May 28th, 2015

28/5/2015

The article "'WHERE'S THE MEN'S ONLY ROOM?' The Menimists respond" has been taken down at the request of the Melbourne Law School.

Anon

28/5/2015 10:29:47 am

This is ridiculous

Anon

28/5/2015 11:02:25 am

L M A O

Anon

28/5/2015 02:16:11 pm

This is fantastic

anon

28/5/2015 04:16:32 pm

fantastically ridiculous

Anon

28/5/2015 04:14:53 pm

THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!

fuckmls

29/5/2015 09:28:18 am

#freedomofspeechexceptwheremildlyoffensivetosmallmindedbullies

absolute bullshit

29/5/2015 10:48:34 am

MLS is a seething heap of putrid shit.

Anon a mouse

29/5/2015 12:13:00 pm

I thought this publication wasn't associated with the mls? How can they demand this?

Fitzroy Feminist

30/5/2015 07:31:43 am

This act of censorship by the MLS patriarchy just shows why we need a Women's Room at MLS.

Fitzroy Feminist

30/5/2015 07:42:19 am

PS and if you don't agree you're a misogynist. We want special privileges but we don't want to have to justify ourselves so you'll just take our word for it that we'll suffer serious psychological trauma if we have to study in the same room as a male. The next step is getting rid of all male academics at MLS. Most rapists are male and and male academics are also male so their mere presence in the law building is its own form of gender-based violence. *Trigger Warning* wait does the trigger warning go at the beginning or at the end I can never remember lol

Anon

30/5/2015 09:12:21 am

Pro-tip m8, if you want people to respect your comedy chops, try to nail it on the first go so you don't have to go to the trouble of writing an embarrassingly heavy-handed and offensive clarification next time you feel like flogging a dead horse.

Fitzroy Feminist

30/5/2015 09:44:29 am

In fact let's knock down the entire MLS building, an edifice of phallocentrism if ever there was one. We shouldn't have to enter a metaphorical penis just to study law at Melbourne Uni!

Jack Coventry

30/5/2015 09:59:18 am

hush now, you're not funny.

Mack

30/5/2015 04:18:45 pm

It's aim is to be both funny and thought-provoking. If you only critique it on its first basis and miss the second, you're missing the forest for the trees. The fact that someone has to hide behind a pseudonym to post their parody, having seen the consequences for people who openly submit their satires on social issues on Facebook, points to the real presence of the very ad hominem attacks and general pro-PC belligerence that are the targets of Fitzroy Feminist's comments. Our society's increasingly moralistic and speech-stifling reactions to anything slightly provocative are not the hallmarks of a progressive society, but instead of a politically-righteous minority who, rather than defend or propound their views, prefer to proffer personal put-downs and indulge in invectives with the ultimate effect of, at best, preaching to the converted, and at worst, facilitating the development of a societal group-think that is not conducive to sound and rational public policy for ultimate solutions. Where one is labelled as a 'misogynist', it's true aim is often in fact a politically illiberal command to 'hush now'!

omglol

30/5/2015 06:26:33 pm

lol @mack

Jack Coventry

31/5/2015 03:33:02 pm

Ignoring something is not the same as missing it mate. Hiding behind a pseudonym because you're scared of PC belligerence? Give me a fucking break. You hide because you're a coward, it's okay, I would if they were my views too.

Mack (actually call me Voltaire)

31/5/2015 04:47:57 pm

Hmm that escalated quickly. Not sure who the 'you' is who you're describing as a coward. My views are about not labelling and insulting people; and that people's views, if they are deemed odious, should be rebutted on the basis of the flaws of their arguments, and not by resorting to personal attacks. I will not express whether I agree or disagree with the views behind Fitzroy Feminist's satire. I agree with you that I should probably put my name to them. I regret that you do not see them as views worth sharing yourself.

In fact JC, you seem to be evincing the very problem that I am railing against. I'm sure you're a nice guy and I'm sure you hold agreeable and progressive views on many areas of public policy which I probably share, but I really recommend for all people, however truly enlightened their views, to respect those of others, not by letting them stand, but by rationally deconstructing their flaws.

As a result of your reactionary backlash against what I've said, you come off not as a champion of women's rights, or any other cause, but as someone who prefers to 'ignore' inconvenient or contentious political views, and who only possesses the capacity to shoot back with pissweak rhetorical questions and accusations about my 'courage'! If you disagree with my views about the freedom of political speech or Fitzroy Feminist's views about the hyperbolic tendencies of feminism, it would be much more apposite and intelligent to address those issues, and not my personal characteristics.

I for one would like to hear arguments justifying the prima facie contradiction between a movement aiming for gender equality, but completely outraged when there's a request for a 'men's space' to match the 'women's space'. Sexual abuse is a terrible problem. How the problem may be ameliorated by a room within which female law students can study in solitude is a proposition whose explanation has been bemusedly sought by more than a few JD students in recent days.

Moreover, the perhaps parodic suggestion of a 'male study space' should be equally valid, based on statistics suggesting that males are much more the victims of nearly every other type of abuse in society - murder, assault, theft, drugs, mental health, etc.

To express the 'vibe' perhaps of Fitzroy Feminist's satire, a study space for one gender in the law school - in implied opposition to another gender as the perpetrator of the societal abuses - is not a proportionate response to a problem afflicting a desperately sad minority in the outside world, and in fact is an extremely divisive proposal. Rather, it may imply that the law school does not provide sufficient security of women, who could become potential victims of sexual abuse; that the behaviour of men around the law school is somehow unbecoming; and that it would be beneficial for women to segregate themselves from men. Such segregation, I should not have to point out, is as historically dangerous as the curbing and stifling of public debate by social pressure that I touched on in my last point.

And if anyone wishes to respond to my "TL;DR" message here, please don't crack some sort of gag or make out that I am some sort of conservative misogynist. Address the points as if they are being made by the political icon you agree with most passionately (and that does not mean to swallow it uncritically!)

30/5/2015 07:00:57 pm

Gigidy

Mack (actually call me Voltaire)

31/5/2015 04:41:11 pm

TLDR

1/6/2015 10:23:37 am

I think JC and anon's responses to the fitzroy feminist are actually spot on. The fitzroy feminist “satire” is not funny. It's not funny because it's not good. It’s certainly not thought-provoking. Rather, it's weird and inaccurate and so overdone and would work better if it were a parody of those incessant voices banging on about how all this is political correctness gone mad. Unless, was that the point Fitzroy Feminist?

Also, SERIOUSLY!? The response as to why a women’s space can genuinely ameliorate the effects of sexism, not just sexual abuse, has been expressed… Like, a lot, for the last few days. I guess the “bemused” students haven’t listened.

Also, isn’t a request for a women’s only space, inherently, an expression that some women believe such a space would be beneficial to them?

And I’m sorry, but how will a men’s room help with men’s experiences of murder, assault, theft, drugs? Perpetrators of crimes against men are overwhelmingly men.

AND with respect to it not being a “proportionate response to a problem afflicting a desperately sad minority in the outside world”… Wtf do you mean by a desperately sad minority in the outside world? I have been raped. I have also experienced (non sexual) violence from men in my life. And I am far from the only one of my MLS female friends. It’s actually alarmingly common. What the hell do you by mean a “proportionate” response anyway. It is a response. A space that women have requested to help ameliorate the many and varied consequences of the manifestations of a sexist society in their day to day lives. And I’d love for this space to exist here in the law school, where my studies require me to spend a whole lot of time. Mostly studying. In my instance this is not because a perpetrator is in the law school (though for some this is the case) but because sometimes it really is fucking hard to be around men.

Mack

1/6/2015 01:19:55 pm

Thanks for the response TLDR. You're right, the bit I wrote about a 'proportionate' response to an 'outside world' problem was regrettable wording and doesn't make my point clearly.

I'm shocked to hear that you have yourself been a victim of rape, and I take seriously your desire to be able to study in a space away from men. I'll address the pertinent points you made in turn:

ON FITZROY FEMINIST
You're right - it is not brilliant comedy. However, I objected to JC's dismissal of it simply as 'not funny' because I saw that response as a cursory treatment of the opinions underpinning it, which would be better answered in a proper response so that all readers could be enlightened as to the arguments against the opinion that political-correctness and feminism have gone mad on this issue. It's easy to dismiss someone's opinion, but much harder to argue against it.

ON THE REASONS FOR A WOMEN'S SPACE
I have read a few debates between people on Facebook concerning the rationale for the space, and, perhaps I just missed it, but I didn't find any coherent reason for it. A few people referred to 'research' justifying it, but they didn't elaborate as to the content of the research explaining why such a space could be beneficial.

I understand that a request by multiple women for such a space - if on the basis that it would help them recover from the trauma of abuse - in itself may be ample justification for instituting a room. Of course, how many people have requested it is a relevant consideration (should we build and institute a whole room at the request of one person?).

ON A MEN'S SPACE
It has not been said that any men have requested such a room, but I referred to a male space more as an analogy than as a genuine proposal. The question underpinning the hypothetical male space was: if a study room is a solution to a particular form of abuse women are subjected to, could building a men's room be a solution to the forms of abuse men are subjected to on an even greater scale? I was making the point that there are equally pressing societal problems, to which a victim group could conceivably request a special study room in order to recover. Should every victim of any abuse get a dedicated room? Why is there not a study room for disabled students, a study room for those sexually abused as a child, or a study room for those who suffer from depression or other mental illnesses? There is not enough space in the law school for every group who has a problem to have a study room (although I do concede that right now there is only one special study room that is being considered, and the 'slippery slope' of everyone wanting one might be an unrealistic hypothetical).

A HOUSE DIVIDED
You of course pointed out that perpetrators of abuse - against both men and women - are mostly men. This is true. However, I do not think a solution to the problem is to implicitly segregate men by having a women's space. Segregation-style policies do more to divide than to unite society, and I don't think any large-scale positive can come from such a policy. As Lincoln (and Jesus before him!) remarked: 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' In the interests of social cohesion and unity, other policies that do not throw guilt on a whole half of the population (including those who are not perpetrators) might be better.

At the same time, I do understand that such a policy may be desired by individual victims to aid their healing. I respect that you are a victim of abuse yourself, TLDR, and that you believe that sometimes 'it is really fucking hard to be around men'. But the presence of men in society is an unavoidable reality, and seeking to withdraw from the rest of society is surely not the best, nor a sustainable path to 1) gaining closure oneself and 2) repairing the problem in society at large. Having said that, I'm not as arrogant as to presume that I know the best method of healing from the trauma of abuse. Perhaps a short period away from all men might help you and others regain trust in the other half of the population that you believe has wronged you. But I do wish to emphasise that it is only a select few men - not representative of them all - who have wronged you.

CONCLUSION
Having read your response has allowed me to better assess the opposing viewpoints of the debate that were difficult for me to ascertain myself, having not been subjected to abuse myself. However, at the moment I'm still of the belief that a women's study room is not a proposal that should immediately be accepted because it has been requested. It has become the modern orthodoxy (sometimes referred to as 'politically correct') in these issues of extreme sensitivity for alternative viewpoints to be marginalised and those possessing them to be lambasted as reactionary elitists.

But the proposal should be considered on its merits, according to how many people it would benefit, the costs of providing such a room in a law school of finite space, and in considera

Leo

2/6/2015 08:05:51 am

presumably Mack has brought himself to climax with his latest meditation and can't be bothered finishing his conclusion.

2/6/2015 03:15:33 pm

classic.

Mack

2/6/2015 06:50:30 pm

Well I will admit I do get around myself a little too much on occasion ;)

Word limit must've chopped me off!

Comments are closed.

May 28th, 2015

Archives