[quote]‘Remember, remember, the 16th of November
The feminists censorship plot;
I know of no reason why feminists censorship plot
Should ever be forgot. ~ Guy Fawkes, well, paraphrased Guy Fawkes[/quote]
Given my recent appointment as AVfM’s new neckbearded, news knuckle-dragger from north of the forty-ninth, specifically Ontario, and the atmosphere of malcontent towards the MHRM that permeates the mainstream media, I do believe its time for me to dig in and roll up my sleeves.
I think I have the boots on the ground part covered. I’m sure if you folks didn’t think so you would let me know, but I might tell you to eff’ off and my canine companion Jeb will definitely cock his leg on you.
Now, unless you have been in a flu induced coma, much like I have for the last three days, you should by now know about my recent expedition into the intellectually cold, vapid, vacuum of feminist territory at the University of Toronto. I am still shaking my head at what happened when Dr. Warren Farrell gave a lecture about the Boy Crisis there back in November.
Ontario has a long history of feminist indoctrinated culture dating back beyond the ‘a pact with the devil‘ aka Karla Holmolka years.
In the media build up to the Fiamengo presentation, Jessica Smith at metro news penned an article mentioning the events host, the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) — and AVFM. Smith relied heavily on a local feminist Steph Guthrie in her piece. Guthrie was also mentioned by Dr Fiamengo in her lecture.
The following excerpt from the Smith article conveys Guthrie’s sentiments.
Fiamengo’s argument misunderstands feminism, by assuming it casts the men in the classroom as villains, according to prominent Toronto feminist and activist Steph Guthrie.
“We’re talking about systemic issues, and yes individuals are part of it, but it’s not just men that are part of the problem,” she said. “It’s a system-level problem.”
Instead of targeting feminists as the problem, they should be targeting what feminists call ‘the patriarchy’ and become allies of feminists, said Guthrie.
The patriarchy isn’t just harmful for women, she said. It confines men to narrow gender roles, causing the very problems the men’s issues groups are trying to address.
“It’s upsetting, because a lot of people that get drawn into this movement, they have legitimate grievances. They’re feeling very alienated, they’re feeling very lost. This movement is peddling some nice, easy answers,” she said. “Those easy answers are going to leave a lot of people in the lurch.”
Instead, they should consider men’s organizations like White Ribbon campaign, which challenge sexism and foster a positive kind of masculinity, according to Guthrie.
Guthrie doesn’t agree with those who would try to stop the men’s issues groups from holding talks on university campuses. Instead, it’s better to go, listen to the speaker, ask hard questions and engage in a dialogue, she said.
Now lets look at what the CAFE press release says will be talked about by Dr. Fiamengo;
Dr. Janice Fiamengo, U of Ottawa English Professor, discusses the problems of academic feminism at Canadian universities: dubious scholarship, indoctrination, dogmatic teaching approaches, limitations on free speech, effects of “equity hiring,” and the consequences for men in the humanities.
I don’t see anything remotely close to what is claimed by Steph in her salvo of smear, nor did I at Fiamengo’s talk. I do see a series of issues listed and then the phrase “and the consequences for men in the humanities”
Actually considering how things affect men — what a concept. An actual open free speech lecture about men in education today outside the oft repeated and empty concern “Patriarchy hurts men, too.”
Guthrie goes right into deflection by stating its a ‘system level problem.’
Well, it is a system-level problem. AVfM correctly identifies that problem as gynocentrism. That gynocentrism is expressed in a variety of ways, including feminism. It has infected and corrupted nearly every system and level of society in first world nations with devastating results.
Right on cue, Guthrie segues into ‘ it’s ‘the pay-tree-archy,’ or least today’s imagined version of it. Or is it yesterday’s version? Is there a future version that we can all blame tomorrow?
Anyone care to answer? Inquiring minds want to know, and we apparently have a live one here with Steph. She basically comes out and claims that one version of patriarchy or another puts men into ‘narrow gender roles.’
She is right about that, only not like she thinks. She, like every other feminist tends to imagine that men’s gender roles are about having power, over the environment and systems like governance. And especially over women. That’s the male gender role that forces men to rape everything with two orifices below the waist, commit acts of violence against anything with two orifices below the waist, scratch their balls (which are hopefully below the waist), spit whenever possible and drive expensive sports cars in lieu of having a sufficient penis. That is the cut and dried feminist standard for the male gender role. And it is about as valid as a Lindsay Lohan sobriety pledge.
There is a constrictive male gender role, however, just not the one that feminists can see or would care about if they did. And the role is called protector and provider. It is the mandate on men to do everything in their “power,” no matter how sacrificial, to make sure women are, well, protected and provided for. That role is enforced, often brutally, by traditional standards, as well as by feminist mandates that literally put women ahead of everyone, including children, in everything that matters.
And feminism’s problem is that men (and more than a few women) are starting to catch on to it, which is why they are so desperate to keep us from talking about it. The end to constrictive gender roles for men, the real end to them, means an end to support for women first bullshit, including a bunch of goons wearing masks outside a university lecture hall.
It has been the narrow gender role feminism has tossed all men into for the last 50 years. Or is that no longer in agreement with this weeks definition of feminism?
I look on my check list of Acme Fem & co bag of tricks and sure as shit I find myself with an eyeful of it in the form of femmie fear expressed in Guthrie’s next bit of pablum where she ends with “Those easy answers are going to leave a lot of people in the lurch.”. You know what I find myself almost agreeing with Steph here again, with one correction.
Let me fix that for you Steph:
Feminism’s easy answers have left a lot of people in the lurch. And the answers provided by the MHRM go against three million years of sociobiological programming.
Anyone calls that easy will have to answer to Jeb.
Men and boys have a laundry list of issues to take up with society that Acme Fem & co willfully chooses to ignore, or exploit. Again, no room in a single article to dissect and give proper diligence to that subject completely. Though I will give you a heads up Steph about those ‘easy’ answers. Start by looking in the mirror, and by that I mean, at what feminism has inflicted on men and boys for the last 50 years.
Fear not folks, for in her last exchange she points us in the direction of men’s salvation. I was sweating it for a second, nail biting kind of like. I was terrified at the thought that a feminist didn’t have a solution for men. It would be a ‘beware the end is nigh’ sort of moment, either that or time to buy a lottery ticket.
Her solution is the White Ribbon Campaign, which really should be called white flag campaign. Surrender your logic, reason and rationale society, Acme Fem & co dogma has rolled into town.
In her ending statement Steph realizes the actions of her brothers and sisters from Acme Fem on November 16’th, spewing their quote mined propaganda, erupting in vitriolic mob rule over free speech.
And her answer to all of it is to tell men to put women first, and to wear a badge of shame while they do it.
C’mere, Jeb, meet the nice feminist lady.