Feminist Clementine Ford sparks walkout by refusing to answer schoolboys’ questions

Article here. Excerpt:

'SOME schoolgirls staged a walkout on feminist Clementine Ford after she refused to take questions from male students at exclusive Aquinas College in Melbourne.

The 35-year-old blogger and controversial, outspoken activist was slammed by parents after she blocked questions from year 10 schoolboys at the private secondary school.

The incident, which caused some female Aquinas students to walk out of Ford’s talk, happened in May this year.

One angry parent claimed Ford had treated the 15-year-old male students “like crap”.

“The boys wanted to ask her questions, and she refused to answer questions from boys. She goes, ‘No no, I’m only taking questions from girls,’” parent Darren told Melbourne Radio 3AW.

“The ones that turned on her after she treated the boys like crap, was the girls who got up and left.”'

Like0 Dislike0


Not content with making dozens of new friends and influencing many opinions, swaying them to her POV, Ms Ford galloped forward, capitalizing on her sweeping victory to add yet more banners to her mast, this time via Twitter:


Like0 Dislike0

She should not be anywhere near children!

I punched her name into the search bar to get familiar with her. She is quite the man-hater.

Like0 Dislike0

Boys are treated like crap - like something less than human - everyday in Australian schools (particularly the public and Catholic systemic school systems).

Like0 Dislike0

She is a thorough misandrist. Bonkers, too. This explains her some but doesn't excuse her. Hitler, after all, was crazy as a loon. But that fact doesn't exonerate him now does it?

BTW, not to you Kris but anyone else who might get confused... there is an actress named Clementine Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_Ford) who is NOT this Clementine Ford. Alas for her, she shares the name. If I were her, I'd change it to something less readily-associated with the feminist Clementine Ford and more agreeable a name in terms of sentiments.... maybe Eva Braun or something like that...

Like0 Dislike0

Thanks for the clarification. I actually did not realize they are two different people, as I also googled the name Clementine Ford and came across the actress. It said she is the daughter of an American actress named Cybill Sheppard who is quite the feminists speaker, so it seemed to fit.

Like0 Dislike0

Don't know if I have ever mentioned it here before, but I have often wondered if feminists can raise successful children. I don't think they can. I am not speaking about financial success. but rather successful families. A successful family is intact, happy, healthy and self-supportive, and produces children to be the same. So I am looking to see 3 generations of successful families.

Healthy families don't need to kill their children, so no abortions

When I see feminists, I see dysfunctional families or unable to produce healthy children. I think of Cher, Madonna, The Judd chick (all have had abortions)....I'm gonna have to wait to see if Chelsea Clinton can keep her family intact. if anyone knows of 3 generations of healthy feminist families, please share.

Not only do I believe feminist are unable to produce and maintain healthy families, but I think they are a danger to children and society. (oh, and I just thought of that feminist blogger, Jody Allard, who shames her sons in the Washington Post. All of her 7 children are unhealthy)

Somewhat related: Feminists Martha Plimpton brags about her abortions, she is childless and age 46. Even my pro-choice friends think this is over the top:

Like0 Dislike0

... the actress would say about her "alter ego by name"'s opinions. For all I know she's in agreement... or not. Have no idea. But I do know they aren't the same person. :)

Like0 Dislike0

I was not arguing or disagreeing. I was thanking you for pointing it out, as otherwise I would not have known. I now have seen the pics and they are definitely two different people.

Like0 Dislike0

Yes. What precisely IS a "healthy" family? Hmmm... am recalling The Munsters and The Addams Family. Were those examples of healthy families? Some might say yes. The parents and children seemed to have generally good comm'n w/ one another. There was no evidence of dysfunction in the clinical sense: addiction, incest, etc., all apparently absent. None of them were prone to extremes of emotion that ruled the family dynamic as is found when ppl in families have untreated psychological issues, etc.

And yet... would you say they were "healthy" families?

No, I wouldn't. Because indeed, for the world they lived in (1950s-1960s medium-sized metro areas), they were not "well-adjusted". Despite h@ving emotionally functional family systems, the families as a whole and the individuals weren't able to function on a more or less normative level w/ the society around them. How likely, for example, were any of the kids to be able to pursue a successful romantic rel'p w/ any of their contemporaries? Or would their value systems be generally compatible enough with their peers to allow them to integrate successfully? Could they keep, much less get, jobs? And so on.

Even if, and it's a really big IF, a feminist parent or couple had no classic signs of dysfunction or dysfunction-inducing behavior, can a mother (or father) who teaches their kids feminist values or POVs, esp. so if they have sons, be creating psycho-emotionally stable kids when to do so requires them to teach or embody the kinds of things modern feminists profess? I'd argue that even if you can avoid classic or even more generally-recognized dysfunction, teaching one's children feminist doctrine in essence is programming them to misapprehend reality itself. Not much unlike how white supremacist parents might teach their kids white supremacist doctrine all the while *otherwise* being perfectly good parents... EXCEPT in that they're setting their kids up for failure in life by teaching them bigotry. When they go out into the world espousing/living such values, they're in for serious problems. "Failure to thrive" is I believe how a clinical psych might call it. And I have to think setting your kids up to thrive is a big part of h@ving a healthy family.

Like0 Dislike0

Oh, I didn't think you were doing either. I just wanted to underscore more for the reader in general that in re the actress' beliefs, I don't know where she might stand.

Like0 Dislike0

Whenever I hear that level of hate and vitriol coming from the mouth of a feminist (and I hear it rather often), I'm at a loss for how to respond. If you respond in kind and shower them with the verbal abuse they so richly deserve, they somehow are magically able to transform themselves into victims, and what's distressing is that so many people find their specious claims to victimhood credible. When you try to point out their glaringly obvious hypocrisy--that if the same kinds of vicious generalizations were made about women that they routinely make about men (or boys, in this case), that would rightly be branded as sexist--they inevitable come back with "that's different, because men, being the hegemonic sex, are privileged in discourse." That is SOOOO not true (if I have ALL the power, then where the hell is all my power?), but somehow they get the bien pensants to nod in agreement. So even foul-mouthed, mean-spirited feminists like this odious Clementine, who enjoys a privileged platform, can wallow in fake victimhood and gain pity. Maybe the best response is just to ignore them.

Like0 Dislike0

ignoring them isn't going to help. you don't ignore a wound, or a virus, you treat it. allowing it to go unchecked is how men lost their rights. how do you treat it? here is my take:

1. you don't let it go unchallenged. you do just what these boys in Australia did. you question everything about it, as publically as possible. feminism is, after all, just marxism prettied up.

2. educate yourself about what it stands for and from whence it springs. a good place to start is with alinski's 'rules for radicals'. it's their playbook. if they have one consistency, its that they always revert back to their roots, socialist-marxism. in this instance (above) they shun free speech and revert to shaming tactics.

3. don't allow your buds/mates/s.o.'s get away w/ pushing the feminist b.s. call them on it. long married men are a lot of the time, just long suffering servants. they spout feminist doctrine like they were born to it, and their actions betray them as well. just last night I heard on a popular 'family friendly' show about how women make only a fraction of what men make for the same work. its a lie, just like all their feminist 'stats'.

4. vote for candidates who are not feminists.

5. do not marry a feminist in a western culture. in short, do not sign a one-sided contract. any honest counselor would tell you this. a marriage license in the west (and other westernized cultures) is a license to steal, and not just for women. lawyers, judges, law enforcement and a host of other trades make a significant portion of their livelihood leeching off men who were willing to sign on the dotted line. heck, even making false accusations against men has grown into a cottage industry. alimony can, and oft does last a lifetime. child support is almost an automatic function in divorce. she gets the kids and he gets the bills. oh, and he gets to visit w/ her kids (maybe) if he follows the feminist rules, and they are many. make no mistake about it, she wants you gone for good, it won't take her long to find a way to exile you to childlessness.

6. don't let anyone slam men for wanting their rights back. stand up and stand up together. be careful who you allow into the circle. traitorous males (half men, manginas, whatever you want to call them) abound. they serve their mistresses, be not deceived.

Like0 Dislike0

They use the same tactics the Nazis used: anger, vitriol, bigotry. When confronted/called on it, they claimed victimhood. They also claimed they were simply in the right and had thus every right to make their case. Exact same playbook.

Like0 Dislike0

I'd say avoid it altogether. Plenty of women who don't call themselves feminists will be glad to use the system to rip a man off blind when given the chance. The problem is the law as pertains marriage itself; that a woman CAN pull what she can is the problem. Avoid the risks associated with it entirely. Think of it as a gamble: you are risking as much as half or more of your assets over time for exactly what kind of payoff? I simply don't see much in it for men. But a heck of a lot for women. Do yourself a favor: don't do it. If a gf puts the screws to you, dump her. Then may I suggest she be your last LTR with a woman and you stick to relations with the fairer sex that are limited to what you want, not what she wants except insofar as it aligns with what you want. But go no further. When she starts wanting you to make patently self-endangering decisions, walk away. She may well bombard you with shaming accusations of all sorts: cowardice, selfishness, just-using-me-ness, etc. All an attempt to manipulate you. Your friends and family may do likewise. It's your ass, though, not theirs. Explain to her, and them, that marriage for men is simply too risky and you won't do it. And say indeed, you are afraid of marriage, in much the same way that you might also be afraid to sign a contract of indenture.

If you need inspiration for losing 100-200+ lbs. of unnecessary weight, I suggest listening to Frankie Valli's Walk Like a Man on-line a few times. :)

Like0 Dislike0