Avery Haines: You’re feeling is that this group [a newly formed men’s awareness group] should be banned from being on campus.

After a pause, Munib Sajjad the VP of University Affairs for UTSU answers, “Yes.”

Haines asks, “And why are you hesitant to say yes?”

Sajjad replied: “I feel I’m going to be targeted afterwards.”

I don’t like using military metaphors in my writing like “targeted,” as they can imply a violent intention which is inappropriate. But Munib Sajjad was right. If I were a religious man, maybe I’d pray for him. Welcome to A Voice for Men, Mr Sajjad.

Of course Munib, when I say we’re “targeting” you I mean we’re going to write about your actions. Sans your disingenuous military slang, “targeting,” it is simply called “journalism.” I’m sure you like that less, though, than the implied violence of being “targeted.” For starters, journalism doesn’t give you a threat narrative to work with, like your claim that the women on the University of Toronto’s campus are frightened by a men’s issues group, or a men’s human rights movement. Men (and women) seeking solutions to issues like the male 80% domination of suicide, marginalization in education, and so on.

From this you’re constructing a narrative of fear for the female students at the University of Toronto: a threat narrative, the political purposes of which I’ll return to later in this article. So yes, we’ll be “targeting” you and your comrades. Another way of saying that is that we’ll be exposing you. This exposure will, I hope, give you a very small taste of accountability. Certainly, it’s less exposure than you deserve.

Now, prior to this article’s publication, we “targeted” (reported on) the violent and criminal actions of some of the female protestors at previous University of Toronto speaking events organized by the Canadian Association for Equality. Censorship, intimidation, harassment and violence by these individuals was written about at AVfM. Barring the recent reportage by City TV News, this was something the mainstream media has not had the courage to do.

They’re cute, sweet-faced girls, so their initiation of violence in public is somehow less destructive than the same actions would be if committed by young men? That appears to be the inhibition. This is a toxic double standard enabling the promotion of hate, the suppression of free speech, and the engagement in violence by those sweet-faced young female students. Violent bigots with tits and vaginas are just as toxic as their male counterparts. So guess what? We reported on them.

And we will continue to do so.

Now it’s your turn in the spotlight Mr Sajjad. You’ve advocated for the suppression of free speech, and against freedom of association. You’re either a hopelessly confused child lacking the most basic understanding of human rights, or you’re a bigoted, violence supporting thug. I lean towards ignorance on your part, thus my pains in this article to explain these simple issues to you. You may dismiss all this with another expression common to your ilk, “mansplaining.”

As a side-note, one of my other writing projects is a lexicon of feminist terminology. The entry for that term reads as follows:

Mansplain.

A sexist term used by misandrist individuals to disrespect, belittle and devalue the opinion any argument or expression from a male.

This is a pejorative characterization and dismissal of any expressed opinion based on the sex of the speaker. It is equivalent to dismissing the opinion of an ethnically identified speaker with the term “niggersplaining.”

During her reporting on the Nathanson and Young lecture in Toronto, Avery Haines of City TV News relayed a claim from Student Union at the University of Toronto claimed that “women are scared.”

Was Vanja Krajina “scared” when she relentless goaded a young man she knew nothing about at the Warren Farrell lecture in November? No, she was not scared. She was absolutely confident of her power to inflict accusations on her male contemporaries with no consequence to herself. In fact, her language and posture telegraphed the unmistakable intention to provoke. Even a defensive gesture from one of her victims would have been transmuted into aggression in the feminist threat narrative.

At the Nathanson and Young presentation, the individual earning the nickname Little-Red-Frothing-Fornication-Mouth demonstrated a similar strategy. She demonstrated aggression and contempt for men, including those vulnerable to suicide – so that a negative emotional reaction could be provoked and exploited. She wanted to use the pain of men as “proof” of the feminist threat narrative; a narrative in which women are under threat, and men and MHRAs are the aggressors. Neither Vanja Krajina nor “Big Red” are frightened now – even after being “targeted”. If anything, they are delighted to continue selling a fabricated narrative of their own victimhood.

The problem, for them is that feminism no longer controls a monopoly of the public discourse on gender. The story told by the splashy, feminine silencers of dissenting opinion – that they are the victims — doesn’t hold together when seen outside the gender ideological lens.

And now, Mr Sajjad, it’s your turn in the barrel.

What is it about men working to address male-impacting human rights issues that has you so exercised? Why are the feminists on your campus so frightened of a male human rights movement? And where are your concerns over a subset of the members of the U of T Student’s Union that dramatically re-branded themselves as the “Revolutionary Students Movement” for the purpose of issuing public threats of violence?

“At worst, they [the men’s human rights movement] represent the most reactive, backward voices within the masses. As such, they need to be verbally condemned as well as physically challenged.” (emphasis mine).

Were you one of the authors of that nugget of stupid, Mr Sajjad? If so, you’ve been a very naughty little doggie; silencing free expression, suppressing the right of peaceful association, opposing the human rights of men and boys, and now promising and excusing violence. And if I’m reading that incorrectly as a promise of physical mayhem, why did the, ahem, protesters of the Nathanson and Young lecture come armed with bludgeons?

As those bludgeons were beaten by a mob of masked angry thugs on the floor in the hallway outside the lecture hall where the two authors were speaking, I walked into that crowd and asked the simple question: “what if you’re wrong.”

When I asked that question, the spear-point style floor pounding was modified to a forward slashing hockey-stick style bashing of the hallway – directed at me, in answer.

When Munib Sajjad claims that “women are scared”, he is conflating the proponents of an ideology of gender with the members of the sex that ideology pretends to care about. Women are a group of people. Feminism, by contrast, is a construct formed from ideas. The claim that they are the same thing is easily demolished by realizing that the disposable bodies of conformist males are the enforcers of feminist-initiated violence. Those stupid male lapdogs with bludgeons are feminism’s muscle.

These ideologues are scared, however, but what scares them is exposure. It is the public exposure of their hatred and the violence that these gender ideologues fear. The proponents of the mainstream-on-campus flavor of gender ideology are terrified of loss of their power to silence, to threaten, and command obedience from all other parties. That’s what Munib really means when he says “women are scared”. Women, for him, is a code word.

What Munib Sajjad and his male and female comrades opposing the human rights of men and boys have not yet realized is that his attempts to censor, to silence, and to intimidate are providing Men’s Human Rights Activists with the most effective and convincing public demonstration of the truth of this cause we’ve ever had.

In fact, “Little-Red-Fornication-Mouth” will be offered free air travel to our next public event, because she is so effective at demonstrating the bankruptcy of the ideology we oppose. We aren’t making the same offer to Munib Sajjad, as he’s nowhere near as effective a public presence. However, he shouldn’t feel too bad, he’s certainly worth discussing in an article on the site. With some practice as a public speaker, and perhaps some acting lessons, he might eventually become as obnoxious and illustrative of feminism’s moral failings as his red-headed, lipstick-wearing colleague.