09/14/2013 Jonathan Taylor

The University of Toronto: Cradle of a Revolution

The University of Toronto (U of T) has a chaotic past and a history of repression of the message of equality for men and boys. Rather than extinguish the flame, however, that repression has fanned the flames of a movement that is lighting the way for the western world.

Let this post be a lesson to everyone as to the kinds of anti-male bias and narrow-minded intolerance that has been festering in our academic institutions for the past several decades.

This series of events revolves around a series of talks given by men’s advocates from fall 2012 to the fall of 2013. Here they are, in order:

I have composed an hour-long documentary of the events at U of T which covers everything except for the talk by Dr. Miles Groth, and most of the controversial events. According to Dean Esmay, managing editor at A Voice for Men, it was the most complete synthesis of what transpired at U of T at the time of its publishing. The rest of this post will be mostly a summary of this video, with numerous shorter videos interspersed. Here it is:

 

It all started innocently enough. Dr. Warren Farrell, threatening as a lamb, was due to speak on November 2012 before an audience of education and social work practitioners, community stakeholders, parents, and students on the decline of men and boys in academia. When attendees arrived on campus, however, they found that a group of Feminists – many of them straight from their Women’s Studies classes – had formed a human barricade in front of all the entrances to prevent them from listening to Dr. Farrell. Police had to break up the barrier so that attendees could make it through the mob of Feminists.

Once the barricade was broken, the cops set up their own barricade in front of the building, allowing only attendees to enter. With their own barricade broken, the Feminists took out their frustration on attendees trying to enter the building by screaming and shouting at them, calling them “rape apologists,” and so forth. Fortunately, a man named Steve Brule was there and recorded the protest. The hatred embodied in the Feminist protesters, drunk on their own dogma and intolerance, was on clear display for the world to see:

 

The Feminist protesters, true to their Orwellian and totalitarian nature, characterized their suppression of the freedom of speech and association of others as an expression of their own free speech in the Toronto campus newspaper:

But is not forming a barricade or standing in a particular place an expression of sorts? While you might not agree or condone their means, perhaps their dissent was just as valid an act as the event itself.

On Twitter, Feminists also claimed that the cops breaking up their own illegal barricade was an “attack” upon peaceful protesters by evil, patriarchal police.

I made my own video about the incident, which contains quite a bit more footage from a variety of sources that you won’t see in most references to the video. I also threw in some of my own arguments:

 

Despite having an hour of his presentation cut short, Dr. Farrell spoke in a professional and compassionate manner. See his lecture here:

 

The Feminist attempt at censorship had the exact opposite effect. Attracted by the controversy, news outlets began to cover the story. Dr. Warren Farrell was invited to appear on Canadian national television, where the Feminists were absolutely skewered by the host:

The administration of U of T completely failed to discipline those students who suppressed others’ rights to freedom of speech and association, and didn’t even bother to investigate the matter despite it being all over the press. Dismayed and frustrated by their decision to look the other way (as many higher ed administrators had done in the past), A Voice for Men publicized the identities of the protesters (see here, here, here, and here).

This prompting an angry backlash from the ideologue-infested Toronto Student Union, which demanded that their server “have the website AVoiceForMen.com blacklisted and shutdown by their website provider for hate speech.” Their resolution was filled to the brim with lies and projections of their own hateful and intolerant attitudes and actions, and ultimately went nowhere.

Much of the public, when they became aware of what was going on, were appalled by the behavior of the protesters. Indeed, the more intolerant and hateful the Feminists appeared, the more interested the public became, and the more supportive they were of men’s issues. One such person was student Sarah Santhosh of Ryerson University, who eventually attempted to form a men’s issues group on her campus in early 2013. Once the Ryerson Student Union became aware of this, however, they immediately changed the rules to bar her group from being officially recognized, forbidding any group to organize that tried to raise awareness of misandry (dismissing it as an illegitimate concept) and that didn’t “centre women’s voices in the struggle for gender equity.”

Sarah Santhosh

Sarah Santhosh of Ryerson University

“The ironic thing is my voice is being silenced right now because I can’t even form a group without having to face this really back-handed deal that’s really attacking our group,” Sarah said. So much for equality and tolerance of diversity. Sarah, a kind-hearted person by all appearances, learned very quickly that she is not dealing with a rational, egalitarian culture in higher education.

Masked Feminist 2

Next to speak at was Dr. Janice Fiamengo, a self-described “former radical Feminist.” Her presentation – perhaps the most confrontational of all of them – was about the misandry and the shoddy scholarship of women’s studies departments, and the need for alternative voices to join the discourse in order to balance it out. While no Feminist protesters barricaded the doors, they did try two new methods: wearing masks and pulling fire alarms to shut down the event and force people outside.

Despite the efforts of Feminists, the lecture was held. You may see it below. Note later in the video during the Q&A period of the behavior of the Feminist dissenters, whose gesticulations are more consistent with that of a slam poetry contest than an academic discussion.


As usual, in the digital age where recording devices are everywhere, the intolerance and attempts at suppression on the part of Feminists had the exact opposite effect. Four days later an article appeared in a major online publication titled “Why Women’s Studies Needs an Extreme Makeover.” The first line of the article read “nothing says free speech like pulling a fire alarm.” And again, attracted by the controversy, Dr. Fiamengo appeared on national television:

 

You might think, at some point, that these Feminists would say, “hey, we’re getting some pretty bad press. Maybe we should change up our approach? Maybe we should stop wearing masks, stop pulling fire alarms, stop shouting people down, stop forming human barricades, and stop the lies, lies, lies.”

Oh no. Not even close.

Sponsored by the Canadian Association for Equality, the next to speak at U of T were Drs. Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, both of whom co-authored several books on institutionalized misandry. In response, the Revolutionary Student Movement decided to take action with calls for violence, posting on their blog:

We cannot tolerate this reactionary [MRA] point-of-view! The MRAs must be exposed for what they really are—at best, opportunistic hate-mongers who are taking advantage of the powerlessness keenly felt by the masses. At worst, they represent the most reactive, backward voices within the masses. As such, they need to be verbally condemned as well as physically challenged.

The next protest was the most recorded of all the protests up to that point, and the most heavily attended by men’s advocates, including AVFM staff’s Dan Perrins (“Dannyboy”) and John Hembling (“JtO”). The protesters wore masks and screamed, stomped, and banged on the walls right outside the lecture room while the presentation was in progress. You can see and hear how, in the video below, attendees could not hear them even though they were sitting on the second row:

 

After about fifteen minutes of doing this the protesters pulled a fire alarm, requiring the building to be cleared out. When the event was resumed the protesters not allowed back inside the building. Drs. Nathanson and Young were allowed to finish their presentation, which you can see in this video:

The next event was Dr. Miles Groth’s lecture on why we need men’s centers in higher education. And just when you might have thought U of T couldn’t sink any lower, they do. In addition to not disciplining any of their students for what were clearly criminal acts caught on video, the U of T administration – in anticipation of future Feminist violence, false pulling of fire alarms, and so forth – went so far as to fine the Canadian Association for Equality at the last minute with a ~$1000 “security fee” to protect them from the criminal conduct of their own Feminist students. Out of money and at risk of having to cancel the event, CAFE appealed to the community for help. The community responded, and their donations saved the event.

With Dr. Miles Groth, founder of the Men’s Center at Wagner College, set to talk today about why we need men’s issues groups on campus, numerous political ideologues – including Feminists from the University of Toronto student union – convened four days prior to discuss how they can disrupt or shut down the event. Although it was publicized as a public “townhall” event that anyone could attend, representatives from the Canadian Association for Equality who showed up were asked to leave. Those presiding over the event warned that those who used language contrary to Feminist dogma would be ejected from the meeting. Those organizing the event also prohibited the use of recording devices.

Agents from A Voice for Men were able to infiltrate the meeting, however, and obtain a recording of it. Here is that recording, as well as notes and commentary. Much of their meeting is simply the reiteration of Feminist dogma, as well as the usual lies and slander against men’s advocates that have characterized their reactionary opposition to men’s advocacy for years.

In preparation for the upcoming event, AVFM warned men’s advocates not to respond physically to the violence of protesters, never to engage in violence themselves, that if they are attacked they are to immediately leave or (if they are on the ground) curl up in a protective position, and has gone so far as to threaten prosecution for anyone – regardless of whether they are Feminists or men’s advocates – who resorts to violence. Three days before the event, Ian Dwyer of CAFE made a guest appearance on AVFM Radio to talk about his experiences regarding the U of T administration and campus protesters.

Despite the ominous premonitions, the extreme opposition to Dr. Groth’s lecture failed to materialize, and after the “security fee” was paid for the event was held without a hiccup. You may view Dr. Groth’s talk here:

 

The only noticeable protest was the next day during A Voice for Men’s rally at nearby Queen’s Park. During the rally a group of deranged and disconnected gay Feminist activists appeared, doing nothing but shouting dogmatic and mindless slogans and cliches. Part of this included calling MRAs “anti-gay,” which was an interesting accusation given that AVFM managing editor Dean Esmay has a history as an anti-gay activist and AVFM contributing editor Karen Straughan is bisexual.

It was apparent that the protesters had lost their touch. No one was taking them seriously anymore. Instead, they became something to be laughed at. Nick Reading of the newly-formed Canadian group Men’s Rights Edmonton knew just what to do to bring us a few laughs, as you can see here:


Canadian men’s advocate Attila Vinczer, who attended the rally, was brought on board the AVFM staff as their Director of Canadian News and Activism. He also had a few things to say as the rally ended:

 

There are several lessons we could all learn from these events:

  • Without the persistent use of recording devices, the world would be unaware of what happened at U of T, and the men’s movement there would not have received anywhere near the support it has. Remember, when conducting activism, to always be recording. Think of recording devices as your sword and shield. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I have made a guide to recording devices and laws for this very reason.
  • Never underestimate the potential of dogmatic and intolerant opponents to do your work for you. Oftentimes, you really don’t need to do anything except say “men and boys matter,” weather the storm of their hatred and intolerance, and then display their behavior to the world. Keep your cool, never resort to violence or hatred yourself (real hatred, not the “if you speak up for men and boys it must be hate” mentality Feminists have), always be recording, and things will usually work out fine.
  • The Feminist stranglehold over the discourse of gender issues is coming to an end. Feminists may still dominate the universities, but the universities are always 20 years behind the times because they reflect the ideas and perspectives of the older generation rather than the youth that will replace them. In addition, MHRAs now dominate much of the internet. Feminists, who previously have been pointing the finger at everyone else and telling them what they need to give up, will soon have to learn how to share things themselves. The thought of sharing the discourse with people who actually care for men and boys will make some of them paranoid, delusional, and quite frankly batshit crazy. Remember that power is never given up willingly. Again, always be recording.
  • None of the Feminists who pulled fire alarms, engaged in abusive interpersonal behavior, or formed human barricades were investigated or disciplined by campus authorities or the police, and none were arrested. This is female privilege in its most cynical form: Feminists engaging in the pathologically abusive behavior while all institutional authority figures look the other way, and all the while crying about how oppressed they are. Men’s advocates would never be able to get away with such behavior. Accept the reality that advocates for men and boys are held to a higher standard than Feminists. This series of events was only successful because none of the men’s advocates got out of line.
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 (9)

  1. scott

    Im planning on attending, and hope to run into a few other of the “avante guard” there.

     
  2. Tony Ramano

    If these feminist bitches were in an Arab country prostesting like this, they would get whipped the fuck out, and there bodies thrown right in the police car, and then hung up side down in cell, wack left and right, then they would know what real patriarchal police are.

     
  3. Anne

    Great article. Glad to see you stressed recording devices. I don´t think that can be over-emphasized, especially for males that support the MHRM.

     
  4. “The thought of sharing the discourse with people who actually care for men and boys will make some of them paranoid, delusional, and quite frankly batshit crazy.”

    This is so. Having their ideology contradicted and disproved will make them very paranoid and delusional and seriously batshit crazy. Perhaps to a tipping point degree.

     
  5. jamie

    really enjoying all these articles. keep up the good work 🙂

    Something that i feel would be relevant for discussion at Men’s Centres-and is sadly often overlooked- would be love and family and what it means for men’s sense of purpose, drive, conviction and well-being.

    Men place a lot of value on securing a mate and starting a family. In today’s society men are under a considerable amount of pressure to ‘succeed’ as success and financial security are inextricably linked to finding (and keeping) a suitable mate and consequently maximizing the chances of raising a healthy and happy family.

    All things being equal (looks, personality) an ‘unsuccessful’ woman will find securing a suitable mate a lot easier than an ‘unsuccessful’ man will. Therefore there is increased pressure on males to ‘succeed’. Unemployment, loss of traditionally male construction/ manufacturing jobs and low college admissions only serve to compound the problem. Yet no-one ever really talks about this…..EVER!

    I am happy that so many more women are now going to college than ever before and they are finding success in their careers. Yet i feel something is going to have to give. Women- because of hypergamy- generally marry up not down. (Men generally aren’t so fussy!) All the time, traditionally male jobs are being eroded and a lot of men either do not want a ‘desk job’ and/or do not have the necessary entry requirements for college placement.

    Sure, women *may* ‘step up to the plate’ and fulfill the traditional role of bread-winner, while men will play out some kind of ‘male-sex-in-the-city’ scenario (what’s not to like!) but then again probably not. Why? well a number of things may easily scupper the utopian dream of the ‘kept man’ hypothesis. (By the way i am kidding when i say men will be ‘kept’ this is of course wishful and fanciful thinking as i reckon our layabout asses would be dumped in a second by our female overlords –BUT– the comparison is not wholly unfair either as there are a LOT of women who do hold Wisteria Lane- however unrealistic that may be- as their ideal.) [since we’re Idealizing I wanna be Amanda btw]

    Anyways; here’s why i think It wouldn’t work:

    1- Hypergamy

    2-Unhappiness because of hypergamy (a gnawing feeling they can do better)

    3- Women like to keep their options open. They have a huge range of choices from being single to career woman to being a kept woman to having a family or not having a family and the varying permutations of each (which i calculate to be 24!) If she’s a career woman, she may be progressive enough to consider the Wisteria Lane scenario; but there will be red flags going off in her mind. Big red biological flags. Those other permutations will be dangling there also.
    Maybe she’ll get bored with her career?
    Maybe she’ll be let go?
    What about an accident?
    Maybe she’ll want kids?
    Maybe she’ll want to stay at home with the damn things too?
    What if she finds the competitive cut throat world of the workplace somehow not as liberating as those slick feminist snake oil salesmen told her it would??
    Maybe she might want to be a kept woman?
    Or maybe she’ll end up watching daytime TV all day eating cake??

    So many options. Better make sure he’s gots the skillz to pay the billz should i choose do ANYTHING else other than work.

    Men don’t have such luxury of choice. Men need to be successes; else they are a failures.

     
  6. jamie

    i was falling asleep!! those last two lines should read…..
    So many options. Better make sure he’s gots the skillz to pay the billz should she choose do ANYTHING else other than work.

    Men don’t have such luxury of choice. Men need to be successes; else they are failures.

     

Comments are closed.