Tag: Clayton Craddock

“Education is best served when the whole range of ideas are presented to the person and the individual is allowed to make up his or her own mind, and that individual is given the tools with which to make that decision – in other words, an ideal educational situation would give a student the criteria by which to judge……and then that student or that adult need never fear exposure to any idea because that person will be able to sort the data out” – Frank Zappa

What is going on with modern feminism? Do they think it is still 1972? Do modern feminists still think that men are pigs, men are evil, men are responsible for all that is bad in the world? If so, this has to be challenged. I feel radical  gender feminism makes those who began the second wave of feminism and those who still who advocate real change look really bad. Radicals in every political movement need to be checked and balanced. Feminists are not immune from a good checking and balancing. If you look at cultural movements like the TEA party and the Occupy movements, they made conservatives and liberals look crazier than they really are. Is this happening to feminism?

Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers see the changes in the feminist movement and have been outspoken critics. However, when a man speaks out, we are seen as instant misogynists. Most people don’t even understand what that word actually means. The act of speaking out and challenging women does not mean we hate women. I am the kind of man who likes an open dialogue so that we all can learn from each other. Being challenged intellectually does not mean that I hate you, I just might disagree. It is great when we can come to some common ground, but there might be times when I just flat out disagree. We can still get along. Where radicals go wrong is their inability to listen and exchange ideas.  What radical feminists are doing today is just that. Not willing to hear anything that challenges their worldview. I feel what they are doing is destroying all of the work that feminists have achieved over the past 40 years.

A few weeks ago, there was an incident that exposed elements of this movement.

Radical feminists blocked students at the University of Toronto from hearing an on-campus speaker named Warren Farrell, bestselling author of The Myth of Male Power.

The first video shows protesters not allowing people in to see the speaker disseminate vital information that will help both men AND women in the long run. What they attempted to do was engage in a technique called  priming. Priming is a known psychological control technique. With subtle hints of words or concepts, priming can trigger impressive changes in behavior. Priming is concerned with perceptual identification of words and objects. It refers to activating particular representations or associations in memory just before carrying out an action or task.

Use of certain words and phrases in this case was a clear attempt at priming They also used their bodies to block the entrance. It is disturbing to see the words ‘rape apologist’ and ‘hate speech’ thrown around before anyone has even had a chance to hear someone speak. Where do the protesters get this stuff from? Did they expect to see a speech from Todd Akin and Richard Murdock?

Blogger Joshua Kennon wrote :These protestors just assured that several mental models are going to kick in that will ultimately help Warren Farrell.  The forbidden fruit mental model, which causes people to want to know about and have access to what others are trying to keep them from discovering or enjoying, is powerful.  The mere association mental model are going to result in people who were trying to attend the lecture out of curiosity ascribing a range of violent, hateful, anti-intellectual traits to feminism in general, much to the movement’s detriment.  The reciprocity mental model means that some people may take actions against these protestors, perhaps even covertly, to undermine their cause as retaliation for the abuse they dished out to innocent passers-by.  

It’s a self-defeating way to behave.

Are these modern feminists? When someone says they are feminist, is this who they want to say represents who they are?

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0&w=560&h=315]

Joshua Kennon sums things up so well on his amazing blog:

What Warren Farrell Was Discussing

This is besides the point of the post but as an addendum, many of you are going to be curious as to what the controversy entailed.  The thesis of Warren Farrell’s speech was that men in the developed world, particularly the United States and Canada, are facing an unprecedented crisis in five key areas: education, jobs, emotional health, physical health, and fatherlessness.  He points out several facts that should come as no surprise to those who keep up with the economic posts on this site and elsewhere:

• For the first time in history, our sons and brothers in the United States will have less education than their fathers.
• The current societal hierarchy ignores the mental health of boys as evidenced by the fact that the suicide risk for boys and girls are the same up through 10 years old.  After that, when men begin being indoctrinated into the societal roles that are expected of them, suicide risk climbs 2x relative to girls between 11 and 14, 4x relative to girls between 15 and 19, and a staggering 5-6x girls between 20 and 24 years old.
• Addiction to media, including video games and other interactive content driven by the information revolution, is disproportionately hurting men.  Men in general spend 3x the hours per week engrossed in these types of activities compared to women.
• For every 1 girl who drops out of high school in Canada, there are 2 boys who do the same.
• The reading and writing scores of boys throughout Canada are significantly below those of similarly situated girls.
• Unemployment rates are significantly higher for men than they are for women, especially African American men.
• This is causing a rise in extended adolescence as a coping mechanism for the failure of society’s institutions to address the emotional needs of boys.  This extended adolescence ultimately hurts women.
• College graduation rates for boys are falling relative to girls.  This has terrible economic consequences.

Farrell’s argument appears to be based on the idea that modern society indoctrinates young boys into thinking they are disposable.  For example: Boys are taught their feelings don’t matter and to hide them (don’t cry); that when conflict arises, their lives don’t matter (drafting only men into war instead of both genders, like you see in many modern armies such as Israel); that their success is determined not by how much they love their work or feel fulfilled but by the total amount of cash they can bring home for their spouse and children to spend; that certain fields are unacceptable based on their gender (certain middle schools not requiring boys to take home economics, which includes baking, sewing, and household budgeting); that they are all potential rapists; that they are all violent by nature; that they are not given equal consideration for joint custody of children and alimony in the event of a divorce; that their natural hobbies and interests (golf or boating) are a waste of time; etc.

Farrell talks about the role of evolutionary biology – that all of this made sense prior to World War II when the focus of life was survival.  Now, with the abundance of material goods and long life spans, we have shifted so that marriages, careers, hobbies, and friendships should be about self-actualization yet boys are socialized and educated in a way that strips them of that power.

Now tell me, is that something that should be banned? Is that hate speech? Is that misogynistic? Is that an apology for rapists?

I’ve had it with radical feminists. It is time to push back on some of this blind rage. What they are doing is counterproductive.

THIS is what the radical feminists were trying to bar people from hearing. It is long, but worth every minute:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4&w=560&h=315]