It is normal to respond to communications that you receive. When someone does not respond to your communication, therefore, you can be forgiven for wondering why they did not do so. While there could, of course, be some technical explanation (such as non-delivery) or some personal problem (such as illness) that was the cause of the non-response, in the following four examples I am assuming the worst: i.e. that the recipients of my communications deliberately did not reply. By publicising these incidents, I will at least, perhaps, give to those recipients and to third parties the opportunity to investigate whether my interpretation of their non-response was the correct one.

These incidents are mostly in rough chronological order:

 

1. The Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society -- contact person = Sebastian Templeton vicdebating@gmail.com . I twice sent them a message (when I was an enrolled student in 2011 and 2012), asking to take part in a celebrity debate against a feminist or feminists, on the topic of feminism. I pointed out that I was an anti-feminist celebrity (of sorts) who had participated in debates both at school and at university, as well as in a moot at Law School and in mock-court cases during legal professionals training. I have received no reply.

2. The Glasgow Media Group http://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/ and Professor Greg Philo. In my first, largely uncontroversial essay for the course International Relations Theory at Victoria University of Wellington in 2011, I had mentioned that the media were biased against men. The lecturer, Dr. Robert Deuchars, who came from Glasgow, stated to me on the telephone that the media couldn't be biased against men, because the Glasgow Media Group had never said anything about that. Suppressing a strong urge to get sarcastic, I replied that I was 99.9% sure that the Glasgow Media Group had never even researched media bias against men. However, I said I would look into it, and I did. I emailed the Glasgow Media Group, asking them if they had researched the topic, got no reply, and then emailed Professor Greg Philo -- and still got no reply.

3. The Victoria University of Wellington Philosophical Society. In class in 2012, an office-bearer of that organisation stood up and asked for people to join. After class, I handed him a piece of paper with my email address and a suggestion that I give a talk on Anti-Feminism. I got no reply.

4. Lewis Stoddart – lewis@feayn.org , the author of Clark Vader and the Helengrad Labour Lesbians: Anatomy of a political-symbolic hate campaign , which he describes as "a slightly revised edition of a research paper submitted toward a graduate diploma in political science at Victoria University of Wellington on 15 October 2007." This is an anti-talkback-radio diatribe, thinly coated with a veneer of academic jargon. It is based on an analysis of audio files, and he states (on p. 30): "To contact me regarding the paper, or to request a copy of the audio files, email me: lewis@feayn.org." Accordingly, I emailed him in 2012, requesting a copy of said audio files, but I received no reply. Without my having access to the audio files, any review of his paper which I were to write would be incomplete.

   Note that these examples all involve the way in which academics and academic institutions interact with the notion of anti-feminism. Note that the way they interact with anti-feminism is not to interact with it! I don't know if you have heard of the notion of "academic freedom", but my impression is that academic freedom is supposed to be associated with universities, in some way (Excuse the sarcasm!). The manner in which academic freedom is associated with modern western universities is on a purely fictional level!

Appendix: Sue Bradford, MP

Sue Bradford is not an academic or a student (at least, she wasn't at the time in question), but she has an academic background. She was a Green Party MP at the time in question. I had already met her Green Party colleague, Sue Kedgley, and at some stage I met one of her male Green Party colleagues, Keith Locke, as well. I made an appointment to meet Sue Bradford (to talk about Men's Rights, of course), but, when I turned up, she had apparently been called away to participate in a parliamentary debate. At least her receptionist bought a copy of my book. As far as I can recall, no attempt was made to offer me another appointment, and when I later saw Sue Bradford on the street, she immediately avoided me by suddenly rushing into a nearby building. Since she is/was a solo mother and put a Bill through Parliament that gave imprisoned mothers (but not fathers) the right to bring up their children in prison, I feel justified in concluding that she had never intended to meet with me, but maliciously arranged an interview anyway!

See also: