The fearful Feminist “Shrew Culture” of Toronto has been tamed and Thanksgiving arrived early this year – even for Canada.
The manicured fingers that once disrupted peaceful lectures by pulling one fire alarm after another are now stuffed into linty pockets – or maybe, other warm places.
The fiery hair has been scalped and the chanty lips have gone silent – and a blessed silence it is. The feminist leisure class has gone into a deep hibernation to lick their wounds with Miley-Cyrus-sized tongues of shame and inglorious whimpers.
I guess those mean old boys have won yet again.
Those of you who have gone through the agony of a harsh relationship breakup with a malicious woman know that towards the end, the fighting and aggression of the woman seems to decrease. Those experiencing this decrease can misread it through a sense of relief and thoughts of triumph, as times less rancorous seem like times of improvement. Seem. In reality, the fighting has ceased because the woman has stopped caring and is preparing to move on without you.
Is that what happened in Toronto?
The Puzzle Pieces
I’ve been collecting ideas and theories about the opposition’s meltdown as a part of my review of the Toronto Triumph for a couple of reasons: I’m curious about why’s of what happened, and if the results were due to something the MHRM did (or could do in the future), then we can use that to disarm feminist opposition in upcoming MHRM events.
As amusing and even helpful as it is to have the shrews battling us at every turn, the ability to shut them down at will would be a powerful asset to our cause.
1. The Distraction.
The Friday morning just before that evening’s Groth Lecture, a nice fellow named Professor David Gilmour, a literature professor (NOT the musician for Pink Floyd) experienced a protest against him at the University of Toronto. His rape-y, beat-y crime? He prefers good male-authored literature to shitty girly crap, and he said so out loud.
Of course, the students and administration were outraged that Prof. Gilmour failed to lie and pretend as if women other than Virginia Woolf could write loveable stories, too.
The college’s principal, one aptly named Angela Esterhammer, hammered home the point that by exercising his right to speak freely about his personal tastes in literature, “Mr. Gilmour expressed his views…in a careless and offensive manner. He has since apologized to students and colleagues, and in the media, for his ill-considered comments.”
The feminists went after Gilmour because he was a slave who had unwittingly slipped out of his chains of servitude to female privilege, and it was important for them to whip him back into line. Those of us in the MHRM can no longer be controlled by the lash, and so the feminists lashed out at the one lone man their hatred might still control.
The conclusion from this point is that feminists are cowards who prefer weak, isolated and vulnerable targets for their attacks. The befuddled Prof. Gilmour actually believed he could exercise free speech in isolation without repercussions.
If we want to encourage feminists to assault us in the future, we should bait a trap with nice guys like who Professor Gilmour is and Dr. Warren Farrell used to be, and leave the trap looking vulnerable enough for them to engage. Likewise, if we want to deflect a feminist assault, a sacrificial lamb should do the trick.
2. The Turnover.
Every Fall a new crop of potential frosh feminists sets stiletto heel onto University, replacing the hardened, hoary and barren crotchbeard feminists who graduated in the Spring. The Groth lecture happened very early in the academic year, perhaps well before the indoctrination of she-ep was up to specs. So, the feminist failure might have been due to something as simple as they hadn’t had enough time to harangue their own followers into submission. Yet.
This suggests that if we want to avoid feminist protests at meetings and lectures, scheduling them as early as possible in the new academic year should mute the protests. Likewise, if we want to encourage protests, a late Spring date would be ideal.
3. The Metaphors in the Meeting.
My notes on the Secret Feminist Meeting about MRAs have been up since last week and looking over them, the tactics of the feminists are so scabrous, and the underlying metaphors so poorly chosen, that had I been a feminist in the audience, I would’ve had severe doubts about both the capabilities and the sanity of the organizers of the meeting.
It was announced repeatedly that recording the meeting was forbidden. Of course, in academia openness is valued, and secrecy is usually associated with oppression, cheating, crime and consensual human fucking. The only reason for secrecy at a feminist meeting like this would be if M(H)RA’s represented a genuine threat – something which Ashleigh Ingle explicitly denied at about 44:50 into the meeting. Realizing the stupidity about holding a secret meeting to plan a protest for a non-threat, Ashleigh caught herself, and then corrected herself to say that Men’s Rights folks could become a threat.
This just dug the bullshit deeper – a “threat” is by definition a possible future bad thing. At the risk of being accused of manslaining, a “potential threat” is exactly the same thing as a “threat” – both are possible future bad things. If something is not a threat, then it is not a threat EVER. If you can become a threat, then you already are a threat.
Wanting it both ways is such abject stupidity by Ashleigh – “they’re not a threat, except when they are” – that listeners had to call into question the competence of the entire group of speakers.
As a listener, I would have thought, “why bother with a protest if these guys aren’t a threat, and why am I wasting my time in this meeting?”
But Ashleigh’s poor choices just kept on coming – after her lengthy rant about how the administration wouldn’t protect feminists and that women faced an epidemic of rape and sexual harassment in male-dominated (likely STEM) fields at UT, she then claimed that women weren’t victims at all (52:00).
Again, Ashleigh wanted to have it both ways – women at UT are victimized, but they’re not victims. Perhaps I should mansplain again the central contradiction here – either you are a victim, or you are not. If the women at UT are indeed warding off their attackers (as Ashleigh suggested), then I salute them, and wish them continued success in all their victim-blaming efforts.
Because of course, if you try to protect yourself, then according to feminists, you are victim-blaming.
And it just keeps coming – Ashleigh concedes that feminists use inflammatory quotes stupidly – things like “Kill all men“, I suppose – and that, in doing do, they “normalize” the MHRM – in other words, feminist protests make feminism look evil and stupid, and the MHRM look honest and just.
That one statement alone likely killed any desire in the listeners to mount a loud, sound bite-driven protest.
And there’s more! At 54:00 Ashleigh conceded that men have real problems (but are wrong to blame feminism).
This slip betrays a deep divide among feminists – some, like Amanda Marcotte, routinely deny that men have problems at all. They have to do this so they can avoid being accused of victim-blaming – and furthermore, if a man has a problem, then the notion of the patriarchy crumbles. Indeed, asserting that men’s problems are men’s fault is…wait for it…VICTIM BLAMING!
Even if the listeners didn’t make this precise connection, the idea that you should go out and protest victims who have legitimate issues – even if they are men – had to make the listeners squirm. An earlier speaker had identified the MRM as a radical movement (18:00) – so, by painting us as radicals with legitimate issues, the feminists accidentally framed themselves as the real oppressors fighting free speech.
Mercifully for Ashleigh, she finally shut up, and the Q&A period began, but not before it was announced that white men would be forced to move to the end of the Q&A queue so that their betters could speak first. This bit of hate underlined the point that maybe men do have issues after all – and that feminists try to erase and silence them.
What this all shows is that the more feminists attempt to engage us (and us, them), the more the truth of our claims will undermine their lies.
4. The Manly Men and Women of the MHRM.
Yes, the folks we had at the rally were smart, cool, and awesome. If I had a feminist gang to face the tag team of just Paul Elam and Karen Straughan, I’d want at least a year to prepare and even then I’d lose badly, but the comprehensive MHRM band on hand for the event could manage just about anything, if through their confident swagger alone.
It is possible that our fearsome group alone scared off the major feminist players, but it is more likely, I think, that Ashleigh, Big Red and their crew were still limping from shooting each other in their come-fuck-me pumps.
Conclusion
These are but some of the factors that were in play in Toronto. They help explain not only our success but also why feminists prefer safe spaces and secrecy, and avoid debate, comments, and criticism of any sort – a house built on lies cannot withstand even the smallest challenge.
