Surprised? I’m not. Here’s the news (my comments are interspersed):
Good heavens, has it really been over ten years? What extreme actions was this group engaging in? What incorrigible views were they supporting? Were they advocating genocide, perhaps? Perhaps the mutilation of infants? Perhaps the mass clubbing of baby seals?
BROSoc’s constitution states that the society’s main aim is to provide a safe space for men on campus and address mental health issues specific to men, through the establishment of a Men’s Shed.
Unfortunately for Kate Bullen’s position, this “clear evidence” regarding it being “not about breaking down gender roles” is not presented to the public. Perhaps it’s the kind of evidence that we just need to try really hard to see. You know, like when we look up at the stars and see figures from Greek mythology.
Also, the board’s argument that it is “exclusionary toward women” is a farce, and unlike Kate Bullen I actually do have clear evidence for my claims. Sydney University has several “women’s spaces.” One of them is quite literally called Women’s Space. Another is a women’s research group, and another is a women’s college.
But that’s not all: when a women’s domestic violence and a women’s homeless aid service (which, among other services, were unrelated to the university) closed in the city, the board decided that they needed to somehow help these women-only services stay afloat. From their website:
In March, tender packages for homelessness services were released for inner Sydney, with only $1.1 million specified for wom*n experiencing domestic and family violence. The overall reduction of $6 million for Sydney, with the view to redistributing it across the State, leaves no specific funding for services catering to wom*n who are ‘homeless or at risk of homelessness, who have experienced childhood sexual assault, abuse or neglect, mental health and/or drug and alcohol issues, or for women leaving custody’, SOS Women’s Services reports. For wom*n fleeing domestic violence, discrimination or hardship, these services are of vital assistance.
And fuck men who commit suicide, right?
So let me get this straight: these “values of inclusivity” are what, in the minds of these board members, compel them to support women-only services that aren’t even related to the university, and to close down services for men that actually are.
Let’s be real here: these people have no values when it comes to equality or inclusivity. Values are only values when we apply them to everyone consistently. When we do not, they are not values but prejudices. And that is an accurate reflection of the character of these administrators.
These administrators were spouting feminist rhetoric and ideals the entire time too. Could this be further evidence of, as we are so often told, how “Feminism is working on men’s issues”?
I’m reminded of people who complain that men’s advocates never do anything. Actually, we do quite a bit. Unfortunately, a lot of us get kicked in the teeth when we make good-faith efforts to actually help people who are, quite literally, dying.
“Coincidentally,” it is often the very same gang of ideologues who stop us from doing anything helpful who then turn around and complain that we aren’t doing anything. It’s like breaking someone’s legs and then blaming them because they can’t walk.
So let this be Exhibit A as to why we feminism has to be scrapped and thrown into the dustbin of history for any meaningful change for men and boys to be made. It’s a supremacist movement, pure and simple. Men’s advocates can actually say that both men and women have issues of importance, but these people can’t.
Also, at the risk of belaboring the completely obvious, let’s remember that these anti-male bigots aren’t on the margins of society. On the contrary, they are a strong institutional presence. In other words, this is Exhibit #19768B as to why, whenever a feminist tells you that the bad feminists are on the margins of the movement and society in general, that nothing could be further from the truth.