“Miranda Devine, Mark Latham, Van Badham and Rory Gibson join Sunrise to discuss if women are receiving preferential treatment in today’s society, and if feminism is responsible for men feeling displaced.”
Mark Latham spoke out strongly in the affirmative sparking the usual immediate backlash. Guardian Australia columnist and feminist activist Vanessa ‘Van’ Badham also upset a few people with her anti-male comments, and subsequently received a slew of feedback via social media. You can review her Twitter account to get a sense of the nature of that feedback. I didn’t notice anything of a particularly hurtful or threatening nature. Indeed, the comments she received were considerably tamer than the noisome effluence that is Van’s contribution to social media.
Nevertheless, Van Badham issued the following tweet:
Just as with Clementine Ford, it seems to a case of those who launch the most mud and the sharpest barbs, squealing the loudest when someone dares return fire.
Anyway, shortly thereafter I issued a few tweets in relation to the Sunrise program, one of which is shown below. These were not in response to tweets posted by Van Badham (with whom I have never previously communicated), nor were they specifically directed at her. No matter, because I had revealed myself as being one of ‘them’ rather than one of ‘us’.
Van Badham chose to respond by alerting an Australian law firm who apparently use a marketing slogan “We fight for fair“. She did so in the vain hope of involving me in some sort of legal wrangle. And in so doing she earnt a ‘like’ from her feminist colleague, journalist Wendy Tuohy, who features elsewhere in this blog.
This illustrates, yet again, that the default position of most feminists is to do whatever it takes to divert attention away from key issues and discourage public discussion thereof. And this means shutting-down and/or isolating dissenters as quickly possible, one example of this are ongoing coordinated campaigns to shut down anti-feminist Facebook pages.
Why? Because they know that their best hope of retaining credibility/power is to keep as many people as possible from recognising the expansive chasm between the ‘dictionary definition’ of feminism, and what is actually being said and done by real-world feminists. Discussion can lead to enlightenment, whilst shunning and censorship is more likely to preserve the status quo.
But of course feminists won’t come out and admit that. They attempt to rationalise their unwillingness to respond to opposing viewpoints in other ways. In this article concerning the same TV program, Clementine Ford states:
“We need to stop wading into these debates and understand that we lose nothing by refusing to participate. We are under no obligation to defend our feminist ideals from anybody, and we certainly have no responsibility to try to ‘prove’ the necessity of them to those who feel threatened by them.”
Those who have taken the time to read other posts in this blog would have noted that the theme of feminist-imposed censorship emerges again and again in the context of many gender-related issues. This is, in itself, a blazing ‘red flag’ with respect to the true nature of contemporary feminism.
Van Badham then joined that rather pathetic group of feminists/SJW who have blocked me from their social media accounts simply for questioning aspects of the misguided ideology to which they still desperately cling …
Shun this person who doesn’t support feminism! Unclean! Unclean!
And predictably Van then demands the opportunity to share, what will no doubt be, a long drawn-out procession of ‘last words’ on the issue:
Van Badham reveals ugly response to Steve Price’s comments about her (14 July 2016) And of course, her own words and behaviour played no role whatsoever with regards to the subsequent public reaction. Yup, sure. Let’s make it all about Steve … and misogyny. And to suggest that Steve’s solitary off-the-cuff comment constitutes “demonisation” is absurd posturing on Van’s part.
In an earlier post I mentioned how feminists routinely assert – or at the very least imply – that women are continually abused by men online. They consistently neglect to mention that many women perpetrate online abuse, and that many of them appear to be feminists/SJW. I have also previously written about the widespread feminist proclivity for silencing those advancing alternative perspectives and/or wilfully dishing-out retribution.
Clementine Ford is a feminist journalist known for the virulently anti-male commentary she disseminates by virtue of her position with Fairfax Media. Should you wish to lodge a complaint in relation to a Fairfax journalist, the first step is to go to the website of the publication that published the offending article. Find and click on the ‘Contact Us’ link, and then send your complaint to the editorial team. For example, with regards to The Age website click on http://www.theage.com.au/support/ and then click on ‘Editorial Feedback’. The next step is to make a complaint to the Australian Press Council.
In late November 2015 Clementine received a message from some fellow called Michael Nolan, who called her a “slut“. She lodged a complaint with his employer which resulted in Michael being fired. Clementine’s version of events is detailed in this article, with a related radio interview here. The incident was also picked up by the international MSM (and note the more than 1,750 readers comments it attracted).
Clementine asserts that there are no consequences for men who threaten women online. That’s demonstrably untrue given that there are laws in place to address such behaviour, as well as actions that can be (and are) taken by ISP’s or web site providers. To the extent that such measures prove ineffective, then any such deficiencies would apply to both male and female trolls. As a consequence it seems pointless to single out men as being immune from repercussions, unless of course the intention is simply to demonise men and build further support for the women-as-victims narrative.
The feminist response to Clementine’s action sought to have us believe that doxing and punishing people for making actual threats of violence was the focus of their fury. This is little more than a ‘red herring’ to win public support, as the true emphasis appears to be silencing those advancing opinions critical of the feminist narrative. We are talking here about comments that very rarely threaten violence, and whose impact is no more severe than one of hurting the feelings of the recipient feminist.
The feminist rage quickly grew and quickly manifested itself in the creation of an online blacklist of those people whom feminists consider to be trolls … essentially a vigilante response.
I don’t support people using foul or threatening language online under any circumstances. But neither do I champion those who respond to such messages by way of shrill over-reaction. Especially when they themselves have an established track-record of disseminating online abuse. And god knows, Clementine Ford falls well and truly into that category …
“Who among us hasn’t had a daydream of going on a rampage and wiping out a third of the male population, AMIRITE?” (Source)
A sampling of some of Clementine’s other noisome literary offerings is provided below (with a few more listed in this post). I might also point out that Clementine recently saw fit to label another Aussie journalist, Miranda Devine, a f**ing c**t! This is mentioned part way through Miranda’s article about pro-feminist censorship entitled ‘So now banks are censoring columnists?’
Clementine Ford truly is a stunning hypocrite, and a potty-mouthed one at that. And if Michael deserved to lose his job then so too does Clementine. And given her prolific and protracted output of gender hate – far more so. So with that in mind, please consider signing this petition.
The response from the online community (to Clementine’s response to Michael Nolan’s comment) was certainly polarised.
Three examples of the anti-feminist response were:
“Australia’s most prominent feminist” Oh god, if that’s the best the movement can offer up. Someone at ABC clearly has been hitting the Kool-Aid fairly darn hard.
This August 2016 article describes how Clementine Ford attacked Erin Pizzey, the founder of the Women’s Shelter movement (but now campaigns for better recognition/support for male victims of DV. See related Reddit discussion thread here.
Opinion: Pricking the social and sexist conscience can sometimes hurt (7 December 2015) “… some commentators chose to remind readers that Ford had called people such as former PM Tony Abbott and columnist Miranda Devine crude names too. The huge difference is that Ford owns her words. She does not threaten violence.” Yoo hoo, Karen, Micheal Nolan didn’t threaten violence either.
Neither this article nor this one really say anything new, but do feature some interesting readers comments. This article, on the other hand, sees a male feminist author calling for compromise get shouted down by feminist readers (related discussion thread here).
Clementine with Daniel Andrews MP, Premier of Victoria prior to appearing together on ABC’s Q&A program. Politicians like Dan appear to care more about the number of followers that someone has on social media, than they do about what a person thinks, says, and stands for. His is an attitude that has no doubt played a big role in bringing about the abysmal and still declining state of politics in this country.
The internet has provided a haven for those inclined to strike out at people in anonymity and usually without fear of repercussion.
The purpose of this blog post is not to propose solutions to this problem, but rather to take a step back and call for an objective, measured and truthful discussion of the relevant issues.
There’s no doubt that women are often targets of online abuse, although there does appear to be a tendency towards embellishment and exaggeration with regards to the nature and extent of such abuse. The author of this article, for example, would have us believe that life on the internet is unbearable for women due to the oppressive behaviour of male trolls.
What is generally absent from articles on this subject is an honest admission that a considerable amount of online abuse is directed at men, and that a substantial proportion of those perpetrating abuse are women/girls. Have a look at the information provided in the chart below, extracted from a 2014 paper by PEW Research.
Why do so many commentators and ‘experts’ fail to acknowledge these significant points?
Surely not the desire to support the feminist narrative of women as the perpetual victims of an unyielding male patriarchy?
The findings of a survey by Norton painted a different picture. Unfortunately however the results were compromised by poor methodology, a common problem with pro-feminist research. In this instance the researchers failed to include questions about male victimisation via online abuse.
So why has this issue garnered a large and increasing amount of attention in recent years? Are people becoming nastier? Is that nastiness becoming more gendered in nature?
There are a number of significant factors that need to be considered here.
Further along the scale one encounters behaviour that does not involve actual threats, but is so persistent and pervasive as to be genuinely threatening in nature.
At the other end are interactions that are little more than assertive dissent in relation to a particular idea or opinion being put forward.
More and more we are witnessing the definition of terms such as online abuse and ‘trolls’ expanded to include behaviour and people who seem undeserving of these pejoratives. Also troubling is the fact that the same types of behaviour decried as abuse or trollish when used by conservative/non-feminists, are seen as acceptable when used by feminists/leftists/SJW. This issue of finessing definitions to suit a narrative is discussed in another blog post.
Why do people, particularly in this case feminists/SJW, so readily misinterpret online communication in this way? I’d suggest that in part it is a deliberate strategy, whilst at other times simply a misunderstanding.
It has been suggested that feminists interpret relatively innocuous messages as hurtful because online communication is a forum where women are truly treated as equals. Men speak to women online as men would speak to other men in real life. It is said that many women are unaccustomed to this gloves-off banter, and interpret it as vindictive rather than as heartfelt and direct. I believe that there is an element of truth to this, although again it is but one of several factors in the mix.
One other reason for exaggerated claims of online hate and abuse is that it provides an excuse to instigate progressively harsher and more intrusive forms of censorship. Censorship is a recurring theme in real-world feminist tactics, and one which I address in another blog post.
Turning again to feminist research, let’s examine a project called the University of NSW ‘Cyberhate Project‘, which is being supported by the Australian Research Council (‘ARC’) with AUD$372,095 of public funding.
I was more than a little concerned to learn that this research project will only survey women. That looks an awful lot like a research project designed with a particular conclusion already firmly in mind. I immediately took this up with the ARC, who dismissed my complaint regarding this obvious ideological bias in the following manner:
“Proposals for ARC funding undergo a rigorous peer review process involving experts in their fields who assess the quality of projects and the capabilities and achievements of applicants. The planning and management of ARC-funded research projects is a matter for individual researchers and institutions (in accordance with ARC funding agreements).”
I’m left wondering just how many of those peers were likely either fellow feminists or sympathisers. Hands up who else thinks that this might not be the most effective vetting process in the case of a polarised issue such as this?
As is virtually de rigeur at The Conversation, readers comments that were deemed unsupportive of the feminist author’s position were quickly excised. In this case that amounted to at least one in four comments. Of the many I read before they disappeared, none of these were in the least bit threatening or abusive.
I posted one of those comments removed by the moderator. It simply stated:
“Emma, Is it not a fact that men are subject to more online harassment than are women? Is it not a fact that many of the perpetrators of online abuse are women? … Might it therefore not be more accurate to say that the real online divide is one between trolls and the rest of us, rather than between men and women as your paper implies?”
Given that men are subject to a considerable amount of online harassment, they should not be excluded from research on this subject. The fact that the finger of blame is often pointed at men alone, when we know full well that many women perpetrate online harassment/abuse, does tend to stick in this writer’s craw. One might consider at this point the example of Australian radfem Clementine Ford.
As with domestic violence and various other topics, feminists persist in labelling issues as “gendered” when they are not, in order to create support for their global war-against-women conspiracy.
What now follows is a collection of links to articles that provide various perspectives on the issue of online harassment/abuse:
Eight things not to say to someone facing online abuse (20 April 2016) See point 4 in this article by misandrist Laura Bates: “Silencing is the end goal of the majority of abuse”. Erm, so all those feminists systematically lodging bogus reports to have people’s social media accounts closed, they would be online abusers then?
“A new survey by the Internet security company Norton (for which I’m an ambassador) shows that nearly half of all Australian women (47 per cent) experience online harassment. That rises to a staggering 76 per cent for women under 30. Unsurprisingly, 70 per cent of women believe online harassment is a significant problem and 60 per cent believe it has got worse in the past year.” And nowhere in this article will you find corresponding statistics in relation to men – the survey didn’t include questions about male victimisation. I wonder why not?
Online harassment of women at risk of becoming ‘established norm’, study finds (8 March 2016) Australia. Guardian article drawing on the Norton survey which air-brushed out male victimisation/female perpetration, and thus robbed the findings of social context. No doubt a good thing from a feminist perspective if that would have diminished the victim status on which their ideology is based.
Were examples of specific rape threats made public? No. How about a formal complaint to police? Apparently not. “Oh look, another politician ginning up fake threats to boost her feminist cred. Never seen that before….” (Source)
One of the many feminist criticisms of the mens rights movement, and particularly MHRA web sites like ‘A Voice for Men’, is that they are characterised by the frequent use of descriptors of women that are offensive and sexist … terms such as sluts or whores.
Personally I have noticed that there is surprisingly little usage of such terms in MRA sites or blogs. Moreover when such terms do appear they are generally found within comments contributed by readers (some of whom are trolls), rather than in the body of posts or articles themselves. Such put-downs also almost invariably relate to feminists rather than women per se.
It was with interest then that I came across this study ‘Cursing in English on Twitter‘ (see section entitled ‘Cursing Vs Gender’ on page 8). Granted, the study wasn’t about MRA/feminist sites, but the findings are still interesting. The study found, for example, that the the use of terms ‘bitch’ ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ by women was more prevalent than the level of use by men.
This post looks at the issue of online harassment, whilst in another blog post I discuss the terms gender traitor, white knight and mangina.
Another related term that has come to be used increasingly widely is ‘cuck‘, which is the shortened version of ‘cuckold‘. The common meaning seems to be a person (generally male) who does the bidding of another whilst not truly invested in that person’s (or groups) cause, for example a politician who supports feminist programs out of fear of castigation and/or in the hope of winning the ‘women’s vote’.