London Irish Centre to host hateful radical feminist event

harrietharmman

Radfem 2013 is set to take place at the London Irish Centre. Note that Conway Hall declined to host the 2012 event when they realised how extreme it was.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/news-updates/radfem-2013-at-the-london-irish-centre/

I wonder if the centre would host a far-right event or any other group of extremists?

Quite ironic that what was originally a hostel for Irish men will be hosting a group that advocates violence against males.

Playboy

Unbelievable. I'm going to contact the Centre. Thanks for letting us know

Jerrica

clairefontaine wrote: »

How can the IRISH centre, host this? Ireland is an anti abortion nation and its allowing these women who want to abort baby boys promote their hate?

If you don't want some women to speak for all women please don't assume that my government speaks for all it's people. My government does not share my abortion views.

Dravokivich

Whoa...

The quote on that link from someone who is stated to be a social care worker involved with children in particular is rather disturbing.

I think "Agent Kildare" went about it wrongly by focusing on Transgender issues, as opposed to alluding to the general athmosphere that'll be present at the conference as per the rest of the article before the e-mails.

Cavehill Red

The London Irish Centre receives funding from the Irish government. It would be interesting to know whether the government endorse this use of Irish taxpayers money.

discus

Sick, sick people.

Standman

Does an organisation that has rooms to rent have to agree with everything the people who rent them believe?

cantdecide

Standman wrote: »

Does an organisation that has rooms to rent have to agree with everything the people who rent them believe?

If they did, God knows attending my monthly neo-nazi group would become difficult...

fits

*stumbles into forum* What the fcuk????? that's a lovely website.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/rape-farming-the-next-generation/
.

As the terms “rape” and “rapeseed oil” began to decline on food product labels during the 1990′s, by an odd coincidence, feminists began to face a real problem – the other sort of rape, meaning an unwanted sexual assault, was declining also. The sexual revolution, the ready availability of birth control, the widespread availability of porn and the hypergamy of women meant that fewer and fewer men raised to be rapists by their abusive single mums had enough dry time to service the rape needs of the gynocentric ideologues who had worked so hard to damage men and boys.

Bigots of all stripes had used rape narratives as a staple of their propaganda diets. Want to undermine a black man, or a Romani (gypsy) man, or a Jewish man, or really, any man? Accuse him of rape, and toss a noose over the limb of a tree – problem solved. Even when the stories were recanted, either it was too late, or the police did nothing to the false rape accuser.

Unfortunately, the flaw in the rape narrative is that unless you have an actual rape, sooner or later your narrative will lose its power and your bigotry needs will go frigid and starve.

Imagine what would happen if 70% of the food in your city or town vanished. There would be panic, riots, extreme violence, crushing fear and death would soon be commonplace. The wasting of food would be a crime, dubious food would be consumed nevertheless, and the total collapse of social order would drive draconian measures to save society.

Now consider…the decline in the forcible rape rate from 1979 to 2009 was over 82%.

As the rates of actual jump-out-of-the-bushes forcible rape dropped to near extinction, the bigots against men who relied on rapists faced a huge problem – how to grow and promote rape without seeming to grow and promote rape.

tsiehta

Ugh, RadFem Hub is the worst. Doesn't look like their site exists anymore, but I recall reading some of their articles before. They were not only genuinely misandric, but they held extremely ****ty views on transgender individuals (they are TERFs, or "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists").

iptba

Dravokivich wrote: »

Whoa...

The quote on that link from someone who is stated to be a social care worker involved with children in particular is rather disturbing.

Yes, indeed:

And this delightful little gem from a Radfem childcare worker:

“I have honestly have been reassessing the fact that I am giving care to these little future rapists, and what that says about me about me and my separatism. I know it is kinda going against my principle to support and care for these little ****ers.”- <name>

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

Ugh, RadFem Hub is the worst. Doesn't look like their site exists anymore, but I recall reading some of their articles before. They were not only genuinely misandric, but they held extremely ****ty views on transgender individuals (they are TERFs, or "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists").

Here's what a commenter said in terms of the website:

It appears the Radfem Hub ( radicalhub.com) is now defunct, but the infestation of gender bigots has just moved their filth elsewhere

Mod - snip

now exactly where it should be behind password protection and out of the public view.

Galwayguy35

Some childcare worker the one in the second part was referring to the boys in her care as "future rapists".

I couldn't really work out what the first one was trying to say, but I'm sure it was nothing good.

GalwayGuy2

Not really s big fan of that website, but I'm pretty sure everybody can agree that RadFem's are not a good group of people.

Some childcare worker the one in the second part was referring to the boys in her care as "future rapists".

I couldn't really work out what the first one was trying to say, but I'm sure it was nothing good.

Hope the children didn't subconsciously pick up on that

Fukuyama

The language used in their articles resembles the style of language in Mein Kamph.

I kind of laughed at the idea of eliminating 90% of the male population, killing any baby boys, keeping 10% of men alive for the purposes of sexual reproduction only, forced chemical serilization and experiments etc... all in the name of eliminating gender based violence. :rolleyes:

The LIC should be ashamed.

clairefontaine

Dean0088 wrote: »

The language used in their articles resembles the style of language in Mein Kamph.

I kind of laughed at the idea of eliminating 90% of the male population, killing any baby boys, keeping 10% of men alive for the purposes of sexual reproduction only, forced chemical serilization and experiments etc... all in the name of eliminating gender based violence. :rolleyes:

The LIC should be ashamed.

That's why they are called feminazis.

Cavehill Red

As an advocate of male rights in the arena of parental equality, I have had run-ins with women's rights advocates in the past. But while we may have disagreed on fundamental issues about family law in Ireland, I never called their humanity into question nor they mine. In a lot of areas, I have shared interests with feminists, in the interest of creating a fairer and more equitable world for all.

Hence as both an opponent and an ally of feminists in different circumstances, I feel confident in saying that these people who have booked the London Irish Centre are not feminists in any meaningful sense.

They are misandrist hate-mongers. If they advocated for ethnic minorities, homosexuals or the disabled what they are advocating for men, they would be proscribed, shunned and likely prosecuted. They are nothing more than extremist gender fascists promoting hate and genocide, and they should not be given a platform to air their detestable hatred in any premises funded by this nation.

harrietharmman

Here's London Irish Centre's Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/londonirishcentre

awec

This post has been deleted.

GalwayGuy2

Not entirely sure where to put this, but since I followed a few links from the posted link, I just thought I'd post it here. I found this article and was wondering what ye thought of what the father did.

Personally, I don't like the people on a voice for men because they come across a mirror image of the more college activisy side of feminism, but what he said to his son could be classed, while not abusive, as incredibly damaging in the long term.

Just noticed that I completely messed linking the article, but here it is: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/hesaid-a-father-son-talk-about-rape-and-reteah-parsons/

Duck Soup

London Irish Centre has now cancelled the RadFem 2013 booking.

http://www.mralondon.org/2013/04/press-release-london-irish-centre-says.html

kingofslaves

Duck Soup wrote: »

London Irish Centre has now cancelled the RadFem 2013 booking.

http://www.mralondon.org/2013/04/press-release-london-irish-centre-says.html

Damn beat me too it ! lol

clairefontaine

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Not entirely sure where to put this, but since I followed a few links from the posted link, I just thought I'd post it here. I found this article and was wondering what ye thought of what the father did.

Personally, I don't like the people on a voice for men because they come across a mirror image of the more college activisy side of feminism, but what he said to his son could be classed, while not abusive, as incredibly damaging in the long term.

Just noticed that I completely messed linking the article, but here it is: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/hesaid-a-father-son-talk-about-rape-and-reteah-parsons/

So his four year old son comes home feeling sad that a little girl didn't like his stolen kiss and his father tells him he is a rapist?

Nice.

tsiehta

I agree with his ultimate intentions. I don't agree with him telling his son what he did was rape. He does sort of admit he was wrong to do this, but it's a little unclear in the article.

I think explaining rape, sexual assault and consent to children at a young age is a positive thing. It would be nice to nurture a society in which explicit consent is the norm, and requesting consent isn't viewed as a mood killer or unsexy, but I think this father executed this quite a bit less than perfectly.

clairefontaine

tsiehta wrote: »

I agree with his ultimate intentions. I don't agree with him telling his son what he did was rape. He does sort of admit he was wrong to do this, but it's a little unclear in the article.

I think explaining rape, sexual assault and consent to children at a young age is a positive thing. It would be nice to nurture a society in which explicit consent is the norm, and requesting consent isn't viewed as a mood killer or unsexy, but I think this father executed this quite a bit less than perfectly.

At that age, it is better to teach them about respecting personal boundaries, particularly of the body. He is FOUR years old.

This is why horseplay is so important from both mothers and fathers, it teaches them that different people have different limits and to respect those limits. You dont have to bring rape discussions into it.

And also to teach them if they don't want to be kissed or hugged that is ok too and to respect others who don't want their hugs and kisses, etc.

GalwayGuy2

I agree with his ultimate intentions. I don't agree with him telling his son what he did was rape. He does sort of admit he was wrong to do this, but it's a little unclear in the article.

I think explaining rape, sexual assault and consent to children at a young age is a positive thing. It would be nice to nurture a society in which explicit consent is the norm, and requesting consent isn't viewed as a mood killer or unsexy, but I think this father executed this quite a bit less than perfectly.

I don't. There's a difference between educating your children, and instilling fear into them of being raped or being a rapist.

What the father actuallu did was equate normal sexuality with abnormal sexuality. Which, unfortunately, you see a lot.

And I don't think you understand how damaging is the thing that he did. (Good god my grammer sucks) He'll always, conscious or subconscious, have that fear that he may cross a boundary and become a rapist. Which is a ridiculous fear. And if he goes through anxiety, as every adolescent does, then his mind will go back to that fear, and it could multiply that anxiety and really turn it into something to worry about. As, contrary to some people's belief, I think most men would rather hurt themselves then rape someone.

On a lighter note, I think I can make asking for consent sound sexy:P I blame the Kim Harrison novels.

tsiehta

I clearly said I didn't agree with him telling his son that what he did was rape. What I did say is that I agree with teaching kids about consent, and what rape and sexual assault are from a young age. Is it this you do not agree with?

GalwayGuy2

Yes.

tsiehta

In that case, I find the notion that teaching your children about consent, sexual assault and rape potentially leaves them perpetually fearful of being raped or becoming a rapist to be bizarre.

DarkJager

Why would you even think of ruining their childhood with such discussions? Boys or girls don't need to know about rape or any sexual activity, that just stinks of feminist nonsense. 99.9% of people grow up without any inclinations towards these acts so why the **** would you even consider this?

tsiehta

You have to talk to children about sex at some point, what's so wrong with teaching them about consent?

clairefontaine

tsiehta wrote: »

I clearly said I didn't agree with him telling his son that what he did was rape. What I did say is that I agree with teaching kids about consent, and what rape and sexual assault are from a young age. Is it this you do not agree with?

Not at four no. When its time for sex ed, yes.

moneymad

tsiehta wrote: »

You have to talk to children about sex at some point, what's so wrong with teaching them about consent?

People know what is right and wrong from a very early age.

Playboy

DarkJager wrote: »

Why would you even think of ruining their childhood with such discussions? Boys or girls don't need to know about rape or any sexual activity, that just stinks of feminist nonsense. 99.9% of people grow up without any inclinations towards these acts so why the **** would you even consider this?

ahem.. cough cough!! Dont you know that 1 in 4 men are rapists!?

PaurGasm

"I have honestly have been reassessing the fact that I am giving care to these little future rapists..."

That is just ridiculous...My day is ruined

DarkJager

PaurGasm wrote: »

"I have honestly have been reassessing the fact that I am giving care to these little future rapists..."

That is just ridiculous...My day is ruined

Ya I despair that such imbeciles are allowed to breath the same air as us. That's one person regardless of their gender who should be beaten up and down a road with a lead pipe.

tsiehta

moneymad wrote: »

People know what is right and wrong from a very early age.

I disagree with your assertion.

Are you suggesting we should never talk to kids about consent because they already know right from wrong? Should we ever teach our kids about morality at all?

eviltwin

We DO teach kids about consent from an early age. We tell our kids its not okay if someone touches them against their will. We can also teach them not to touch someone else. Obviously it needs to be age appropriate but there is no reason why it can't be phrased in a way that gets the message across without the need for sexual language.

tsiehta

So, this is only my own experience, but I was in primary school in the 90s, and all I recall as far as education on consent was some "Stay Safe" programme videos on the subject of it not being ok for others to touch you against your will. IIRC it was fairly short lived, dated, and vague though. I had zero education on anything like this in second level.

I'm undecided on the subject of how young to start introducing discussions of this in relation to sex and sexual relationships with others. Perhaps it is something best left to the early teens, as long as kids are introduced to the concepts of consent and personal boundaries early on. I never had any such guidance on consent and how it relates to sex. I don't think all the nuances of consent as it relates to sex/sexual acts are implicitly obvious either, and there are so many misleading messages out there in how romance and sex are portrayed in the films and TV, in which consent is always implicit and rarely explicitly sought.

silvervixen84

Just read in today's Evening Standard (London Ed) that the event has been cancelled:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/feminist-forum-axed-in-row-over-transsexuals-ban-8602424.html

Rev Hellfire

It will be interesting to see if they go through with their threat of attending the centre anyway.

PucaMama

the things ive seen written in the AVFM forums havnt been much better than what radfem say. of course, those threads are now deleted, along with the posts about how women are only to be used and all we have to offer are "holes" :rolleyes:

Woodward

PucaMama wrote: »

the things ive seen written in the AVFM forums havnt been much better than what radfem say. of course, those threads are now deleted, along with the posts about how women are only to be used and all we have to offer are "holes" :rolleyes:

AVFM can be very hit or miss. Anything by Paul Elam and a lot of John the Others recent stuff is pretty ****. Some of the other writers are pretty good

Playboy

PucaMama wrote: »

the things ive seen written in the AVFM forums havnt been much better than what radfem say. of course, those threads are now deleted, along with the posts about how women are only to be used and all we have to offer are "holes" :rolleyes:

So radfem are ok because the AVFM forums are bad too?

Woodward

Playboy wrote: »

So radfem are ok because the AVFM forums are bad too?

Where in my post did I say anything that even remotely gives that idea

iptba

Woodward wrote: »

Where in my post did I say anything that even remotely gives that idea

He wasn't replying to you, but to the logic of the previous post.

Playboy

iptba wrote: »

He wasn't replying to you, but to the logic of the previous post.

which is why I quoted that post

PucaMama

Playboy wrote: »

So radfem are ok because the AVFM forums are bad too?

Cant have avfm allowed to spout that rubbish and then restrict whst radfem can say.

Playboy

PucaMama wrote: »

Cant have avfm allowed to spout that rubbish and then restrict whst radfem can say.

No one is saying to allow anyone spout anything. If people on AVFM are saying those things then that is clearly wrong. It has nothing to do with radfem speaking at the London Irish Centre though.

iptba

There's a letter by somebody from RadFem in the Sunday Times (May 5) on this. It is in reply to an article from the April 21 edition of the paper.

They present themselves as victims and no mention is made of the issue of transgender women being excluded.

DamoKen

PucaMama wrote: »

Cant have avfm allowed to spout that rubbish and then restrict whst radfem can say.

PucaMama wrote:

the things ive seen written in the AVFM forums havnt been much better than what radfem say. of course, those threads are now deleted, along with the posts about how women are only to be used and all we have to offer are "holes"

From your first post I would have thought that by deleting the posts & threads it would seem that they're not really allowed?, although the fact that they were threads would suggest they could improve on their moderators reactiveness.

Not really familiar with the site, is it moderated voluntarily? It does happen on boards from time to time that a thread gets through a few pages before getting locked for good reason. Mods do a great job here but no forum system is perfect, maybe it's the same with less mods on avfm?