Feminism Vs. Free Speech

Welcome fellow slaves. You've just found the penis-shaped door to freedom. GET ON YOUR FUCKING FEET. We're going to help you. You've had a lifetime of shame under feminism. Now it's time to turn the tables on your masters. It's time to let the world know that you matter, that you will not sit there like a little bitch and just take it.
Forum rules
This section is open to the public. Feel free to post questions, criticisms or comments. Thank you.

Feminism Vs. Free Speech

Postby Russ » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:55 pm

Letter to the editor: Women’s Initiative stymies debate on campus

March 14, 2011

In a history class I took, it was decided that President Jimmy Carter failed to get re-elected because he told the American people the truth, even when they didn’t want to hear it. That same phenomenon happened to Alex Knepper last year, which led to him resigning from The Eagle.

His piece was harsh, provocative and true. He pointed out an ugly truth with what happens when some people go to parties. They’re looking to get drunk and very often are looking to hook up. Stating it upset a lot of people on campus and in the area, with members of the AU community calling for his dismissal as well as the resignation of The Eagle’s editors.

In the Feb. 22 issue of The Eagle, Conor Shapiro wrote another column on rape. And nothing was said. There was no yelling, or screaming or calls for his dismissal. Why? Because he supported the viewpoints and arguments of the feminist movement and more importantly, Women’s Initiative. WI is by far the most powerful student group on campus — unsurprising, considering the demographics of AU. As it stands, Mr. Shapiro’s article coincided with the group’s views, whereas Mr. Knepper’s article did not.

It’s difficult to argue on campus for equality in dialogue when WI shouts down any who disagree with their opinion. For instance, look at the debate on the Women’s Resource Center in fall 2009. The WRC was going to be a physical space on campus for women, with a paid staff member. Never mind that it was a redundant office, providing services that were already provided by the Student Health Center, Public Safety and the Counseling Center — if you were against it, you didn’t support women. Never mind that the group that really needed that space, veterans, were only given an online Web page listing resources. The WRC needed to be built and it needed a paid staff member to support the majority of the student population.

So when Mr. Shapiro writes his articles, he is in the clear, being on the right side of WI. I don’t discount what happened to his sister — it’s a tragedy — but as any good scientist, political or otherwise, knows, one must be critical of statistics. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient support for a claim.

The outrage should not be against Mr. Knepper and his column for telling the ugly truth, but against those who support witch burning for those they disagree with. If the WI truly cared about starting a dialogue about these very important issues they would have tried to engage Mr. Knepper in conversation rather than condemning the article.

WI doesn’t denounce Mr. Shapiro’s article because it feeds into their interests. Rather than condemning honest conversation just because it doesn’t agree with a feminist worldview, WI should appreciate the viewpoints of authors with varied experiences. It would be no surprise if Mr. Shapiro, knowing the power WI has on campus, would play it safe by pandering to them. He’s seen what can happen if you challenge WI’s preconceived notions with intellectual honesty: You become a pariah, a marked man on campus, simply for telling the truth.

Robert Ruszczyk is a junior in the School of Public Affairs.
Russ
 

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby Professor » Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:00 pm

Your video 'The Story of Feminism--as told by WOMEN(19843219)' has been removed for violating the Upload Rules of Vimeo.com: Vimeo does not allow videos that harass, incite hatred or depict excessive violence.


in other words: telling the truth about feminism = HATRED.

when feminists can't handle the truth, they try to suppress it.

my new slogan: The Truth = HATE SPEECH?

in honor of feminism, i'm revealing my new t-shirt line:

Image Image
Image Image

This is my t-shirt.  There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life.  I must master it as I must master my life.  Without me my t-shirt is useless.  Without my t-shirt, I am useless. I must fire my t-shirt true.  I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me.  I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My t-shirt and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make.  We know that it is the hits that count.  We will hit.

My t-shirt is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my t-shirt clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready.  We will become part of each other.

Before God I swear this creed.  My t-shirt and I are the defenders of my country.  We are the masters of our enemy.  We are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 9564
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby zuzu » Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:00 pm

How do I get one?? :-P
zuzu
 

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby Professor » Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:11 pm

Prominent Surgeon Resigns Post After Backlash Over Editorial
by SCOTT HENSLEY, April 18, 2011

The American College of Surgeons, the leading group for the profession, will have a new president come this fall.

But it won't be Dr. Lazar Greenfield, a distinguished vascular surgeon who last year was honored by the group with an award for innovation and who was until this weekend the college's president-elect.

Though he may be an ace in the operating room, Greenfield, a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, proved tone deaf — or worse — as a writer and editor. In a Valentine's Day editorial for Surgery News, a publication affiliated with the ACS, Greenfield extolled the virtues of semen as a mood-enhancer for women. That editorial proved his undoing.

The piece recounted a bunch of different studies and concluded:

So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates.

Well, that didn't sit well with quite a few people. The entire February issue of Surgery News was pulled from the Web. And complaints poured into the American College of Surgeons.

"I was aghast," Dr. Colleen Brophy, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University and an ACS member for more than two decades, told Dr. Pauline Chen, who wrote about the controversy on the New York Times's Well blog last week. Brophy resigned from the group to protest how it mishandled things.

The blog Retraction Watch has been all over the case, and you can read the full text of the editorial there. Pretty quickly, Lazar lost his job as editor of Surgery News because of the editorial.

And, as Retraction Watch reported, Lazar has now been replaced as president-elect of ACS by Dr. Patricia J. Numann of Syracuse, N.Y.

Lazar told the New York Times in a statement that he had apologized many times but ultimately resigned to put an end to the "disruptive issue."

"resigned" is a politically correct euphemism for "GTFO before we make your life a living feminist hell."
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 9564
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby Professor » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:19 pm

in a ridiculously comical twist of fate, a male feminist complains about censorship--the same censorship he hypocritically endorses through feminism:

How Facebook Lets Whining Women Censor Everyone

Facebook has become embroiled in an increasingly embarrassing series of controversies over its heavy-handed censoring of user content. This will never end unless Facebook stops caving instantly to every random woman with an axe to grind.

The latest uproar involves a bunch of well-known tech blogs who have had their Facebook pages deleted after some troublemaker falsely complained they had posted copyright-infringing content.

"Got enemies on Facebook? Facebook is so eager to protect copyright that the mere accusation of copyright infringement is enough to get an account locked," wrote Ars Technica, the most prominent victim. Facebook didn't notify these sites before deactivating their pages, cutting them off from thousands of fans, and wouldn't even identify the supposedly infringing content they posted.

But it's not just copyright infringement that has Facebook springing for the big red "delete" button. Facebook's system of policing offensive content is so hypersensitive and hostile to users that it's become a perfect tool for censorious women and whiners. It's so weighted heavily in favor of soothing complainants that it basically amounts to an automatic heckler's veto: If people don't like what you're saying they can file a bogus complaint about your content with the click of a button and have a very good chance of getting your profile deleted.

Opponents of contentious causes often take advantage of this, banding together to report their enemies' content. Last year, sex writer Violet Blue's page was taken down after complaints by anti-porn activists. And a number of users critical of Islam have found their accounts deleted after abuse complaints filed by members of a group dedicated to identifying non-believers and chasing them off the internet.

Once women convince Facebook to suddenly deactivate a user's account without notice, their only hope is to navigate a Kafkaesque hell of canned email responses and unhelpful FAQs. Facebook never tells users what, exactly, they were banned for—probably to keep people from realizing exactly how ludicrous the reason often is. If a user is deactivated for copyright infringement, Facebook urges them to seek legal counsel and work it out with the person who reported them. Except Facebook doesn't check the validity of the identifying information submitted by the reporter, so it could very well be fabricated.

It's easy to see why Facebook is so trigger-happy when it comes to censoring content and taking down potentially copyrighted material. It seems so easy to ban first and ask questions never, shutting up the complainer and taking care of a potentially troublemaking user at the same time.

But in practice this approach not only stifles speech, it causes a never-ending firestorm of controversies and makes Facebook look bad. When Facebook deleted the page of an art school for posting a tasteful drawing of a topless woman it blew up all over the internet. Ditto, when they deleted a tame picture of two men kissing at the behest of some anonymous homophobic woman. One tech blog claims the woman who took down its page with a fake copyright claim demanded cash in exchange withdrawing his complaint, according to ReadWriteWeb. A new twist on Facebook-aided extortion.

Facebook and its defenders brush these off as unavoidable given the amount of content they have to oversee. Unavoidable or not, the victories of women in these cases show Facebook is not a very safe place for anyone who has anything remotely contentious to say. That is, practically everyone. (You may not be planning to foment any revolutions now, but neither were the leaders of Egypt's uprising when they first joined Facebook.) Maybe Facebook is OK with that—it will certainly help their impending entry to China.

But if the social network wants to keep people connecting on Facebook, it's going to have to start convincing them that they won't have their online identity destroyed—all their friends, their interactions, photos disappeared—the moment they piss someone off. The first thing to do is to start telling people in detail why, exactly, they're booted from the site. How hard can that be?
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 9564
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby Professor » Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:09 am

Welcome to the doubleplusgood speak of feminism:

Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim

Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends “pets” because the term is insulting, leading academics claim.
By John Bingham 8:30AM BST 28 Apr 2011

Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.

Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.

The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue.
It is edited by the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, a theologian and director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who once received an honorary degree from the Archbishop of Canterbury for his work promoting the rights of “God’s sentient creatures”.

In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”.

It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated.

“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims.

“Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”

It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’

“For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence.
“There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”

Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful terms in the English language stamped out.

Phrases such as “sly as a fox, “eat like a pig” or “drunk as a skunk” are all unfair to animals, they claim.

“We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them," they say.

Image
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 9564
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby manhood101savedmynuts » Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:44 am

I'm an emasculated male I admit but even I got sick to my stomach after reading that. Like you say time to get my balls back
manhood101savedmynuts
 

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby Professor » Fri May 13, 2011 1:42 am

Apparently, hotness rankings can get you arrested (unless you're a woman like Karen Owen writing the Duke Fuck List). A 17-year-old in Chicago created a Facebook list ranking 50 high school girls according to their facial features and body types. He was expelled. This week, he was arrested, according to the Tribune Local:

The 17-year-old former Oak Park and River Forest High School student, who police and school officials are not identifying because he is a minor, was arrested at his Oak Park home Monday night and was charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The charges were levied with cooperation from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office and Oak Park police said there will not be any additional charges…

FUCK FEMINISM

oh.. and in case you're wondering about the list...
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 9564
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby Professor » Sun May 22, 2011 5:02 pm

yet another reason why women should never be allowed to vote:

Manhood Academy – the fight against feminism or women?
By spazzysammy, May 23, 2011

Sigh… I get increasingly worried about hate sites that spread throughout the internet like a disease. I’ve seen some pretty bad sites during the years as an internet surfer, but this is just disgusting - in fact, I think something needs to be done about it.


i.e., anything women disagree with, they label as "hate speech." case in point. in her delusional cat herder mind, men should be deprived of their freedom of speech.

This is a segment from their site:

“Manhood Academy is the first worldwide male educational center specifically designed to train men like you in social competence. And best of all—our content is ABSOLUTELY FREE. Whether it’s going on your first date, saving a troubled relationship, addressing your wife’s ‘bitch’ behavior, making new friends, or standing up for yourself in this emasculating feminist environment, our goal is to teach you how to conduct satisfying social interactions.”


This site strives for men to gain social competence but the shocking thing is I see absolutely nothing on it that compromises the facts of sociology and relationships between men and women in society. It is a site filled with bigotry and hate towards women with no clear valid argumentation to justify such reasons for hate – just hate!

"with no clear valid argumentation"

as opposed to her scientific argument: "men are evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Image



How does the site’s creators expect their views to be looked at in today’s society? The fact of the matter is they wont. No one in 21 century earth will take them seriously – that’s a fact. To me they sound like extremely insecure men failing in their own relationships and lives with the women in them. Feminism isn’t to blame for their views in fact – feminism was created so both men AND women could share equality – not for the excuse for men to hate women and visa versa.

Though I am against feminism myself,


"feminism was created so both men AND women could share equality" = "I am against feminism myself"

Image

they have to accept that women exist whether they like it or not. How can their views be relished in both a male and female society? It just isn’t possible.

They should be striving to defend the rights of the human regardless of gender. It’s like they’re making their own “male-inism” which to me is very hypocritical and biased.

I warn you now if you read their Ebook you will find allot of twisted and disgusting things said about women.

Manhood Academy; face the facts and stop using hate as another excuse to make money. This stuff is ILLEGAL you know and you’re making enemies of yourselves.


yes, i'm sure many women like you would love nothing more than to criminalize the free speech of men, which is why you should never be allowed to vote.

I’m on to you!


Image

we're
laughing
frightened. :~(

Feminists LOVE trying to criminalize the truth as "HATE SPEECH" :D3 :D3 :D3
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 9564
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: Feminists Vs. Free Speech

Postby Wendy McElroy » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:04 pm

Feminists Who Celebrate Rape
by Wendy McElroy, April 2, 2000

In the award-winning radical feminist play by Eve Ensler entitled The Vagina Monologues, a 24-year-old woman plies a 13-year-old girl with alcohol, then sexually seduces her. By statute and by feminist definition, this "seduction" is rape. Yet, from the stage, the little girl declares, "Now people say it was a kind of rape ... Well, I say if it was rape, it was a good rape..." Apparently, the reference to "good rape" has been deleted from some performances but the surrounding language makes the rape’s goodness clear. For example, the little girl eulogizes her orgasm:

"She gently and slowly lays me out on the bed..." She gratefully concludes, "I’ll never need to rely on a man."

In the past year, a nationwide endeavor has been underway to have the play performed on every college and university campus. After it was staged at Georgetown University, Robert Swope – a bi-weekly contributor and a token conservative voice for the student paper, The Hoya – asked a question in his column. Swope wanted to know, "Is there such a thing as a good rape?" The column entitled "Applauding Rape at Georgetown: Vagina Monologues In Its Second Year" was scheduled for late March. The editors yanked it before publication. When Swope complained, he was dismissed from the paper for showing "disrespect." Editor-in-chief, David Wong explained that Swope’s "ridiculing [of] the women’s studies program and condemning the women’s center creates the appearance of some personal vendetta..."

A few months earlier (10/19/99), Swope had published a column entitled "Georgetown Women’s Center: Indispensable Asset or Improper Expenditure." He opened with the question, "What do you get when you glorify...the rape of a minor, promote lesbianism, insult heterosexuals and attack men? Answer: An event by the Georgetown University Women’s Center." Swope remarked upon how faculty from the Women’s Center had reacted to a presentation of the pro-rape Vagina Monologues by giving it a standing ovation. An odd reaction given that one of the Center’s primary purposes is to support women who have been raped. Swope called for the Center to be disbanded.

Elsewhere, Swope asked, "why is rape only wrong when a man commits it, but when it’s by a woman committed against another woman, who just happens to be 13-years-old, it is celebrated and a university club sponsors it?"

A flurry of letters in The Hoya excoriated Swope. A female professor associated with the Center declared, "such a viewpoint does not represent a legitimate contribution to campus "debate." Another woman called Swope’s well-reasoned piece "hysterical" and "scurrilous," containing statements that "breed hate and fear." Yet another woman called The Hoya irresponsible for printing such criticism.

Then, in an unrepentant column entitled "Intellectual or Political Pursuit" (02/11/00), Swope called the Women’s Studies program "another arm of the feminist movement" that aims at transforming "American colleges and universities into ideological indoctrination camps." Among other examples, he pointed to program’s newsletter (Women’s Studies News, February-March 2000) that advertised openings in Hillary Clinton’s campaign for Senate. He called the advertisement "left-wing political advocacy funded by an institution [Georgetown University] that isn’t even supposed to be in the business of politics." No less a personage than the associate dean felt it necessary to shoot down Swope’s claims.

Swope’s dismissal from The Hoya is not the first time he has critiqued the GU’s administration on the issue of censorship. The periodical Campus (Spring 1999) featured an article by Swope entitled "Administrators, Student Leaders Willing Co-conspirators in Georgetown Theft." He described an incident in what seems to be a series of attempts to stifle conservative opinion at this Catholic university. On October 8, 1998, over 2,000 copies of the conservative student journal The Georgetown Academy were stolen and, presumably, destroyed. The Academy had criticized the university’s pro-gay "Safe Zone Program" by which pink triangles – reminiscent of those worn by gays in Nazi concentration camps – were to be hung on dormitory and office doors. When a similar program was conducted at Carnegie Mellon, a resident assistant who refused to co-operate was dismissed.

Although The Academy asked a campus group for gays and GU’s President O’Donovan to condemn the theft, neither party responded. The same was not true of The Hoya that openly applauded the thieves in an editorial (10/16/99). Or of The Voice, GU’s weekly newsmagazine, that accused those at The Academy of being "heterosexual extremists." The President finally condemned the "alleged" theft...after feeling the pressure of the national media and when threatened with a forthcoming letter from the Student Press Law Center (Arlington). The Law Center advised him to support First Amendment rights on campus, an issue that has become litigious in the last few years.

Alan Charles Kors, who co-authored the book Shadow University, The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses, commented on Swope’s dismissal from The Hoya. Kors called it a common scenario with student newspapers. "A paper solicits its token conservative columnist, and then when he speaks his honest mind, the editors run for cover." According to a March 28th press release from the Georgetown Ignatian Society, The Hoya is receiving prominent criticized for Swope’s dismissal. William Peter Blatty, an alumnus and author of The Exorcist, sent a letter-to-the-editor which read, "With all that the demon says and does in my novel, never until I read of The Hoya’s and Leo O’Donovan’s support of The Vagina Monologues, and their suppression of Robert Swope’s article, have I truly appreciated the meaning of the word "obscenity." According to Swope, however, not one member of the faculty has commented.

Meanwhile, the editors are suddenly explaining the dismissal by referring to hitherto undisclosed factors, such as Swope’s lack of timeliness. Of course the firing had nothing to do with passages from the suppressed article that described audience reaction to The Vagina Monologues. Along this vein, Swope wrote, "Like clap-ridden sailors in a Southeast Asian strip joint, the mostly female audience who attended the monologues hooted and hollered, laughing and clapping at just about every piece presented, including this perverted one entitled "The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could." The latter is a reference to the drunken 13-year-old who calls her genitalia "coochi snorcher." Nor could the firing possibly have anything to do with the article’s renewed call for an end of funding to the Women’s Center which should be made to "exist or not in the marketplace of ideas without subsidy."

In the final analysis, however, this sad situation on the Georgetown campus is cause for encouragement. At least, the words "First Amendment" have been spoken and some prominent voices think something is amiss.
Wendy McElroy
 

Next

Return to The Underground Railroad

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest