Marginalized and on the defensive, university conservatives forced to grow tougher

Submitted by Mastodon on Sat, 2013-03-09 22:04

Article here. Excerpt:

'The University of Toronto witnessed a case study Thursday night, when the Men’s Issues Awareness Society invited Janice Fiamengo, a University of Ottawa literature professor and columnist for American right-wing blogs, to argue the case against feminism.

Having won many big battles of equality, academic feminism has now turned to the petty ones of moral superiority, and has become, she said, empty, incoherent, dishonest, defensive, illiberal and foolish.

“The suspiciousness of feminism was once its strength and is now its weakness,” Prof. Fiamengo said.

Naturally for the modern academic climate, criticizing feminism raises serious security concerns, and the venue was changed at the last minute from a classroom to a theatre with doors that campus security could easily manage. Last time this group hosted a speaker, police were called to defend a classroom from student protesters.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Personally, I don't see MRAs or more broadly ppl who challenge entrenched campus feminism as inherently "conservative". A lot of MRAs probably can't fairly be typified as "conservative", but I suppose it depends on how you define that word.

I think there is a kind of person on campuses that challenges feminists not because they have conservative (political or social) views but instead do so because they just don't like seeing facts misstated (or, false facts promulgated) and the most basic rules around critical thinking and logical deduction utterly mangled.

There's quite a range of ppl in terms if their sociopolitical thinking who are MRAs and FRAs. In addition, there are ppl who are neither but merely critical of feminism simply because it's hard not to be the minute you actually start to examine some of the truly weird stuff they say.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2013-03-10 01:02

NCFM was once called “conservatives” by a feminist critic in a Sacramento news article about a domestic violence lawsuit against California. NCFM is about as across the board as they come, welcoming all political persuasions, religions, genders, etc. as long as they’re supportive of men’s and boy’s issues and rights.

Upon further reflection on the feminist’s skewed comment, it struck me that maybe she was just so far left that everyone else who wasn’t that far left was a “conservative,” but then it struck me that it probably had more to do with her selfish, intolerant, bigoted, self centered feminism, than an exclusionary leftist perspective.

If you don’t support radical feminism, or gender feminism, but are a leftist, or a Democrat, etc., does that make you a “conservative?” I don’t think so, but apparently so in the delusional minds of feminists. Feminism is just that self-obsessed and lacking in sane, rational, reasoning ability.

I’m certainly open to hearing other explanations. Is support of feminism the sole defining feature, that if not possessed, makes you a “conservative?” Wow, what a stretch!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MR on Sun, 2013-03-10 09:55