No doubt!
I'll be there in my Kony 2012 T-shirt.
[CANCELLED] FREE Screening of "The Red Pill" @ UWS Bankstown, 13:00 3/12/16 » All Comments
yalla habib , fully sick hecktik bro
So I guess you'll be walking to the event?
cuz, ill be coming in my WRX so we can do laps around bankstown square after the movie.
middleeasternculture
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'.
Good, I really hope that's irony.
The entire planet has been a man's Sage space for the entirety of recorded history
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.
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.
@brentsbits: The fact that you are being downvoted for this comment speaks volumes.
We've still got a LONG way to go.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@brentsbits: Serious question, can you give concrete examples of inequalities? (please don't quote bogus studies)
If you can define "bogus studies" then I'll find you some non bogus examples of inequality in the world and in Australia.
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.
@mrmark1970: Let's stick to the developed world. Point me to an Australia law that is prejudiced against woman.
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.
@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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
@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%…
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.
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)
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[@ozbjunkie]k(/comment/4149638/redir): and now they have more erectile tissue, and enjoy sex more than we do! What next?
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.
forgive them for they do not understand they are still blue pilled… they know not of what they are speaking :)
Dude. Men aren't a disadvantaged group in our society.
"When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"
@brentsbits: no, if you had any idea of that MRA's are all about you would know they are all about equality.
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
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
@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."@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.
@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.
@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.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.
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.
As if they're leaving the safety of Mum's basement.
Bit ballsy to be screening this at, of all places, a uni?
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.
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.
It's WSU actually, all this discussion and not one person mentioning the names of the uni is wrong
It's always gonna be UWS to me.
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
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.
"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…
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
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?
@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
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Don't forget cuck and white knight. Dickless. Virtue Signalling. I forget some of the others but there are many.
Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.
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.
@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.
Exactly and I honestly can't comprehend the kind of morally bankrupt person that has an actual issue with them.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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?
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.
You really are a special little petal, aren't you. The unintentional irony is breathtaking.
@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?
Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.
Yes, I'm repeating the same comment
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.
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.
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 :)
interview part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSTzV29bS0
interview part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGzgFX_X4I
oh, and i almost forgot… the petition to stop senseless censorship at the hand of the mindless army who would seek to railroad free speech in this country when it does not suit their narrative
https://www.change.org/p/stop-extremists-censoring-what-aust…
I think this is a freebie not a bargain isn't it?
Even at this price, it's not a bargain
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.
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.
Yeah, start "researching" on Youtube, that's a great place to avoid extremist idiots from both sides.
versus you extremists on OzB who have no idea what you are talking about? yea… right…
You've not actually addressed any issues so far. Just called people names.
And you are calling other people "low ability"?
Hilarious
Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.
@brentsbits: Go and read back through your comments and take note of yourself doing exactly what you accuse others of. You're a joke.
@nosdan: hey steady, I'm just reading this! There's a fairly wide spread of people on here we don't all post all the time [thanks Neil you got there first]
Well, just let us know where you do your research, so we can avoid it; its never done you any favours on ozbargain.
Done who no favours? Me?
you are still attacking the person, not the argument.
Are you ever going to address any points (that are so easy to refute)? Or are you just going to continue going on and on with the schoolyard personal attacks?
Go and read back through your comments and take note of yourself doing exactly what you accuse others of.
You haven't given me much to work with, given that all you've been doing is name calling. Give me something else to respond to and we can have a reasoned discussion about it. I'm waiting.
I really respect this woman for having the courage to speak up
Perhaps. I think I would have respected her more if she'd had the courage to actually challenge her interviewees.
I hope she does the topic justice
She won't. It's a propaganda piece.
I'm not saying the men's rights movements doesn't have some points, but they aren't going to be addressed sufficiently in a piece with the likes of Paul Elam in it, in an interview where his views are not challenged. If you are making a documentary about your journey from one point of view to another, there should be some challenge in it don't you think? To at least do lip service to disagreeing with the people who you later said convinced you?
Have you even seen it?
Dude, I don't need to see something to form an opinion on it.
Do you ever form an opinion on a movie without having seen it? Of course you do. It's how you figure out what to go and see or not when you go to the movies.
How do you do that? You read reviewers that you trust. You seek out opinions on it.
Just because it's a "documentary" doesn't mean that one can only comment if one has seen it.
Why would you have this standard when you wouldn't apply it to any other movie?
@brentsbits: It was a simple question. Yes of course you can have an opinion, I never said otherwise. It's just that if you haven't seen something then your opinion is based on little information. Caution, most of the reviews out there are written by Feminists who are only intent on trashing anything critical of feminism - so some skepticism would be wise.
You are having a busy day with 50+ lengthy comments and counting. That is some good SJW thought policing.
Now relax, here is some comedy relief, watch the video.
Feminists Love Islamists:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08Richard Dawkins shared this video on twitter, and was subsequently attacked by mobs of feminists - the stress led to him having a stroke.
Caution, most of the reviews out there are written by Feminists who are only intent on trashing anything critical of feminism
I would hope that although it's obvious I'm fairly set in my beliefs that at least I've showed the ability to think critically. I always evaluate the source when evaluating what they say. For regular movies, one of my most reliable reviewers is someone who thinks the absolute opposite of me, every time. If he hates it, I'll love it and vice versa. Always consider your source.
so some skepticism would be wise
The problem with this line of thinking is that skepticism in and of itself is not a virtue. Most skeptics out there today call themselves skeptics but all they are about is disbelieving a particular idea, not about evaluating evidence etc.
Have a look at the group showing this movie, they call themselves a skeptics society (with no qualifier) and they specifically say that they are out there to combat the misinformation and gender bias blah blah blah. That's not a skeptic. That's someone cloaking their bias in intellectualism and faux-reasonableness. It's actually fairly dishonest.
That is some good SJW thought policing
Seriously? Thought policing? that's all you've gotten from this. I've tried to be objective and address points as they've been raised, I've considered them (although many I've seen and considered before so it didn't take long) and then responded to them. I'm not getting hysterical and demanding people believe what I believe. You don't have to agree with the reasoning but my comments and points have been reasoned comments.
That's pretty disrespectful to be honest.
Richard Dawkins shared this video on twitter
That's cause Dawkins is an (profanity). He used to have some points about god and atheism but he is responsible for the Cult of Science that's reared it's ugly head, rather than just plain old science and the scientific method. There's a difference. As soon as he strayed into that territory, he became a religious zealot, just of a different brand.
There's a great South Park episode about it, much more eloquent than I could ever be about it. Third season I think. Just google "Oh my science" if you want to find it.
the stress led to him having a stroke
I don't wish anyone harm but he's still an (profanity). Seriously though. That video is the worst kind of schoolyard BS. It's not even particularly clever. It's just made by someone who wants it to be OK with calling all muslims terrorists and all women bitches or whatever. I watched about a minute of it before losing my will to love at it's pedestrian "humour". Maybe that makes me humourless. I'm OK with that.
@brentsbits: I admit I was being cheeky, not nasty, don't take it that way. You have been polite and persistent, I'll give you that.
You don't see any parallels with Islam/Feminism? I think the video is funny because there is more than a little truth to it.
Yes I somewhat agree with criticisms of Dawkins. Great show South Park.
Do you have a problem with science? Feminists seem to, they have strange ideas about male/female biology.
Tell me what you think of using the feminist lens for science? It's now a thing in academia. Too wacky for you?
Example: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
http://nypost.com/2016/03/08/feminism-and-icebergs-a-new-low…@brentsbits: You can calm down, they've banned it. Can safely watch something less evil like a Hitler documentary now
I agree with the sentiment, but it is because of the actions of certain feminist groups (certainly not all of them!) that a men's rights movement is necessary. Feminists in the true sense of the word would support things like men's shelters, increased parental rights, and generally increased acknowledgement of men's issues.
And they do. If you are paying attention to the extremists, then you aren't paying attention at all.
Is every Muslim a terrorist?
They don't though. Where were the feminists when the radical 'feminists' shut down and protested against these issues and shelters?
Real feminists would join men's rights activists - because they both want the same thing.
I have no interest in this movie, but to see the loving and caring lefty SJW types throwing insults and shade at anyone who would even consider this is really not surprising. To think I use to think like those people. It's a weirdo cult, nothing wrong with equality, fairness, kindness but when you question any of their methods, their goals, their intentions or anything in any capacity. Watch out, they act just as atrociously as the apparent neckbeard hater sexist mysoginist homophobic people they love to hate (or whatever labels they decide to give them this week)
Notice the simple synopsis for the film:
"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."
That could be quite an interesting film for someone studying those topics or with a passion for them - who knows what the filmmakers final judgement ends up being at the end? Who knows, but the SJW types in this thread have already passed judgement that it must be for 'the bad people' and derided the film and those who would watch it.
More power to you guys, go pat yourselves on the back and retweet some Wil Wheaton or Devin Farci or whoever is in this week?Insults? really? Your vision seems to be selective on that one.
Watch out, they act just as atrociously
Really? They threaten with doxxing, rape and death both to the person and their family?
That could be quite an interesting film for someone studying those topics or with a passion for them
If it wasn't a puff propaganda piece. Go have a look at the LA Times review of it. She challenged nothing and merely gave a platform for people like Paul Elam to espouse their ideas. Not much of a "conversion".
derided the film
Because it's a puff, propaganda piece.
those who would watch it
Not those who would watch it but those who get all crazy about defending it when THEY haven't seen it either. It's a pretty nice little accusation to throw around until it comes home to roost.
Not those who would watch it but those who get all crazy about defending it when THEY haven't seen it either. It's a pretty nice little accusation to throw around until it comes home to roost.
Some people like free speech and like to make up their own minds on it.
Some people like free speech and like to make up their own minds on it
Me speaking out against it isn't in any way hindering anyone's free speech. By the way, if the film WAS actually being censored, it's only Cassie Jaye's free speech being infringed on. No one else's.
If they love free speech so much though, they should be encouraging me to voice my dissenting opinion. Just saying.
Also, if they want to see it, good on them, they should go and do so. I wouldn't dream of stopping them.
Unhnged
My comment was probably more aimed towards a thread on Whirlpool about it.
By the way, if the film WAS actually being censored
Well technically no, but there seems quite some effort by feminists who do not want the film that they haven't even seen to be screened in public. Though the petition worked, I think it ended up doing them more harm than good(streisand effect)
Even if it is just Cassie Jaye's free speech being hindered, there are people who feel the same way as her. I don't care much for this and would likely not go if shown in Perth, but I wouldn't be opposed to letting others do so. Reminds me of the poem, "First they came"
they should be encouraging me to voice my dissenting opinion
Not so much need to encourage you, just not hinder. I don't think anything should be above criticism.
OK, I found out about the petition. That was indeed a silly move on the part of the petitioners.
"Really? They threaten with doxxing, rape and death both to the person and their family?"
Same thing goes both ways, regularly. Definitely a common target is to attack 'the bad guys' place of employment, hit em where the wallet hurts.
"Not those who would watch it but those who get all crazy about defending it when THEY haven't seen it either. It's a pretty nice little accusation to throw around until it comes home to roost."
I'm not so much defending the film as I'm pointing out the typical hypocrisy time and time again from the SJW crowd.
Definitely a common target is to attack 'the bad guys' place of employment, hit em where the wallet hurts.
If it were a matter of them going after their jobs unprovoked, if be absolutely against it, however, what usually happens is screenshots of threats are taken and submitted to an employer with a "thought you'd like to know this is the guy you have working for you", any consequence is typically decided on by the employer.
Obviously not every time and when it's unprovoked I'm just as against that and will speak out about it if I see it (or have it pinned out to me, which hasn't happened yet).
Like I said usually how it goes is feminist says something that MRA dude disagrees with in a public forum. MRA dude responds by sending a private message with some form of threat. That gets screenshotted and submitted to whomever. Consequences follow.
Not always I'm sure, but typically and even then, not all that often, compared with the literally hundreds of threats a week any prominent feminist will receive.
I don't think it's out of order for there to be consequences for that kind of behaviour. If certainly like to know if one of my employees was doing that kind of thing while having me listed as their employer publicly.
I'm pointing out the typical hypocrisy time and time again from the SJW crowd
If this is the behaviour you are talking about there's very little hypocrisy in it because to suggest the two are the same is drawing a false equivalency. Typically, the MRA crowd threaten unprovoked (as in not in response to a personal message but to a public statement or newspaper article) whereas the behaviour you are describing is typically in response to a personal attack or threat.
The left have their share of hypocrisy, I really don't think that this is one of those times (excepting when it's unprovoked)
Threads need to go to the police or moderators of sites, I can't condone tools sending threats.
I also can't condone someone thinking in ANY situation it's right to contact the employer of someone for what they do in their own time, it's idiocy tattle tale rubbish and 9 times out of 10 the employer, regardless of the incident will just fire the person to avoid social media backlash swamping by an angry group of Facebook warriors.Case in point Sir Tim Hunt.
I also can't condone someone thinking in ANY situation it's right to contact the employer of someone for what they do in their own time
I absolutely can for two reasons. Oh they are so friggin stupid to have their employer on their public profile and send some of the frankly disgusting threats that I've actually seen, they deserve what's coming to them.
The thing is, whenever any guy gets caught doing this (or beating their girlfriend and no I'm not trying to make them equivalent), people come out defending them saying that"they are such a nice guy". News flash, anyone who does any of those things isn't a "nice guy". Nice guys don't do that kind of thing, it's just not in their makeup.
The second reason is that although it is against the law to send threats via a carriage service, police never prosecute, even with substantial evidence, enough to charge. They have more serious crimes to attend to, apparently.
I would agree, if the police would do something, that's the best way to do it but they won't, so I have no problem with a "just thought you might like to know" email. Nothing publicised, just all nice and private.
These kinds of behaviours should have consequences and frankly for the few who actually do get fired, it's much better than being registered as a sex offender, which is what would happen if dinner if these rape threats went through the court system.
As to the moderators of sites, so many feminists I know have been banned for 30 days for fairly random stuff, not aggressive, nothing like that but when they submit a complaint to Facebook about these threatening messages they get a response saying that the message does not breach community standards. That's literally what they are told.
If Facebook or the police refuse to do anything, what are they supposed to do? Just sit back and take it?
"I absolutely can for two reasons. Oh they are so friggin stupid to have their employer on their public profile and send some of the frankly disgusting threats that I've actually seen, they deserve what's coming to them."
I stopped there,…………. no need to continue this discussion further.
Seek help, typical SJW "omg doxxing! those bastards!" type - but no hesitation doing the same thing.
Are you taking the higher ground or not? Seems not, hypocrisy continues.Don't bother replying.
and you started off so reasonably.
You didn't bother to read the entirety? How's that for not getting all the information.
By the way, emailing someone's employer privately is not doxxing someone. Doxxing is finding someone's private information (address, phone number, private email etc) and posting it publicly with the intention for others to use it to harass the person. The most egregious examples of this were during GamerGate, when women were regularly doxxed and several of them had to actually move and go into hiding, they were genuinely afraid for their lives.
For the record, I'm happy for it to happen the other way around as well. If a feminist does the heinous bullshit that an MRA does on a regular basis, take a screenshot and email their employer. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Seems not, hypocrisy continues
It actually doesn't because you are labouring under a false impression of what doxxing is.
Do not hide your feelings from the Media Elite, they live in the fascinating "World of Make Believe" as brought about by both Milo and Breitbart during discussion of the real truths behind things. One illuminates the real world of "SJWS" and find that neither are a product of byzantine reality, rather an truthful findings of questioning True Intent? I am not a true believer in the true sense of the word but I can understand finding the reality when confronted with, they just want to make us all think about boat people who undergo the correct tortures.
boat people who undergo the correct tortures
Did you really just say that? Correct tortures?
And you call me unhinged
Discussion is fine but let's make our points without insulting each other.
Note to self: stay out of the comment section of anything even vaguely political on OzBargain. Yikes.
Quote from https://www.meetup.com/wsusceptics/about/
Due to the foreseeable interference of our host university, our group and I have decided to create an alternate means in which to organise group meetings and events. Usually handled by our university; we believe it’s in the best interest of this group to be able to operate unimpeded. Our recent issues with a hilarious attempt! To censor us on campus has led to the unfortunate disabling of our umbrella site. UWS have taken far too long with enabling our site for us to suspect anything else but an attempt to discourage us from operating. It’s unfortunate that censorship would be so readily practised on a university campus; I guess it’s just the show of the times in which we live.
Interesting, so not actual sceptics then. Merely another name for another MRA group aimed at imbuing them with the reasoning associated with actual sceptics groups.
I also find it interesting that if the interference was forseeable, why would they seek to organise it through a method that they knew was going to be disrupted? The only reason I can see is so they can point the finger and say "OMG OPPRESSION!!!!". Groups who genuinely want to get stuff done don't bother with that kind of crap.
Sceptics groups have no agenda other than to question. This group's agenda isn't to question, it's to promote a specific gender agenda. Nothing wrong with that if their group wasn't trying to shroud it in something else.
Guardian article on how the filmmaker have faced a lot of hurdles even during the initial funding stage, and being attacked by other feminists.
The Kickstarter page promises the film will document “a life-altering journey where she would never see the world the same way again”
There's no way she would have gotten so much MRA funding if she hadn't already foreshadowed that it would be a positive film for them and that's where most of the Kickstarter funding came from.
Why would feminists attempt to scuttle the film making of a women?
Seems counter productive and antithetical to feminist movement.
Many reasons…? Feminists are not an amorphous horde of singular ideology. There are a lot of tensions within the feminist movement between people/groups with different beliefs about the fundamental structure of the world, as well as the means and ends of social and political change.
Just because a person is a feminist doesn't mean they will support all women unconditionally. For example, many people dislike/hate Margaret Thatcher. Or another example, if someone is a feminist whose work focuses on domestic violence shelters and a female politician tries to pass a law/proposal/etc that drastically cuts funding for domestic violence shelters… Well, basically you can insert your contemporary issue of choice in there.
I basically agree with your sentiment that feminists will not automatically agree with the viewpoints of other women.
However, to attempt to censor women, or claim their opinions are invalid, seems to act against female empowerment in general.
I can see what you are saying but don't necessarily agree.
A movie like this has the potential to set a precedent in people's minds along the lines of "well, she's a feminist and she agrees, therefore the rest of you are being unreasonable".
Referencing the LA Times review specifically, the film maker didn't challenge any of her interviewees or ask hard questions of them but appears to have conducted the interviews in a passive manner. For her to then be saying that she's undergone a conversion suggests her feminist beliefs weren't that tightly held, which makes the conversion less….I dunno, authentic?
I can see why feminists would have a problem with that. I can absolutely see the argument along the lines of "they convinced Cassie Jaye, why are you being so unreasonable" being used, which will further distract from the issues that those feminists are trying to address.
If expect the same response if the situation was reversed (although with a lot more name calling).
I certainly agree it would be a poor argument to suggest that convincing one feminist to soften her perspective should convince others.
While I haven't seen the doco, I would like to.
I certainly think enriching the discussion of gender issues on society is worthwhile, even if each contribution suffers from certain limitations.
If the core perspective of each 'side' is that people have value and their issues should be addressed, then it's reasonable to suggest that docos developing that similar goal should be viewed.
Sounds like thosse Feminazis are at it again!! Maybe Emperor Trump will sort 'em out lolzor
Comment Voting
You are not allowed to vote on your own commentTHE FEMINIST LEFTIST MEDIA AT IT AGAIN!! I SPEWED UP MY BIG MAC
Comments section did not disappoint! I'm amazed how quick people are to try and censor something that is against their values, even more so when they haven't seen the movie to judge for themselves.
How do you define "censorship"? I can see criticism, advocacy and self-expression in the above discussion but I don't see calls for censorship.
Censorship is imposed by the government. This is a grip fighting against something they strongly disagree with. More than that though, something they see as being actually harmful.
The old SJW "it can only be censorship if imposed by the government". Call it what you want it doesn't change the fact of what is happening in that certain groups and individuals are taking the right everyone should have to see this movie. Just because it doesn't align with your ideology doesn't mean it should be pulled or banned. The more I read into the people who are blocking this movie from being seen the more it seems like they come from a cult.
I agree with your premise. Censorship can be effected by a non government actor.
But I don't see anyone here calling for the movie to be pulled or banned.
You mention "certain groups and individuals". Do they have names? And more importantly, do they have enough power to prevent anyone who wants to see the film from seeing it?
I agree with your premise. Censorship can be effected by a non government actor.
True, however that entity must have both the authority and the legal power to do it. A cinema pulling the film is no such thing. They are making a personal or business choice. The petitioners in this case had no airport or legal power to enforce anything, merely the strength of their arguments, which in this case were strong enough.
But I don't see anyone here calling for the movie to be pulled or banned.
In all fairness it has been called to be pulled but no one that I'm aware of has called for it to be banned
And more importantly, do they have enough power to prevent anyone who wants to see the film from seeing it?
This is the key point that most are ignoring in favour of yelling about free speech
First the leftists came for my TV, and I didn't realize that the MRA conspiracy ran as deep as it does. There is no truth in fiction!! This film isn't real, 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 before. Milo on Breitbart told us the truth early on that both John Howard and Lippery "The" Skipper knew the truth about Shuma-Gorath, a real entity that is in charge of the media. They tried to block both of us but you don't know where to find the truth.
When I first discovered the secret price of the Shelldorness both times we were silenced by the Liberal elite who are intent on keeping every "Or maybe, just maybe, they are males" I really hope that's irony. True, but playing the same game, isn't the way to change the world. FairPlay and love are more important than either trying to dominate the other unfairly. 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. The fact that you are being downvoted for this comment speaks volumes. I know right? Entire planet is man's safe space? Keep drinking the Kool Aid. Not to mention females outperforming males in education, more females entering and graduating uni, special scholarships available for females only… 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. They know not of what they are speaking. Men aren't a disadvantaged group in our society. If that were true, they probably wouldn't resort to threats of doxxing, rape and death on a regular basis. All you are interested in is ad hominem attacks, rather than addressing any issues raised. "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."
As if they're leaving the safety of Mum's basement. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I don't need a trigger warning for people who just call me names. That's par for the course when speaking with MRAs. That sort of selective outrage, typical of your type, is why you'll not be taken seriously here. Trigger warnings aren't there to cosset youngsters, they're there for people who have had genuinely traumatic experiences like abuse.
I really respect this woman for having the courage to speak up. I hope she does the topic justice. Go and read back through your comments and take note of yourself doing exactly what you accuse others of. You're a joke. You haven't given me much to work with, given that all you've been doing is name calling. Give me something else to respond to and we can have a reasoned discussion about it. I'm waiting. That could be quite an interesting film for someone studying those topics or with a passion for them. If it wasn't a puff propaganda piece. Due to the foreseeable interference of our host university, our group and I have decided to create an alternate means in which to organise group meetings and events. Just because a person is a feminist doesn't mean they will support all women unconditionally.
Mate this is a bargain site, it seems you have a bit too much free time.
The only "Bargain" here is the "Bargain" of wisdom that I have inserted into your brain via my timeless lyricism within my writings, of which the truth can only startled to be comprehended. Do not believe the sheeple, engage your own dreams!!
I think Woolworths has a special on tin foil at the moment. It sounds like you might be interested.
your writings?
You are a plagiarist too…
Yeah, I don't think you know what triggering actually means. You just use it as an insult cause you heard someone else day it and you thought it was a good way to sound smart and throw an insult.
Word to the wise, when you use a term and obviously don't know what it means, it becomes neither an insult, nor smart.
Hope that helps
I agree. I find ozbargain a but ranty lately, and not really bargain related. Have to scroll through a lot of messages to read anything of substance, like reviews of goods or the vendor. I appreciate the humour, sometimes, but when there are forty comments of joky quips and one useful comment at the bottom of the page, it gets a bit tiring.
Nah, he's just copied and pasted a lot of comments and mashed then all together.
There's some stuff I wrote in there :-)
Given how much time we all spend trying to save a dollar (literally $1), I suggest we all have lots of free time.
You make an excellent point
Im on the fence here, but something I find funny - if this movie was about female equality and rights, there would be nothing but praise. Imo.
If it were reversed and it was an MRA guy undressing the conversion, it would be a lot less civil. Los of name calling in public and threats in private.
Yes, less civil. If you think this hasn't been particularly civil, a movie the reverse of this being released would make Donald Trump's entire campaign sound like reasonable, respectful and thoughtful discourse :-)
Lol this reminds me of that Muslim arts festival a little while ago. It's just a bargain site, no need to attack anyone for their opinions or beliefs. If you believe Jews or Muslims are plotting to taking over the world, or the "elite" are practising eugenics through feminism, I disagree but that's your right to believe in it.
At some point you need to speak up though, when certain opinions are potentially harmful?
Not saying censor them, just speak out against them
Lol.I love the comments on ozbargain.
You should see the megathreads on /r/Melbourne about this topic :-)
Link? If it addresses this film specifically…
Just go to the subreddit and search for red pill
This thread is like an all-you-eat buffet of salty SJW tears. I've never lapped up so many delicious salty SJW tears in all my time here on this site.
Ah, another MRA. It's good you guys make yourself so easy to spot
Grabs popcorn.
Well this thread is bound to be good.You kind of missed the party, the troops seem to have left
I like Ben Shapiro's history of Feminism:
1st wave: women get the vote
2nd wave: women get right to work
3rd wave: women can behave like pigs (because men do) [equality]
now: woman can behave like pigs - but men can't [supremacy]They act like pigs how exactly?
Not being allowed to act like pigs certainly doesn't stop most of them.
Think about.
If men are sexist in public they are publicly shamed. Examples: Chris Gayle, Eddie Mcguire incidents.
Women being openly sexist to men face no consequences and will probably be cheered on.
It's the double standard.
Women being openly sexist to men face no consequences and will probably be cheered on.
Examples equivalent Eddie Maguire's gaffes please?
They should be pilloried for saying the crap they did because for better or worse, these are the opinion makers in our society and people will emulate them.
In addition, he made those comments during the round dedicated to raising money for White Ribbon. A "celebrity" shouldn't be saying that stuff in public at all because of their influence. Hell, they shouldn't be making them in private either if they are decent human beings
@brentsbits: The most recent example I can think of was on the weekend: Lena Dunham called for the extinction of all straight white men. She is not a fringe feminist, she is mainstream, she is part of Hillary Clinton's campaign!
@rokufan:
Here's another, a "diversity officer" who proudly wrote 'kill all white men'
And placed a sign saying "no white hetero men" on events she hosted.First, Lena Dunham is most definitely fringe. She isn't mainstream just because she has a platform and is a celebrity. Her beliefs are fringe.
Even having said that, she didn't "call for the extinction of white men" she asked her dad how he felt about the extinction of white men. There's a fairly big difference between the two and confusing them is emotionally loading it so people get all excited and don't actually look what happened.
Even having said that, she's a friggin loony.
she is part of Hillary Clinton's campaign
no, she's not. There's a massive difference between campaigning for someone and being a part of their campaign. One is getting out there saying "you should vote for this person for these reasons" and the other is that person actually being an advisor and having some degree of power and control over the campaign, even if it's minor.
This is the funniest thing I find.
Whenever men say sexist shit, when they get called out their response is typically "geez, you are so thin skinned, learn to take a joke"
Yet, when evaluating what feminists say, there's no possibility in their mind that it's 100% serious and that we have a bunch of genocidal maniacs on our hands. Satire and humour are not a possibility at all. Perhaps men should heed their own advice?
In that particular case though, she does indeed appear to be a loony.
So, Eddie Maguire suggesting he'd pay to see a specific woman, that he knows personally and is not friends with, drowned should be taken as a joke and people shouldn't be so serious.
Someone like this is seen to be 100% serious and should go to court. For the record, given her track record, I'm fine with her going to court, what's good for the goose is good for the gander but can you not see the incredible double standard there?
@brentsbits: Oh come on! She has been in offical TV and internet ads for Hillary. Also she had a sit down interview where they discussed and agreed on all things feminist. She also has stood on stage next to Hillary multiple times at rallies including the Democrat National Conference when Hillary was coronated.
Lena Dunham is mainstream feminism. Her Australian equivalent is Clementine Ford, she is a pig, take a look at her twitter timeline https://twitter.com/clementine_ford?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7…
As Christina Hoff Sommers says, modern feminism is just female chauvinism.
I'm all for equality, but reject this modern man hating cult.
Lena Dunham is mainstream feminism
She is absolutely not. Don't confuse being visible with being mainstream.
Her Australian equivalent is Clementine Ford
This is also 100% not true. I actually know Clem personally. Her twitter timeline. Oh god. This again. Women should learn to take a joke but feminists are incapable of satire and not saying things seriously.
Is that seriously the argument you are going to go with?
How much of Clem's stuff have you actually read? Seriously. She is in no way a misandrist. There's a massive difference between hating men and not caring if you offend them. Huge difference.
modern feminism is just female chauvinism
Not in my experience. I'm a dude and I don't actually feel belittled, shamed or threatened by it at all.
I'm all for equality
So you acknowledge that given there is a systemic imbalance between men and women that men will have to give up some of the things that they might feel entitled to? In a truly equal society, this is what has to happen. Not in an affirmative action way but if the truly best person for the job is going to get the job with no other considerations in play, women are going to start getting proportionally more jobs and more importantly proportionally more of the jobs with power. Take the example of 3% of women being Chair of the Australin top 200 comapny boards. If we get to the point where truly the most qualified person gets the job, that percentage is going to raise itself up over time. Maybe not to 50/50, maybe to 30/70 or 70/30 but in the top 200 companies, that means that in some cases a man (who might have thought he was a shoe in because that was his expectation because men typically get those roles) might not get it and a woman gets it instead. That's what I mean about some men are going to lose out. Not all men. Not even most men but some men. Might be you, might be me, might not even be anyone we know but it will be someone.
You say you are OK with equality, you are OK with that then?
modern man hating cult
I'm not down with any man hating cults either, yet somehow I'm still a feminist. Do you think I hate men?
@brentsbits: You sort of made our point. Eddie Mcguire made in my opinion an off colour joke and he was crucified. Feminist say outrageous, hateful and insulting things - and there is silence. I use to dismiss this stuff as a joke, but you read and listen to enough feminists and it is all just hate.
there is absolutely not silence when they say anything of the sort.
You mentioned Clem Ford, do you have any idea of the shit she gets on a weekly basis, even when she doesn't write anything?
Eddie Mcguire made in my opinion an off colour joke
This is part of the problem. You see what Eddie said as a joke but what Clem said on her twitter as 100% serious, couldn't possibly be a joke.
The worst bit about it is that Eddie made it during a round raising money for White Ribbon, an organisation aimed at reducing domestic violence, the majority of which is against women. He joked about paying money to see her drowned.
So, just so I'm clear. Are you OK with him saying this kind of thing in public? Do you think he should get away with it because it's just boys being boys?
If so, why are you not willing to extend the same courtesy to people like Clem Ford? It may not be a good joke or piece of satire but it's obvious that's what it was. Any individual 140 characters is surprisingly easy to take out of context if you want to.
but you read and listen to enough feminists and it is all just hate
So, where's the line for Eddie and the others who do all kinds of rank stuff on air. Eddie just said something, but what about the guys sexually harassing female journalists on air? Where's the line for them?
@brentsbits: Ford is a typical crybully: she attacks and when receives return fire she cries victim and uses those comments/tweets as evidence of some systemic misogyny. That's standard feminist/SJW operating procedure.
She attacks not just men, but conservative women, example Miranda Devine and Rita Panahi, calling them the "c" world with rape threats. It's not as you say a case of out of context and misunderstanding. It is just an endless stream of vile.
Whereas with Eddie, as a principle I don't like the idea of hanging people for the odd mistake, I don't think it was a big deal, we'll disagree on that.
she attacks and when receives return fire she cries victim
See, that's the thing. She doesn't really attack anyone in particular most of the time. She identifies systemic issues and the other side conflate that to her meaning #allmen. Or whatever.
Do you think she "cries victim" every time it happens? I can guarantee you she doesn't. She gets hundreds of threats and unsolicted dick pics every week. Now that she's had a baby, the baby and her partner are threatened as well.
Even IF she did attack people rather than the status quo (and everything that entails), do you think that she deserves rape and death threats to her, her partner and her new born baby? Seriously? Why should she not be "crying victim" when that kind of thing happens? If you do think it's acceptable, can you please advise me at what specific point criminally threatening someone becomes OK? Any of the ones she posts online are the more mild ones. I've seen some of the others.
Return fire is not rape and death threats in private messages. It's public debate, hell, it's even attacking her in the public sphere. What isn't return fire is being a f***ing coward and doing it all in private messages so no one will see what that person really thinks about women who threaten him. And by threaten I don't mean physically, I mean intellectually and ideologically.
calling them the "c" world with rape threats
Oh really? I'd like to see where that has happened because in all my time of arguing with people about how unacceptable she is the worst they can come up with is a satirical (if in bad taste) "kill all men" tweet. Please link me to those articles. Rape threats are never OK.
It is just an endless stream of vile
I think you mean bile, and that's not what it is.
Getting told that she deserves "to be gang raped by a pack of AIDS infested n*****s". That's bile. It's also vile. That's pretty much her inbox on a daily basis.
I'm pretty sure that one was in response to her posting a photo with "F*** Sunrise" written across her chest (with nothing showing I might add, yet everyone called it a nude) in response to the victim blaming and shaming they did when talking about revenge porn. If anything she attacked the scumbags that would post intimate photos of their exes in revenge. Those guys deserve some shaming. That's the kind of thing which makes people send her messages like the above.
Tell me, is that message above acceptable as "return fire"?
Whereas with Eddie, as a principle I don't like the idea of hanging people for the odd mistake
That's the problem. It's time and time again and we should be holding our public figures to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. Just because they are celebrities they shouldn't be allowed to get away with things. This wasn't when he was sitting in a change room and on his own with a mate, it was out in public and picked up by a camera.
If behaviour like that doesn't change and become unacceptable every time it happens, celebrity or not, then we won't ever reach equality, for anyone. Men won't get taken seriously when reporting assault because someone, somewhere will think it's OK to lambast him for it and women will continue to be blamed for getting raped.
@brentsbits: I've seen a screenshot of her worst tweets, can't find it at the moment. But I'm sure you'll accept the Guardian as a source: "Daily Life columnist Clementine Ford called veteran columnist Miranda Devine “a f**king (profanity)” on Twitter." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/201…
Shall we hold Ford to the same standard you want to hold Mcguire - and fire them both?
This is the thing with SJWs, there is no proportion. You want maximum punishment even for microaggressions. Would you want to be on the receiving end of overly harsh punishment?
Hmmmm bacon
Why would they screen it at a uni there are many SJW, it seems it's to promote controversy.
This is kind of what unis are for. Dissenting opinions and the like.
Ugh, Bankstown.
Some things are free for a reason, because they're rubbish. This is one of those things.
Why?
How do you know?
Have you seen the film?
Don't know about the MRAs views but "The red pill" groups on reddit is nothing more then a bunch of creeps giving each other tips on how to get laid as fast and as much as possible without ever getting emotionally involved because as far they see it women are manipulative, awful creatures who are after their money and thus are not worth more then a quick lay.
Ive also looked at the "married red pill" groups and they're less aggressive however they too see women as just tools to make their lives easy in some way. Cooking cleaning, taking care of the chores and the kids, basically a maid to their house and a ***** to their bedroom etc. They have this list of expectations. They too give advice on how to manipulate women but this time with a tool they call "dread". So basically they advise men to treat their relationships as disposable, in order to scare their partners and get what they want.
Nothings wrong with men seeking their rights- I'm all for equality and I agree some laws do disadvantage men in the western world. Nothings wrong with voicing this as long as its not done under some hidden agenda of hate but if its anything like the reddit groups.. then theres not much hope for it at all. Cause its just bunch of butt-hurt guys who have decided to declare war and make things even by hurting/punishing as many women as possible to take out their anger.
From the trailer I watched, I don't think this film has much to do with that subreddit.
They just both use the same name from the concept from The Matrix.
its not the film that's linked to these subreddits (although even the preview video mentions them)- its the individuals within the red pill/males rights movements that may also be part of these subs. Baseline is the same - Obviously no one ever openly discusses hate when their faces are exposed.. but put them on the internet and you have different tones coming though.
I mean even in this intro video they talk about abortion. Yes it sucks that man don't get the final say in abortion - but what exactly do they want/expect, would they like women to be forced to carry a child for 9 month and go through child birth just because they would like a baby ?.
When I did family law and I had a male client that had started spouting MRA stuff off the internet I just used to cringe inside. Just the non stop bitterness, paranoia and persecution complexes. They just couldn't be persuaded that they were only hurting their own case.
My favourite was when some guy would insist on 50:50 care of the kids even though he never spent much time with them previously. I would ask them for the kids dates of birth and a lot of times they weren't sure.
There are some legitimate arguments to be made but MRAs aren't the ones to make them. Besides there are plenty of feminists who are reasonable and concede that, yes, the education system is failing young boys, that men of colour suffer police brutality etc to a far greater extent than women.
To be fair I think there are a lot of reasonable people that identify as MRAs. Tarring all MRAs with the brush of the creeps you run into on reddit is sort of like tarring all feminists with the radical feminist brush.
It's sort of like saying "I took a class in gender studies, taught by a prominent feminist academic. We were taught that prominent feminist Andrea Dworkin believes all heterosexual sex is rape. We studied Solanas, who published a murderous manifesto and then went out and tried to murder a guy. We read a few other texts that claim transgender women are an oppressive by their very existence etc etc…
So in conclusion that there are some legitimate arguments to be made about women's rights and gender equality, but feminists aren't the ones to make them".
Many people draw that conclusion based on their encounters with feminism in academia. In reality its a bad sample. Most people that identify with the label probably don't subscribe to its loudest, most radical, or even most prominent voices - they just want equality and basic respect.
did it get canceled ?
Yes.
Uh oh, some people are butt hurt on the internet, this must be an important issue!