The Dr. Janice Fiamengo lecture is still kicking up a froth of fear in the Toronto feminist community.
Toronto’s NOW Magazine (not to be confused with the National Organization for Women) had one of their writers pen some bird cage liner on the whole affair. His name is Jonathan Goldsbie.
If you look at Goldsbie’s linkedin account you will find this tidbit:
“Resident Commie
National Post, Inc.”
Well, that and in his education section you’ll find he attended University of Toronto but there is no list of accomplishments or degrees.
And with that dear reader let me take you for a short trip through Mr Goldsbie’s thoughts on Dr. Fiamengo’s lecture. Don’t blink, its a short trip, his thoughts are shallow and myopic to say the least.
Goldsbie’s article starts off with the introduction to Dr. Fiamengo’s lecture, which began with a song. Well it began with a song after the feminist brownskirts™ attempted to put a halt to the lecture by yanking the fire alarm.
Said yanking, if memory serves me correctly, had more than one fire truck responding. Although this article is not about that single incident I believe it warrants a little discussion.
I am not entirely sure the feminist who pulled the fire alarm realizes just how dangerous that illegal act was. What you managed to do, oh moron of gargantuan magnitude, was to waste the time and efforts of an emergency service; one that saves lives. This simple bonehead move on your part could have cost lives if a fire had broken out in the firehouse’s district. You could have also caused injury or death if people had of made a mad rush to the door and someone was trampled. You could have even caused someone to have a coronary.
I realize gender studies does not instill in its students common sense , ethics or morals but for fuck’s sake try and use the brain you were born with and realize just how easily your illegal act could have turned tragic for some innocent person(s). Any or all of these scenarios could have very easily played out that night and rest assured there would be an outcry for your empty head on a platter, and rightfully so. But alas, I digress.
After Goldsbie does his run through of the opening segment of Fiamengo’s lecture and his opening remarks on it he then gets into the meat of his attack on the MHRM.
As a phrase, “men’s rights” is no less absurd than “straight pride” and no less troubling than “white power.” But it’s unclear how many of the 160 or so people packing Trinity College’s George Ignatieff Theatre to hear Fiamengo talk would draw that connection.
OK, so Goldsbie is declaring that the men’s human rights are absurd, morally equivalent to racial bigotry and homophobia. Oh my god, Myrtle, gather up the kids and grab the scatter gun. There is men out there, and they say they deserve rights! How absurd! And troubling, too!
Goldsbie is taking a similar, if not identical track, to one of the brownskirts™. Well, one of the honorary ones with a penis, who went railing on for about twice of his allotted time to ask a question about how the MHRM was purely white boys and gay hating Republicans racists, and how they excluded him and all. The offended brownskirt™ with a penis appears to have gone to the Jonathan Goldsbie School of Can’t See Shit, as he appeared not to notice that Hartley Ellis, a Jamaican gentleman on the board of directors for CAFE was up at the podium sharing his experiences with the family court system. Ellis had apparently forgotten to surrender his Blackness before speaking, but the offendee didn’t notice, he just kept complaining about all the Whiteness. Goldsbie watched the video, but apparently he didn’t noticed the guy who wasn’t noticing
From there Goldsbie goes on to claim that the MHRM is ignorant of various inequalities and injustices, but he just forgot to tell us what they were. Maybe he thought we would not notice that, but we did. And we have, in fact, noticed a lot of inequalities, like the way people are treated when the speak up about men’s issues. And just a small number of others.
The following numbers are from the AVfM facts section
Men are about 99% of all military casualties and deaths, about 93% of all industrial casualties and deaths, 76% of all homicide victims and about 80% of all suicides.
Do you notice any inequity there, Goldsbie?
Men are the majority of rape victims but feminists don’t notice that. I know, its prison rape. It doesn’t count. Why should we care about them folks? After all they are just men, and they are in prison so they must deserve it. Still, here is something else you and your coven never thought about: the definition of rape itself. See, forced sex is forced sex, and whether it is penetration or envelopment should have no bearing on the definition of the crime itself. Only it does. Legally speaking, forced envelopment is not rape. Notice anything unequal about that?
Women receive custody in divorce proceedings the lion’s share of the time, after being the most likely to initiate the divorce and strip her oppressor of his assets, with full support of the state. States are pretty hard on oppressors, don’t you think? None of this is a real problem, though. It can’t be because feminism says it is nothing to worry about.
Of the top fifteen leading causes of death that men lead in twelve, are tied in two and trail in one. That isn’t something to be looked at either. The anti-male discriminatory sentencing that goes on in the criminal courts is also something we noticed.
Don’t even get me started on false rape allegations, there just isn’t enough words to describe how feminism has screwed raped the pooch on that one.
I could go on, but I don’t think Goldsbie would notice. And that is the thing about his brand of not noticing things. It is not that he just misses it. It is not even that his vision is clouded by human programming to ignore the problems of men. His kind of not noticing takes some real work. You have to not want to notice things to miss them on this level. You have to try to. And you have to try hard.
At the very least I will give the man credit for one thing, He isn’t lazy.
