Quite a discussion has been taking place on the Men’s Rights subreddit concerning this. As most of us are aware, tomorrow the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) is presenting men’s advocate Karen Straughan at Ryerson University.

You can watch a live stream of it here.

Apparently since the bullying tactics Feminists have employed at recent CAFE events have thus far been unsuccessful, some of them have decided to go on a tear-down rampage of posters promoting the upcoming event at Ryerson.

By “bullying tactics,” I am referring to blocking entrances to events, pulling fire alarms while events were in progress, shouting hateful abuses at attendees while wearing masks, as well as fining CAFE high-dollar “security fees” simply for speaking.

Here you can see CAFE’s promotional poster posted to Facebook. The names and some of the images are blacked out due to Reddit’s posting policy:

Here is an expanded version of the coversation:

Interestingly, the title of the event itself is “Feminism, Free Speech, and Censorship of Men’s Issues.” Notice how these people are laughing at the very possibility that men’s issues could be censored while themselves promoting the suppression of speech and alternative points of view.

This tactic isn’t anything new, of course. Feminists tore down posters at the CAFE event featuring Dr. Warren Farrell. Earlier this week I reported on how the president of the National Union of Students in New South Wales, Australia, encouraged students to tear down posters which asked if it was more morally acceptable to live in fear of men than any other group.

This same exact thing happened at Arizona State University, where Feminist students tore down the same exact posters. And Feminists caught on video also tore down those same posters when John Hembling of A Voice for Men was posting them on private property after he obtained permission to do so. Here’s the video Karen Straughan made of it here:

 

 

And now we see those same tactics being employed against CAFE and Karen Straughan.

If Feminists believe their ideas are so superior, why don’t they attend the event, listen to what Karen Straughan has to say, take part in the Q and A, and – if they are dissatisfied with that outcome – write a point-by-point article refuting her claims on their thousands of blogs or the thousands of mainstream media mouthpieces sensitive to Feminist politics?

If what men’s advocates are saying is so bad, why is it so hard for Feminists to compete by opposing bad speech with better speech of their own?

You see folks, in a free world where ideas are publicly vetted rather than being rammed down people’s throats by coercion, intimidation, and false accusations (tactics which Feminists – despite their hollow claims of “tolerance” – are famous for), Feminists simply cannot compete.

John Hembling said the same at A Voice for Men a long time ago:

Whenever I or any other MRA fields an argument in defence of mens rights, or critical of feminism, it is never met with a counter argument. The arguments of MRAs are met with accusations, shaming language, insults, threats, blackmail, violence, censure, censorship, cooked up criminal charges, vandalism, imprisonment and other calumny.

My article critical of the institution of marriage was answered by feminists accusing me of being gay, of being bitter, of having a small penis, or social ineptitude, of financial impotence, of living in my mother’s basement, of body odour, and of tendencies to hatred, violence, and pedophilia.

Of those critical of my article, none actually addressed the substance of the argument made. None.

My article deconstructing the feminist goal of reversing the burden of proof in accusation of sexual assault was met by feminists who called me a rapist, a bigot, a woman beater, a loser, a violent criminal, and a sociopath. Not even one criticism addressed the substance of my article.

And if you doubt anything John is saying, simply look at the comments in the image captured from Facebook earlier in this article, or look through this site’s articles on free speech.

Sometimes people ask me, “what makes men’s human rights so different from Feminism?”

Then answer, folks: it isn’ t an “ism.”

It isn’t a dogmatic, monocausal belief system unto itself, which Feminism is. “Monocausal” of course means “one cause,” and in the Feminist worldview the one cause of everything bad in the world is men, men, men – which is why they call it “patriarchy” in the first place.

There’s a silver lining to all this, however. These Feminists are putting their narrow-mindedness on display for the whole world to see. They are showing just who puts the move in the Feminist movement.

And by refraining from employing those same tactics ourselves, it puts us in the better light.