Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[CbayT]

Wow, what an interesting fantasy world you live in. What is it that you think that they would they do?

How many cases do u want read the link

 

[Chief]

CFord is a lightning rod. Her blog is maintained on hits to Fairfax' online mastheads. If there is a brouhaha like this, there is more hits. Its the Bolta or miltant passive aggressive feminism equivalence n extemporisation

Difference is Bolt rallies around those in power.

 

[Chief]

Not sure what point your trying to argue the comments are totally unacceptable.

Not sure I am comfortable with your support of the end justifies the means. The company sacked this guy pretty quickly when confronted with a complaint from a fairfax journo, what if it wasn't him, what if he was mentally unstable, what if he killed himself?Where does this all end?

I actually like clems articles, she has very strong views, I agree with of some of it and disagree with the rest. She is like Bolt or Aly there is generally no middle ground. My point was she would, or a reasonable person would accept that you are going to cop a certain level of abuse if you put strong views like hers out on social media

Can she be held responsible for what his employer does?

 

[CbayT]

Can she be held responsible for what his employer does?

you are better than that.

 

[romeohwho]

you are better than that.

She made the link, the employer then investigated-presumably saw his stuff and thought, no thanks. Not sure that its all down to Ford-she drew attention to his ordinary attitudes.
The Ricky Nixon arrest-do you have any other examples or stats-surely he has lots of form/priors re questionable behaviour, and threatened a 2 year old in a sexually inappropriate manner. Will be interested also to see if the charges are pursued or dropped. He was pretty tasteless but have seen much worse, so not sure why he was picked up.
Cyber bullying amongst teenagers-yep-they seem to be addressing that, but what about interactions between public figures and the public-how many arrested for abuse in those cases? How many times have the police dropped in for a word do you think?

 

[Chief]

you are better than that.

???

 

[CbayT]

She made the link, the employer then investigated-presumably saw his stuff and thought, no thanks. Not sure that its all down to Ford-she drew attention to his ordinary attitudes.
The Ricky Nixon arrest-do you have any other examples or stats-surely he has lots of form/priors re questionable behaviour, and threatened a 2 year old in a sexually inappropriate manner. Will be interested also to see if the charges are pursued or dropped. He was pretty tasteless but have seen much worse, so not sure why he was picked up.
Cyber bullying amongst teenagers-yep-they seem to be addressing that, but what about interactions between public figures and the public-how many arrested for abuse in those cases? How many times have the police dropped in for a word do you think?

There are plenty of other examples and prosecution are increasing EG.

http://www.lawstuff.org.au/sa_law/topics/bullying/cyber-bullying

She made the employer as I understand it aware of who she was and the link. Then wrote articles about it. This was great publicity I suppose and maybe she and many other people justify it by saying what he wrote was totally unacceptable, he got his right wack for being a sexist dickhead, and her actions, articles and publicity did a public service.

Whilst i agree the first is a given and its pretty hard to argue against the last 2 points, its still comes across like the actions of a Derryn Hinch special, when she could of gone to the police.

 

[CbayT]

???

you know you are, it was never that simplistic.

 

[Chief]

you know you are, it was never that simplistic.

Can she be held responsible for what the employer does? No.

Can he be held responsible for what HE does? Yes.

Pretty simple.

So far we've had widespread "he shouldn't have done that it was deplorable" followed by a much longer critique of what she did.

Maybe its because what he did was pretty straightforward disgusting, but there is debate to be had about what Ford did?

Where is the critique of what he did, his motivations, why he thought he could do it with impunity?


I'll start:

Where does a person get the idea that this is how they should behave towards other people? That slurs and threats are fair comment?

 

[Bostonian]

I do think they should stop harping on about the patriarchy. There is no patriarchy, there is only kyriarchy in this country.

Ms Ford benefits from the kyriarchy system.

 

[DemonTim]

Can she be held responsible for what the employer does? No.

Can he be held responsible for what HE does? Yes.

Pretty simple.

So far we've had widespread "he shouldn't have done that it was deplorable" followed by a much longer critique of what she did.

Maybe its because what he did was pretty straightforward disgusting, but there is debate to be had about what Ford did?

Where is the critique of what he did, his motivations, why he thought he could do it with impunity?


I'll start:

Where does a person get the idea that this is how they should behave towards other people? That slurs and threats are fair comment?

It's the Internet age. You'll find the majority online have thrown a threat or slur at another person

It's not right. But most would be lying if they said they hadn't done it (obviously his is a higher level)

 

[cartwright]

There are plenty of other examples and prosecution are increasing EG.

http://www.lawstuff.org.au/sa_law/topics/bullying/cyber-bullying

She made the employer as I understand it aware of who she was and the link. Then wrote articles about it. This was great publicity I suppose and maybe she and many other people justify it by saying what he wrote was totally unacceptable, he got his right wack for being a sexist dickhead, and her actions, articles and publicity did a public service.

Whilst i agree the first is a given and its pretty hard to argue against the last 2 points, its still comes across like the actions of a Derryn Hinch special, when she could of gone to the police.

She made the employer aware
They acted
According to her article, they asked it be made known he was dealt with.

- again - HE linked his name and employer. HE brought negative awareness to the company. No one else.

 

[romeohwho]

Probably receives death threats, I would say


People will most likely call her out on it, but I doubt her consequences will be anything other than abuse/disagreement. Her employer would most likely love the controversy she brings. It means $$$$$ for them


I'd say it would probably be more centered around violence, instead of sexual violence

Whilst the Fairfax press may enjoy the dollars, it has rarely shown itself to be a completely unethical rag like the Hun. It generally behaves in a pretty reasonable fashion, so not quite convinced about the line some posters are pushing that its all just about getting publicity.
Yep, Bolt would almost certainly get death threats and violence threats. Ford would also get them, and the sexually violent threats as well. Its crummy.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I think people need to realise that there is nutters on both sides of the fence, and that the loudest tend to be the ones who are seen to represent the group the most, since their views are probably seen/heard more than others.

A great example I came across yesterday:

A facebook group titled "Exposing Mens Rights Activists" posted an article called "6 reasons why men can literally never be victims of sexism". One of the major points of the article is that "men can be discriminated against, bullied or experience disparagement due to their gender, but this doesn't equate to sexism".
I responded saying that the premise of the article is incorrect, as the definition of the word sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.". Their article assumes discrimination is not sexism, despite the fact, that sexism is literally defined as that. The general theme of the article is that sexism requires some form of institutionalisation. I pointed out that there are types of sexism, and not all have to be institutional, that is a form of sexism, but not the only form.

One person responded, telling me that the definition is wrong, because what women go through is so much worse than men, so you can't call what men experience sexism. I said that disagreeing with what a word means, doesn't change the meaning, it is the accepted definition, and just because some individuals don't like it, doesn't make the word mean something different. I pointed out that "sexism" is a general term, a blanket term, used to cover many things.

Was then told that the definition is used to keep up oppression of women, and that's why it was wrong. Again disagreed and outlined why.

Was then told that misandry doesn't exist, and is made up by men to oppress women. I asked the person if they think that noone in the world "has a dislike or contempt for men", the definition of misandry. Got no response

Not once did I abuse, insult, swear or attack anyone. My point was that sexism can be experienced by anyone (I also acknowledged that men do not experience institutional sexism as women do, but experience more casual forms), and that it is dangerous to tell people "you cannot say you've experienced *this* because i've had it worse, so I define what *this* is", denying these things will not help equality. My post was removed from the article and i've been blocked from the page.

Plenty of posters here probably have similar stories relating to "MRAs", but it's stupid to judge the entire group based on the loudest voices. Feminists as a whole aren't represented by these more radical aspects, people arguing the masculine side are not represented by their more radical aspects. But for some reason in here, that's what all arguments seem to lead to.

As someone who went to a school espousing evangelical notions of Christianity i know this sort of dogmatism well.

Prescribe to particularly narrow and constrained views on language use and then proceed to consistently reference those narrow meanings when engaging in arguments or alike. It's the same sort of circular reasoning.

 

[evo]

Or perhaps she is a bit tired of people on social media saying all manner of abusive things to her with complete impunity?

oh diddums. Person who makes a living inciting controversy cops a controversial epithet in return.The horror.

Turns out he called her a **** on facebook. Oh noes. It's tantamount to physical rape!

She was spiteful?
Well what was he?

She was assaulted by pixels. He lost his livelihood.

 

[evo]

Can she be held responsible for what the employer does? No.

Can he be held responsible for what HE does? Yes.

Pretty simple.

So far we've had widespread "he shouldn't have done that it was deplorable" followed by a much longer critique of what she did.

Maybe its because what he did was pretty straightforward disgusting, but there is debate to be had about what Ford did?

Where is the critique of what he did, his motivations, why he thought he could do it with impunity?


I'll start:

Where does a person get the idea that this is how they should behave towards other people? That slurs and threats are fair comment?

lol.

I'd be interested to see if you held this view if someone dug up some embarrassing nonsense you happened to post on the Limbo Club after eight scotches 5 years ago* and sent it to a partner of a law firm job you'd worked hard to land.



*example only. I'd rather be caught in a compromising position with Clementine Ford than browsing the Limbo Club.

 

[Chief]

lol.

I'd be interested to see if you held this view if someone dug up some embarrassing nonsense you happened to post on the Limbo Club after eight scotches 5 years ago* and sent it to a partner of a law firm job you'd worked hard to land.



*example only. I'd rather be caught in a compromising position with Clementine Ford than browsing the Limbo Club.

You'd expect that you'd be given a chance to explain. You'd expect your employer to treat you fairly.

 

[Chief]

oh diddums. Person who makes a living inciting controversy cops a controversial epitaph in return.The horror.

Turns out he called her a **** on facebook. Oh noes. It's tantamount to physical rape!

Nah. Nobody said that.

 

[Chief]

It's the Internet age. You'll find the majority online have thrown a threat or slur at another person

It's not right. But most would be lying if they said they hadn't done it (obviously his is a higher level)

But what makes us think this is OK?

 

[evo]

You'd expect that you'd be given a chance to explain. You'd expect your employer to treat you fairly.

Why would you expect that?
Brand holders are as scared of the power of SJWs as you seem to be.
They have good reason at least.
I don't know who is employer was but I'm sure they don't want an outspoken vindictive media biatch like Clementine wrecking their brand.

 

[evo]

But what makes us think this is OK?

you're taking the piss, mate.

you make a living from Bay13, FFS

 

[Chief]

Why would you expect that?

The law of contract? Simple fairness and maybe loyalty?

Brand holders are as scared of the power of SJWs as you seem to be.

1. SJWs - the most incorrectly used epithet on the web. SJWs are the people who just like and share posts without doing anything. Seems you need a new name for Ford in this case. "VMB" for "vindictive media biatch"?
2. Me? Huh?

They have good reason at least.
I don't know who is employer was but I'm sure they don't want an outspoken vindictive media biatch like Clementine wrecking their brand.

You think it is her that is doing the wrecking?

I wouldn't have done it, but it sounds like she got sick of the abuse and did something about it because nobody else was ever going to.

If she had walked past him in the street, would he have shouted "****" at her? If she walked into his place of work, would he have shouted "****" at her?

If he was seen in company uniform or attire shouting obscenities at a woman, would his company have ignored it? If he was drunk at the company Christmas party and shouted "****" at a woman, would his company have done anything?

Would yours do anything in any of these situations?


What makes an online space different to a physical space? Is it different when the people are using anonymous screen names?

Several interesting questions are being ignored in favour of whinging about what a bitch she is.

 

[Chief]

you're taking the piss, mate.

you make a living from Bay13, FFS

Oh there's no living to be made there.

 

[Chief]

evo - let me know when you want to engage with the questions rather than just post boring, shallow garbage.

 

[romeohwho]

oh diddums. Person who makes a living inciting controversy cops a controversial epithet in return.The horror.

Turns out he called her a **** on facebook. Oh noes. It's tantamount to physical rape!
She was assaulted by pixels. He lost his livelihood.

As has been explained many times now, the employers seem to have had a good look at his Facebook and presumably took exception to his racial and sexual comments, for example. Interestingly enough, if 'all' he had done was call Ford a '****', I suspect he would probably still have his job. Coz that's ok apparently!