights guys talk about being reduced.

          some steps need to be taken to correct the issues

          Of course, and I've never said otherwise.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:40
          -1

          @mowersfourpeter:

          writing "When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression" - even though you put it in quotes, doesn't make it true

          Yes it does.

          Let me explain.

          It might not feel like oppression to you and me, because we are actually interested in equality and everything that goes along with that.

          Your typical MRA dudebro however, is terrified of losing anything that he is currently entitled to just for being born male.

          It's the same thing with their argument that feminists are just out to shame men. That's not true, they are out to shame the ones that deserve to be shamed. By saying "men are overwhelmingly the gender that commits rape". That's not calling you, or me, a rapist. That's saying that overwhelmingly, when you examine rapes, a male will be the perpetrator. So, if you have been brought up right and know that rape is complete f***ed and no one ever should be doing it and we should be locking up the ones who do for a very very long time, then none of those comments are directed at you, therefore you need feel no shame. If, however (hypothetically), you are someone who has thought "I could go and do a rape right about now" then yes, you are the one that the feminists are trying to shame.

          The same thing with quotes like the one I wrote. Men who acknowledge that their privilege exists whether they asked for it or not and understand they get benefits that others don't get just for being who they are and would like to see that change so that other groups get a fair shake? Yeah, that quote is irrelevant to you because you are actually about equality, rather than paying lip service to it. Those who feel like they deserve something just for being born who they are? Conciously or subconciously? That's who that quote is relevant to because not only do they feel it, they will want to deny it because they know what an (profanity) it makes them look like.

          The quote is true, it just doesn't apply to everyone.

          It's like a t-shirt I have, it has a rainbow on it and says "Every time you see a rainbow, God is having gay sex". It amuses most people and offends exactly who it needs to offend. Everyone else either finds it funny (or not) but they aren't offended by it.

        • phobaphobic on 08/11/2016 - 13:20

          @picklewizard: You can't judge men's rights activism by a forum on reddit.

        • picklewizard on 09/11/2016 - 19:31

          @phobaphobic: You mean, a subreddit dedicated to men's rights activism?

          How foolish of me.

        • phobaphobic on 11/11/2016 - 22:52

          @picklewizard: Yes - just like you wouldn't go onto a Nazi forum to learn about socialism.

    • Diji1 on 06/11/2016 - 22:26
      +6

      As if they're leaving the safety of Mum's basement.

  • bogan on 06/11/2016 - 21:07
    +7

    Bit ballsy to be screening this at, of all places, a uni?

    • PainToad on 06/11/2016 - 21:38
      +35

      Maybe this is one of the very few unis that actually embrace what uni is actually meant to be. A free exchange of opinions and thoughts, along with a healthy and mature debate.

      Rather than the PC thought police crushing any opinion the deviates from their approved agenda and ideology.

      • mubd1234 on 06/11/2016 - 21:56
        +4

        Nope, the student politics at UWS are basically the same as at any other uni. The only real difference is that everyone, including the hard-lefties, whinge about the car parking and want Parramatta's south campus and its lovely green areas to be replaced with a parking lot.

        I reckon the Socialist Alternative are going to be out in force (most of them won't even be students at the uni), and because it's during summer it'll be very easy for them to target the cars of people who turn up.

        • Jackson on 07/11/2016 - 22:08

          It's WSU actually, all this discussion and not one person mentioning the names of the uni is wrong

        • mubd1234 on 08/11/2016 - 09:41
          +1

          It's always gonna be UWS to me.

      • DrThomas on 07/11/2016 - 13:43

        Sounds to me like htose pesky "SJWS" are at it again!! ?Just the latest in a series of attempts to remove control from the people. The "Feminazis" and the alt-right have been long working together to ensure that everyone is kept as bay by their ledes. If you don't see the film immediately you will not know these un-truths being spread not only by the Liberal media but the umpteenth time both men went under the ocean and found the sunken city that neither of them had found

    • COR80 on 06/11/2016 - 21:55
      +4

      Amazing that we're living in an age where you'd even say that, but you're 100% right. Australian university's are now the home of the totalitarian jack-boot left, where any independent thinking is verboten.

      They're childish, idiotic havens for tenured slobs living off the public dime, with their "trigger warnings" and "safe-spaces" for a whole generation of cosseted, retarded youngsters, youngsters who are doing stupid, nonsense degrees for which there is no meaningful chance of employment.

      • NosDan on 06/11/2016 - 22:00
        +5

        "trigger warnings"

        i honestly thought that was some sort of thinly veiled insult until recently. to find out that its actually a real thing stuns me. i guess we really are living in the facebook/forum generation where when anyone happens to say something they disagree with they need to get it banned through censorship.

        idiocracy has actually become a modern day documentary…

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 22:21
          +4

          So many issues here.

          Trigger warnings are to warn people about content that may cause them to experience post traumatic episodes for to real trauma that they've experienced. Why would any decent person be against that?

          Censorship is something imposed by the government. Launching a petition to stop a cinema from screening something is neither censorship nor is it a violation of free speech. If you think it is, you need to do some more reading about what both those things are.

          Edit: Changed "earn" to "warn", autocorrect error

        • NosDan on 06/11/2016 - 22:23
          +5

          @brentsbits:

          Trigger warnings are to earn people about content that may cause them to experience post traumatic episodes

          BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHA

          i dont even need to debunk your bullshit… you do a perfect job of that yourself…

          here, want another blue pill?

        • COR80 on 06/11/2016 - 22:57
          +9

          @brentsbits: "Trigger warnings are to earn people about content that may cause them to experience post traumatic episodes for to real trauma that they've experienced. Why would any decent person be against that?"

          Oh my…… You're 100% serious too, aren't you, not even a hint of a smirk as you regurgitated that childish nonsense.

          And with that, it's game set match to nosdan

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 23:00
          +4

          @COR80:

          It's nothing of the sort because all nosdan has done is call people names and all you've done is called it childish nonsense.

          Trigger warnings WERE originated as a way to let people know that something was in what they were about to see or read that might have traumatic consequences for them.

          If you'd care to dispute that, I'd be happy to read your sources.

          I, once again, ask you: What kind of decent person would be against something like this? Given their purpose is to help people avoid suffering. Seriously.

          Debunk or be quiet. Happy to read any sources you have but if you don't have anything other than name calling, you might want to close your word hole.

        • COR80 on 06/11/2016 - 23:12
          +7

          @brentsbits: "debunk or be quiet", "close your word hole(!)". Well that's the way your type operate isn't it, when others challenge your childish, idiotic nonsense. If you don't agree with my opinion then you shut up! Nyaaah nyaah nyaaah I'm not listening anymore!

          Like I said, game set match nosdan. Oh wait I'm sorry, I should have given you a trigger warning (rofl) before disagreeing with you. Now how bout you shut your "word hole" and scamper back to your little safe space.

        • Sabs on 06/11/2016 - 23:14
          +5

          @brentsbits:

          I appreciate your effort, brentsbits, but some people either don't want to, or can't, see beyond their own privilege and will hide behind terms like "PC police" and "social justice warriors" so the status quo remains in their favour.

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 23:19
          +4

          @COR80:

          See, that's the way "your type" operate, by being the poor wounded doves when actually I said that you should either engage and actually debunk the point OR you should be quiet. Either would do. You are suggesting that the point is so easy to debunk yet all you are willing to ACTUALLY do is to continue attacking me, rather than debunking the point. Unless, GASP, it's not so easy to debunk?

          Nosdan didn't do it, you didn't do it. It only suggests that you can't actually debunk it as easily as you suggested.

          "I should have given you a trigger warning" I don't need a trigger warning for people who just call me names. That's par for the course when speaking with MRAs. I hesitate to call it engaging because all you've done so far is called me names and declared the point won, without actually making a point. And no, before you jump on it, I don't care about the names you call me, I merely bring attention to it as an indicator of your inability to actually converse intelligently on the subject.

          So, you have a choice, in terms of what I said before, engage and debunk me as you claim is so easy to do OR just be quiet and let the adults speak.

          It's this kind of behaviour that's why no one takes MRAs seriously.

          To put it in perspective, you declaring that you have won without contributing anything of substance is exactly what Donald Trump is doing. It's populist and gets the non-intellectuals behind you but is transparent to anyone with a critical mind.

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 23:20
          +2

          @Sabs:

          Don't forget cuck and white knight. Dickless. Virtue Signalling. I forget some of the others but there are many.

        • Moderatorneil on 06/11/2016 - 23:34

          Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.

        • mrmark1970 on 07/11/2016 - 13:28
          +4

          @brentsbits:

          Trigger warnings have a long history, uncontroversial unti recently. Just think of those TV warnings "the following segment contains graphic images that may disturb summer viewers". Seems to be just courtesy to me. Call me old fashioned.

          I guess it's possible that an excessive use of trigger warnings might seem ridiculous to some, but I've never seen a ridiculous trigger warning in real life.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2016 - 18:56
          +2

          @brentsbits: I don't think trigger warnings are as simple as you make out. I support their use when (say) a survivor of abuse might be surprised by some unexpectedly violent material. But they are also used by people to promote their brand (putting trigger warnings on things makes you look sensitive) and to silence dissent from people they oppose. I think this is a cynical exploitation of trigger warnings.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:26

          @mrmark1970:

          Exactly and I honestly can't comprehend the kind of morally bankrupt person that has an actual issue with them.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:28

          @mowersfourpeter:

          I support their use when (say) a survivor of abuse might be surprised by some unexpectedly violent material

          I support their use if there's even the possibility of someone having to relive something they'd rather not relive. It's a single line at the beginning of an article. Is it really that intrusive?

          But they are also used by people to promote their brand

          I don't think I've ever seen this, that I can remember anyway. Any time I've seen a trigger warning, whatever they warned about was right there in the article.

          silence dissent from people they oppose

          I have no idea how a trigger warning would silence anyone who opposes them.

          I think this is a cynical exploitation of trigger warnings

          I'm sure many have done it too, it doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile though.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2016 - 19:50
          +1

          @brentsbits: I saw one once a little like this "Trigger warning - this article contains discussions on the topic of homo and transphobia"
          Not violence, just an article about an academic who said that transwomen weren't real women. Offensive to many, but unlikely to cause psychotic episode.

          Labelling certain ideas and thoughts as "dangerous" silences people. Think about heresy or sedition. As I said, trigger warnings have their place, but they are also dangerous and need to be used judiciously.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 19:54

          @mowersfourpeter:

          Do you think violence is the only thing that traumatises people? Do you think that people who are homo/transphobic aren't violent? Do you think that someone's experiences at home with their emerging sexuality might not have scarred them?

          As the MRA guys are so fond of saying (one of the few points I agree with), not all abuse and scars are physical.

          Labelling certain ideas and thoughts as "dangerous" silences people

          Trigger warnings are not about labelling anything as dangerous. They are about warning people about content so they can avoid it if it might spark some kind of traumatic reaction in them.

          Think about heresy or sedition

          You will never see a trigger warning about heresy or sedition

          As I said, trigger warnings have their place, but they are also dangerous and need to be used judiciously

          How dangerous is a sign on the back of a truck that let's you know that it contains flammable liquid is? That's what a trigger warning is. That's it. It's saying that the thing in here might be hazardous to you, so avoid it if you need to.

          Trigger warnings are not about labelling ideas, they are about informing of content. That's a service to others.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/11/2016 - 20:14
          +1

          @brentsbits: everything is so black and white for you. You seriously find it impossible that trigger warnings couldn't be used in other other fashion than as a kindly warning to those who have suffered trauma? That they couldn't be used to indicate political affiliation, to delimit clean and unclean thought?

          There are smart and nasty people who actively manipulate your average right wing unthinking angry man. Equally, there are those who do the same to uncritical left wing people too. I think you should keep that in mind when uncritically spouting views about 18.2% wage gaps and trigger warnings.

          Thanks for the conversation and have a good evening.

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 20:24

          @mowersfourpeter:

          You seriously find it impossible that trigger warnings couldn't be used in other other fashion than as a kindly warning to those who have suffered trauma?

          Of course not. Of course they can be used cynically. Everything can be turned to nefarious purpose, does that mean we don't use it? You can kill people with knives but you still use them in the kitchen.

          That they couldn't be used to indicate political affiliation

          Of course, mostly because those who provide trigger warnings in earnest are generally on one section of the political spectrum. As long as the trigger warning is true, what difference does it make as long as it might help someone out to not relive something they'd rather not relive.

          There are smart and nasty people who actively manipulate your average right wing unthinking angry man

          Right wing people don't use trigger warnings as a matter of course. Your average right wing unthinking angry man is going to stop reading as soon as he sees a trigger warning because trigger warnings are for white knight SJW lefty dickless cucks.

          I think you should keep that in mind when uncritically spouting views about 18.2% wage gaps and trigger warnings

          Fine, you did indeed get me on the first line of the article. Did you read the rest? Or did you just stop and say "AHA!"?

          With regards to trigger warnings though, honestly what possible problem could they present that outweighs the good of sparing someone from reliving something traumatic? It's generally left wing people that use the, so the right is probably safe. I am absolutely and genuinely confused as to why you think they are some nefarious thing.

          If there's a trigger warning on something and the article contains that content. What's your problem? Seriously, what's the problem with that?

      • Diji1 on 06/11/2016 - 22:30
        +4

        That's odd, I swear I noticed a Young Liberal's meeting at Adelaide Uni the other day.

        Must've got confused with Nazi's walking around in jackboots, nevermind.

        • COR80 on 06/11/2016 - 23:03
          +2

          You really are a special little petal, aren't you. The unintentional irony is breathtaking.

        • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 23:04
          +3

          @COR80:

          Still just calling people names?

          No wonder no one takes the MRA dudebro movement seriously.

        • COR80 on 06/11/2016 - 23:29
          +4

          @brentsbits: Awwwww hypocracy much? The comment above mine said people who don't vote for Labor or the Greens are Nazi's, yet you didn't like me calling him a "special little petal". And a few comments up you called someone else a "whinging man baby" or similar. Like I said, hypocracy much, hypocrite?

          That sort of selective outrage, typical of your type, is why you'll not be taken seriously here.

          Also, I wouldn't have a clue what this "MRA dudebro" stuff you've referred to is, but the fact that you do, and seem against whatever it is, shows that you're just a partisan hack on here trying to quell dissent.

          How dare people make up their own minds about things! Don't they realise there are leftist doctrines that govern our every waking moment?

        • Moderatorneil on 06/11/2016 - 23:35

          Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.

          Yes, I'm repeating the same comment

        • brentsbits on 07/11/2016 - 00:00
          +1

          @COR80:

          And a few comments up you called someone else a "whinging man baby" or similar. Like I said, hypocracy much, hypocrite?

          At least I bothered to make some points. Your are still at the starting line, thinking you'll win the race just by yelling at the other competitors.

          Also, I wouldn't have a clue what this "MRA dudebro" stuff you've referred to is

          You do, you just must be a natural at it because everything that you are doing and saying? It's right out of their playbook.

          shows that you're just a partisan hack on here trying to quell dissent

          So don't let me quell it and engage with the discussion. You have still done nothing except criticise anyone making a point, you have yet to actually make a point yourself.

          How dare people make up their own minds about things!

          How are they supposed to do so without two sides being presented. You are making it easy though, cause I keep asking you to present your side and you continue with the name calling.

          Speaking of making up their own minds. You realise that's exactly what the Kino in Melbourne did? They had two sides presented to them and made up their minds. Not a stifling of free speech, not censorship, actual democracy in action.

          Don't they realise there are leftist doctrines that govern our every waking moment?

          The fact that the Greens aren't in government puts the lie to your statement.

          So, once more. Please, refute the things you have said are so easy to refute.

      • JudgeMingus on 07/11/2016 - 12:28
        +3

        The idea that Unis are full of "tenured slobs living off the public dime" is way out of date - most of the teaching is done by casual staff that are employed on a one-semester-at-a-time basis, and then chucked aside.
        Most of them work at least one other job as well - such slobs!

        Trigger warnings aren't there to cosset youngsters, they're there for people who have had genuinely traumatic experiences like abuse.
        I personally think youngsters should not be cossetted but challenged (intellectually, emotionally and politically). Doesn't mean that abuse victims should be re-traumatised.

  • NosDan on 06/11/2016 - 21:39
    +17

    this is the movie that turned a mild mannered femnazi back into a regular "thinking for herself" member of society. i recommend everyone see it no matter what your mental illness :)

  • kevst on 06/11/2016 - 21:56
    -2

    I think this is a freebie not a bargain isn't it?

    • brentsbits on 06/11/2016 - 22:17
      -5

      Even at this price, it's not a bargain

  • DeWalt on 06/11/2016 - 22:03
    +8

    I would pay to see this for sure.

    I'm not fond of the idea of a men's movement though. I've seen how toxic feminism is. Why do we need another gender group? Why would it be any different than feminism? We need our leaders to stand up to sexism universally.

    I really respect this woman for having the courage to speak up. I hope she does the topic justice.

    • NosDan on 06/11/2016 - 22:06
      +1

      I'm not fond of the idea of a men's movement though. I've seen how toxic feminism is

      dunning kruger effect my friend. start going some research and your questions will be answered. plenty of stuff on youtube about it. if you really get stuck let me know and ill send you some links to some really good youtubers who are addressing your concerns.

      • Diji1 on 06/11/2016 - 22:33
        +6

        Yeah, start "researching" on Youtube, that's a great place to avoid extremist idiots from both sides.

        • NosDan on 06/11/2016 - 22:35
          +3

          versus you extremists on OzB who have no idea what you are talking about? yea… right…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join