Tagged: deborah coddington

I’m making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS

It’s hard to overstate my satisfaction.

Today, gentle readers, Ideologically Impure is three years old.

Okay, enough of the gratuitous Portal references.*

It all started all those years ago with And thus … a blog.  I was really just looking for a place to vent my spleen away from Bookface or Livejournal, and I guess I hoped someone would read it eventually.  And apparently you do!

Since then, I’ve guestposted at The Standard, helped contribute to and host the Down Under Feminists’ Carnival, and most recently kicked off a badass new collective Kiwi feminist blog, The Stroppery, with some lovely co-angry bitches.

I’ve pissed off Chris Trotter and Deborah Coddington and Ian Wishart, which I hadn’t even realised until it happened was one (three?) of my life goals.

To shamelessly thief an idea from The End is Naenae, the top ten posts at Ideologically Impure over its time have been:

  1. Pippa Wetzell resigns from TVNZ (sadly, fully establishing the inability of middle New Zealand to comprehend satire, or how blogs work)
  2. I am a woman and I enjoy sex
  3. Just fuck you, ALAC.  Fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on (sadly, no doubt bumped up due to far too many horse-porn fans on the Google)
  4. Who needs identity politics?
  5. Why chicks dig “jerks”
  6. Schrödinger’s Privilege
  7. Abortion reform:  all about destroying The Left
  8. Newlands College to be awarded Grand Woman-Shaming Prize at secret Patriarchy Conference
  9. Fuck rugby culture
  10. This is what this feminist looks like

A nice grab-bag of my favourite issues, really.

Onwards and upwards!

~

*Note:  Queen of Thorns rejects the notion that there is an upper limit to gratuitous Portal references.

Rape is not your analogy even when you don’t know what “analogy” means

[TW for rape, facetious rape comparisons and abuse of the English language]

As broken by In The Gateaux, some wonderful human being on the Act on Campus bookface page decided to link to an article on compulsory student association membership which included the following:

But if the Charter guarantee of free association is to mean anything sensible at all, surely first and foremost it must guarantee the rights of individuals not to be compulsorily assimilated into larger groups merely by being outvoted. After all, if two men corner a woman in a dark alley and force her to have sex with them because they, the majority, have voted in favour of it, that would still be rape, not the exercise of their group right to freedom of association.

Yep, apparently “compulsory assimilation into a larger group” = “being raped by multiple people”.

After ITG posted, the NZUSA women’s rep issued a press release, and blow me down with a slow-news-season-shaped feather if it didn’t make it all the way to Stuff.

Which is where, if you can believe that, it gets worse.

ACT on Campus: “Thanks to the Labour and Green supporters for their comments but an analogy is just that, an analogy. No-one claimed the two are the same or equivalent.”

Okay, this calls for macros.

Description: Two Starfleet officers from Star Trek: The Next Generation have their heads in their hands in an expression of exasperation and disappointment.

And now, the OED.

  • a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification
  • a correspondence or partial similarity.
  • a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.

Origin:

late Middle English (in the sense ‘appropriateness, correspondence’): from French analogie, Latin analogia ‘proportion’, from Greek, from analogos ‘proportionate’

Oh, I see what they did there.  I await with bated breath the excuse that “no one said compulsory student association membership was literally the same as being sexually violated”.

But then, we are dealing with people who, under their real names, will say shit like this online:

Rape was not compared to compulsory student membership. Instead, the following observations were made:


2) Majorities do not have a right to take away individual freedoms.
3) Were that not the case, then majorities would, as a matter of logic, also have the right to take away people’s capacity to not consent to sex.

It wasn’t a COMPARISON, it was just, um, a logical extrapolation of what would obviously happen.*  Which is not to say that we’re comparing the two things, just saying that in this situation they would both be totally logical.  Which is not to treat them as comparable things.  Just things which are similar enough to be compar- HOSHIT.

Moral of the story:  I should learn to be less surprised that people who support Act, party of Rodney “Perk-Buster Except When It’s Me” Hide, David “Tough on Crime Except For My Own Identity Fraud” Garrett – and especially Deborah “Being Called on My Lack of Integrity is Just Like Gang Rape” Coddington – don’t think words have actual meanings.

Description: a black-and-white drawing by Tenniel of Alice looking up at Humpty-Dumpty sitting atop a wall, from "Alice Through the Looking Glass"

“‘There’s glory for you!’

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.'”

~

*And isn’t it wonderfully telling that people like this go immediately to rape when pondering some kind of hypothetical breakdown of civilisation? Protip, dudebros:  MEN ALREADY “OUTVOTE” WOMEN AND RAPE THEM AND ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE LOTS OF THEM AND THEY WANT TO.  You aren’t hypothesizing shit.

~Fame~

Gosh, people, why did none of you tell me I got name-dropped by Deborah “questioning my made-up statistics is just like being gang raped” Coddington in another fine Granny Herald-hosted whinge about fatties ruining everything?

It’s full-on Martyr Time in Coddingtonland, who laments that, last time she casually threw around Holocaust comparisons and assessed people’s medical statuses with the power of psychic bigotry,

the reaction was extreme

For which evidence she readily points to, um, a single comment made on a mean post I wrote about her.

I’d love to flatter myself that I really am some kind of Big Name in the Kiwiblogosphere, but it’s a weeknight and I’m out of gin.  So new rule:  if you have to cite a no-name one-time commenter saying mean things about you on a blog almost no one outside of Australasian feminist/leftie bloggers has heard about … you’re probably not that oppressed, Deborah.

Still, if the current run of abortion posts are getting you down and you want some fatphobic lols, read her full post for gems like

I don’t see many skinny women on television pleading for Government funding to receive treatment.

from the woman who has somewhat successfully passed herself off as a “journalist” while pulling racist numbers out of thin air;

That’s kind-hearted, but if I’m concerned about friends getting too fat, am I allowed to tell them, “You don’t need that scone”, or, “Don’t eat that pie”?

it’s almost inspiring watching her try to score a bingo in a single rhetorical whine.

And because she just can’t resist (much like a fattie presented with a bowl of icing):

Of course I can’t. I would be accused of being the food Nazi.

Oh, Deborah.  I would ask you to never change, but I really don’t need to.

Fat hate, Deborah Coddington, and The Herald: a match made in troll heaven

This is a first, people.  Today we award someone not merely the distinction of being Officially Scum; we have our inaugural Official Scum and Bar.

Not content with merely using gang-rape as a metaphor for being asked tricky questions, everyone’s favourite former-ACT-MP-and-hater-of-AZIAN-CRYME Deborah Coddington has outdone herself.

And she hasn’t even had the fucking guts to own her bullshit.

As seen at The F-Word, and also covered at Life on Fats, she’s penned regurgitated this little bit of bollocks in the Granny Herald:

Finally, an expert on human nutrition brave enough to tell us what we don’t want to hear – it’s our fault if we’re fat.

[A]long came John Birkbeck of Massey University, adjunct professor in human nutrition, who told journalist Geraldine Johns in this newspaper: “You can’t get over-fat without eating more calories than you expend.”

And this: “You do not see fat people in concentration camps. Why? Because they get hardly anything to eat and they have to do a lot of work.

National MP Maurice Williamson must be muttering into his whiskers. Two years ago he was pilloried for saying virtually the same thing: “If some people can’t lose weight no matter what, how come there were no fat people in Nazi concentration camps?

Williamson was correct then, and Birkbeck’s correct now, but of course he’s already angered the Eating Difficulties Education Network.

I just think it’s really courageous for someone to not only tell fat people “hey, those Jews were all skinny and shit after forced labour in concentration camps under a fascist regime trying to exterminate their entire culture”, but to use quotes from other people to do it.

Coddington is of course full of shit:

Spokeswoman Maree Burns called Birkbeck’s comments “flagrant, inappropriate, intolerant and offensive”, adding “shaming and blaming people has never been effective”.

But actually it has. Look what we do to smokers. We treat them like lepers, forcing them out into the street, away from bars and restaurants. Two decades ago it was acceptable to smoke on planes, in offices and pubs. Now everywhere is proudly a smokefree environment.

And no one smokes any more, which would have been the conclusion if her argument were anywhere in the vicinity of Consistenttown.

But Coddington’s from a special school of thought, the kind that says “we need to get the homeless off our streets” not out of compassion but because they make the place look untidy.  I don’t actually think she cares about health, or nutrition, she just doesn’t want to have to look at fat people because she thinks they’re icky.

Sidebar: Due to my strange obsession with Next Top Model in all its variations, this I found actually funny:

These days, it’s the skinny, flat-chested girls who are shamed on television modelling competitions. She must be anorexic, we gasp, if we see a hip bone or a rib.

Which is why NZNTM was won by a size 14 girl and Ruby, constantly pilloried for being a chub, was informed by Nigel Barker that she was 20 pounds too light for plus-size modelling.

Anyway, Coddington is clearly well-prepped for the assertion that she hates fat people, so like the real-life concern troll she is she’s quick to mention (on page 2):

I don’t mind if people are overweight. I don’t judge their personality by their size, but I care if they’re unhappy. I feel sorry for fat children if they’re bullied at school – they’ll feel miserable, be reluctant to do sport, eat more to compensate and so the vicious cycle begins until they become obese adults.

But molly-coddling won’t help. Tough love works with treating other addictions – we should use it on food addictions.

We’ve got a real “judging” meme going on this week.  Coddington doesn’t judge you for being fat, she just knows (crystal ball? Power of Three?) that you must be unhappy about being fat, and you’re only fat because no one’s made you put down the Snickers and Coke.

I would direct Ms Coddington to the stellar works of Kate Harding or Marianne Kirby, but I don’t think she’d actually care to learn that being fat is not the end of the world and there is life after “normal”-size clothes.

And just to round things off, a few classics (I swear, Coddington’s been attending how-to-bingo-fat-people seminars or something):

So how about some incentives for losing weight? If you’re a smoker you pay more for life insurance because you’re a greater risk. But I don’t get any discount on my ACC levies or my medical insurance despite my BMI being 22.

If I fly with excess baggage I’m charged extra, yet the gut from the guy next to me could be rolling over the armrest into my seat, so why shouldn’t he pay extra for his 130kg of bodyweight?

Death camps, BMI and airline seats (which are, we all know, totally designed to be spacious and comfortable) all in one go.  It’s how you spot the most-practised trolls, they produce such brilliant, perfect examples of hateful crap – but can’t resist nasty little shots right at the end:

Yes, I know why, because it would hurt his feelings. He has every right to be a big, fat slob. And people like me who don’t eat more than we need should just shut up and pay.

Yep, no judging fat people here, Coddington!

And if anyone’s gearing up to say “but she totally has a point!” I leave you with this excellent comment by Rachel at The F-Word:

If weight loss were as easy as controlling one’s environment and food intake, then why do people like her have to resort to using Jewish Holocaust death camps to “prove” their points. I mean, how much more ridiculously extreme can you get?

And just on that BMI thing?

Peyton Manning, quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts? 27.3 – overweight
Batista, current WWE champion? 33.5 – obese
Beatrice Faumuina, New Zealand Olympian? 36.5 – obese
Stacey Jones, Warriors halfback? 28.0 – overweight
Dan Carter, All Black and underwear model? 28.7 – overweight

Definitely people who should be paying higher health insurance premiums.