U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

I've waited a bit to post this because I wanted to gather more infromation about it and I was kind of hoping someone would beat me to the punch. But I think I have enough to share for now.

Here are some Youtube videos regarding the reaction to a speech Warren Farrell was scheduled to give at U of T.

Here is the longest version I can find...


Here is the interview from the Danielle Sandhu, a student body leader.

At once point she had a Tumblr page which she stated she...

has worked to lobby municipal, provincial and federal governments for access to high-quality, public services including education, transit, healthcare, and childcare for all members of the community.

...said page has been taken down for unknown reasons. (I was able to steal the quote off a mirror)(I admit, I bolded the 'all' part)

Here some more protesting...

If you've never heard of Warren Farrell, I suggest you wiki him at the very least; but here is an example of how he operates...


...I honestly don't think this guy has a hateful bone in his body.

So what drove these protesters to so adamantly against his speaking about the "Boy Crisis"? What do you think about this?

Edgy liberal college kids being edgy liberal college kids. In that I mean they are a detriment to everything to do with "liberals", "college", and "kids". They obviously don't know anything about the guy they are protesting and apparently just going off some stupidity they head in a women's issues class.

I love how pretty much all of your videos about the protest come from the Manosphere. It sort of poisons the well.

I don't get how someone who worked so closely with feminists as Farrell did can go ahead and generalize feminists the way he sometimes does, and most of his followers do. There are many different feminist movements.

See this video on the Daily Show paints him and his followers in a less-than-positive light: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-3-2010/male-inequality

If you can't see it for copyright reasons, at one point he bemoans how pharmaceutical sales is becoming an increasingly young attractive woman job, because doctors are still more likely to be male with a straight face.

I am almost certain that I do not agree with this guy on all gender issues, but I do in some way admire the basic stance he holds. I do think he's gotten caught up in MRA style foolishness, but I feel he probably isn't as far out there as these likely rather foolish women's studies students believe he is, and I got really upset when they insulted the guy who had lost friends to suicide. I am firmly not on the side of such disgusting treatment of police or any other human being. They went way too far in their protest.

Edit-I would however like some context on the date rape quote. It seems very odd that an educated individual would make such a statement without some context.

DevilWithaHalo:

Here is the interview from the Danielle Sandhu, a student body leader.

wait wait wait, the lady who was the leader of the group is pissed that there is even a men's group? -_- ..really? What do you care, seriously? I mean does the creation of a men's right group mean that the women's right grow will get less funding from the college or something?

Also, who is Warren Farrell? I've never heard of the guy before.

Helmholtz Watson:
Also, who is Warren Farrell? I've never heard of the guy before.

According to Men's Right's advocates he may as well be the second coming of Jesus, sent to free men from their shackles. Who has extra authority compared to anyone BECAUSE HE WAS A FEMINIST ONCE, SEE!

Dags90:

Helmholtz Watson:
Also, who is Warren Farrell? I've never heard of the guy before.

According to Men's Right's advocates he may as well be the second coming of Jesus, sent to free men from their shackles. Who has extra authority compared to anyone BECAUSE HE WAS A FEMINIST ONCE, SEE!

So do you have anything to actually contribute by actually telling me who the guy is or are you just going to continue to belittle anybody that wants to seriously talk about what the OP posted? If its the later, please don't respond to me.

I don't agree with everything he says, but the protest was immature.

Things like this makes your side look like idiots.

Helmholtz Watson:

Dags90:

Helmholtz Watson:
Also, who is Warren Farrell? I've never heard of the guy before.

According to Men's Right's advocates he may as well be the second coming of Jesus, sent to free men from their shackles. Who has extra authority compared to anyone BECAUSE HE WAS A FEMINIST ONCE, SEE!

So do you have anything to actually contribute by actually telling me who the guy is or are you just going to continue to belittle anybody that wants to seriously talk about what the OP posted? If its the later, please don't respond to me.

Even though it's loaded with hyperbole that's more or less the gist of who he is.

Gold:

Helmholtz Watson:

Dags90:

According to Men's Right's advocates he may as well be the second coming of Jesus, sent to free men from their shackles. Who has extra authority compared to anyone BECAUSE HE WAS A FEMINIST ONCE, SEE!

So do you have anything to actually contribute by actually telling me who the guy is or are you just going to continue to belittle anybody that wants to seriously talk about what the OP posted? If its the later, please don't respond to me.

Even though it's loaded with hyperbole that's more or less the gist of who he is.

For all I know that could be a complete lie. Instead of just acting childish, I would appreciate it if somebody who knows the guy would just summarize him without being blatantly biased against/in-favor of him.

Helmholtz Watson:

Gold:

Helmholtz Watson:
So do you have anything to actually contribute by actually telling me who the guy is or are you just going to continue to belittle anybody that wants to seriously talk about what the OP posted? If its the later, please don't respond to me.

Even though it's loaded with hyperbole that's more or less the gist of who he is.

For all I know that could be a complete lie. Instead of just acting childish, I would appreciate it if somebody who knows the guy would just summarize him without being blatantly biased against/in-favor of him.

Educator, activist and author of seven books on men's and women's issues.
He came to prominence in the 1970s as one of the most vocal men championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving in the New York City leadership of the National Organization of Women (NOW). However, when NOW took policy positions that Farrell regarded as anti-male and anti-father, the emphasis of his career and scholarship shifted drastically and he is now recognized as one of the most important figures in the modern men's movement.
His books cover twelve fields: history, law, sociology and politics (The Myth of Male Power); couples' communication (Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say); economic and career issues (Why Men Earn More); child psychology and child custody (Father and Child Reunion); and teenage to adult psychology and socialization (Why Men Are the Way they Are and The Liberated Man). All of his books are related to men's and women studies; consistent to his books since the early 90's has been a call for a gender transition movement.

As I said, Dags was spewing hyperbole but it was right. He is probably one of the most important posterboys for Mens Rights who has/is given credibility because he used to bat for the opposition.

Gold:
snip

Thanks for the summary, I appreciate it.

Gold:

As I said, Dags was spewing hyperbole but it was right. He is probably one of the most important posterboys for Mens Rights.

Given the summary you gave me, I have to ask why it may be seen as a bad thing that he is the "posterboy", seeing as the man seems well educated given his background.

Helmholtz Watson:

Gold:
snip

Thanks for the summary, I appreciate it.

Gold:

As I said, Dags was spewing hyperbole but it was right. He is probably one of the most important posterboys for Mens Rights.

Given the summary you gave me, I have to ask why it may be seen as a bad thing that he is the "posterboy", seeing as the man seems well educated given his background.

I don't think it's a bad thing, he's a good posterboy for the movement, no sarcasm meant in that term from me anyway.

Dags was just correct in implying he gets a lot of his cred from batting for both teams since it gives him an air of "well how biased could he be?" He's also an extremely popular/important activist and often put forward to quell any "misogynistic movement" comments directed at Mens rights. Hence the "second coming of Jesus" hyperbole. I have no doubt many people would consider him a savior of a movement that's always under a lot of scrutiny.

So I dunno, even if Dags meant it in a negative way, under the hyperbole there is a decent point there.

EDIT: Misinterpreted your main question. This is my answer.

The reason it could be seen as a bad thing by some that he's the posterboy, is that I guess some think he could propose misogynistic/anti-woman/dunno things, but hide behind the *NO NO NO BECAUSE I WAS A FEMINIST ONCE!!!* and people, on his side at least, would think "Yeah... that's right he's not a misogynist! He helped a feminist movement!"

I don't know enough about him to know if he does anything like that or even what he's done recently, I just had a general understanding of who the man was and what he meant to the movement.

Gold:
Dags was just correct in implying he gets a lot of his cred from batting for both teams since it gives him an air of "well how biased could he be?" He's also an extremely popular/important activist and often put forward to quell any "misogynistic movement" comments directed at Mens rights. Hence the "second coming of Jesus" hyperbole. I have no doubt many people would consider him a savior of a movement that's always under a lot of scrutiny.

He's also one of the few academics available to the Men's Rights movement, which is important seeing as how much feminism is a part of academia.

If I wanted to be childish I would've posted this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMhVS5EDSHI

This is the speech or a chuck of it or whatever.

This was fun though, I had a good chuckle when the guy with two friends who committed suicide was told you're not allowed to talk about that.

Dags90:

Gold:
Dags was just correct in implying he gets a lot of his cred from batting for both teams since it gives him an air of "well how biased could he be?" He's also an extremely popular/important activist and often put forward to quell any "misogynistic movement" comments directed at Mens rights. Hence the "second coming of Jesus" hyperbole. I have no doubt many people would consider him a savior of a movement that's always under a lot of scrutiny.

He's also one of the few academics available to the Men's Rights movement, which is important seeing as how much feminism is a part of academia.

If I wanted to be childish I would've posted this.

Was strongly considering it.

JJMUG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMhVS5EDSHI

This is the speech or a chuck of it or whatever.

This was fun though, I had a good chuckle when the guy with two friends who committed suicide was told you're not allowed to talk about that.

Wow that's a lot of terrible sociology in that speech. Some decent stuff, but the fatherlessness neighborhood statistic is likely economic and crime based while it goes against large portions of his own ideas for recess to be the solution to the problems young boys have, or at least more of one than it is for girls.

Revnak:

JJMUG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMhVS5EDSHI

This is the speech or a chuck of it or whatever.

This was fun though, I had a good chuckle when the guy with two friends who committed suicide was told you're not allowed to talk about that.

Wow that's a lot of terrible sociology in that speech. Some decent stuff, but the fatherlessness neighborhood statistic is likely economic and crime based while it goes against large portions of his own ideas for recess to be the solution to the problems young boys have, or at least more of one than it is for girls.

Being that it is only 8 mins I do not think that is a whole thing. This should be it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4
It's two and a half hours long. Will I embed it no, will I laugh as feminists try to defend the actions of protestors yes. Will I chuckle when they say high rates of male suicide and dropping out of school is fine? Yes. In the end it's is going to be a win win for me.

Dags90:

See this video on the Daily Show paints him and his followers in a less-than-positive light: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-3-2010/male-inequality

If you can't see it for copyright reasons, at one point he bemoans how pharmaceutical sales is becoming an increasingly young attractive woman job, because doctors are still more likely to be male with a straight face.

I heard the interview was around an hour or so long. I would like to see how he justified that statement or whether he said it just because he knew that that would be one of the things that makes it in the final cut. I doubt the daily show would keep their scraps laying around and even if they did, they probably wouldn't waste time making them available to the public.

I don't think the irony clicks for some of these protesters. They're somehow claiming the guy's presence is an assault on women's rights, like he's trying to undo some of the freedoms women have fought for. Yet, here they are, blocking an entrance to a lecture hall, denying people the freedom to listen and interpret for themselves. It's pathetic.

Some of the chants and jeers are a testament to the maturity of the crowd and just how much venom they possess.

I don't know too much about Warren Farrell, but from the OP's video and a few I looked into myself, the man seems anything but hateful. Can't believe I'm applying to the same school as these kids. Hopefully I won't have to deal with this in the science department.

EDIT: Gold said it better nd in more detail.

I'm not an MRA but I was wondering if you could explain in greater detail a couple of your points.

Dags90:
He's also one of the few academics available to the Men's Rights movement, which is important seeing as how much feminism is a part of academia.

How much is feminism part of academia? Can it be demonstrated that feminism is part of academia?

Dags90:
I love how pretty much all of your videos about the protest come from the Manosphere. It sort of poisons the well.

Poisons the well how?

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:
I'm not an MRA but I was wondering if you could explain in greater detail a couple of your points.

How much is feminism part of academia? Can it be demonstrated that feminism is part of academia?

Poisons the well how?

Women's Studies departments exist. That's an entire department dedicated to feminist research, in addition to feminist sociologists.

It poisons the well of discussion by starting the discussion with a biased framework, like showing a clip of about of minute of blurry violence without us knowing how long the non violence lasted (I'm guessing a while seeing as it's night time).

Dags90:
I love how pretty much all of your videos about the protest come from the Manosphere. It sort of poisons the well.

If I could locate other sources of the video, you can be sure I would post them. It's rather telling when only one side is sharing something that could be considered a negative slant on how a side perceives reality. If you can share the same video from the womensphere, I would be interested in viewing it.

And FYI; sharing a 'Daily Show' clip meant to jest the likes of the Mens Movement doesn't provide any weight to your fallacious remark. If you accuse someone of poisoning the well, it's best if you don't commit the same grievance in the same breath.

Regardless, the videos I had access to at least show positions from both sides; aggressive feminists wanting to protest against Warren Farrell, and men looking for answers. If the womensphere were to share these; how do you think they would have edited them?

Dags90:
I don't get how someone who worked so closely with feminists as Farrell did can go ahead and generalize feminists the way he sometimes does, and most of his followers do. There are many different feminist movements.

I think that's why he tends to avoid the discussion. Perhaps if you read through some of his literature, you can learn about his reasons and motivations in abandoning his work with the NOW and various feminist activism he used to support.

Dags90:
Women's Studies departments exist. That's an entire department dedicated to feminist research, in addition to feminist sociologists.

And like any realm of academia, is subject to the scrutiny of the academic world. Including the likes of a PHD who disagrees with their methodology and motivations.

Dags90:
It poisons the well of discussion by starting the discussion with a biased framework, like showing a clip of about of minute of blurry violence without us knowing how long the non violence lasted (I'm guessing a while seeing as it's night time).

Indeed; they did not act violently (physically at any rate) toward anyone until the police arrived... they merely prevented anyone from entering the building, effectively censoring Warren Farrell's academic expertise from being shared to the public, and posing a safety hazard by blocking all the entryways.

Thanks for responding.

Dags90:
Women's Studies departments exist. That's an entire department dedicated to feminist research, in addition to feminist sociologists.

You also said that this was important in relation to Farrell's academic credentials. How is this important?

captcha: school is cool

Revnak:
Edit-I would however like some context on the date rape quote. It seems very odd that an educated individual would make such a statement without some context.

First the quote mine...

"If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying...

"We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting." -- Warren Farrell, in Myth of Male Power

Warren Farrells response...

And with the rape, I was showing why the rape statistics are exaggerated, and saying that date rape was much more complex than the way feminists had portrayed it, as men oppressing women.
Warren Farrell

A more contextual frame for the quote...

""If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying.

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." In my own work with over 150,000 men and women - about half of whom are single - the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy's place "just to talk" but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. Almost all acknowledge they've recently said something like "That's far enough for now," even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.

"We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women's romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said "No". They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this "marry the rapist" theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of women's most enduring romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O'Hara to bed, who is a hero to females - not to males - in Gone With the Wind (the best selling romance novel of all time - to women). It is important that a woman's "noes" be respected and her "yeses" be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no."

Hope that sheds some light on the matter.

image
Wow. Misandrists protesting a misogynist. Alien vs. Predator, baby, no matter who loses, we all win in some way.

DevilWithaHalo:

If you accuse someone of poisoning the well, it's best if you don't commit the same grievance in the same breath.

If you've already poisoned the well, then the water's already undrinkable. Anyone else may as well pour even more in for all the difference it makes.

On the other hand, it perhaps exemplifies why I give so little of a shit about the men's rights movement. God forbid they should actually discuss men's rights rather than lazily slag off feminists.

Let's get one thing straight since it's come up several times. He's not an academic writer. Having a doctorate does not automatically make you an academic writer. If your ideas are published in academic journals and reference a clear field of study, you are an academic writer. If you haven't been published in a journal in many years and your books are promoted on Oprah, you're not an academic writer at that point in time. You might still have the potential to be, but you're not.

Warren Farrell's recent books are variations on the self-help genre, they're not academic works because they don't engage with academic concepts, certainly not any academic concept which has been relevant within the last twenty years.

I have to say, I'm pretty angry with him. As far as I'm concerned, he's made a career out of insulting men in such a way that they'll still applaud so long as he strips them of any kind of responsibility, and that goes double for women. He doesn't understand the basic concepts behind anything he writes about, he manipulates his own studies and finally, he's a self-appointed expert who has managed to get himself taken far too seriously despite being an overblown self-help writer whose most notable feature is having co-authored with John fucking Grey.

That's not to say I side with the protesters, because they're kind of doing his work for him. Being protested by THE FEMINISM (or people who can be conveniently labelled as such) may as well be an endorsement for the manosphere-dwelling pond slime who comprise much of the target audience here. Really, who the fuck cares? In 50 years time, is anyone going to be going back and referencing The Myth of Male Power or Why Men Earn More? Will they even be historical curiosities or footnotes in human thought?

Nope.

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:
You also said that this was important in relation to Farrell's academic credentials. How is this important?

captcha: school is cool

People like to point to "Dr. Somebody" as an authority or "study X at the University of Y that shows talking point Z". The Men's Rights movement mostly has Warren Farrell, whereas feminism is a whole branch of scholarship at some universities.

DevilWithaHalo:
And FYI; sharing a 'Daily Show' clip meant to jest the likes of the Mens Movement doesn't provide any weight to your fallacious remark. If you accuse someone of poisoning the well, it's best if you don't commit the same grievance in the same breath.

That's not how poisoning the well works. You set the tone of the thread when you make the first post. When you start a thread with clearly biased Youtube videos, you shouldn't be surprised if someone responds in kind with Daily Show clips. See what I'm getting at? I just don't see this thread as a serious avenue for discussion because of the way the OP frames the topic.

Agema:

DevilWithaHalo:

If you accuse someone of poisoning the well, it's best if you don't commit the same grievance in the same breath.

If you've already poisoned the well, then the water's already undrinkable. Anyone else may as well pour even more in for all the difference it makes.

On the other hand, it perhaps exemplifies why I give so little of a shit about the men's rights movement. God forbid they should actually discuss men's rights rather than lazily slag off feminists.

Without offering any comment on how much I agree or disagree with the concept, I will note that it's fairly difficult to seriously discuss the subject when the person doing so is labelled a misogynist caveman who hates women the moment they utter the words "men's rights". How many times would you keep making an honest attempt to discuss the subject matter with the only result being abuse before you gave up and began to respond in kind?

Magichead:

Without offering any comment on how much I agree or disagree with the concept, I will note that it's fairly difficult to seriously discuss the subject when the person doing so is labelled a misogynist caveman who hates women the moment they utter the words "men's rights". How many times would you keep making an honest attempt to discuss the subject matter with the only result being abuse before you gave up and began to respond in kind?

One might do it by avoiding certain trigger terms like "men's rights". It has a rather unfortunate association with reactionary, misogynist and/or antifeminist cavemen. This is not a surprise, as the modern men's rights movement largely grew out of reactionary antifeminism, meaning the unfortunate association is too frequently accurate. You may as well wave a red flag at a bull.

And lordy, if we encountered "men's rights advocates" spending half as much time campaigning for actual issues as they did feminist-bashing and complaining on the internet, they might get actually something done.

Dags90:
I love how pretty much all of your videos about the protest come from the Manosphere. It sort of poisons the well.

I hate to say this, but who else do you expect to talk about this particular topic in more than passing? You're not going to see discussion of it on feminist sites at all, and most other media would give it no more than a passing mention, if that. It not interesting to people who aren't either local or interested in gender issues, and I would suspect generate quite a bit of feminist hate mail.

Dags90:
I don't get how someone who worked so closely with feminists as Farrell did can go ahead and generalize feminists the way he sometimes does, and most of his followers do. There are many different feminist movements.

Feminism Is Not A Monolith is always a fun argument, it's essentially No True Scotsman turned inward to deflect criticism. Amusingly, groups that various feminists don't like are of course, in fact actually monoliths. Like conservatives, or MRAs.

Dags90:
See this video on the Daily Show paints him and his followers in a less-than-positive light: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-3-2010/male-inequality

I think it bears noting that Stewart has on more than one occasion had to emphasize that his show isn't news, that it never claims to be anything other than satire and comedy. Likewise, for it's core demographics that was probably the best treatment for their ratings.

Dags90:
If you can't see it for copyright reasons, at one point he bemoans how pharmaceutical sales is becoming an increasingly young attractive woman job, because doctors are still more likely to be male with a straight face.

In one of a handful of tiny sound bites hacked apart to build the piece they wanted for humor's sake. This is exactly the tactic you would argue against being used if it were used against a different target (and I'd be offended by if it weren't a comedy show -- it takes a lot for comedy to offend me). Given the number and length of them that made it into the episode, I'm guessing he didn't give them very much with which to hang him.

Dags90:
Women's Studies departments exist. That's an entire department dedicated to feminist research, in addition to feminist sociologists.

Don't they call them "Gender Studies" departments now, so as to make them not seem quite so inherently biased?

Dags90:
It poisons the well of discussion by starting the discussion with a biased framework, like showing a clip of about of minute of blurry violence without us knowing how long the non violence lasted (I'm guessing a while seeing as it's night time).

If sources you would consider unbiased, or at least sufficiently differently biased aren't talking about it, then what sources can you use?

DevilWithaHalo:
If I could locate other sources of the video, you can be sure I would post them. It's rather telling when only one side is sharing something that could be considered a negative slant on how a side perceives reality. If you can share the same video from the womensphere, I would be interested in viewing it.

I've had this problem with other items. When one side of an argument wants to make a point, and the other one just plain wants to pretend that event/article/video/whatever it is this time doesn't exist.

DevilWithaHalo:

Dags90:
Women's Studies departments exist. That's an entire department dedicated to feminist research, in addition to feminist sociologists.

And like any realm of academia, is subject to the scrutiny of the academic world. Including the likes of a PHD who disagrees with their methodology and motivations.

Though it is interesting to see how and when that scrutiny gets applied. It's one of the reasons that gender related studies that don't agree with the standard male oppression conclusions and numbers tend to get excessive scrutiny (to a degree that many of the studies that set those conclusions and numbers would themselves fail if subjected).

Agema:
On the other hand, it perhaps exemplifies why I give so little of a shit about the men's rights movement. God forbid they should actually discuss men's rights rather than lazily slag off feminists.

Two things to point out here:

1. Warren Farrell was there to talk about men's rights. Protesters were preventing people from coming to his talk, prior to the police involvement and violence.

2. In many discussions, there's a trick that gets used to defuse discussions on men's rights in spaces that aren't specifically for that. It's based on the argument from primal misogyny (the fallacious idea that all gender issues are actually based on misogyny and thus benefiting women will solve men's issues), and works something like this:

a. The men's issue you are talking about is *really* about misogyny.
b. Since it's about misogyny, we should really be talking about how it hurts women.
c. Why are you talking about men's issues? We're talking about women here. Go start your own discussion if you want to talk about men's issues.

...thus hijacking the conversation. Repeat as needed.

evilthecat:

I have to say, I'm pretty angry with him. As far as I'm concerned, he's made a career out of insulting men in such a way that they'll still applaud so long as he strips them of any kind of responsibility, and that goes double for women.

Reverse the genders, and that sounds shockingly like a description of Hugo Schwyzer.

evilthecat:
That's not to say I side with the protesters, because they're kind of doing his work for him. Being protested by THE FEMINISM (or people who can be conveniently labelled as such) may as well be an endorsement for the manosphere-dwelling pond slime who comprise much of the target audience here.

LOL. Would it have been better, more reasonable, or even, well, possible to go through and request the specific flavor of feminist thought each and every person in that protest ascribes to who was describing Warren Farrell's talk as "Hate Speech" just to refer to it a "a crowd of X% X Feminists, Y% Y feminists, Z% Z feminists, and A% non feminists" as opposed to using a blanket term to describe a crowd of people the majority of whom ascribe to some branch of a philosophy that falls under the banner of "feminism"? That seems...unrealistic.

Dags90:

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:
You also said that this was important in relation to Farrell's academic credentials. How is this important?

captcha: school is cool

People like to point to "Dr. Somebody" as an authority or "study X at the University of Y that shows talking point Z". The Men's Rights movement mostly has Warren Farrell, whereas feminism is a whole branch of scholarship at some universities.

So would you say that academic credentials confer authority? Academia is as a gateway to professional jobs: politics, the civil service, journalism, but most importantly academia. Academia provides the intellectual direction of a society. Academia confers authority in a specific instance when it awards a credential, but also confers authority continuously in post-academic life. As you point out, journalists, civil servants, etc will haggle over this or that study or cite of academic subject matter expert.

If academia has a lot of power, where does it derive from? Academia has some raw economic power, but that isn't my focus here. Where does academia derive its authority?

While I don't agree with the guys positions or how he consider men to be oppressed in some way I don't think what he says is hate speech. If it was then feminists need to look in the mirror because they are presenting their viewpoints in the same manner.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked