On College Campuses, a Presumption of Guilt
By Peter Berkowitz - February 28, 2014
SWARTHMORE, Pa. -- On Feb. 22, in celebration of its sesquicentennial, Swarthmore College proudly hosted “The Liberal Arts in Action: A Symposium on the Future of Liberal Arts.”
In what seemed an unrelated event, a month before, a former Swarthmore student expelled by the college in the summer of 2013 filed a lawsuit in federal court of the eastern district of Pennsylvania. The student, identified as “John Doe,” was found guilty under campus disciplinary procedures of sexual misconduct. (Pseudonyms were used to protect both the accused and the accuser.) His legal complaint alleges that Swarthmore “failed to follow its own policies and procedural safeguards” and violated his “basic due process and equal protection rights.”
The litigation was not mentioned at the high-minded, if self-congratulatory, afternoon symposium. Yet the future of liberal education is closely connected to John Doe’s assertion that in the course of expelling him Swarthmore trampled on fair process—and to the willingness of the federal judiciary to examine it.
Liberal education is the culmination of an education for freedom. Among its crucial components are the offering of a solid core curriculum, the promotion of liberty of thought and discussion, and the cultivation of intellectual diversity.
Another vital feature of liberal education consists of fostering an appreciation of the principles of due process. They are principles free societies have developed over the centuries to adjudicate controversies, establish guilt, and mete out punishment in ways that justly balance the rights of those who claim they have been wronged with the rights of those who have been accused of wrongdoing.
In cases involving serious accusations, due process requires a presumption of innocence, settled rules and laws, timely notice of charges, adequate opportunity to prepare a defense, the chance for the accused to question the accuser, and an impartial judge and jury.
Although college disciplinary procedures have been roiling campuses for decades, none of this was discussed at the Swarthmore symposium. Instead, the keynote address, “The Role of the Arts in Liberal Arts Education”—delivered by Mary Schmidt Campbell, Swarthmore class of ’69 and dean of the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University—as well as the subsequent panel discussion on “The Future of Knowledge” and the concluding panel on “Fostering a Democratic Society Through Education,” were of a piece.
The speakers—Swarthmore graduates who have risen to prominence in the world of college and university administration—properly praised the importance to liberal education of certain skills: questioning effectively; thinking critically; weighing evidence and analyzing arguments; solving problems; seeing things from a multiplicity of perspectives; taking the initiative; innovating and creating; collaborating; and working across interdisciplinary boundaries.
Yet with the notable exception of Tori Haring-Smith, president of Washington & Jefferson College, who spoke compellingly about the vigorous measures adopted by her institution to teach students the importance of listening to opinions different from their own and of learning to live with the people who hold them, the panelists spoke as if our liberal arts colleges are doing a bang-up job. The only question they raised was how to extend to broader segments of the nation the lessons of freedom and democracy that Swarthmore is purportedly already teaching so well to its own students.
John Doe’s lawsuit gives a different impression of the school’s commitment to the principles of freedom. He contends that 19 months after three separate consensual sexual encounters—a kiss, sexual conduct not including sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse—a fellow student reported to Swarthmore the first two and claimed she had been coerced. The accuser, according to the complaint, “offered no physical or medical evidence, and no police or campus safety reports.” After a two-month long investigation, Swarthmore appeared to conclude the matter without taking disciplinary action.
Approximately four months later, according to John Doe, Swarthmore suddenly re-opened the case against him. The college did this, he maintains, in response to public accusations—including a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education by two Swarthmore female undergraduates—that the school mishandled a number of sexual misconduct cases. And John Doe asserts that in the second round of hearings, which culminated with his expulsion based on a finding that he had merely “more likely than not” committed sexual misconduct, Swarthmore repeatedly and egregiously violated its own rules for disciplinary procedures explicitly set forth in the official student handbook.
John Doe’s lawsuit presents one of the nation’s finest small liberal arts colleges acting in haste and panic, railroading a young man in order to convince the public and the federal government that it had, in the words of Swarthmore President Rebecca Chopp, “zero tolerance for sexual assault, abuse and violence on our campus.”
Swarthmore, for its part, has filed a motion to have the John Doe complaint dismissed. “The College believes that the suit is without merit and will vigorously defend the litigation,” Swarthmore’s attorney Michael Baughman said in a written statement. “The College is committed, and always has been committed, to providing all students with a fair process of adjudication in student conduct proceedings.”
A trial court will determine the merits of John Doe’s allegations, but in light of the sorry condition of due process at our colleges and universities, the charges against Swarthmore are plausible.
For example, in 2006, the Duke faculty and administration were quick to treat as guilty three lacrosse players accused of rape by a black woman whom their fraternity had hired as an exotic dancer. After a year-long investigation, the North Carolina attorney general dropped all charges and took the remarkable step of pronouncing the accused players innocent.
In 2010, a campus tribunal found University of North Dakota student Caleb Warner guilty of sexual assault. The Grand Forks police department investigated the case and not only declined to charge Warner but charged his accuser with making a false report. Nevertheless, the university refused to reconsider its verdict. Only when the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education stepped in a year and half later was the school impelled to revisit the case and eventually overturn the judgment.
Just a few weeks ago, Dartmouth Sexual Abuse Awareness coordinator Amanda Childress asked at a University of Virginia conference on campus sexual misconduct, “Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?” To clarify where she stood on the question, Childress went on to say, “It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege.”
Safety, however, is not a right. It is a goal. Due process is a right. Moreover, history has shown that honoring it is the best way over the long run to achieve the greatest amount of safety and security for all.
John Doe’s account of his encounter with Swarthmore disciplinary procedures suggests the invidious effects of Ms. Childress’s reasoning—and of allowing the verdicts of pseudo-judicial proceedings to stand without legal review. An honors student in high school (with an excellent record in college) who chose Swarthmore over other elite schools because his parents met and married there, Doe is now effectively blackballed from higher education. He had completed his junior year when the school abruptly ordered the second investigation. After being expelled, he inquired about admission to some 300 colleges, all of which told him that Swarthmore’s verdict rendered him ineligible for transfer to their school. Of the 19 colleges that didn’t have such bright-line rules, 18 required disclosure. Only one of those accepted him—and required him to enroll as a junior.
This case occurs in a context in which our colleges and universities have aggressively eroded due process protections for those accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Over and over, colleges and universities have transformed disciplinary procedures into kangaroo courts that appear to operate on the assumption that an accusation creates a presumption of guilt and the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. Due process is equally offended, it should not be necessary to add, when universities cover up for star athletes accused of sexual misconduct.
For the sake of genuinely liberal education, faculty and administrators must get out of the business of investigating the most serious forms of sexual misconduct, particularly sexual assault. Professors and university officials must be educated to recognize their woeful lack of the expertise necessary to properly gather and analyze evidence, establish guilt, and ensure fairness for the accuser and the accused. And they should be taught to promptly advise all students who believe they have been sexually assaulted to report their allegations to the police.
And as an indispensable element of their obligation to teach the principles of freedom, colleges and universities must be persuaded to restore to disciplinary procedures that they rightly conduct the presumption of innocence—a cornerstone of justice—and all the ancillary protections that follow from it.
Source
Showing posts with label feminist bullying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminist bullying. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Feminist groups pressure Facebook
From A Voice For Men:
It’s on by Paul Elam
This is probably the most important article I have ever written, and it addresses what I believe is the greatest challenge the M(H)RM has faced so far.
Victor Zen just brought us an important bit of news that I have also known about for several hours, and about which I am already getting emails. Facebook has just bowed to public pressure from feminists to start policing its pages and removing what is ostensibly called hate speech and the glorification of violence toward women.
Please don’t make the mistake of believing that this is the real agenda.
Let’s dispense with the basics first. As Zen has already pointed out, the sexism that Facebook has agreed to root out is that which is identified and defined by ideological feminists only. No MHRA perspective on the subject, or any other perspective for that matter, is relevant. Consequently the hundreds and maybe thousands of male bashing pages on the social network giant will remain, and only those pages identified as a problem by moderators “trained” by feminist ideologues will be targeted.
Unfortunately, that is not near the worst of the news.
What is happening, and it is going to happen more swiftly than you can imagine, is that just as we have seen in academia, in the military, in many workplaces and more recently in the secular community, feminists are using whatever tools are at their disposal to ensure that their narrative is the only one allowed.
To put it more bluntly, feminist ideologues are co-opting Facebook, and they will root out any and all opposition to their worldview. That will include, at some point, the AVFM Facebook page and its nearly 3,500 fans (2,000 of which have come in the past two months).
How important this is? In a word, very.
Facebook accounts for roughly 10-13% of our traffic on most days, and with a rapidly growing fan base that promises to represent a continually increasing number of actual visitors to the site.
To be honest, this does not mean that the loss of our Facebook fan page would result in a complete loss of traffic from Facebook. Many individuals post our articles on their pages, so that resultant traffic does not come directly from the fan page. But that is a minor detail when you consider the actual agenda here and its potential for harm to our community.
The machinations of these ideologues do not begin or end with Facebook. Still, as a battle ground in the ever increasing conflict between radical feminists and their opposition, it is of massive importance.
Have you ever known an ideologue to be satisfied with a victory? Where do you imagine, if they are successful at eliminating men’s rights discussion from Facebook, they will go next? Reddit? YouTube? How about Google?
Do you think they are above trying to have men’s rights websites de-listed from Google search returns? Why don’t you ask them at Norton Symantec or O2, who have already blocked nearly ALL men’s rights related websites?
If you believe that these ideologues would not seek to wipe out all opposition to their worldview from the internet, then you likely believe that the current campaign on Facebook is to simply address sexism and sexual violence against women. You will probably believe that till the day you come here and find an error message instead of a website.
This is not the somewhat comical antics of the SPLC. It is not the even more comedic histrionics of the University of Toronto Student Union. This is actually a well-planned agenda that that could ultimately deal very harsh blows to the Men’s Human Rights Movement just as it is beginning to emerge.
And we need to do something about it.
With that in mind, I am respectfully calling on all men’s organizations, father’s rights groups, men’s issues bloggers, secular organizations and anyone else concerned with free speech and evidence based solutions to social problems to take a stand on this issue and to demand that Facebook make a public commitment to the free speech of men’s rights organizations.
Facebook should also include a non-feminist anti-sexist perspective to be given equal weight when evaluating what is and is not hate speech as well as what constitutes the glorification or condoning of violence against women.
Facebook should also make a public commitment to take precisely the same measures against online misandry that they take against alleged misogyny. That commitment should include addressing the promotion of violence against men. And they should follow through with this commitment in a verifiable and measurable way. At AVFM we support free speech for all, but if it is to be abridged in any way, that abridgment should not be driven by sexism.
We are entering very, very dangerous times. Ideological feminists are witnessing the deconstruction and debunking of their theories. They are watching a once stagnant and ineffectual men’s rights movement start to gain momentum. The hegemony they have enjoyed for 50 years is under direct and long overdue attack.
They are not just going to let it happen.
So far, we have witnessed only bumbling attempts to paint us as a hate movement. Most of their efforts have simply blown up in their face. We have had more than our share of good laughs, and have been thrilled to see their hateful, disingenuous efforts result only in more growth for us.
It has been enjoyable, but it has also had the potential to make us soft. We can hardly afford that.
From this day forward, we need a directed and organized response to this problem. As we are just initiating this response, there is but a few details available now on what our efforts will be, but I will share them with you and advise you as more information becomes available.
One, I will be conducting outreach to NCFM, of which I am a member, and other similar organizations to initiate a coordinated response, and more importantly to make contact with other mainstream entities about this problem. If there ever was a time to think “the enemy of my enemy” this is it.
AVFM will establish monitoring of Facebook, to see what kinds of pages are deleted and for what reasons under the new Facebook guidelines.
This is also as good a time as any, though I wish it were under better circumstances, to announce that thanks to your donations to AVFM we have finally been able to hire Editor-in-Chief John Hembling (JTO) into a salaried position for AVFM. He is scheduled to start working for us full time on June 1, and not a day too soon. I am sure his dedicated efforts on this important matter will be invaluable.
While it is obvious that nowhere near all our plans are set, or even envisioned at this early stage of the game, it is just as clear that this is going to be a fight. It is also where you will be able to see, in clear public view, which “men’s organizations” will take a stand when it absolutely counts, or whether they have feet of clay.
Finally, as always, we have to ask you to make the real difference. When we initiate email campaigns, which we surely will, please participate, regardless of where you live. Post this article to your Facebook page and other social media. If you are on Facebook, this article is also posted right here. Come and leave a comment encouraging others to take action. If you have not “liked” our page, please do so. If you are not on Facebook, please join, and then see the previous two sentences.
Go to the Facebook page about these events now and make your opinion known, respectfully, firmly and briefly. Be prepared to give some of your time and effort more than once. More than ten times.
Dig in, folks. This is going to be a long one. If you want a men’s movement, YOU are going to have to fight for it.
Source:click here
Sounds great to me,I went to the facebook page and left my two cents. If you don't want women's groups dictating what you can see on facebook today,tomarrow they will dictate the entire net. Sound good to you? To me it sucks and I'm going to do everything I can to fight it.
It’s on by Paul Elam
This is probably the most important article I have ever written, and it addresses what I believe is the greatest challenge the M(H)RM has faced so far.
Victor Zen just brought us an important bit of news that I have also known about for several hours, and about which I am already getting emails. Facebook has just bowed to public pressure from feminists to start policing its pages and removing what is ostensibly called hate speech and the glorification of violence toward women.
Please don’t make the mistake of believing that this is the real agenda.
Let’s dispense with the basics first. As Zen has already pointed out, the sexism that Facebook has agreed to root out is that which is identified and defined by ideological feminists only. No MHRA perspective on the subject, or any other perspective for that matter, is relevant. Consequently the hundreds and maybe thousands of male bashing pages on the social network giant will remain, and only those pages identified as a problem by moderators “trained” by feminist ideologues will be targeted.
Unfortunately, that is not near the worst of the news.
What is happening, and it is going to happen more swiftly than you can imagine, is that just as we have seen in academia, in the military, in many workplaces and more recently in the secular community, feminists are using whatever tools are at their disposal to ensure that their narrative is the only one allowed.
To put it more bluntly, feminist ideologues are co-opting Facebook, and they will root out any and all opposition to their worldview. That will include, at some point, the AVFM Facebook page and its nearly 3,500 fans (2,000 of which have come in the past two months).
How important this is? In a word, very.
Facebook accounts for roughly 10-13% of our traffic on most days, and with a rapidly growing fan base that promises to represent a continually increasing number of actual visitors to the site.
To be honest, this does not mean that the loss of our Facebook fan page would result in a complete loss of traffic from Facebook. Many individuals post our articles on their pages, so that resultant traffic does not come directly from the fan page. But that is a minor detail when you consider the actual agenda here and its potential for harm to our community.
The machinations of these ideologues do not begin or end with Facebook. Still, as a battle ground in the ever increasing conflict between radical feminists and their opposition, it is of massive importance.
Have you ever known an ideologue to be satisfied with a victory? Where do you imagine, if they are successful at eliminating men’s rights discussion from Facebook, they will go next? Reddit? YouTube? How about Google?
Do you think they are above trying to have men’s rights websites de-listed from Google search returns? Why don’t you ask them at Norton Symantec or O2, who have already blocked nearly ALL men’s rights related websites?
If you believe that these ideologues would not seek to wipe out all opposition to their worldview from the internet, then you likely believe that the current campaign on Facebook is to simply address sexism and sexual violence against women. You will probably believe that till the day you come here and find an error message instead of a website.
This is not the somewhat comical antics of the SPLC. It is not the even more comedic histrionics of the University of Toronto Student Union. This is actually a well-planned agenda that that could ultimately deal very harsh blows to the Men’s Human Rights Movement just as it is beginning to emerge.
And we need to do something about it.
With that in mind, I am respectfully calling on all men’s organizations, father’s rights groups, men’s issues bloggers, secular organizations and anyone else concerned with free speech and evidence based solutions to social problems to take a stand on this issue and to demand that Facebook make a public commitment to the free speech of men’s rights organizations.
Facebook should also include a non-feminist anti-sexist perspective to be given equal weight when evaluating what is and is not hate speech as well as what constitutes the glorification or condoning of violence against women.
Facebook should also make a public commitment to take precisely the same measures against online misandry that they take against alleged misogyny. That commitment should include addressing the promotion of violence against men. And they should follow through with this commitment in a verifiable and measurable way. At AVFM we support free speech for all, but if it is to be abridged in any way, that abridgment should not be driven by sexism.
We are entering very, very dangerous times. Ideological feminists are witnessing the deconstruction and debunking of their theories. They are watching a once stagnant and ineffectual men’s rights movement start to gain momentum. The hegemony they have enjoyed for 50 years is under direct and long overdue attack.
They are not just going to let it happen.
So far, we have witnessed only bumbling attempts to paint us as a hate movement. Most of their efforts have simply blown up in their face. We have had more than our share of good laughs, and have been thrilled to see their hateful, disingenuous efforts result only in more growth for us.
It has been enjoyable, but it has also had the potential to make us soft. We can hardly afford that.
From this day forward, we need a directed and organized response to this problem. As we are just initiating this response, there is but a few details available now on what our efforts will be, but I will share them with you and advise you as more information becomes available.
One, I will be conducting outreach to NCFM, of which I am a member, and other similar organizations to initiate a coordinated response, and more importantly to make contact with other mainstream entities about this problem. If there ever was a time to think “the enemy of my enemy” this is it.
AVFM will establish monitoring of Facebook, to see what kinds of pages are deleted and for what reasons under the new Facebook guidelines.
This is also as good a time as any, though I wish it were under better circumstances, to announce that thanks to your donations to AVFM we have finally been able to hire Editor-in-Chief John Hembling (JTO) into a salaried position for AVFM. He is scheduled to start working for us full time on June 1, and not a day too soon. I am sure his dedicated efforts on this important matter will be invaluable.
While it is obvious that nowhere near all our plans are set, or even envisioned at this early stage of the game, it is just as clear that this is going to be a fight. It is also where you will be able to see, in clear public view, which “men’s organizations” will take a stand when it absolutely counts, or whether they have feet of clay.
Finally, as always, we have to ask you to make the real difference. When we initiate email campaigns, which we surely will, please participate, regardless of where you live. Post this article to your Facebook page and other social media. If you are on Facebook, this article is also posted right here. Come and leave a comment encouraging others to take action. If you have not “liked” our page, please do so. If you are not on Facebook, please join, and then see the previous two sentences.
Go to the Facebook page about these events now and make your opinion known, respectfully, firmly and briefly. Be prepared to give some of your time and effort more than once. More than ten times.
Dig in, folks. This is going to be a long one. If you want a men’s movement, YOU are going to have to fight for it.
Source:click here
Sounds great to me,I went to the facebook page and left my two cents. If you don't want women's groups dictating what you can see on facebook today,tomarrow they will dictate the entire net. Sound good to you? To me it sucks and I'm going to do everything I can to fight it.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Radfem refuses to take "no" for an answer
The only thing that could be considered "redeemable" about feminism is the unwitting comedy they produce. Read the following from MRA London and you'll see what I mean:
Radfem 2013 Cancelled, Cathy Brennan Explodes
A Voice for Male Students, a student group based in the US, has reached out to us at MRA London with a warning about our personal safety, and possible reprisals, after we mounted an impromptu protest at the London Irish Centre over the planned Radfem 2013 conference.
Thank you guys for your genuine concern! Personal safety is an aspect which is not lost on me.
For myself, I made a personal decision sometime ago to get involved and to get out there, no matter what the consequences. Most of the people in our own group, both men and women alike, have personal experiences beyond belief, and what we realise is that we have nothing to loose, but so much to gain by this.
We are not professionals when it comes to undertaking direct action. In fact, Rod (bless!) the original founder of our group, even began blurting out a profuse apology to the guys at the Irish Centre over "the interruption" — until I stood on his toe to shut him up.
Good move. You avoided what could have been a defeat. If they shit on us there is no reason for us to apologize. Fuck that.
Nevertheless, because of our action, the Radfem's pro-violence ideology is now out in the open and, if we can do this — anybody can!
The Radfem booking was subsequently cancelled by the venue centre and feminist overlord and "Radical Hub" website (ex-)owner, Cathy Brennan, is now raging at her spit-flecked computer screen. In fact, she rants on her personal blog that she intends to go ahead with the planned Radfem conference at the London Irish Centre anyway, cancellation or no cancellation. My mind boggles — presumably this would be a bit like being rejected at a job interview, but turning up at the company for "work" and demanding a desk!
But, nevertheless, this is what Brennan says she is going to do...
We do not accept the London Irish Centre’s unjustifiable rejection of our booking. ... We will have our conference. It will be at the London Irish Centre from the 8th – 9th of June. Cathy Brennan - Radfem 2013
Whatever you say "Jill", you're the master race!
(The full contents of Brennan's spleen can be found on her personal blog.)
Here is a women who is obviously not used to being told "No!" In fact, I seriously suspect that she has absolutely no idea what it means. So, I thought I would write a quick refresher for her:
NO MEANS NO!
No - "A negative response; a denial or refusal."
As this saga rumbles on, I'm finding that I have a great deal of sympathy of the London Irish Centre over this. Possibly they thought they were hosting an event concerned with "equality" or something. Who knows? This must be a very painful lesson for them, but it's one that people everywhere must learn.
In 2011, James Huff operating under the pseudonym "Agent Orange" did an exposé on the radical feminist collective blog, Radical Hub (aka "Radfem Hub"). His findings — which uncovered discussions on child murder, gendercide, transgender extermination, castration and eugenics — must be difficult to comprehend for anyone used to only associating feminism with liberation and equality. At the time, A Voice for Men put out a press release which links to a large downloadable dump of past Radical Hub postings assembled by guys at the antimisandry.com forum.
Screen capture of Radfem Forum
(The Radical Hub website was taken down in February 2013, prior to the announcement of the Radfem 2013 conference.)
For too long, the likes of Brennan and Sheila Jeffreys — an academic who teaches that "Men are the enemy" across Australian academia and contributor the male eugenics discussion group on Radical Hub — have been allowed to hide under a rock. For the first time, we are now lifting that rock and shining a torch onto what's lurking underneath.
It wouldn't matter so much if radical feminists were just a bunch of harmless crazies who nobody listens to — if only this was true! They are a powerful group of women with influence throughout academia, media and law. Cathy Brennan, herself, is a US attorney in Maryland, and Professor Sheila Jeffreys is a prominent academic in Australia.
But as Martin Luther King once wrote:
There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.
We in MRA London, and the wider men's human rights movement, are men and women willing stand up for males everywhere — from adult men, old men, and boys of all ages. We have put everything we have into this — our time, effort, financial resources, heart and soul. We have nothing to gain other than our self-respect and self-worth, plus the experience of engaging life to its fullest extent. We are sick of sitting on the sidelines while the likes of Brennan and Jeffreys trample all over our human worth.
So, you see, this is everything to us and we are here to stay.
Notes. A record of past posts made to the Radical Hub website are easily accessible, courtesy of fstdt.com, using this link.
I say we give James Huff his own month in honor of him getting this information to us to expose the feminasties for what they truly are and name a prestigious pro-MRA award after him. Three cheers for James Huff aka Agent Orange.
Radfem 2013 Cancelled, Cathy Brennan Explodes
A Voice for Male Students, a student group based in the US, has reached out to us at MRA London with a warning about our personal safety, and possible reprisals, after we mounted an impromptu protest at the London Irish Centre over the planned Radfem 2013 conference.
Thank you guys for your genuine concern! Personal safety is an aspect which is not lost on me.
For myself, I made a personal decision sometime ago to get involved and to get out there, no matter what the consequences. Most of the people in our own group, both men and women alike, have personal experiences beyond belief, and what we realise is that we have nothing to loose, but so much to gain by this.
We are not professionals when it comes to undertaking direct action. In fact, Rod (bless!) the original founder of our group, even began blurting out a profuse apology to the guys at the Irish Centre over "the interruption" — until I stood on his toe to shut him up.
Good move. You avoided what could have been a defeat. If they shit on us there is no reason for us to apologize. Fuck that.
Nevertheless, because of our action, the Radfem's pro-violence ideology is now out in the open and, if we can do this — anybody can!
The Radfem booking was subsequently cancelled by the venue centre and feminist overlord and "Radical Hub" website (ex-)owner, Cathy Brennan, is now raging at her spit-flecked computer screen. In fact, she rants on her personal blog that she intends to go ahead with the planned Radfem conference at the London Irish Centre anyway, cancellation or no cancellation. My mind boggles — presumably this would be a bit like being rejected at a job interview, but turning up at the company for "work" and demanding a desk!
But, nevertheless, this is what Brennan says she is going to do...
We do not accept the London Irish Centre’s unjustifiable rejection of our booking. ... We will have our conference. It will be at the London Irish Centre from the 8th – 9th of June. Cathy Brennan - Radfem 2013
Whatever you say "Jill", you're the master race!
(The full contents of Brennan's spleen can be found on her personal blog.)
Here is a women who is obviously not used to being told "No!" In fact, I seriously suspect that she has absolutely no idea what it means. So, I thought I would write a quick refresher for her:
NO MEANS NO!
No - "A negative response; a denial or refusal."
As this saga rumbles on, I'm finding that I have a great deal of sympathy of the London Irish Centre over this. Possibly they thought they were hosting an event concerned with "equality" or something. Who knows? This must be a very painful lesson for them, but it's one that people everywhere must learn.
In 2011, James Huff operating under the pseudonym "Agent Orange" did an exposé on the radical feminist collective blog, Radical Hub (aka "Radfem Hub"). His findings — which uncovered discussions on child murder, gendercide, transgender extermination, castration and eugenics — must be difficult to comprehend for anyone used to only associating feminism with liberation and equality. At the time, A Voice for Men put out a press release which links to a large downloadable dump of past Radical Hub postings assembled by guys at the antimisandry.com forum.
Screen capture of Radfem Forum
(The Radical Hub website was taken down in February 2013, prior to the announcement of the Radfem 2013 conference.)
For too long, the likes of Brennan and Sheila Jeffreys — an academic who teaches that "Men are the enemy" across Australian academia and contributor the male eugenics discussion group on Radical Hub — have been allowed to hide under a rock. For the first time, we are now lifting that rock and shining a torch onto what's lurking underneath.
It wouldn't matter so much if radical feminists were just a bunch of harmless crazies who nobody listens to — if only this was true! They are a powerful group of women with influence throughout academia, media and law. Cathy Brennan, herself, is a US attorney in Maryland, and Professor Sheila Jeffreys is a prominent academic in Australia.
But as Martin Luther King once wrote:
There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.
We in MRA London, and the wider men's human rights movement, are men and women willing stand up for males everywhere — from adult men, old men, and boys of all ages. We have put everything we have into this — our time, effort, financial resources, heart and soul. We have nothing to gain other than our self-respect and self-worth, plus the experience of engaging life to its fullest extent. We are sick of sitting on the sidelines while the likes of Brennan and Jeffreys trample all over our human worth.
So, you see, this is everything to us and we are here to stay.
Notes. A record of past posts made to the Radical Hub website are easily accessible, courtesy of fstdt.com, using this link.
I say we give James Huff his own month in honor of him getting this information to us to expose the feminasties for what they truly are and name a prestigious pro-MRA award after him. Three cheers for James Huff aka Agent Orange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)