02/05/2014 Jonathan Taylor

Realizing their ideas can’t compete in a free world, Feminists resort to censorship yet again

Quite a discussion has been taking place on the Men’s Rights subreddit concerning this. As most of us are aware, tomorrow the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) is presenting men’s advocate Karen Straughan at Ryerson University.

You can watch a live stream of it here.

Apparently since the bullying tactics Feminists have employed at recent CAFE events have thus far been unsuccessful, some of them have decided to go on a tear-down rampage of posters promoting the upcoming event at Ryerson.

By “bullying tactics,” I am referring to blocking entrances to events, pulling fire alarms while events were in progress, shouting hateful abuses at attendees while wearing masks, as well as fining CAFE high-dollar “security fees” simply for speaking.

Here you can see CAFE’s promotional poster posted to Facebook. The names and some of the images are blacked out due to Reddit’s posting policy:

Tearing down CAFE's and karen straughn's posters - free speech

Here is an expanded version of the coversation:

Poster tear-down facebook chat

Interestingly, the title of the event itself is “Feminism, Free Speech, and Censorship of Men’s Issues.” Notice how these people are laughing at the very possibility that men’s issues could be censored while themselves promoting the suppression of speech and alternative points of view.

This tactic isn’t anything new, of course. Feminists tore down posters at the CAFE event featuring Dr. Warren Farrell. Earlier this week I reported on how the president of the National Union of Students in New South Wales, Australia, encouraged students to tear down posters which asked if it was more morally acceptable to live in fear of men than any other group.

This same exact thing happened at Arizona State University, where Feminist students tore down the same exact posters. And Feminists caught on video also tore down those same posters when John Hembling of A Voice for Men was posting them on private property after he obtained permission to do so. Here’s the video Karen Straughan made of it here:


And now we see those same tactics being employed against CAFE and Karen Straughan.

If Feminists believe their ideas are so superior, why don’t they attend the event, listen to what Karen Straughan has to say, take part in the Q and A, and – if they are dissatisfied with that outcome – write a point-by-point article refuting her claims on their thousands of blogs or the thousands of mainstream media mouthpieces sensitive to Feminist politics?

If what men’s advocates are saying is so bad, why is it so hard for Feminists to compete by opposing bad speech with better speech of their own?

You see folks, in a free world where ideas are publicly vetted rather than being rammed down people’s throats by coercion, intimidation, and false accusations (tactics which Feminists – despite their hollow claims of “tolerance” – are famous for), Feminists simply cannot compete.

John Hembling said the same at A Voice for Men a long time ago:

Whenever I or any other MRA fields an argument in defence of mens rights, or critical of feminism, it is never met with a counter argument. The arguments of MRAs are met with accusations, shaming language, insults, threats, blackmail, violence, censure, censorship, cooked up criminal charges, vandalism, imprisonment and other calumny.

My article critical of the institution of marriage was answered by feminists accusing me of being gay, of being bitter, of having a small penis, or social ineptitude, of financial impotence, of living in my mother’s basement, of body odour, and of tendencies to hatred, violence, and pedophilia.

Of those critical of my article, none actually addressed the substance of the argument made. None.

My article deconstructing the feminist goal of reversing the burden of proof in accusation of sexual assault was met by feminists who called me a rapist, a bigot, a woman beater, a loser, a violent criminal, and a sociopath. Not even one criticism addressed the substance of my article.

And if you doubt anything John is saying, simply look at the comments in the image captured from Facebook earlier in this article, or look through this site’s articles on free speech.

Sometimes people ask me, “what makes men’s human rights so different from Feminism?”

Then answer, folks: it isn’ t an “ism.”

It isn’t a dogmatic, monocausal belief system unto itself, which Feminism is. “Monocausal” of course means “one cause,” and in the Feminist worldview the one cause of everything bad in the world is men, men, men – which is why they call it “patriarchy” in the first place.

There’s a silver lining to all this, however. These Feminists are putting their narrow-mindedness on display for the whole world to see. They are showing just who puts the move in the Feminist movement.

And by refraining from employing those same tactics ourselves, it puts us in the better light.

Jonathan Taylor
Follow me

Jonathan Taylor

Jonathan is Title IX For All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer. Hailing from Texas, he makes a mean red beans n' rice and is always interested to learn new things.
Jonathan Taylor
Follow me
Share and rate this post:
Tagged: , , , ,

About the Author

Jonathan Taylor Jonathan is Title IX For All's founder, editor, web designer, and database developer. Hailing from Texas, he makes a mean red beans n' rice and is always interested to learn new things.

Comments (15)

  1. Once again have we proven Canada is not the better country. People like to say that Americans think they are the best and that they are the most patriotic. They’ve never been to Canada. Most Canadians will whip out their tongues to say how much better they are then the U.S. How tolerant they are and how great the health care system is; of course by tolerance they mean PC friendly material.

    At my own university, either last year of the year before the Libertarian Group (I can’t remember the name of organization) erected a free-speech wall in the main building so students could exercise their free speech. Not a day latter, a 7 year human rights student tore down the wall saying it promoted racism and was an act of violence against gays, despite the only thing remotely anti-gay was something like “traditional marriage is awesome.” and he had a wall of supporters. The tactics of the far left and the feminists extend everywhere they can get their hands.

    People seem to think Canada as this open minded liberal bastion, but only if liberal means the bastard word it’s become, rather then what it really means. I know this is off topic and I apologize, but I just had to say something somewhere.

    • RedPill Rorschach

      Well Shun, at least they aren’t trying this in Quebec (I’m from Quebec). If you think the feminists in this article are bad, you should see the ones we have over here. I wish I could make it to Karen’s talk, but I’m currently on the other side of the world.

  2. Guber

    It isn’t enough to show this hatred and bigotry to the world. You need to show that it is the main stream core of women at large. I say women, not “feminists” because any other label allows the haters to hide and women at large to disown their sympathizing behind empty phrases denying these as “extremists” or “radical feminists” or even just “feminists”. The word “feminism” is falling out of fashion, I have discussed with several women claiming “I’m not a feminist” but then continuing to tell me how I don’t see that women have it worse, that men are to be blamed, that I am obviously hating women, and I need to let go of my privilege. This attitude is everywhere. The key is to link the extremism to the mainstream.

    It’s hopeless.

    The only hope is one man freeing another and so on. The only hope is a revolution of men. .

    • There’s a substantial (and good, I think) argument that can be made that much that is bad in Feminism is simply the politicization of the dark side of female nature.

      I don’t see how relying on those arguments will take us forward when it comes to actually producing structural change to society, however. Using it to tell men to go MGTOW may be different.

      • Christopher Wedge

        And while MGTOW is a good stop-gap solution, it is simply the lifestyle equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and hoping it goes away.

        MGTOWs without activism, or activists backing them up are merely targets.

    • Christopher Wedge

      I don’t know why it’s so hard for some people to grasp that – yes, there IS such a thing as toxic femininity Yes, some people WILL lie to your face to attempt to manipulate you, and yes, feminism DOES bestow untold unfair benefit to women who toe it’s line,.

      It doesn’t make women any worse than men. It just gives toxic women more weapons than toxic men.

  3. Rob

    What a charming kerfuffle. I like women and will go on being courtly and solicitous towards them.

  4. M4n

    De-fund them. Men can live cheap and a good life without much trouble. They cannot seize what you do not earn. Women cannot survive and maintain their modern high quality of life without men doing the dirty jobs that make it all possible

  5. John, I very much appreciate the work you are doing. My son will be going to university in 2015, and I am concerned for him and his future.

    As for myself, I’m 57 and have found that there are women my age who didn’t attend a university and are relatively unindocrinated and have relatively good character as far as normal hypergamy allows 🙂 Combined with some game awareness and being the best man I can be, I’ll probably be OK for my remaining years.

    But my son has most of his life ahead of him.
    I appreciate your positivity and optimism, but this is not a free world and the feminists have in fact successfully out competed dissenting views and gotten their agenda backed by laws and university policies.

    I definitely believe more MHR activism is needed. Since the MRAs can’t seem to pull a large enough coalition of men together to make a difference, what is needed is guerrilla tactics whereby a small number of men can have a large effect. Does anyone have any ideas about what could be done without discrediting the MHR movement?

    • I think guerilla tactics are useful. I’ve even engaged in them myself, to a degree. The trick is keeping it legal, and that requires money.

      I would ideally like AVFMS to have several “wings” or “prongs” to it, so to speak: a publishing prong, and public activism prong, and a more subtle, tactical side. There’s no way I could do it all myself, however. After this site has been firmly established as an online men’s issues publication (which would require more guest writers and regular contributors), I can think of other projects.

  6. mark stanbsury

    I personally, would like to see a mens rights group in every major city, the world over. Every country can have a central office in their capital close to the politicians. Every group holds weekly meetings and collects dues. There was a man named Bill Wilson who did just that. The MHRM could learn a lot from his example. I believe in what men like Jonathan Taylor and Paul Elam are doing. If one of them was to publish a book like Bill W did, we could start there. Its time for us to get more personal than the internet and I think were ready.


Comments are closed.