New RSU policy challenges new men’s issues group

By Diana Hall

An effort to guard the empowerment of women’s voices on campus took form Monday when the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) swiftly adopted a bold new policy rejecting the concept of misandry – the hatred or fear of men.

Neda Hamzavi, a faculty of community services representative on the RSU Board of Directors (BOD), watched her amendment to the RSU’s policy on women’s issues pass without any debate, discussion or dispute. This could cause conflict at a time when controversial men’s issues movements are on the rise at university campuses.

“There’s been a lot of work across campuses not only in Ontario but also across the country that have been working sort of [as] anti-women’s rights groups,” Hamzavi said in her pitch to the BOD.

“We want to acknowledge that the additions that we added here are regarding the ideas of misandry and reverse-sexism, both of which are oppressive concepts that aim to delegitimize the equity work that women’s movements work to do.” Marwa Hamad, vice-president equity at the RSU, said the policy will preserve space for discussing misogyny and institutionalized gender imbalances.

The amendment applies to a Women’s Issues clause that provides a strict mandate for which activities the RSU opposes. Outlined in the board’s agenda, the new policy rejects:

“4. Groups, Meetings or events [that] promote misogynist views towards women and ideologies that promote gender inequity, challenges women’s right to bodily autonomy, or justifies sexual assault  5. The concept of misandry as it ignores structural inequity that exist between men and women 6. Groups, meetings events or initiatives [that] negate the need to centre women’s voices in the struggle for gender equity.”

The RSU’s three-pronged policy change could complicate the creation of a men’s issues group which applied for student-group status last week. Sarah Santhosh, a secondyear biology student and the founder of the Ryerson Association for Equality, said she was shocked the RSU passed this motion two days before the executives’ meeting with the Student Groups Committee.

Santhosh insisted her group is not about being anti-feminist, but rather the right to discuss men’s issues on campus – including misandry.

“The ironic thing is my voice is being silenced right now because I can’t even form a group without having to face this really back-handed deal that’s really attacking our group,” Santhosh said.

But Hamad said the policy will help the RSU protect women’s issues, which “have historically and continue to today to be silenced.”

“I think it’s important to remember that when we’re talking about dismantling patriarchy, we’re talking about supporting men, we’re talking about supporting women [and] we’re talking about supporting the entire gender spectrum,” she said.

Related posts

61 Comments

  1. frank said:

    So, let me see if I understand this correctly…… it is fine to have a women’s group which i fully support and occasionally participate in some events, but its offensive to have a men’s group ? Its OK to have a anarchists group , probobly a french fry eating group , no doubt a cheeseburger eating group, a people who dress funny group, a guys who wear legwarmers group, there must be a rusty truck fans group in there somewhere as well, but holy fucking shit, a mens groups . i may just leave ryerson forever because of that . RSU, I have an idea, join the real world aand stop pretending y’ all know stuff because collectively y’ all seem to be as dumb as a box of rocks.

    • Luke said:

      Right with you. I don’t think the RSU as a whole is to blame as much as it a lack of awareness of RSU meetings on campus.

      A men’s group is like a public washroom. You don’t build a public building with only women’s washrooms or men’s washrooms. You build both and only when you can’t, you build a unisex one. What we have now are women’s washrooms and Hamzavi and Hamad think that’s sufficient.

      We can only hope it’s not because of the same close-mindedness that they accuse men of having.

      • Adam said:

        You should go find the men’s washroom on the 5th floor of the SHE building. Lemme know when you do.

  2. malcolm said:

    No surprise. Feminism relies on bullying and suppression of free speech to maintain control.

    Whatever happened to the days when universities were bastions of free speech?

  3. Duncan McCaul said:

    “I think it’s important to remember that when we’re talking about dismantling patriarchy, we’re talking about supporting men.”
    …but of course we can’t actually allow men themselves to express an opinion about it.

    • frank said:

      Duncan, i think the problem here is not sio much the potential for a mens group, but rather, the fact the the RSU which is an ultra left wing organization predicates itself on only one set of views, that being whatever the CFS TELLS them to do. These so called executive leaders seem not to want to actually think independently of the CFS, they will go so far as to endorse groups , while silencing others ( groups and persons ) I would really love it if finally, the university would simply shut this clown act down once and for all and actually put in a student union who represents STUDENTS interests, not some draconian organization that only wants power for itself and their cronies while trying to silence any and all voices or reason and those who question them.

      • Duncan McCaul said:

        You make some good points frank, but the RSU’s behaviour is symptomatic of a much larger problem. The UTSU acts the same way and the Canadian Federation of Students recently passed a motion declaring campus mens’ groups are hate groups.

        In fact ideologues and fundamentalists like Neda Hamzavi dominate vast swaths of the public sector such as academia, social services and the Canadian family court system. The only difference with this incident is that, like the UT Warren Farrell incident, it has become public. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

        • Mark Neil said:

          One needs only examine the backlash and opposition to a men’s center at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver last year to realize this isn’t a local problem, it is systemic

  4. Christian said:

    Firstly, I just want to say that there is a clear difference between a “Men’s Rights Group” or “Men’s Human Rights Group” and an “Anti-Women’s Rights Group”

    The MHRM is not anti-women’s rights. We are pro-men’s rights. There is a difference. In her pitch she intentionally confuses the two to make it appear as if MHRAs hate women. This just is not true. She attempts to draw a connection between supporting the rights of one group and suppressing the rights of another. The two are not mutually exclusive. Supporting men’s rights is not equal to suppressing women’s rights. Is that clear?

    Secondly, as with the above, the concept of misandry does not de-legitimize misogyny. And misogyny is NOT the challenging of individual claims by individual women. It is the hatred of women. She intentionally confuses the two to extend the definition of misogyny past it’s boundaries. It is the hatred of women simply by virtue of their being women. Again, it is NOT having an opposing view to individual women.

    These are the tactics used by gender ideologues who have no logical leg to stand on. These tactics, and others, are designed to conflate issues and confuse them. I am not sufficiently convinced Neda even believes her own bullshit. She knows it’s bullshit but is saying it anyways to further her own ideologically driven agenda.

    • Fidelbogen said:

      Your rhetorical tone toward those people is too defensive. You are fending off accusations, when you ought to be flipping the script and MAKING the accusations.

      • tyciol said:

        Fending off accusations, dismantling the bad logic of their reasoning, I feel is more effective, and there is already a built-in offense and accusation.

        By defending through dismtanling, he has accused them through inference of lying.

        This is how a parry becomes a riposte, and it is ideal.

  5. A. Square said:

    So here is an idea? Why don’t the men and women who support the creation of a men’s issues group at Ryerson actually get together and DO SOMETHING about it, instead of just posting a comment about how outraged they are and disappearing? Even a small group of a dozen people or so, if it is loud enough, can be very effective and can go a long way in helping to gather attention to the cause. Just a thought…

    • Fidelbogen said:

      It looks like they already DID try to “get together and actually DO SOMETHING.”

      So hang loose, and wait a bit, and see if they have a ’round two’ in the works.

      What, do you expect them to get their whole gig up and running in 24 hrs?

      Get real, man. Grassroots movements can take YEARS to develop the necessary thrust, especially when they are up against a massively entrenched establishment which controls the narrative.

      But hey, why don’t you start such a revolutionary group yourself in the next 24 hrs., and show us all how it’s done? ;)

      Just a thought…

    • Mark Neil said:

      Because organizing such an action would violate the new student union rule. Plus, it’s only been 2 days since this ruling was passed down, not exactly a lot of time to respond yet, so such an action may still be in the works.

      • tyciol said:

        Wait so… if these guys organized to protest that they should be able to create a men’s rights group…

        That qualifies as making a men’s rights group and could get them expelled?

        • Murray Pearson said:

          You betcha — that’s the Kafka™ Way of Feminism®. Anyone who disagrees with you must be Worse Than Hitler™!

  6. vitamint said:

    “There will be free and open debate, and here are the free and open opinions you are allowed to hold”

    I don’t know if I should be more grateful to the three brave students for wanting to start the group, or to the RSU for demonstrating why it’s needed.

  7. Declan said:

    Hamzavi and Hamad have exposed themselves as bigots and have opened themselves to ridicule.

    Fortunately for them, hardly anyone will hear about this because misandry isn’t big news.

  8. dara said:

    I started this article thinking that men’s rights groups would be a redundant facet in an often sexist culture. But Neda is her best critic. Her want to render contrary discourse illegitimate is a bit scary.

    It is conceivable to me, for example, that young boys in Canada may be at a considerable scholastic disadvantage to girls in public school systems (Unless you buy some biological reason why one gender may be intellectually superior). Many specific programs foster success in female students. Similar programs might be a welcome addition to equal opportunity for boys and girls in their early years. Useful programs along these lines could be a direct result of male interest groups.

    The male interest group also seems to be encouraging open dialogue. One that might even assist or be in cooperation with the female interest groups at times.

    The antagonism created by Neda’s comments smell a bit like misandry to me.

    It is an orwellian step to reject a concept like misandry within a quasi-governmental program. However, the term might benefit from qualification: misandry is certainly not a wide-spread systemic issue in the same way that misogyny is.

    • Murray Pearson said:

      I appreciate your openmindedness, but there are really a lot of serious issues facing men and boys in Canada today — and not just in academia.

      For example, consider intimate-partner violence (IPV). The standard feminist claim, based on the totally debunked but still very much in use Duluth Model, explicitly states that IPV is solely the responsibility of men who only victimize women. StatsCan has repeatedly refuted this, for example the 2010 Survey on Domestic Violence found that 6.4% of women, and 6.0% of men, experience IPV. In short, for every 100 female victims, there are about 93 male victims. Also, the segment of the population with the HIGHEST rates of IPV are lesbian couples.

      Another issue is criminal law. Women are routinely exempted from investigations on criminal acts; if they are investigated they are routinely exonerated; and if they are punished their sentences are dramatically shorter than those received by men for the same crimes. As a result, criminal abuse by women is rampant.

      Finally, we consider the “deadbeat dad” trope. Fathers are casually thrown out of their homes based on unsubstantiated allegations or even by being attacked by their partners. This happened to me — I was strangled in front of my daughter by my wife; when the cops showed up they said to me, “We remove men from domestic violence situations.” It did not matter that SHE attacked ME. Nor did it matter that my neck was ringed with bruises from her strangulation — the cop said, “She has a bruise on her leg” — which was true, and it also did not matter that she got it when I pushed her off my neck after several minutes of passive resistance to avoid being killed.

  9. BT said:

    Saying that women’s issues are always silenced as you work your hardest to silence everything but women’s issues…
    The mind, it boggles.

    Where except in the paranoia and fear of gender ideologues does helping men mean hurting women?

    • Fidelbogen said:

      It is not exactly “paranoia” on their part. They sense, quite rightly, that helping men will hurt feminism (not “women”) in the long run.

      But you are right that they are experiencing fear. And, I would add, guilt.

    • Mark Neil said:

      “Saying that women’s issues are always silenced as you work your hardest to silence everything but women’s issues…”

      “Work your hardest”? they put forward a rule restricting opposing thought and had it passed without a second thought because it claimed to hurt women, I’d hardly call that hard or work, and certainly shows how little women’s issues are silenced and how quickly people role over to support such issues.

      But you’re right, the claim does boggle the mind.

  10. A. Square said:

    So, is my earlier comment going to be approved of not?

  11. IAmMan said:

    LOL… Way to make a joke out of yourself, Ryerson. Any man with half a brain would avoid this institution like the plague. By the way, how is silencing women in the best interests of “women’s rights”? If you are confident you are correct in your worldview, why are you so afraid of opinions that don’t agree with yours?

    Misandry does exist. I have a scar on my genitals to remind me of that. I wouldn’t have that scar if I was female, since laws and societal norms would have protected me from being violated that way.

    May it also be noted the hilarious irony that the RSU Board of Directors broke their own rule. Surely misandry must have been discussed in the meeting which brought forth this new policy. Way to make hypocrites and bigots of yourselves!

    • tyciol said:

      “Misandry does exist. I have a scar on my genitals to remind me of that. I wouldn’t have that scar if I was female, since laws and societal norms would have protected me from being violated that way.”

      To be fair: circumcision is more about apathy towards men, allowing it doesn’t necessarily mean it stems from men being hated.

      A parent may choose to circumcise a baby boy due to hating males, a doctor or mohel might take up their occupation due to hating men and wanting to hurt them…

      But I doubt that’s the prime factor which motivates the continuation of the practice of people’s tolerance for it. To label it misandry I think confuses the issue.

      People will get extra defensive if you accuse them of hating males. If we rightly make it about educating people, caring more, I think it stands a better chance.

      • Schala said:

        “A parent may choose to circumcise a baby boy due to hating males, a doctor or mohel might take up their occupation due to hating men and wanting to hurt them…”

        Intent isn’t magic.

        I’m sure some/many/most pimps and porn makers don’t hate women, at all and they don’t employ people with the intent to oppress them.

        Yet that won’t stop people labeling it misogyny.

        Also, apathy towards males is damn close to hatred, especially when it’s targeted specially at males (and not females also). Else it would be misanthropy (the default setting in Game of Thrones).

  12. Not buying it said:

    ” first they ignore you, then they fight you,…”, the truth will prevail in the end , this idea of suppression of any discussion of men’s issues( dropping school enrollments, increasing suicide rates, father’s rights, infant boy’s circumcision, failure to launch, male on male violence, health issues – prostate cancer funding , lack of awareness, men’s lack of initiative to ask for help in all fields co

  13. Paul said:

    When men ask “why don’t feminists help with men’s issues?” Feminists say “It’s not our job, do your own work.” Men then say “Okay, fair enough, we’ll form our own groups and talk about our own issues.” And then feminists reply “That’s not really neccessary… feminism will take care of that… eventually, after women’s issues are all sorted out…”

    Meanwhile men kill themselves at 5x the rate women do. They graduate less often at all levels of education, their unemployment rate is higher, they are far less likely to report sexual assault and abuse and their lives are shorter.

    Feminists keep telling men they “support” us, but all I ever see if feminists standing firmly in the way of men getting the help they need, making sure women are first, last and always. And, at the same time demanding men support them and be “allies.” Well, guess what? An alliance works both ways, I’m not interested in being a toady who has to sit in the back and parrot back the “proper” talking points whenever you all decide you want to hear your opinions in a deeper voice.

  14. John said:

    The RSU has declared Misandry to not exist, so it MUST be true.

    People in positions of power can never be wrong or unjust.

    I guess all those boys and young men killing themselves in highly disproportionate numbers, must be doing it from the shame of having all that unearned privilege and power.

  15. Kris said:

    Hamzavi and Hamad once again prove to the world beyond any doubt – the greatest enemy of Feminism is the Truth. They are so afraid of it, they would rather censor and silence it rather than face it and endure the consequences. What a shame!

  16. Corbin said:

    Feminism is an ideology. Critique of an ideology is not bigotry. Men’s human rights are not against women, they are pro-women. The critical standpoint of feminism by MHRAs is well merited due to feminist actions, as we can see by their sensoring of this men’s group at Ryerson. As any tyranical group, feminists are defending their position which controls the current public discourse. They silence their critics, as other tyrants have done in the past -this is a perfect example.

    Denying this group is itself an act of misandry, now added to endless documentation of feminist bigotry towards males.

    An upcoming talk at the U of T is going to address this very sensorship so prominent in feminist ranks. Word is out, feminists are scrambling to put the cat back in the bag -too late.

  17. Nope, Hamad said:

    Isn’t it ironic how Hamad claims women’s issues have been historically surpressed, while surpressing men’s issues?

    Feminism has generally been embraced in the west. Meanwhile, any attempt at critical thinking and achieving equality for men is met with threats and mob mentality from the established feminists. Feminists are given worldwide media coverage and uses that oppurtunity to dillute and surpress men’s rights issues. We have to create our own media channels just to try and defend ourselves and present truth and empirical facts surpressed by feminists. Are you telling me, this is somehow feminism being surpressed?

    It’s pretty clear that our feminist establishments use the same tactics as fascist ideologies like nazism and Soviet communism. All dissidents and critical thinking is met with threats of violence. The truth is treated as a threat to the collective sanity, and thus must be surpressed. The free speech that our first wave of feminism was so dependent on, is not a right afforded to men trying to look out for their equality. Are we really supossed to believe that the widespread misandry we see in our daily lives, is just a manifestation of misogyny and patriarchy, while we’re threatened from speaking of it? Really? You’re telling me that I’m surpressing you into surpressing me, Hamad?

    Let’s face it! This is propaganda.

  18. Victor said:

    Glad to know men can have their own issues and discuss them, as long as women permit it. No woman should ever have authority over any men’s issues. You don’t want a man legislating your vagina? Drop your perceived power over a man’s entire life.

  19. Sean said:

    Equating the forming of groups dedicated to discussing topics relevant to men as misogyny IS misandry. It is the assumption that these discussions will be anti-women based on the gender of the group that is being discussed is based on bigotry and hatred. Being pro-male DOES NOT make you anti-female and to suggest otherwise indicates a distinct opinion that is inherently anti-male. Men do face serious, male specific problems ranging from medical issues to misandry, as so eloquently demonstrated by the RSU.

    RSU, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that men are human beings. They have feelings and, like any other group of human beings, need the ability to discuss issues that impact them, without having to be subjected prejudice, hatred or suspicion.

    • tyciol said:

      “Equating the forming of groups dedicated to discussing topics relevant to men as misogyny IS misandry.”

      I don’t agree there. Being paranoid that others hate you doesn’t inherently mean that you hate them.

  20. Baldwin said:

    An institute of higher learning is no place for independent thought!
    Unpopular ideas like the radical notion that men are humans and thus deserve human rights should be kept to ones self while at school.

    • JhonWayne said:

      It is way beyond that—this issue is the “tip of the iceberg.” If anyone wants to see the model for the way Universities dehumanize populations to make work for themselves, study drug prohibition. It’s University-educated people who constructed the myth of addict degeneracy, and it’s University-educated people who ride the gravy train trying to “fix” the addicts, all through the lense of their mythology. Now, we have made some progress on that front recently, but just keep in mind that the academic view of men today is about where the academic view of addicts was in the 1950s—they’re not really human, we cannot trust them, because whatever the addict says is nothing more than a reactionary subterfuge designed to help perpetuate his immoral substance-use. Similarly, men are not really human, and we cannot really trust them, because whatever the man says is nothing more than a reactionary subterfuge designed to help perpetuate his gender’s immoral privilege.

      We have evidence from drug prohibition of the horrible toll on human life that allowing these University people to play God has—the question is how far we are going to allow this sophomoric, self-centered academic degeneracy to continue into the 21st century. Will we be the generation to put a stop to it, or are more addicts/men going to be sacrificed on the altar of University Theoreticians?

  21. Another point of view said:

    A group devoted to men’s issues must be made to discuss misogyny in acknowledgement that men are complicit in the continued prevalence of violence against women. This is a far more pressing issue for men to deal with than your reactionary cries of ‘misandry’!

    • Adam said:

      Yes, yes, stop violence against women, but never against men! Even though men and women suffer from violence at just about the same rate, if men not more so, given the fact that men make up majority of victims of physical assault, murder, theft, and a bunch of other violent crimes. Oh, and not to mention domestic violence is shared, as 40+% of DV victims are men.

      Men are not complicit in violence against women, and such an accusation renders you a blatant sexist. But given the sheer ignorance of male victims in violent crimes — which as I mentioned, are just as much if not more than female victims — by these women’s groups who are allowed to operate as they please, I don’t see the legitimacy of your complaint whatsoever. Maybe you should complain to the women’s groups that their complete ignorance of male victims of violence is a far more pressing issue, no?

      But what irks me more, I would say, is that you think a men’s group should be made in order to devote themselves to talking about women’s issues. Sure, we can do that, just when women’s groups decide to discuss men’s issues, as they relate not to women, but to men. But I can assure you, we won’t be seeing any of that anytime soon, if ever ;)

      • gjdj said:

        Correction:

        Do you also support the idea that any feminist group should acknowledge that women are complicit in the continued prevalence of violence against men?

        • Another point of view said:

          No, I do not support that idea. The forms of violence perpetrated against women are far deeper and more systemic than those that women perpetrate against men. Evidence: the absence of female executives in fortune 500 companies, the absence of women in government…

          It’s much more than the domestic issue.

          I agree that men do suffer from gender stereotyping – but that ‘being a man’ remains a place of power and privilege.

          • Schala said:

            Not true.

            Found your fortune 500 company.

            How much % of men are CEO of a fortune 500 company? Less than 1 per million. Win the lottery first.

  22. Hayden said:

    Have a strong opinion, either for or against, the proposed men’s rights group? I’m writing a story on the issue and would love to hear from students. Message me at hkenez@ryerson.ca and we can arrange an interview.
    - Hayden Kenez

  23. Mark Neil said:

    What is the stance of the administration of Ryerson university themselves? Or are they going to stand aside and ignore such blatant sexism (and thus open themselves to very real legal consequences)?

    • Sean said:

      Not if they follow their own Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy:

      http://www.ryerson.ca/equity/

      “Ryerson University is committed to fostering a collegial study and work milieu that is free
      of discrimination and harassment and one in which all individuals are treated with respect
      and dignity. Every member of the Ryerson University Community has a right to equal
      treatment with respect to employment and with respect to the receipt of education
      services and related services and facilities without discrimination or harassment on the
      basis of the following grounds:

       Race
       Ancestry
       Place of origin
       Colour
       Ethnic origin
       Citizenship
       Creed
       Sex
       Sexual orientation
       Gender identity and Gender expression
       Age
       Record of offences*
       Marital status
       Family status
       Disability
      * The protection for record of offences applies only in the area of employment.

      Throughout this Policy the above listed grounds will be referred to as the
      “prohibited grounds”.

      Please note that these prohibited grounds include Sex and Gender Identity.

      • Mark Neil said:

        Hence why I acknowledged opening themselves to lawsuits. But just because it’s on the books doesn’t mean it will be acted upon. After all, discrimination against men has largely become acceptable, and they “MAY” choose to weasel some kind of “it’s not discriminatory against men, it’s XYZ” defense instead. That’s why I’m curious about what their official stance is.

  24. lel said:

    hahah oh wow.
    kind reminder that a portion of our tuition goes toward the RSU.

    what a joke, feminists have a mental disorder that needs to be cured.

  25. Adam said:

    Went to this school last year. I would have said that I “sadly” didn’t pass the year, and thusly went on to another school. But given this recent policy, and the amount of anarchist-douchbag leftists I had to deal with on campus who think almost the same way as this Hamzavi person, I am very glad I don’t go there. However, sadly, this is a systemic problem all across Canada, where people try to attempt to label “misandry” as a deviation from the rights of women and to call it “anti-woman”. I really can’t say that, as a man, I’m safe as long as I stay clear of RU, because in reality, no man is safe from bigotry in this country, especially not when such people like Hamzavi are running the show. May God have mercy on her soul, because I doubt any thinking man or woman could ever show said mercy to her.

  26. frank said:

    Duncan, I think that what we need to do is to first remove the cancer that is grows this crap, that cancer being the CFS . i think that when the tumor is removed, the body starts to heal itself and things should go back to normal.
    The cancer I speak of of course is the CFS and i think we need to start a very concerted effort to rid this school of the CFS and once we have done that, their allies will fall like a house of cards simply because there will be no supports available to them from the ” mother ship ” . What needs to happen is that every single aspect of the CFS needs to be fully exposed and brought into the public eye. The people who run that show there needs to be exposed and when that is done, this school will run, no, fly at warp speed away from those parasites.

  27. Baldwin said:

    Hamad said the policy will help the RSU protect women’s issues, which “have historically and continue to today to be silenced.”

    Really? Who’s being silenced? Universities have had women’s centers for generations now, but groups for men’s issues continue to be barred… Look at what’s going on at UofT right now, a lecture on male suicide rates and boys underachievement in education was met with violent protesters.
    Today women’s issues get to have their own parades (take back the night, slut walk), while mens issues can’t even have a single lecture without opposition…
    … who did she say was being silenced?

  28. Mark Neil said:

    “Another point of view” said on MARCH 7, 2013 AT 3:28 PM
    “A group devoted to men’s issues must be made to discuss misogyny in acknowledgement that men are complicit in the continued prevalence of violence against women. This is a far more pressing issue for men to deal with than your reactionary cries of ‘misandry’!”

    So, a men’s issues group “MUST” be made to discuss how evil men are and how they are woman beaters. And it’s this self flagellation that is far more pressing than men killing themselves, the domestic abuse men suffer and are denied funding and services for (google Earl Silverman), the fatherlessness issues and consequences, the failing of boys in education… none of these issues are as pressing as acknowledging how evil men are and how mean they are to women. Dear GOD, the entitlement and the utter lack of compassion for men in such a comment, this is precisely why people, men and women, are turning against feminism in droves.

  29. Fiasco S said:

    “have historically and continue to today to be silenced.”

    I agree, silencing talk about gender issues is bad, which is why it is so screwed up that Hamad wants to do this.

  30. tyciol said:

    ” the ideas of misandry and reverse-sexism, both of which are oppressive concepts that aim to delegitimize the equity work that women’s movements work to do.”

    Wow you’d figure they’d at least be subtler with their BS, but they come right out and say it.

  31. frank said:

    Tyciol, yes they are blatant about their oppression and it is for this reason they are now also before the human rights tribunal for discriminating.

    • Murray Pearson said:

      Yes, well done, RSU — you have fully and completely outed your bigotry for the entire world to see. Awesome!

  32. Tweed said:

    When we can get a gender nuetral rape definition that included envelopment we can start talking about how systemic misandry doesn’t exist.

    When men are free to get together and discuss issues they feel affect men, we can talk about misandry not existing.

    When women stop saying the way to stop all rape is to tell me not to rape, we can talk about misandry not existing.

    When women stop defining what is male and what isn’t, we can talk about misandry not existing.

    When equal numbers of women take on the dirty and dangerous work required for society to function rather than the top 1 percent of jobs making up the CEO lists around the world, wan begin to talk about misandry not existing.

    When men have access to the same health care, and have equal health outcomes and dollars spent on gender specific issues as women, we can talk about misandry not existing.

    When boys stop dropping out of school and equal numbers of men and woman attend university and college, we can talk about misandry not existing.

    When it stops being ok for women to dismiss misandry, we can begin to talk about misandry not existing.

    I could go on, but the point is, misandry exists. The fact women and institution take the time to suppress groups that address the issues men face with such vitriol and lies shows just how endemic misandry is.

    Women don’t have a say in defining misandry and have no right telling men their issues don’t exist. The female victim narrative has no supremacy in discourse. End of story.

  33. Pingback: CUP NewswireNew Ryerson Students' Union policy challenges new men’s issues group | CUP Newswire

*

*

Top