So we made it clear that we won't stand for intolerance, and also, uh, gave Roosh a ton of free publicity that vastly overstates his influence. Yeah, this isn't the first time one of his events has generated a firestorm of criticism. That's Roosh's shtick -- he says a bunch of inflammatory nonsense, everyone makes a big deal about getting mad at him, and in the ensuing outrage some lonely dudes learn about him and buy one of his overpriced books (which openly advertise how controversial they are, feeding the outrage cycle further).
"Bell Hooks says it sucks, but you'll show her!"
Personally, I think it would have been better to have just ignored these chucklefucks, let them have their dumb little No Girls Allowed Club meeting (they were going to use a code phrase to identity each other! That's adorable!), and go on with our lives. Stone cold silence speaks to the utter irrelevance of their views more than anger ever could, because anger is still an acknowledgment that their opinions are, on some level, worthy of engagement. It's the difference between ignoring a child's demand for "all the world's candy" and explaining the economic impossibility of the request. You're suggesting there's a debate to be had, and that if they try hard enough they can make you see the light.
On the other hand, I make the same argument for silence over confrontation when the pizza guy delivers the wrong order, because I'm shy and don't want to antagonize the Bringer of Pepperoni. And the last thing I want to do is mansplain the appropriate reaction to a hate group that targets women. You might argue that it's better to rattle the heavens themselves with criticism, to broadcast their countless flaws from every outlet so impressionable young men aren't misled by Roosh's douche call. I can get behind that. But let's look at how we do it.