EQ vs IQ

Who’d of thunk?

This is what happens when feminist activism hits the work place. It has the opposite of intended effect. Leanin.org has found in a survey it conducted that since the #MeToo movement took hold, 60% of male managers said they are now uncomfortable interacting with women at work – up 32% from 2018. Workplace interactions that men have become nervous about include mentoring, socializing and having one-on-one meetings with women.

Senior men who were also surveyed were 9x more likely to hesitate to travel with a woman and 6x less likely to have a work dinner with women.

Lean In’s founder and Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandburg said,

The problem is that even before this, women – and especially women of color – do not get the same amount of mentoring as men, which means we’re not getting an equal seat at the table, and, you know, it’s not enough to not harass us. You need to not ignore us either.

Men are not ignoring you. Sadly when men can (and have) lose (lost) careers for unsubstantiated claims against them by women forgive them if they feel intimidated.

Who could have predicted this? Now it is men’s fault for not reading feminist minds on how they must act. Sandberg has an answer for that too,

If there’s a man out there who doesn’t want to have a work dinner with a woman, my message is simple: Don’t have one with a man. Group lunches for everyone. Make it explicit, make it thoughtful, make it equal…Men need to step up. We need to redefine what it means to be a good guy at work.”

Welcome to 2019. At least one thing hasn’t changed. Men are to blame for everything.

When will these activists realize that politicizing the work space dampens cooperation and kills off ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit.

The Untrumpables & the bookkeeper

The NY Times has Donald Trump’s tax returns from 1985-1994. So what? He made losses 25-30 years ago. He obviously made some terrible business decisions to rack up $1.17bn in losses over a decade. Yet the laws allowed him to do so. Two years ago, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hailed she had Trump’s 2005 tax return that showed he paid $38m tax on $150m income. So he has had some good with the bad.

Because the mainstream media and the Democrats couldn’t pin Russia collusion on him, they want to see if they can get him on tax evasion. Sounds like the accountant in the Treasury Department trying to bust Al Capone in The Untouchables. The Democrats want to make Trump talk with a gun in his mouth. Many Democrat-run states have passed legislation to ban Trump from the 2020 ballot if he doesn’t release his tax returns. CM has mentioned numerous times how this typifies the level to which Democrats think they are just in rejecting the democratic rights of their constituents.  Surely American voters can decide for themselves whether his tax returns are an important enough issue for them.

The question really boils down to whether he has “evaded” tax or “avoided” it? If he used the tax laws to minimise his ultimate tax liabilities then all power to him. In the immortal words of Australian billionaire, Kerry Packer, “if anybody in this country doesn’t minimise their tax they want their heads read. Because as a government I can tell you, you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!

Truth be told, banks continued to lend to him despite having the highest tax losses of any American and he wound up in the highest office in the land. Even if his most recent tax returns show massive losses, if he hasn’t broken the law then what will House Democrats have gained?

Put it this way. The mainstream media might wish to point to the failures of Trump as a good reason to question his judgement. They might mock him by saying he benefitted from Daddy’s money. However, America has the lowest unemployment rate in decades, historic low black and female unemployment and 5.8m unemployed to fill 7m job openings. If individuals feel America is in a better place than when he started, one can be sure that he will be sworn in again in 2020.

When will the Democrats finally realise that putting forward sensible policies to convince the American public they are worthy of government is a more effective method than pushing more and more Trump Derangement Syndrome?

Extinction Rebellion – instinctive revulsion

The lunacy is incredible. Carbon neutrality in the UK by 2025. Good luck with that. The Extinction Rebellion (ER) is the next radical left protest movement that seeks widespread civil disobedience, because in the words of one of the founders, “getting arrested can be quite fun.” Some have goals to see inside of a prison cell. CM suggests doing such protests in China where most of the “environmental” problem they fear lies. No doubt President Xi will warmly oblige requests for long stays in one of his many jails.

ER’s manifesto is a collection of web links to climate alarmist sites and comments. Pretty much every maximum alarmist reference has been uploaded. No balance in there.

Sadly they haven’t done much proof checking of the website contents. That’s what happens when one is foaming at the mouth kneeling at the altar of climate alarmism.

Note the following 3 examples

1) under pollution ER notes,

All forms of pollution were responsible in 2015 for an estimated 9 million premature deaths“.

Yet only one paragraph later it follows up with:

the very air we breathe is growing dangerously polluted: nine out of ten people now breathe polluted air, which kills 7 million people every year.

So deaths have gone down? Which is it?

2) The Great Barrier Reef

Corals reefs are suffering mass die-offs from heat stress.  These events are becoming much more common with back to back die-offs on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia in 2016 and 2017.

Wrong again. The reef has been seen to be flourishing. Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Sep 2017 surveyed 14 coral reefs between Cairns and Townsville to see how they fared after being bleached and were surprised to find the coral had already started to reproduce.

3) Rising sea levels

2°C warming  would threaten to inundate areas now occupied by 130 million people while increase to 4°C could lock in enough eventual sea level rise to submerge land currently home to 470 to 760 million people globally

Analysis using tide gauges and satellites showed 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, revealed that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. What sea level rise? The most experienced is around. 1mm pa.

Maybe we should feel safer in the knowledge that ER co-founder, Gail Bradbrook, flew to Costa Rica to have a high dose of a psychedelic substance (iboga) which induced visions according to the FT. Should we put her eR movement down to the hallucinations and anxiety caused by the drug?

Two certainties.

We can be sure ER will not be a peaceful conscientious objector (charges for property damage already reported) and CM was right to cancel his FT subscription given they thought giving these loonies any airtime was warranted.

Bill Shorten’s electric dreams are our nightmare

Image result for fuel bowser out of use

When will politicians wake up? How can they honestly believe their targets are remotely achievable if the industry is not even in the ballpark to being able to supply those promises? Take the ALP’s plan to make electric vehicles (EVs) 50% of new car sales by 2030.

In 2018, 1,153,111 new automobiles were sold across Australia. This plan is so easily destroyed by simple mathematics, something CM did in 2017 when Macron waxed lyrical about 100% EV sales by 2040. The only 100% certainty is that Bill Shorten won’t hit the 50% target by 2030. Do we need the government to tell us what cars we wish to buy?

The first problem he will encounter is overall consumer demand for EVs. Few suit the diverse needs and utilities (e.g. boat enthusiasts who require towing capacity unmet by all current EVs or parents who need 7-seaters to ferry kids to footy) of individual buyers. If the types of EVs available don’t match the requirements of the users then few will see the point to buy one no matter what the subsidy. In 2008, SUVs were 19% of Aussie new car sales. It is 43% today. So much for the climate change fearing public voting with their wallets! That is the first problem.

Why is the government meddling in an industry they know next to nothing about? Having a zero emissions (ZE) target is one thing they might aim for, however why not tell auto makers they need to attain that goal but will be granted complete technological freedom to achieve it? If the auto makers see necessity as the mother of invention, who are regulators to dictate the technology? If an internal combustion engine can achieve ZE does that not meet the goal?

It stands to reason we should question those with the least idea on the technology to dictate the future. The ZE appeal of EVs is an ineffective virtue signaling device to voters.

If we look at Euro emissions regulations introduced since 1993, substantial progress has been made in the last 20 years. Euro 6 started in 2015. For diesel particulate matter, emissions are 97% down on Euro 1 (1993) and NOx down by 95% over the same period.

The irony here, is that governments have these thought bubbles and then consult the industry afterwards to see if those promises can be fulfilled. CM spoke to multiple global auto suppliers in the EV space at the Tokyo Motor Show in 2018 and this is what was said,

“So haphazard is the drive for EV legislation that there are over 200 cities in Europe with different regulations. In the rush for cities to outdo one another this problem will only get worse. Getting two city councils to compromise is one thing but 200 or more across country lines? Without consistent regulations, it is hard for makers to build EVs that can accommodate all the variance in laws without sharply boosting production costs…

…On top of that charging infrastructure is an issue. Japan is a good example. Its EV growth will be limited by elevator parking and in some suburban areas, where car lots are little more than rental patches of dirt where owners are unlikely to install charging points…

…Charging and battery technology will keep improving but infrastructure harmonisation and ultimately who pays for the cost is far from decided. With governments making emotional rather than rational decisions, the only conclusion to be drawn is unchecked virtuous bingo which will end up having to be heavily compromised from the initial promises as always.

So the suppliers aren’t on board for a start. They know their car manufacturer clients rather well and if they aren’t buying it, auto makers can’t sell it. Slowing sales worldwide adds to reluctance to add to expensive fixed cost capacity at the top of a cycle.

We have proof of this. Note what we wrote in 2017:

It isn’t a big surprise to see national governments virtue signal over climate abatement. The UK swiftly followed French plans to ban the sale of petrol/diesel cars from 2040. However, let’s get real. Government proactivity on climate change may appear serious but the activities of the auto industry are generally a far better indicator of their lobby power. As a car analyst at the turn of the century, how the excitement of electric vehicle (EV) alternatives to internal combustion engines was all the rage. Completely pie in the sky assumptions about adoption rates…

…In 1999 industry experts said that by 2010  EVs would be 10% of all units sold. Scroll forward to 2019 and they are near as makes no difference 2.5% of total vehicle sales…talk about a big miss. 10 years beyond the prediction, they’re only 25% of the way there. Pathetic. 

CM also discussed in this report, 30 reasons Tesla would be a bug on a windshield;

“To prove the theory of the recent thought bubbles made by policy makers, they are already getting urgent emails from energy suppliers on how the projections of EV sales will require huge investment in the grid. [Mr Shorten, will we have all these cars recharging overnight using renewables? Solar perhaps?] The UK electricity network is currently connected to systems in France, the Netherlands and Ireland through cables called interconnectors. The UK uses these to import or export electricity when it is most economical. Will this source be curtailed as nations are forced into self-imposed energy security by chasing unsustainable products?

The UK’s National Grid said that the extra capacity required just to charge EVs would require another new Hinkley C nuclear plant to cover it. Will people choose between watching  premiership football on Sky Sports or charging their car?

Car makers can’t produce at the desired speed and energy suppliers don’t have the excess capacity required to charge. Slightly large problems. We don’t need to look at failed EV policy to show government incompetence. Germany totally fluffed its bio-fuel promise back in 2008 that even a Greens’ politician ended up trashing it.

“The German authorities went big for bio-fuels in 2008 forcing gas stands to install E-10 pumps to cut CO2. However as many as 3 million cars at the time weren’t equipped to run on it and as a result consumers abandoned it leaving many gas stands with shortages of the petrol and gluts of E-10 which left the petrol companies liable to huge fines (around $630mn) for not hitting government targets.”

Claude Termes, a member of European Parliament from the Green Party in Luxembourg said in 2008 that legally mandated biofuels were a dead end…the sooner it disappears, the better…my preference is zero…policymakers cannot close their eyes in front of the facts. The European Parliament is increasingly skeptical of biofuels.” Even ADAC told German drivers to avoid using E10 when traveling in other parts of continental Europe.

Starting with the basics for Australia.

If we take 50% of total car sales in 2018 as the target by 2030, Shorten needs to sell 576,556 EVs per annum to meet his bold target.

Let’s deal with the elephant in the room – note that petrol excise is currently around 4.7% of total federal tax take (c. $19bn) and likely to grow to c.$23bn by 2021. Even if we were to assume that we achieved Shorten’s targets based on a flat overall car market by 2030, Shorten’s tax receipts from the fuel excise would collapse and only be amplified by subsidies paid on 576,556 EVs. Throw the global average of $6,000-10,000  in incentives per EV and we’ve quickly racked $3-5bn per annum in subsidies.

Then will he offer cash for clunkers (C4C) for the poor owners of fossil fuel cars? Many car owners would require a hefty slug of C4C to offset the massive depreciation that would ensue on a trade in of a fossil fueled powered car. People are going to want decent trade ins, not 5c in the dollar of what they would have got had the government not attacked car owners. The changeover price matters. Shorten  may well get his 50% by halving the industry.

Should we also consider whether fuel taxes should be replaced by electricity taxes? If that ends up all we drive who is to stop it? Surely the maintenance of roads and related infrastructure which we’re told our fuel taxes pay for the upkeep will still need to be funded by heavier EVs.

Take the Tesla Model X 100D. It weighs 2,509kg, 49% heavier than an equivalent BMW 5-series. The heavier the car, the more damaging to the road. Such is the progress of the Nissan Leaf that the kerb weight has risen in the new model to 1,538kg on the original, or 400kg heavier than a petrol Toyota Corolla. EVs are fat.

Global EV sales units were 2.1mn last year. Total car sales were 79m odd. Let’s assume auto makers could conceivably increase capacity by 2m every 2 years (plants take 2 years to build and those poor Congolese child slave laborers will be run off their feet digging for cobalt to go in the batteries) then conceivably 30mn cumulative EV units could be built by 2030. Unfortunately VW gave the real answer on how they view EVs.

“Volkswagen makes an interesting case study. After being caught red handed cheating diesel emissions regulations (a perfect example of how little VW must believe in man-made global warming) they were in full compliance at the 2017 Frankfurt Motor Show telling the world of their $80bn investment in EVs out to 2030, 300 new EV models comprising 3 million units in 25 years of which 1.5mn would be sold in China. 3 million cars would be c.30% of VW’s total output today.”

However auto makers are faced with a conundrum. Chinese car sales are slowing. US car sales are slowing. European car sales are drifting and Aussie car sales are weak. Capex into EVs will be a very gentle process. They don’t want to plug in massive investments into new capacity if end demand is likely to remain soft. That is basic business sense. Note parts manufacturers need to be convinced that building new plants alongside makers is sustainable. Many are gun shy given the OEMs sent many parts suppliers into receivership the last cycle.

Ahh but EVs are less harmful to the environment. Are they?

The IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute was commissioned by the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency to investigate lithium-ion batteries climate impact from a life cycle perspective.

The report showed that battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory. Regular EV batteries with 25–30 kWh of capacity will result in 5 metric tonnes CO2, which is equivalent to 50,000 km driving in a regular, fuel-efficient diesel vehicle.

Another study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) showed that depending on the power generation mix, an all EV Nissan Leaf in the US or China was no better than a 2012 Prius. Countries with higher relative nuclear power generation unsurprisingly had lower CO2 emissions outcomes for EVs. By deduction countries with higher shares of coal or gas fired power negated much of the ‘saving’ of an EV relative to gasoline power.

So pretty much on all measures, Bill Shorten’s misadventure on EVs will be a complete dud. If only he’d consulted with the industry before celebrating how “woke” he is. He’s simply not.

Shorten’s 50% EV target will bring on NBN Mark II

There are 10 simple reasons why Bill Shorten’s 50% EV target by 2030 is ridiculous. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the government is meddling in an industry they know next to nothing about? Having a zero emissions (ZE) target is one thing they might aim for but why not tell auto makers they need to get to that goal but grant complete technological freedom in how to achieve it? If the auto makers see necessity as the mother of invention, who are regulators to dictate the technology? If an internal combustion engine can achieve zero emissions does that not meet the ZEgoal?

So to the 10 reasons;

1) Australia sold just over 1.15m cars in 2018. Since 2008, SUVs comprised 19% of total sales. Today 43%. So much for the unbridled panic about catastrophic climate change if consumption patterns are a guide.

2) Australian fuel excise generates 5% of total tax revenue. It is forecast to grow from $19bn today to $24bn by 2021. If Shorten does what he plans then he’s likely to add to the deficit, especially if he lobs $5,000 per car subsidies on 577,000 cars (50% of 3018 unit sales in Australia).

3) cash for clunkers? If the idea is to phase out fossil fueled powered cars, surely the resale/trade in values will plummet to such a degree that trading it on a new EV makes no sense at all. False economy trade where fossil fuel owners will hold onto existing cars for longer.

4) Global EV production is 2.1m units. Looking at existing production plans by 2030, it is likely to be around 12mn tops on a conservative basis. So Bill Shorten want 5% of world EV supply when were only 1.2% of global car sales. Many auto makers are committed to selling 50% of EV capacity into China. So Shorten will be fighting for the remaining pie. No car makers will export 10% of all EV production to Australia without substantial incentives to do so.

Don’t forget Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also intends to get every fossil fueled powered car off the road in a decade. The US has 270 million registered vehicles, the overwhelming majority being petrol powered. The US sells 16-17mn cars a year (sadly slowing). Therefore in the US, 16 years would be required to achieve that target.

5) Ethics of EVs. To save the planet, the majority of cobalt to go into making the batteries comes from African mines which use child slave laborers. There is a moral scruple to keep a virtue signaling activist awake at night!

6) EV makers aren’t happy. In Europe there are over 200 cities with EV programs but none are alike. In the quest to outdo each other on the virtue signaling front, car makers are struggling to meet such diverse requirements meaning roll outs will be slow because there is no movement to standardize.

7) EV suppliers aren’t convinced. Because of the above, many EV suppliers are reluctant to go too hard in committing to new capacity because global car markets are slowing in China, US, Europe and Australia. High fixed cost businesses hate slowdowns. Writing down the existing capacity would be punitive to say the least. New capacity takes a minimum of 2 years to come on line from conception.

8) the grid! In the UK, National Grid stated that to hit the UK targets for EVs by 2030, an entirely new 8GW nuclear plant would be required to meet the demands of EV charging. Australia can barely meet its energy needs with the current policies and Shorten would double down on the same failed renewables strategy that has already proved to fall well short of current demand ex any EVs added to the grid.

9) in 1999 automotive experts hailed that EVs would make up 10% of all vehicle sales by 2010. In 2019 EVs make up around 2.5%. So 9 extra years and 75% below the target. The capacity isn’t there much less consumers aren’t fully convinced as range anxiety is a big problem.

10) charging infrastructure is woefully inadequate. Await another taxpayer dollar waste-fest. Think NBN Mark II on rolling EV chargers out nationwide. The question then becomes one of fast charger units which cost 5x more than slower systems. If the base-load power capacity is already at breaking point across many states (Vic & SA the worst) throwing more EVs onto a grid will compound the problem and drive prices up and potentially force rationing.

CM is putting a fuller report together but these are the basics. Governments are clueless. Look at Germany’s 2008 failure on bio-fuels adoption.

“The German authorities went big for bio-fuels in 2008 forcing gas stands to install E-10 pumps to cut CO2. However as many as 3 million cars at the time weren’t equipped to run on it and as a result consumers abandoned it leaving many gas stands with shortages of the petrol and gluts of E-10 which left the petrol companies liable to huge fines (around $630mn) for not hitting government targets.

Claude Termes, a member of European Parliament from the Green Party in Luxembourg said in 2008 that “legally mandated biofuels were a dead end…the sooner It disappears, the better…my preference is zero…policymakers cannot close their eyes in front of the facts. The European Parliament is increasingly skeptical of biofuels.” Even ADAC told German drivers to avoid using E10 when traveling in other parts of continental Europe”

When a Greens politician from Luxembourg no less trashes an environmental policy you know it’s destined for failure. How about the government try to consult with the industry before it promises (no pun intended) the earth!

What a farce. This will (no pun intended) backfire or short circuit?

Seattle Schitty Council

A Seattle citizen, Richard Schwartz, asks for the panel of Seattle City councilors to pay some mind to what he had to say. They couldn’t be less interested. Then people wonder why establishment politicians are being booted out.

The irony is looking at what these councilors purportedly have oversight – human rights, community safety, gender equality. The citizen made a point in his speech how the council allowed Seattle Democrat Rep. Pramila Jayapal to speak for as long as she wished the previous week while all others were given one minute. Some animals are more equal than others animals…

As he rightly points out, it was a damning indictment.

Dr Kerryn Phelps MP misdiagnoses the cancerous white patriarchy

Dr Kerryn Phelps AM MP posted the following graphic on Twitter to howl at the patriarchy on International Women’s Day (IWD). She posted these figures from a (pre-Channel 9) Sydney Morning Herald article from April 2018.  Most of the statistics above are inaccurate or misrepresented but when it comes to bashing middle aged white men, no-one dares questioning the accuracy when it comes to this demographic.

The basics.

1. Whites in Australia make up c.80% of the population. This is census data. No room for much conjecture.

2. Men make up 63% of all full time employment in 2018. In 2000 this was 75%. 13% of those aged 65 and over still participate in the workforce, 65% of those are men. This is down from 79% in 2000. By pure logic, if men were 75% of FT jobs two decades ago, stands to reason they’d have a higher chance of being in positions of seniority today.

3. We stick to the SMH’s definition of ”middle age’ of 40-60 which equates to 2.8mn white men, or 10.7% of the total population.

4. In the Australian Federal Parliament there are 150 lower house & 75 upper house seats. 225 positions up for grabs during election cycles (longer terms for senators). On Phelps’ SMH derived assumptions that means 160 of the seats are occupied by white middle aged males. 160 seats means that federal politics as a profession at present is only 0.0057% of their representative demographic. Phelps might reflect that 30 out of 75 senators are women, or 40% of the total. 60% are males. 17.5% of all Senators are white males over 60yo meaning only 32.5% of senators are middle aged white males.

30% of the House of Reps are women. Yet 17% of the white males in the lower house are aged over 60. So only 53% of our lower house is middle aged white male. Not 70%.

5. There are 2,185 stocks listed on the ASX. If 75% are run by middle aged white men then 1,638 companies fit Phelp’s parroted profile. 0.059% of the all middle aged white men run listed corporates. Although the average age of CEOs in Australia is around 54, or at the upper bound of the 40-60 cohort. Going back to point 2, the higher proportion of men in FT roles seems consistent with this. There should be no surprise.

6. There are 1,054 state and federal judges and magistrates in Australia. Of that, 63% are white men according to SMH. The actual figure is 62%, or 405. Close enough. So 669 members of the judiciary would fit the claim. To hit the top echelons of the judiciary requires long service. Even if we took the SMH at its word, 0.023% of the white middle aged male cohort would take those roles. Note 42% of judges on the High Court of Australia are women.

7. In our tertiary education system , APH notes only 21.6% of university academia in Australia were women in 1985. It rose to 39% in 2002 and is just over 50% today. Today tenured females at universities exceed tenured males. Over 50% of all associate lecturers and lecturers are women. Male senior professors make up 75% of the total. Their average age is well above 50. Senior professors are able to get a higher percentage of research grants because they are mainly in STEM fields.

8. There are 39 Vice Chancellor positions in Australia. 12 are currently held by females. 70% are males. 66% are held by white males. Phelps mistakenly thought that 85% were middle aged white males. In fact the article mentioned that 85% of Vice Chancellors were of Anglo-Celtic background. Still it sounds better if it attacks middle aged white males.

9. Phelps believes the claim that 80% of highest paying jobs are held by white middle aged males. Assuming that 85% of the population was white two decades ago and the Australian Government claims 90% of executive roles are full time roles with men a higher proportion of the workforce back then it should make for little surprise. It is representative.

Labour participation rate among males 15-64 is 82% vs 71.7% for females. Note in 1978 these figures were 85% and 50% respectively. The highest quintile of compensation was 48% of the total in 2017/2018. This quintile also paid 78.7% of total income tax. The top 10% of income earners paid 44.9% according to the ATO. The top 1% paid 16.9%. So the bottom 90% pay less than 56% of total income tax. Middle aged white men pay more tax.

10. Phelps the SMH article that says 80% of film directors and writers are white middle aged males. According to the Australian Directors Guild’s (ADG), ‘Gender Matters – women in the Australian screen industry‘ report, 21% of writers and 16% of feature films are directed by women. There is no “age” breakdown for either gender. 34% of documentaries since 1988 have been directed by women, 41% of producers and 37% writers. The in-house analysis by the ADG shows that teams with at least 50% female creative teams gets 58% of all funded projects. In 2017, the Australian Director’s Guild started a female scholarship mentor program.

In an industry that leans heavily to the ideological left, surely that is a self inflicted wound. In the arts and entertainment industry, the ability to source funds to make films is mostly based on a track record to convert that investment into box office revenue. The ability to write a movie script is based on the creativity of the author, regardless of gender. Page 8 of the report notes, “Anecdotal evidence indicates that women are far more likely than their male counterparts to underestimate and undersell their skills and abilities.” Supposedly this is caused by toxic masculinity?

Will striving for more politically correct measures improve things in the art & film world? America has been trying this path for quite some time now and the results have continued to drift lower and lower. More films but less revenue.

—-

Things have come a long way over the last 50 years. Yet some industries remain very skewed toward men, not because of some evil patriarchal conspiracy.

99.7% of bricklayers are men in Australia. 96.4% of truck drivers are men. 95% of miners are men. 93% of our fire fighters are men. 85% of our defence force is comprised of men. Isn’t this merely individual work choices rather than a deliberate plan to shun women in those industries?

Should there be a Royal Commission to find out why more women don’t want to be brickies, truckies, miners, firies, coppers or soldiers? Should we force quotas? That is what the ADF is now doing with disastrous results. The ADF missed its original gender targets so lowered them but missed by an even wider margin. The Air Force openly practices discrimination to such a degree that if the private sector adopted similar methods, the corporates would face harsh penalties and sanctions. Women in the ADF can achieve their service medal in half the time of men. Then they wonder why morale in the military is drifting lower every year. The irony is that almost 50% of women in the ADF surveyed think these affirmative action measures are meaningless.

On the flip side 98.7% of personal assistants are women98.4% of dental assistants are women94% of receptionists are women. 85.7% of special education teachers are women80% of cafe workers are female.  75.9% of nurses are female. Should we seek to redress the gender imbalance there? Men are 92% of the prison population in Australia? Should we equalize that?

Should we enforce quotas among politicians? Political parties place candidates who they think can win elections whatever their identity – gender, sexual proclivity or otherwise. If parties think women are the magic elixir to secure more terms in government, women will make up a growing proportion of the pre selection process. The patriarchy would be crazy not to run candidates that allow them to sustain their thirst for power.