Canadian university's men’s issues group fails to get ratified

[Ninjaturtle]

Let me just start with this: denying MRA groups the right to congregate, while allowing feminist groups the same right - is sexism.

With that said, I think there is a real risk with groups like MRA (and feminism, to a lesser extent, because it is a more mature movement) for becoming an echo chamber of bigotry and hate - in which the rhetoric and mythology of male oppression plays telephone tag around the group - until a narrative coalesces which is wholly distinct from reality.

It is easy for such groups to convince themselves that inequality toward women is a myth - solely because they too now experience inequality (and men do, which deserves to be talked about).

You must allow them to meet and talk, and only then can you defeat their ideas in debate. I think it would be healthy for both feminists and MRA groups to get together and debate regularly: to kill the echo effect of either group.

So make it a condition of the group that once a month, they have to debate Ryerson's feminist collective. Civil discourse will only benefit both sides - and move both toward a truer, humanist, position. Both sides want to discuss inequality, and that's great, inequality does exist toward both genders - but framing inequality as though it was gender-unique is fundamentally untrue.

This would be rather tough to manage but I think would help a ton after awhile. Somehow society forgot that one of the best ways to get people to empathize with others is to actually meet them face to face. Sure it will have some heated confrontations but neither group with learn much just sitting around with the same gender compounding already set opinions that the group has without any input from the other side. People are to afraid of hurt feeling and confrontations but if we ignore them they just keep getting worse or just turn into attacks verbally and physically since nobody had a structured outlet for the issues.

[unbound]

To be completely honest, men have the power in this society. While there are certainly issues that affect men only, they have all the power to address it...so having a group to address what is already well within their power doesn't really make sense.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ting-there-is/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ing-follow-up/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/2...culty-setting/

[Doctor Amadeus]

Let me just start with this: denying MRA groups the right to congregate, while allowing feminist groups the same right - is sexism.

With that said, I think there is a real risk with groups like MRA (and feminism, to a lesser extent, because it is a more mature movement) for becoming an echo chamber of bigotry and hate - in which the rhetoric and mythology of male oppression plays telephone tag around the group - until a narrative coalesces which is wholly distinct from reality.

It is easy for such groups to convince themselves that inequality toward women is a myth - solely because they too now experience inequality (and men do, which deserves to be talked about).

You must allow them to meet and talk, and only then can you defeat their ideas in debate. I think it would be healthy for both feminists and MRA groups to get together and debate regularly: to kill the echo effect of either group.

So make it a condition of the group that once a month, they have to debate Ryerson's feminist collective. Civil discourse will only benefit both sides - and move both toward a truer, humanist, position. Both sides want to discuss inequality, and that's great, inequality does exist toward both genders - but framing inequality as though it was gender-unique is fundamentally untrue.

I disagree, allowing a civil rights group like to be on a college campus isn't the same as allowing MRA's. Just as a Black Civil right youth group on campus wouldn't be the same as allowing the KKK, which is exactly what what you are saying sounds like.

Colleges and Universities should be places where people go and are challenged on their views and learn.

But just as I wouldn't agree that any other academics should have to get together and debate Unicorns with people who insist unicorns are real, and aren't interested in a logical or reasonable debate.

[Ryme]

Another result that's demeaning for women, insulting for men and not surprising in the slightest.

- - - Updated - - -

To be completely honest, men have the power in this society.

Except in being allowed to set up talking groups, apparently.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I doubt it, everyone with authority walks on eggshells because a misstep could cost you your job.

I don't know, but I am guessing MIAS didn't get rejected out of hand simply because they are a Men group that deals with Men's issues. I am assuming they actually did some research first.

[Jotaux]

I don't know, but I am guessing MIAS didn't get rejected out of hand simply because they are a Men group that deals with Men's issues. I am assuming they actually did some research first.

Well, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me. :P

[GodlyBob]

Let me just start with this: denying MRA groups the right to congregate, while allowing feminist groups the same right - is sexism.

With that said, I think there is a real risk with groups like MRA (and feminism, to a lesser extent, because it is a more mature movement) for becoming an echo chamber of bigotry and hate - in which the rhetoric and mythology of male oppression plays telephone tag around the group - until a narrative coalesces which is wholly distinct from reality.

It is easy for such groups to convince themselves that inequality toward women is a myth - solely because they too now experience inequality (and men do, which deserves to be talked about).

You must allow them to meet and talk, and only then can you defeat their ideas in debate. I think it would be healthy for both feminists and MRA groups to get together and debate regularly: to kill the echo effect of either group.

So make it a condition of the group that once a month, they have to debate Ryerson's feminist collective. Civil discourse will only benefit both sides - and move both toward a truer, humanist, position. Both sides want to discuss inequality, and that's great, inequality does exist toward both genders - but framing inequality as though it was gender-unique is fundamentally untrue.

What do they debate about though? Considering both parties are created because of social injustice, won't is just boil down to which sex has it worse? I'm in complete agreement that gender equality isn't something that should be fought for by a single gender, but I'm not sure we can cobble together two diametrically opposed elements and hope it works. We need to rethink the conversation in general.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me. :P

Hahaha true, well here is hoping that the decision making for a university is a hell of a lot more objective and thorough in their review.

[Skaiz]

To be completely honest, men have the power in this society. While there are certainly issues that affect men only, they have all the power to address it...so having a group to address what is already well within their power doesn't really make sense.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ting-there-is/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ing-follow-up/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/2...culty-setting/

Did you just try and link some opinion blog for a argument??
And your logic is absolutely hilarious. "Men must have all the power (because of opinion blog) therefor they don't need to talk about issues."

What is WRONG with you people? You all are going to give me a stroke. How is younger men talking about problems they have bad? How is men talking with other men about issues they face bad??? What is the absolute crime with trying to connect with people who might have the same problems you have and relating to them because they are also men.

What about all the young men in schools who might not have a father figure and get thrown into school, or the world and are struggling with themselves. You seek to completely non-humanize men for some completely fucked reason. Oh yeah right, they can't have any problems because some fucking dumb opinion piece on a poorly designed blog website told me that they some some magical power

[lonely zergling]

To be completely honest, men have the power in this society. While there are certainly issues that affect men only, they have all the power to address it...so having a group to address what is already well within their power doesn't really make sense.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ting-there-is/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ing-follow-up/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/2...culty-setting/

Last time I checked woman still got the majority of the voting power. So in reality they have the [real] power. I guess they don't need feminist groups with all this power.

[p291u]

Did you just try and link some opinion blog for a argument??

Yeah, I was in shock when I clicked on that garbage too.

[Revi]

I disagree, allowing a civil rights group like to be on a college campus isn't the same as allowing MRA's. Just as a Black Civil right youth group on campus wouldn't be the same as allowing the KKK, which is exactly what what you are saying sounds like.

Colleges and Universities should be places where people go and are challenged on their views and learn.

But just as I wouldn't agree that any other academics should have to get together and debate Unicorns with people who insist unicorns are real, and aren't interested in a logical or reasonable debate.

It's amazing to me that you can compare "feminism vs. men's issues" with "academics vs. unicorns"

It speaks volumes to your blind bias.

Both genders have issues that affect that gender disproportionately, both sides have reasons to have special interest groups.

[Deleted]

To be completely honest, men have the power in this society. While there are certainly issues that affect men only, they have all the power to address it...so having a group to address what is already well within their power doesn't really make sense.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ting-there-is/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/1...ing-follow-up/

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/2...culty-setting/

Ironically, claiming they have power in a thread where their power to come up with ideas as a student body has been taken away from them.

[GodlyBob]

Did you just try and link some opinion blog for a argument??
And your logic is absolutely hilarious. "Men must have all the power (because of opinion blog) therefor they don't need to talk about issues."

What is WRONG with you people? You all are going to give me a stroke. How is younger men talking about problems they have bad? How is men talking with other men about issues they face bad??? What is the absolute crime with trying to connect with people who might have the same problems you have and relating to them because they are also men.

What about all the young men in schools who might not have a father figure and get thrown into school, or the world and are struggling with themselves. You seek to completely non-humanize men for some completely fucked reason. Oh yeah right, they can't have any problems because some fucking dumb opinion piece on a poorly designed blog website told me that they some some magical power

It's not so much that men don't have issues, it's that these groups that form aren't about actually helping men, it's more of a sarcastic jab in the name of equality. It's the same reason you might see community atheist groups get the short end of the stick or European descent clubs being shut down in school. More often than not, people aren't doing it in order to create a place where people can discuss how difficult it can be living in a religious community while not believing in any god or learning cielidh dancing; they are specifically created in response to Christian groups or Latino Unions.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It's amazing to me that you can compare "feminism vs. men's issues" with "academics vs. unicorns"

It speaks volumes to your blind bias.

Both genders have issues that affect that gender disproportionately, both sides have reasons to have special interest groups.

Yes, I am biased on this.

And as a Guy MRA's for example DO NOT represent my issues or anywhere close.

My issues don't begin nor end with "women being a bunch of uptight bitches," who won't simply fill their biological role.

Both Genders do have issues, I agree, and when and if there are Men's groups that advocate for that, I'll support it, but as long as what I see are that dudes that claim to speak for me as a guy turns out to be nothing but hate and vitriol for women who try to speak for all women. I am going to continue to equate the arguments I have seen with debating Unicorns.

[Revi]

I am biased on this.

And as a Guy MRA's for example DO NOT represent my issues or anywhere close.

My issues don't begin nor end with "women being a bunch of uptight bitches," who won't simply fill their biological role.

Both Genders do have issues, I agree, and when and if there are Men's groups that advocate for that, I'll support it, but as long as what is that claims to speak for me as a guy that is about nothing but hate and vitriol for women who try to speak for all women. I am going to continue to equate the arguments I have seen with debating Unicorns.

They don't represent MY issue either because I am not suicidal, fallen outside the educational system, abused, fighting a custody battle or directly affected by any other legitimate issue these groups focus on.

I am not a woman either, but amazingly I support their right to focus on their issues as well.

As much as modern university versions of feminist groups bother me, unlike you I would never want them denied the opportunity to exist. Taking offense or disagreeing is a horrible excuse to want something banned/silenced/disallowed.

[stormgust]

Yes, I am biased on this.

And as a Guy MRA's for example DO NOT represent my issues or anywhere close.

And for most people, the respective groups do neither. So you either apply the same reasoning to all, or neither.

[Skaiz]

It's not so much that men don't have issues, it's that these groups that form aren't about actually helping men, it's more of a sarcastic jab in the name of equality. It's the same reason you might see community atheist groups get the short end of the stick or European descent clubs being shut down in school. More often than not, people aren't doing it in order to create a place where people can discuss how difficult it can be living in a religious community while not believing in any god or learning cielidh dancing; they are specifically created in response to Christian groups or Latino Unions.

Non bias people need to look at groups of any description and see if they are legit. But denying a possibly very helpful group to youngmen without it being given a chance to form is ridiculous. And what is more ridiculous is people using "war on feminism" when people are trying to seek help with issues

[Deleted]

Colleges and Universities should be places where people go and are challenged on their views and learn.

Which ideology is on the curriculum again?

But just as I wouldn't agree that any other academics should have to get together and debate Unicorns with people who insist unicorns are real, and aren't interested in a logical or reasonable debate.

You are talking of feminism it seems.

[Doctor Amadeus]

They don't represent MY issue either because I am not suicidal, fallen outside the educational system, abused, fighting a custody battle or directly affected by any other legitimate issue these groups focus on.

I am not a woman either, but amazingly I support their right to focus on their issues as well.

As much as modern university versions of feminist groups bother me, unlike you I would never want them denied the opportunity to exist. Taking offense or disagreeing is a horrible excuse to want something banned/silenced/disallowed.

Well the I don't agree on any of your points. I don't see Feminism and MRA's as the same.