Simon Fraser University may become one of the first universities in the world to establish a men’s centre. The logical complement to that school’s women’s centre – an established feature which almost all universities have had for decades. When asked why there is no men’s centre, the comfortably funded and long established women’s centre’s advocates claim “the men’s centre is everywhere else”. In spite of the fact that men are overwhelming the targets of violent crime in all areas of life, according to the women’s centre FAQ: “The simple answer is that the men’s centre is everywhere else.”[1]
Men are privileged, men are privileged, men are privileged, men are privileged, men are privileged, men are privileged – which is why when men speak up, they are told to shut up, sit down and go to the back of the line. Men have the privilege of not being aware of their privilege, until told in sneering tones that male privilege is what means men must man up and shut their mouths. I looked up the word privilege while writing this, just to check the meaning hadn’t been officially altered.
According to the FAQ page on the SFU Women’s Center website, “the men’s centre is everywhere else”. But this “everywhere else” reflects the public climate in which, without blushing, or a nod to self satire – the women’s centre FAQ includes the statement that “We are not interested in seeing a group or centre develop that promotes the status quo, encourages sexual assault, or fosters an atmosphere of competition and violence.”
Suggesting that fostering violence or encouraging sexual assault was ever, or ever would be a goal of a men’s centre. This is naked and despicable anti-male hatred expressed from a position of such comfort, and dominance it’s authors do not even bother to obfuscate it behind circumspect language.
Farther down the FAQ page of the women’s centre, male identity is defined as denigrating women. That masculinity sexually objectifies women. That masculinity is hateful, that masculinity is violent, and stifling of emotional expression. Within the FAQ: “What is the Male Allies Project” of the SFU women’s centre states:
“We know that many men are concerned with the way masculinity denigrates women by making them into sexual objects, is homophobic, encourages violence, and discourages emotional expression.”
Masculinity, the sexual identity of men, is according to the women’s centre FAQ, violent, hateful, denigrating and emotionally stunted. The male allies project then appears perfectly suited to teaching young men, forming their adult identities as they attend university, to hate themselves.
A few paragraphs farther up the page, the FAQ also includes “we believe that no one in this world should be treated as a doormat and that we are all entitled to receiving respect and social and political rights.” (emphasis mine) These two declarations found not only on the same site, but a few paragraphs apart on the same page, but both cannot be true, unless the “we” in the claim “ we are all entitled to receiving respect” is not intended to encompass men. It is after all, the women’s centre FAQ page.
On the other hand, the page includes a link to the anti male hate organization NOMAS, listed under the heading “some great websites”.
The FAQ uses the word violence 8 times. Once to suggest the disgusting lie that a proposed men’s centre would promote violence. Once to suggest that male identity is violent. Once to refer to domestic violence, which in feminist rhetoric is constantly represented with a false narrative of men as universal abusers, and women as universal victims. Four references are made to stopping violence against women, in spite of the fact that men are more likely to be the victims of violence.
But predictably, men are admonished through the language of the site to help end violence against women. Not to help end violence. No, just that against women, who, statistically, are the least targeted by violent crime.
And the public rhetoric emerging from the SFU campus is that a men’s centre is a fiscally irresponsible idea, and that a “room with a Play-Station 3 and a bunch of douche bags sitting around playing games” is what’s actually under consideration.
The male targeting hatred is so thick, even mainstream reporting is talking about it in unambiguous language. Robyn Urback of the National Post referred to ideological opposition to the proposed men’s centre as “shocking anti-male hatred on the SFU campus”[2]
Probably more shocking to some than others, but whether the SFU Men’s Centre is defeated by gender ideologues or not, male targeting hatred now has an official opposition. We are coming.
[1] http://www.sfuwomenctr.ca/faqs.html
[2] http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/20/robyn-urback-on-shocking-anti-male-hatred-on-the-sfu-campus/
The irony is that the reaction to the proposal is perhaps the biggest thing showing how badly it’s needed.
