RSU rejects men’s group on campus

In News /

By Harlan Nemerofsky

Three Ryerson students whose proposed men’s issues campus group was denied by the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) are still shocked by the decision.

Argir Argirov and Sarah Santhosh presented their would-be campus group to a panel of seven RSU members on March 15, but were sent an email denying them group status hours later.

“On behalf of the Student Groups Committee, I regret to inform you that your group has been not approved.

Please direct any questions or concerns to RSU President Rodney Diverlus,” the email read.

Santhosh replied to Diverlus in a follow-up email as to why they were rejected. Diverlus sent an official response Tuesday, outlining some of the reasons the group was not ratified, which he said include a lack of compliance with RSU policies.

Diverlus said committee members raised concerns about the group’s association, and whether or not they were directly or indirectly associated with the groups A Voice For Men or Canadian Association For Equality.

“These are groups that are, in some jurisdictions, considered to be a hate group, become known to have profiled women on campuses who speak against them, and they are tied to individuals who not only go out of their way to negate the struggles of women but can also create some problematic discourse on language around the idea of women’s rights,” said Diverlus.

“They said that our group could be a “Trojan horse” in a way that those groups could use our group as a way of getting into the campus and spreading their message of hate,” said Argirov, a third-year industrial engineering student.

The group, which also included Anjano Rao, says that they had made it very clear that they were not going to threaten any existing women’s groups on campus.

“We’ve already emphasized countless times that we are not a men’s rights group, we’re not trying to advocate men’s right over women’s rights and we’re not trying to somehow disqualify women’s rights,” said Santhosh, a secondyear biology student.

Instead, they say that they want to stand up for men’s health, violence amongst men, education amongst boys, reproductive rights of males, custody battles and other issues.

The group’s six-page constitution said its goal was to “create a progressive and constructive voice and lend representation to any and all Ryerson students concerned with the issues of men and boys.” In this proposed group, executive meetings would have been held once every two months, with no fewer than four meetings each year, outlines the constitution.

“Here at Ryerson, there is a women’s centre, but there is no men’s centre where guys can talk about their own issues,” said Rao, a second year economics student. “Half of the student body doesn’t have [as many] student services as the other half.” Diverlus compared their group to a straight people’s group and an able-bodied group. He said that there are transgendered centres because transgendered people are being marginalized.

“We know that oppression and the marginalization of men is something that doesn’t exist just like the oppression and marginalization of straight people or white folks in our society,” said Diverlus.

Santhosh is not sure that this is the case.

“What they have in mind when they say women are the minority, they think of positions in power in government and corporations where men usually hold the higher positions. But they don’t take into account that…

only a very small percentage of [men] are in power,” said Santhosh.

The group planned to host panel discussions addressing women’s rights, gay rights, feminist groups, and race issues.

We have no goal to increase men’s rights, we just want to have a space to discuss men’s issues,” said Argirov.

Still the group says they will continue to push hard in getting a men’s rights group created on campus soon.

Comments

  1. What a stunning micharacterization of the proposed men’s group – the suggestion that they are a “Trojan Horse” for the group A Voice for Men.

    Proof, please?

    This decision needs to be reassesed

    1. Rejecting a group on something that “could” happen is ridiculous. The critical thinking skills of the RSU are pathetic.

      1. Makes about as much sense as banning feminist groups for fear of radfem “kill all male babies” types showing up.

  2. I think the RSU might want to read section 15.1 and 15.2 of the charter before someone shoves it down their throat. Just saying…

    1. Since when do these section’s of the charter apply to men?

      I believe they would have been used long before now if they did.

      Good luck with it anyways.

      1. Well ‘Outdoors,’ if that’s your real name, I sugget you try reading that section of the Charter and maybe even pick up the Ontario Human Rights code book and have a read. Get back to me when you find away around the phrases; “every individual is equal,” “equal protection and equal benefit,” and everyone’s favorite, “without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Good luck to you as well. :^)

  3. Keep up your efforts against the groupthink of bureaucratic bias. They can not keep denying the truth about our cause.

    This is further evidence that men are not so all powerful as our detractors would believe. We’re not even allowed to form a simple group to discuss men’s issues.

  4. This is good news on one level at least i.e. it gives a very clear example of the non inclusive nature of campus feminism despite it’s hypocritical claims otherwise.
    Oh yes I am familiar with the feminist claim that feminism “cares about men and boys too” but when you look for concrete examples such as say domestic violence and feminisms concern for male victims what do we find?
    We find exhortations to join the white ribbon campaign which is exclusively concerned with getting men to help end violence against women??
    Men and boys are human beings just as much as women and girls are (same goes for trans people too) to deny the rights and concerns of any of those groups is also a denial of human rights.

  5. ” in some jurisdictions ” – That is such a red herring.

    Ryerson Student Union and it’s temporary leader called Diverlus are bound by Canadian law, and making spurious references to other Jurisdictions is abuse of process as well as against the Articles of the Student Union itself.

    Best of all – the claim is 100% false, so not only is it spurious it’s actually false! That means the decision is based upon falsity and therefore null and void. This is harassment and constitutive institutional abuse.

    This is what happens when you mix Students with Politics – you get rank amateur ideologues who are so incompetent they can’t even produce produce clever cover ups that last for more than 10 seconds. I hope someone Sues them, and hard.

    Diverlus is evidently a liability and lacks any competence in administration. I hope many call for his resignation. If he has any sense he will get out of the way fast and save his own neck. When his silliness is investigated and overturned it will be his supposed ideologue friends and allies who turn on him and stick the knife in… he had better watch his back. Silly, Silly man and so politically inept. Et Tu Brute?

  6. pretty sad that they’ve felt the need to distance themselves from HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES in order to dodge accusations of bigotry. And the people making those accusations say men have no disadvantages…

    1. AVFM should have stuck with the term “men rights advocate’s”,at least then they would have maintained some credibility in the battle.

      Even the feminist’s can see through the cow manure being shovelled by avfm in their pathetic attempt at pleasing and sucking up to the p.c. crowd.

      As if it would have made a difference?

      As we can all see,it has not.

      1. Are you suggesting that men’s rights are in fact NOT human rights? May we presume you don’t think men are actually human, as well?

      2. As far as I’ve seen, avfm hasn’t tried too hard (nor been to successful) at “sucking upto the p.c. crowd.” A bit of harsh language is all it took for the most ‘radical’ element of MRM to get labeled a hate group. Meanwhile radfems openly calling for the extermination of men are praised for their ‘bravery.’

        Adding the word human to their moniker was necessary when people just can’t seem to grasp that men’s rights are in fact human rights, as proven recently by vandals in Vancouver.

  7. “We know that oppression and the marginalization of men is something that doesn’t exist”

    Said the person marginalizing men. Kind of ironic.

    It doesn’t exist yet RSU is contributing to the marginalization of men.

  8. It was always a foregone conclusion given the feminist underpinning of the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU), so impartiality and fairness were never involved from the outset. If ‘patriarchy’ was this all-consuming beast as it’s claimed, how is it that academia is totally dominated by feminism? This gynocentric tyranny ensures there is no genuine free speech on campus!

    Denying men a platform to raise valid issues under the guise of ‘hate speech’ is not only a well-worn tactic, but perversely hypocritical when you consider misandry (hatred of men) permeates throughout gender studies and the social sciences like a plague.

    No credible group in the history of social movements has requested permission to exist, particularly from those oppositional forces ranged against them. This is meekly accepting a master and slave relationship where progress becomes almost impossible.

    Who’s going to reject the RSU?

  9. I think what needs to happen is the students need to take the RSU before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. If enough people take them there and before the courts, maybe then they will get the message.

    1. Sorry Frank, maleness is not a prohibited grounds of discrimination so you have no case to bring to the Human Rights Tribunal.

  10. Interesting… there is not oppression or marginalization of men they say.

    What about when people try to open a men’s center on campus and they are denied under the pretext that there is no oppression?

    Seems like a perfect contradiction.

    What about when men who are dominated by women and abused try to seek help from people but are ridiculed and instead imprisoned?

    That doesn’t happen? RSU has perfect omniscience?

    Is it really RSU’s prerogative to deny people from starting their own group? Do they really have the authority to deny a person from starting a group of likeminded people?

    Who are they to say someone can’t start a mens group? God?

    1. RSU has for years been almost entirely run by people who have no concept of Human Rights, and who fully embrace the “Death To Israel” Islamic rhetoric of the Muslim Students Association. RSU may not be god, but they sure do follow ISLAMIC religious teachings whenever possible. Don’t be surprised if in a few years they want to turn Ryerson into an alcohol free campus and ban the sale of all pork products and non-halal food as well. ISLAMOFASCISM at Ryerson is very much alive and well.

      Don’t forget that they also denied a White Student’s Group as well, as heaven forbid any White European’s take pride in their White Euoropean history. Yet you can have BLACK student’s associations, CHINESE student’s associations and various other race/ethnic based groups no problem—but if a bunch of white people (who are very much a minority at all 3 of Toronto’s universities) try to get together… forget it.

      Oh KANDAHAR our home and Islamic land. Damn I hate what this country has become 🙁

  11. So the RSU will not allow a group to form that wishes to address the 4x suicide rate of males, the higher death rate of males, the largest % of homeless, the poor comparitive academic standings of boys at school. What they afraid that other group victimhood status might be lessened? Please this is not a zero sum game. These hypocrits need to read the Ontario Human rights code especialy that part about equality without discrimination based on gender. These people need to look in the mirror. I hope this group goes to the Ontario HR tirbunal and the Ombudsman. They dont have authority to discriminate with baseless accusations like this. If they think there are no men’s issues then what’s the problem ,let the group form and since there’ll be no members since men have no problems.

    1. Hello Chris, it is equally important now that any student who has felt that the RSU infringed upon their human rights , take them ( the RSU ) before the Ontario Human rights Tribunal . I can tell you horror stories of how the RSU executive have , in the past, openly and blatantly discriminated against certain students . Further, if enough students file complaints ( and they have to be real , legitimate ones ) the RSU can be de-certified and disbanded altogether. Those complaints have to , however be made directly the Ryerson University administration.

      1. Frank, you’re a part-time student, not a full-time student so you aren’t a member of the RSU. You don’t have standing to make a complaint.

    1. “promote gender inequity, challenges women’s right to bodily autonomy, or justifies sexual assault” is something I’m sure they’d accuse CAFE and AVfM of doing even though it’s groundless, but here’s where they get you…

      “negate the need to centre women’s voices”

      Wow, so if women aren’t given central speaking roles (ie more important roles than men) it is banned.

  12. It was always a foregone conclusion given the feminist underpinning of the the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU), so impartiality and fairness were never involved from the outset. If ‘patriarchy’ was this all-consuming beast as it’s claimed, how is it that academia is totally dominated by feminism? This gynocentric tyranny ensures there is no genuine free speech on campus!

    Denying men a platform to raise valid issues under the guise of ‘hate speech’ is not only a well-worn tactic, but perversely hypocritical when you consider misandry permeates throughout gender studies and the social sciences like a plague.

    No credible group in the history of social movements has requested permission to exist, particularly from those oppositional forces ranged against them. This is meekly accepting a master and slave relationship where progress becomes almost impossible.

    Who’s going to reject the RSU?

  13. You know what is really interesting is that this was enacted only AFTER the RSU elections, as , I strongly suspect that had this issue been brought forth before the elections, RSU as they are now would had lost big time. They knew this was going to be a hot button item but rather than let the students decides what STUDENTS want , the dictatorship know as RSU did what all dictatorships do, screw the students over , again.

    1. Frank, you’re not even in the RSU, you’re a part-time student so why don’t you just mind your own business and finish your program?

      1. Yeah Frank. You may be a student here, and have to pay dues like all the other students, but your comment is terribly damning to the RSU’s credibility, so we’re going to try and find something that undermines you, such as your only being part time, and then demand your compliance and silence and assert that it is none of your business how we spend your money and dictate policy that affects you (not only because your a student, but you’re male as well). So just be quiet frank, because your asking hard questions makes things really difficult for us, and we can’t handle difficult questions except to try and silence those asking them, like we did Santhosh’s group.

  14. The school’s discrimination policy says sex is a prohibited grounds of discrimination, and it also says it includes cases “where someone is treated unequally because she/he is in [an] association or dealing with a person or persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
    I think these students need to file a formal complaint against the student union.

    http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/about/governors/pdf/DHPS%20Policy2011.pdf

  15. Men and boys are the lowest ranking members of society in health, education, family law etc. Compared to women and girls you simply do not exist nor are you allowed to even have a voice.

  16. This decision just solidifies why a men’s center is needed on campus. The sheer bigotry of the RSU shows how men are oppressed and marginalized in many aspects of society. I’d love to see those involved file suit for discrimination based on gender if doable.

  17. I see no reason why any of my alumni dollars should go towards an academic institution which suppresses one of the very roles it should be promoting: a place to exchange ideas. The actions of the RSU makes me slightly embarrassed of where I went to school.

  18. It’s time to get rid of the RSU as it stands now . How much more oppression do we as students going to take from these guys before someone takes real actions and makes to be held accountable ?

  19. I have never been to RSU but my question is this, are there only women in the student group committees . Why would men be on this committees and allow such bigotry and misandry happen ? Feminists are not the problem , It is men who support feminist that are the problem

    1. Stop blaming men. Seriously.

      Women are actors in bigotry. If we truly want “equality” then that means that women must be considered equal actors when they engage in bigotry.

      The student council is wrong. It’s irrelevant whether they are male or female.

  20. While in numerous cases Men’s Rights Activist groups need to be opposed as much as feminists due to their similarly embraced victim mentality, this is prime evidence to the social monopoly of politically correct, PC Whipped, cultural Marxist liberals on the Ryerson University Campus.

    It’s astonishing how Rodney and his council of degenerates quickly adopt a pseudo-Elitist mindset to cripple their adversaries. But no matter. It will be enjoyable to observe as the decadent masses turn upon their own corrupt leadership, like on the year 1789, only to be left with a cesspool of a nation.

    Death to the degenerate democracy. Death to the undermen.

    http://www.amerika.org/politics/equality/

  21. Is anyone actually surprised? This seems like typical, everyday RSU sodomy; whether or not the herd sleeps through it or not.

  22. It’s interesting to think that he believes only women,minorities and homosexuals can be ‘marginalized’. Last time I looked, there were men who were minorities, homosexual or both.

  23. Its is really harsh to hear for every Men on this earth, those are getting united as masculine, and those who want that, a men should come forward for claiming the equality rights in the Gender Specific society created by feminism…. fucking morons are still leaving us behind, and do not want to give us our Human Rights of equality in society of Men and Women.

    It happens in a society of gender biased relationships created by femininity, when a person defends and others oppose.. But we will fight for our right till the last breath..

    Inquillab Zindabad..

  24. Well of course a men’s group would threaten women’s rights groups.

    If men had equal reproductive rights then women couldn’t exploit men financially for decades.

    If men learned that women commit the majority of domestic violence then they might demand equal protection from that violence.

    Treating men equally in any sphere would invariably reduce women’s power to exploit and control men.

    They said it best themselves, “and they are tied to individuals who not only go out of their way to negate the struggles of women but can also create some problematic discourse on language around the idea of women’s rights,” said Diverlus.”

    In other words, they might tell the truth which would get in the way of feminist lies.

    It also implies that without special protections women can’t hack it in the real world. Unless male competition is stifled in every way women can’t compete at all.

  25. ““We know that oppression and the marginalization of men is something that doesn’t exist ”

    And how, precisely, do the ones who would benefit most from this statement being true, happen to know this for a fact, when they are demonstrating they aren’t even willing to allow discussion and examination of men?

    It’s like claiming “all the men in that other room there are rich, because they are men. I haven’t seen them, I don’t know what they look like, how they dress or how they carry themselves. I have no information about their earnings or inheritance, but I know, they are rich, and therefore should be put out into the -20` cold” and of course, anyone who actually looked in the room could see plain as day the men who happened to be in there were all homeless.

Leave a Comment