Van Badham’s eye roll: Just hysterical

My post today begins with a panel discussion entitled ‘Have men become second-class citizens’ that featured on the ‘Sunrise’ TV program in Australia.

“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.”

Eyeroll

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.

vanbadham6

Nevertheless, Van Badham issued the following tweet:

vanbadham5

 

 

 

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’.

vanbadham4

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.

So this is how strong independent women behave? No, but it’s how feminists behave.

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!

vanbadham2

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:

I have sympathy for Mark Latham. He’s barking at a cloud that’s passed him by (4 May 2016)

Van Badham and Steve Price went head-to-head on Q&A (12 July 2016) See also this article in The Age. Response from  Steve Price here.

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.

Look what I found in a Reddit discussion thread about Van Badham’s stouch with Steve Price … apparently Van wanted to put Tony Abbott underwater. Wait, where have a heard a comment like that before? Oh yes, Eddie McGuire.

From The Spectator, ‘Van Badham and the ugly facts of an ugly matter‘ (15 July 2016)

Readers might care to seek out a tweet by @RitaPanahi on 12 July 2016 for further examples of what Ms Badham considers appropriate to dish out (but not receive). Gems such as:

badham

And on a parting note, an item by Andrew Bolt entitled ‘How Van Badham attacks even children‘ (2 March 2017).

4 thoughts on “Van Badham’s eye roll: Just hysterical”

  1. I was blocked by Clementine Ford, even though I had never tweeted at her. Typical 3rd wave feminist behaviour. Feminism was supposed to be about empowering women to be strong and independent not to be perpetual victims that act like children.

  2. What was amazing is that was a “debate” in the first place! Wouldn”t get that on the ABC or SBS. Mark Latham was positioned as the “look-how-bonkers-MRAs-are” participant, but the other two (Miranda and Rory) made some good points, and on balance I was satisfied.

    With the woman from the Guardian (Van Balham) reinforcing just how repugnant how feminists really are, and Andrew O’Keefe proving once again that bigotry + hypocrisy = White Knight, all in all, a step forwards!

    1. Latham was right to call O’Keefe out on his impartiality. But Latham doesn’t do well in this type of arena. Noone remembers his factual evidence about the pay gap being 2% for graduates, they just remember his ad hominems.

      Miranda Devine was spot on, calm, collected and rational.

Leave a Reply to Paul Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *