Clementine Ford

[TimmeT]

Seriously what's with this woman?

She seriously would have to be one of the biggest hypocrites when it comes to gender issues and violence and gender issues and mental health. Yet again we are seeing her writing a gendered article around a man who is suspected of utilising violence to kill family members.

Here is her latest article where she attacks the man who was suspected of killing the family at Margaret River.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/li...the-good-bloke-narrative-20180514-p4zf6r.html

Furthermore the article makes references to other cases of male violence which led to death in a domestic setting and how feminists were compelled to consider the plight of the male perpetrator's mental health. This is a claim which Clementine Ford utterly rejects, despite there being significant evidence to show this was a factor in these cases.

Yet ironically Clementine stays strangely silent when there is a female perpetrator of similar crimes. A good example was the case involving the Sudanese woman who drove the car into the lake killing her own kids. Clementine was simply not willing to call out this behaviour like she would if it was a male and tell us that mental health should not be considered because it would make multiple of her pro women claims untenable.

Incredibly despite her rejection of mental health issues relating to matters such as domestic violence, Clementine Ford was hired to be a key speaker for Lifeline the mental haelth call centre. This is noe no longer taking place due to a strongly supported online petition against her based on her views towards males and her tweets.

It is incredible that a mental health related body would have even thought that it would have been prudent to inite someone to speak who is so dismissive of mental health and males.

So this begs the question why some of those on the progressive side of politics are so willing to support and lap up the comments she makes, especially when her views are incredibly conservative on a number of issues including male's mental health problems?

I personally feel that she is simply a vile troll and bigoted woman who should be taken about as seriously as an episode of Dave Chappele.

 

[Smoooothy]

whos he?

 

[Footypie32]

I'm sure her defence will claim mental health issues when they eventually dig up all the bodies.

 

[Teagueeee15]

It’s staggering that hundreds of staff have been let go by Fairfax over the past few years, yet Clementine was one of the ones kept.

 

[Papa G]

Clemetine's job as Feminist Writer, is to write everything from an overtly feminist point of view. When your whole essence of being/employment/purpose in life is to write and think of everything from that single point of view, it tends to warp your way of thinking and becomes all pervasive. If you break stuff down you see it in all forms of journalism. Look at how Caro/Rucci/Robinson as Football Journalists write/think/speak of things in a football context. They live in this football bubble where all things are football related, and it frames the way they do things because it is also their essence of being/employment/purpose in life.

 

[NMFCMUFC]

Clemetine's job as Feminist Writer, is to write everything from an overtly feminist point of view. When your whole essence of being/employment/purpose in life is to write and think of everything from that single point of view, it tends to warp your way of thinking and becomes all pervasive. If you break stuff down you see it in all forms of journalism. Look at how Caro/Rucci/Robinson as Football Journalists write/think/speak of things in a football context. They live in this football bubble where all things are football related, and it frames the way they do things because it is also their essence of being/employment/purpose in life.

Pretty much.

She lives a pretty sad existence and seems to take no joy in anything and find the wrong and outrage in absolutely everything.

But she's no different to Rita Panahi and all them, they just fight on opposite ends of the political spectrum, its identity politics at its worst which is inherently killing democracy.

You take her and the rest with a grain of salt or you take points which are somewhat plausible and bin the rest to form your own opinion, which I feel too many don't do, they take everything at pure face value, get outraged and justify the writer's continual employment.

 

[Scotland]

I'm not sure being a football journo is the same as being a feminist writer. Caro, Rucci, Robbo write about football and football related things, but that's it. Robbo doesn't have a column dedicated to achieving peace in the Middle East or solving climate change.

Clementine Ford is just a miserable kent but she's a popular miserable kent. Just checked and she has 122k followers on Twitter. Outrage, scandal, hysteria etc. sells papers.

 

[NMFCMUFC]

I'm not sure being a football journo is the same as being a feminist writer. Caro, Rucci, Robbo write about football and football related things, but that's it. Robbo doesn't have a column dedicated to achieving peace in the Middle East or solving climate change.

Clementine Ford is just a miserable kent but she's a popular miserable kent. Just checked and she has 122k followers on Twitter. Outrage, scandal, hysteria etc. sells papers.

A lot of these people are wildly popular because they garner such emotion, its funny in high school English people are taught how to dissect these guys for what they are and its quite primitive the techniques they use to ilicit reaction but people just take the bait

 

[PP34]

Not even worth wasting ones time with. She’s there to generate outrage which gets clicks.

Complete hack of a journalist and writer.

I think she’s got issues too.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

If you don't like someone's opinion then Block them. Don't read their articles. Try not to support the platforms they're involved. Ignore them.

You're life will be that much better if you cut them out of it.

 

[William Wonka]

I like Clementine.
Quite a clever writer and a reasonably good troll.

She's obviously paid to be inflammatory and she plays the part well.
Just a 'Shock Jock' from the other side.

 

[Scotland]

A lot of these people are wildly popular because they garner such emotion, its funny in high school English people are taught how to dissect these guys for what they are and its quite primitive the techniques they use to ilicit reaction but people just take the bait

Every Clementine Ford article/tweet/post I've had the misfortune to see pop up on Facebook has had hundreds of comments. People flock to it like flies to shit (it is shit, Austin) and you can reliably predict that it will be a mixture of 'you go girfran' bored mummy bloggers, 'I'm a man and I agree' sycophants trying to get laid and 'your (sic) a ****en idiot' men wanting to argue the point. Or just argue.

Pass.

 

[JW Frogen]

I like her.

She gives us **** and testicle lot the serve we deserve.

 

[Michael Scarn]

You can't argue with her crap without coming across as a sexist, not sure so many bother

 

[The Passenger]

Every Clementine Ford article/tweet/post I've had the misfortune to see pop up on Facebook has had hundreds of comments. People flock to it like flies to shit (it is shit, Austin) and you can reliably predict that it will be a mixture of 'you go girfran' bored mummy bloggers, 'I'm a man and I agree' sycophants trying to get laid and 'your (sic) a ****en idiot' men wanting to argue the point. Or just argue.

Pass.

I'd love to know what percentage of her readers/followers/commenters (whatever you want to call them) actually rate her as a journalist and her point of views.... Obviously there's a proportion that do but there seems to be a significantly high percentage of "hate reading" going on with Ford. More so than just about any other journalist in Australia, maybe only Andrew Bolt as a contender.

The irony is hate readers do a brilliant job of advertising the very thing they are against and - directly or indirectly - help to fund this persons lifestyle and/or career. You'll see the same names time and time again commenting on Ford's Facebook articles. You'll then often see those same names pop up on just about any left leaning fairfax article... Are they bots or do they just have no lives? I don't understand how people could spend so much time on such subjects... I'm sure the same thing happens on the opposite side of the spectrum with Andrew Bolt and Daily Telegraph articles.

I must admit I used to do my share of hate reading when I was younger although I rarely bothered to comment on facebook/twitter etc but as I've got older I've just learnt to - mostly - ignore it. Not worth it and it's not really healthy for you. You don't want to fall into the echo chamber but if you are reading/watching more content that makes you outraged then content you agree with then you're probably on the unhealthy side of things.

 

[mr bagcroft]

Oh she is a horrid horrid woman.
Do NOT read at any cost.
Horrid.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

I obvs enjoy trolls, so i am a big fan.

 

[Scotland]

I'd love to know what percentage of her readers/followers/commenters (whatever you want to call them) actually rate her as a journalist and her point of views.... Obviously there's a proportion that do but there seems to be a significantly high percentage of "hate reading" going on with Ford. More so than just about any other journalist in Australia, maybe only Andrew Bolt as a contender.

The irony is hate readers do a brilliant job of advertising the very thing they are against and - directly or indirectly - help to fund this persons lifestyle and/or career. You'll see the same names time and time again commenting on Ford's Facebook articles. You'll then often see those same names pop up on just about any left leaning fairfax article... Are they bots or do they just have no lives? I don't understand how people could spend so much time on such subjects... I'm sure the same thing happens on the opposite side of the spectrum with Andrew Bolt and Daily Telegraph articles.

I must admit I used to do my share of hate reading when I was younger although I rarely bothered to comment on facebook/twitter etc but as I've got older I've just learnt to - mostly - ignore it. Not worth it and it's not really healthy for you. You don't want to fall into the echo chamber but if you are reading/watching more content that makes you outraged then content you agree with then you're probably on the unhealthy side of things.

Some people just need to be outraged. I couldn't think of anything worse than arguing with Clementine Ford/people who like Clementine Ford, so I give it a wide berth. I know someone that's turned vegan (and surprisingly has felt the need to tell all 7b people on Earth about it) and spends more time being outraged about meaty things than doing non meaty things or actually doing anything meaningful about the meaty things.

Also, in the world of social meeja there's a lot of discussion framing going on. People like Clementine Ford aren't interested in robust debate, they're interested in presenting their POV with a hard feminist slant. It's aimed at a specific target market and she (in this example) makes the rules, i.e. frames the discussion. Trying to argue something like 'All men aren't evil and probably won't rape you' is like going to a Nazi rally and trying to convince people that 'Those Jews huh? They're not so bad are they?'. It just isn't the platform and no good will come from it.

In a BigFooty sense bloggers, 'social commentators' (not a thing) etc. are just varying degrees of club boards. Venture onto a club board and stray too far off the accepted narrative and you'll get punted, but go onto the main board and contend that a team has no yoof or is going backwards or whatever and it's OK.

 

[radiojake]

why so rustled, Timme?

It's funny the only time I read what Clem / Yassmin et al write/tweet is from the right wing snowflakes on bigfooty have a sook about them

it is very easy to avoid these opinion pieces

 

[the_interloper]

Not even worth wasting ones time with. She’s there to generate outrage which gets clicks.

Complete hack of a journalist and writer.

I think she’s got issues too.

Yeah she’s basically a troll like that Susie O’Brien. Good on em for getting paid for it, I do it for free on here and all I got was a ban from the main board!

 

[spinynorman]

She sometimes raises good or interesting points, which makes it all the more frustrating when she just dribbles shit.

As has been alluded to, the problem is she manages to frame every single issue in society as one of sexism and misogyny. Institutional sexism exists and needs to be addressed, but when she's arguing that the Martin Place Siege occurred because of a sexist culture then her argument probably warrants a rethink.

The vile sexists who write pretty atrocious messages to her probably make her more sympathetic than she deserves to be.

 

[tandino]

She's really a nobody trying to carve out a niche in a dying business.

 

[Silent Alarm]

She's ugly, probably fat and probably short, and guys probably chatted to the hot chicks or nice girls in the class they could laugh with and not this grumpy ugly chick.

She's a ****in loser. Those 'take downs' she does online are so bad. Imagine being her husband. He'd be the biggest cuck.

 

[Run n Spread]

The Andrew Bolt of the lefties.

Basically her job is to provoke, build an emotive reaction and get readership advertising $$$$ for her employer, site, blog etc.

OP ed writer and stirrer. Like that Milo what's his name or anyone from Fox News. It's not actually journalism but written sparring as entertainment.

 

[Mofra]

She lives a pretty sad existence and seems to take no joy in anything and find the wrong and outrage in absolutely everything.

But she's no different to Rita Panahi and all them, they just fight on opposite ends of the political spectrum, its identity politics at its worst which is inherently killing democracy.

I do find a certain irony in that her biggest detractors seems to be the same people who read Bolt enthusiastically.
Peas from the same pod utilizing the exact same modus operandi.