Initially it seems surprising that the feminist lobby feels it necessary to add denigration to the increasingly obvious male disadvantage in education. But a little reflection shows why this becomes essential. As male disadvantage becomes impossible to disguise, motivating preference for females on the basis of their supposed disadvantage starts to lack credibility. It becomes necessary, therefore, to motivate female preference in some other way. Two parallel strategies are then called into play. The first is to deny a platform to anyone seeking to expose the truth about male disadvantage. The second is an implicit claim that males are undeserving, so any disadvantage is of no consequence.
Both strategies are implemented via the same approach: the vilification of young men. Masculinity is toxic and male sexuality essentially dangerous to women. Reinforcing this misandric attitude is the true purpose of consent classes in universities. Gender studies professors use their position and influence to author pseudo-studies purporting to identify a misogynistic “laddish” culture in our universities. Feminists insist there is a “rape culture” on campuses, bolstering the claim with more pseudo-studies, though some have honestly called-out this deceit. (It is worth noting that these male denigration pseudo-studies are often conducted by, or on behalf of, the feminist controlled NUS, intent on demonising its minority members). Young women, and the public at large, are persuaded to believe this calumny against young men. The damselling and white knight responses are triggered and whatever the feminists demand of the university administration they are given. This, together with feminist control of the NUS, ensures that requests for men’s groups in universities will always be rejected. This happened at Staffordshire and Durham in 2015 just as it has happened elsewhere in the UK and at a great many universities in the USA and Canada. External speakers who hold unapproved opinions will be similarly no-platformed and even meet with violent demonstrations attempting to shut down the event by fair means or foul.
The infamous reversal of the decision to hold a debate on International Men’s Day at York University is another example of the suppression of discussion of men’s issues by feminists. (It is worth noting the pernicious effect of the likes of Athena Swan in such cases. The university administration is frightened of upsetting the feminist lobby since this may lead directly to a failure to gain Athena Swan accreditation, with resulting loss of funding). The Safe Space ploy is another deceit whose true purpose is the implication that something is dangerous (to women), thus spuriously justifying that it be banned.
These tactics are now routine and serve the purpose of suppressing the truth, the first line of the feminist strategy. The second line of the strategy is an automatic consequence of the vilification of young men, because vile people are undeserving and their causes are therefore void.
We are at a stage now where a few people, men and women both, understand the situation as described above. However, most people still do not understand and imagine that men are privileged and women oppressed. Most of those who have some limited understanding are frightened to speak out. The shame-weapon is very real and more powerful than a prison sentence.
Related links (open in this tab)