Morons of the Internet: Clementine Ford

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have a lesson in both sarcasm and ignorance from a writer who can't quite grasp the fact that her opinion might actually be totally misguided.
______________________________________________________________________________
http://m.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/five-times-men-are-the-real-victims-of-everyday-sexism-20150330-1mb67y.html
______________________________________________________________________________

My God, what is this sorcery? Here we appear to have a woman on a feminist centered website that actually understands the perfectly valid viewpoints of suspicious men. The points she cites have been presented to many feminists over the last few years, and in my opinion have still yet to be answered. Unless of course she's just being sarcastic, and actually writing this article to make a mockery of what she believes constitutes as male privilege. In that case we have here one ignorant women, which is a shame as her original point almost perfectly stumps radical feminists due to it being a very valid counterargument. I like how she understands that the majority of feminists on the Western world are only out for personal privileges, as in reality the issues they raise have commonly nothing to do with sexism. Surely this must be the case if the vast majority of feminists are female, as the male demographic realise that this change isn't going to benefit them in any way.

The irony of this argument is that her sarcastic points are actually the most valid points she ever makes. She is right to say that domestic homicide rates have nothing to do with sexism. Maybe a minority of cases do happen where men specifically target women because of their gender, but otherwise it makes logical sense that more women are the victims of domestic abuse considering that the environment contains an almost isolated split, and so either one gender or another is going to be effected. It's scientifically proven that on average men are more aggressive and violent than women, so of course the statistics are going to show women as the victims, and that has nothing to do with men being sexist. I'm not condoning domestic abuse, instead I'm saying that sexism plays no role in whether it happens. This can be proven by looking at the statistics of homicides outside of a domestic setting. Here we see in an environment with numerous demographics that men become the victims, which is a total reverse of what our author here is claiming. It can't possibly be a sexist issue, as society shows that one sex isn't specifically targeted. Men don't suddenly become sexist in a domestic setting. You're also right by saying that governmental roles have nothing to do with sexism, since democratic states work by public voting, which doesn't prioritise one gender over another. The candidates are voluntarily chosen by the public, and so it's a physical impossibility for the fundamental theory of democracy to be sexist. To state the contrary would just be ignoring the notion of meritocracy, which you have not once taken into account here. Maybe some people do hold sexist biases because they don't want another Margaret Thatcher ruining their country, but that's a fault with the individual, not the system. What this has to do with the correlation between leadership and carrying babies is a question I still don't understand, but then I doubt I would considering that I have less than half a brain cell, which is still two more than this writer.

We then go onto a segment which states some obvious facts. I'm sure she's exactly right in saying that the patriarchy, who I'm still not convinced even exist, want society to live in a 'Carry On' fashion. Surely everyone knows that fact, unless of course they don't as it's complete horseshit, as Western society is far from being stuck in 1960's attitudes. I just don't comprehend where the writer gets this stuff from. It seems to me like this whole article is her whining about issues in a radical tone with nothing to back it up with. I find it quite insulting that she just jokes aside the very real problem of sexism against men, which although might not be as widespread as sexism against women, still exists whether the author likes it or not. If this is your version of propaganda, then you need to improve on your style, as offending a significant portion of society is not a great plan if you want to initiate a change on your false accusations. The only reason you're dismissing the claims of men is because of their gender, which if I'm not mistaken sounds very hypocritical. I honestly can't wait to see what foolproof evidence our author is going to muster up. I'm sure it's going to be full of scientific studies and valid evidence. See that sarcasm there; two can play at that game.

I suppose this is a very serious point that reflects not just the views of society, but also myself. When I find out that the person I'm hitting on is a radical feminist then it does make them instantly about six million times less attractive, so I guess your sarcastic comment hit home more than your deluded and ignorant mind was anticipating. I can understand your personal anger at this predicament, but patronising the male audience is not the way to combat this. I can assure you that the majority of men don't like being generalised into a group that they never claimed to be, yet apparently it's only the male population that are sexist. Admittedly there is a certain point to be made here, as there are a lot of dicks around, but that's the same with everything in life. Men have never claimed to be mind readers, and so can you honestly blame them for approaching women on the street? Surely they have to insert themselves in the conversation if they're going to have any chance, and you never know, you might enjoy their company if you got out of your narrow minded and judgmental frame of mind. I can't help but feel that if Brad Pitt was to do the very same thing you wouldn't be complaining. Stop treating average men like they're all evil, as the majority do have good intentions, and have no time for toxic personalities of people such as yourself.

I assume this point was in response to those bullshit videos of women walking the streets of New York for twelve hours. I don't actually know that as you haven't cited any evidence, but I'm sure you must have come across that video before. Unfortunately I hate to inform you that those videos under no circumstances reflect reality in the slightest, as they've been edited to the point where they can no longer be valid. It always seemed suspicious that the producers of that video never released the full recordings, and that's because the overall focus would have been reverted to showing that the majority of men treat women with respect. Your tarnished and ignorant perception of reality is quite apparent with your sarcastic tone, and I wish you would open up and see these problems from another perspective. Stop being so self centered, as a compromise is the only way you can make these radical changes. Fine, you don't want men to objectify you. How about trying to treat them with a little respect first if you want me to even begin to take you seriously?

My god, you just perfectly summed up the argument in the very first sentence. Your poor use of sarcasm has serendipitously bought you to the most intelligent point in your whole article. Of course you go on to ruin it with more stupid assumptions, but for a minute there I thought you actually had a shred of sanity still left. That was until you started banging on about how first names get you jobs, which if you genuinely believe that's true then I can inform you that you're sorely misled. It just so happens that the white middle class male demographic work more hours and have more prestigious jobs on average than the majority of sectors, and so quite rightfully they're paid more on average. That's not sexism, that's justice. I'm glad it works like that, as jobs should be based on merit, and not a pitiful step towards equality. I'm sure you wouldn't understand this as you just constantly jump to ridiculous conclusions whenever you feel like it, but men are never just guaranteed jobs. They go through the same process as women, so where this theory of absolute bollocks comes from I have no idea. You don't even understand the law. It's not being 'suggested' that men and women get the same pay for the same work, as that's been a legal requirement since the Equal Pay Act of 1970, making your only use of evidence invalid and misleading. At no point here do you convince me that there is a so called war on women, and so I'm hardly surprised that men aren't happy that the jobs they've spent years securing is being threatened by your stupid beliefs that are based off of fictitious and hypothetical ramblings. Just where is the issue here?

Oh my fucking god. Seriously, what the fuck are you on about? I honestly thought this article might enlighten me on what everyday sexism is about, but that's quite difficult when we're using examples from the 1930's. When aren't you given a voice? You're abusing that very privilege right now by shitting your stupid opinions all over the internet, which is actually a far greater privilege than a person writing their own self created blog, like myself. I want to know what men say this, as in all my time alive on this planet I have never experience views like this, except for maybe a few eccentrics that have no bearing on societal norms. Why the hell should I believe your opinions when you can't show anything apart from your own personal thoughts as evidence? As far as I can see you're trying to create an issue out of something you want to exist, and not an actual representation of modern life.

Your only example is a phenomenon that can be easily explained. I'm pretty confident that the television appearances you're focused on have nothing to do with sexism. Maybe there are more men on television, but the fact they get more airtime in the areas that concern you is because they're generally more qualified to talk about that subject. I know that in itself is a generalisation, and unlike you I realise that this means it might not be accurate, but this has nothing to do with women's voices being oppressed. The reason that panel shows are usually male dominated is because that's what gets the most views. Comedy for example is a male dominated art form that is proven to be more successful, and so I think it's a bit naive to call broadcasters sexist for including more men, as after all television works by supply and demand. The example of football just shows your lack of knowledge, and you even admit to that, as you state that you have no interest, yet you're quite happy to give your opinions on the subject, which may come across as incredibly hypocritical since you argue that's a principle of sexism in the same fucking paragraph. Of course the majority of personalities in football are going to be male as it appeals to the male demographic a hell of a lot more. Fashion isn't like that, and so you can expect a more even split in gender, as it's in no way a niche market. It appears I may be the first person to have ever given you a reality check, as it's becoming quite clear that you have no idea what you're going on about. Your hypocritical and inconsistent points are just proof of you ignorance on the subject.

Free will, we're actually going on to complain about free will. Are you serious? This is the very free will that allowed you to post your pathetic article. All the sarcasm in the world can't save you from your own stupidity here. As a fan of dark comedy this point is just bogus, and again has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. Comedy, as I explained earlier, is an art form, and so should be allowed to be performed however the comedian wants to. If you don't like their routine then I would happily invite you to fuck off and watch something else. Nobody is forcing you to listen to it, and your sheer ignorance is still no excuse for spoiling something that gives me and many others a great deal of entertainment. Just because you falsely believe something is sexist does not mean you can go around censoring things at will. If you want to eradicate a form of comedy, then why not start with your poor attempt at sarcasm. I could call that sexist, but of course it has nothing to do with it. Just because you think something is right doesn't mean it's instantly a fact.

Here we go again with the generalisation of men. Calling them 'kinfolk' makes it sound like the male population is an extremist society, and god help if you were born a man, as that means you must automatically persecute women. I'll just ignore the millions of men that are against the oppressive suffering of women, because of course men don't have the human ability to empathise. The difference between those men and you is they don't generalise a whole issue to boost their self centered ego by trying to insinuate invalid points. I have to ask myself who the real oppressor is here, as I'm struggling find how your deluded opinions integrate into society. You like to hide behind sarcasm, but your obvious bias and moronic views on the world can be easilly seen with just how little knowledge you have on a broad issue. Not once have you even tried to empathise with men, so why the hell should I empathise with you? You have no right to start dictating societal norms based on the thoughts of only yourself.

Feminism is a global issue, but to me this article feels like a comment aimed at Western society, and in particular your own personal issues. I can assure you that by misinforming the reader and treating the subject with a lack of respect you're just detracting yourself from any sort of solution. I think you have a point that it would be a bit far to suggest that men are commonly victimised, but that doesn't mean you can just shit all over the equally valid opinions of others without listening to what they have to say. Sexism does affect men to, that is a fact, as hard as that must be to accept due to you being such a narrow minded person. Can you honestly say you're surprised that men call you a cunt on the internet, when your controversial opinion is specifically targeting them for seemingly no valid or logical reason. If you live in denial that sexism happens to men, then why the fuck should I care about any of your issues? You instantly expect men to sympathise with you when you have provided no evidence that it actually happens, and then get annoyed when they inevitably challenge your ignorant viewpoint. You know what they say; people in glass houses should never throw stones. And it seems Clementine, that contrary to what you assume, we all live in glass houses.