Zip It or be Zapped


It seems that everywhere we turn these days someone else is raising a flag to suggest “we need to move with the times.”  What are “the times?” Whose times are we required to move for? Mine? Yours? Theirs? A chat on social media the other day raised the conversation of an HR director saying that he would not sign off on a hire who didn’t agree with his subjective view over a trivial subject. He argued that it was for the best interests of diversity and inclusion not to hire someone who wasn’t offended by said subject. CM retorted “so if I don’t agree with your thinking on a topic which is completely unrelated to the job task that I might be hypothetically the most qualified for, you’ll sink it on that alone…sounds like a totalitarian power trip.” This confirmed the ‘unconscious bias, conscious bias‘ piece on HR last week.’ 2+2=5. HR departments are becoming all powerful autocrats.

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry! The conversation went further to suggest that I simply must accept change on the grounds of diversity. That word is chucked around as loosely as a Casanova saying “I love you” to his multiple conquests. It simply seeks to force compliance. Surely all things work better when there is mutual buy-in rather than threatening to burn people at the stake. Why is my subjectivity any more or less valuable than someone else’s?

The idea of forcing conformity is dangerous ground. As long as one’s views don’t openly impact others why should it matter? Why should HR apparatchiks use bullying behaviour which goes against the grain of every appropriate workplace behaviour training seminar staff are required to take? Well it is only “some” behaviour. So much for equality in the workplace.

Just like the same sex marriage (SSM) debate. Anyone with a rainbow screen saver could proudly display it in the office without attracting a whimper because they were ‘on message’. Anyone that didn’t believe it and had a “Vote NO” as a computer screen background would have been summoned before HR for hate speech and reprimanded or worse, sacked. Is that freedom of opinion? Is that diversity? Or inclusion? Accept or face the consequences is hardly a way to encourage it. Diversity and inclusion only creates division and exclusion because only some people are allowed to voice free speech.  When the government funded Diversity Council tells Australian workers that the use of the word ‘guys’ is offensive then just how far are we willing to trade everyday freedoms and cultural norms? If one is triggered by the use of the word ‘guys’ or a preferred pronoun then they need a shrink not an HR department to help them.

The sad reality is that diversity should be won on the grounds of the argument rather than legislation. Just like the F1 race queen ban from this year. It doesn’t much matter to CM personally on what the F1 wants to do. Go on the MotoGP website and there is a “Paddock GirlssectionTo suddenly reverse a decision it so actively promotes would be utter hypocrisy. While the need to halt the objectification of women argument is bandied about, the women who do it are clearly happy to be objectified for a price. Instead of viewers being told to “get with the times” shouldn’t they be hammering the message to the umbrella girls to tell them they’re letting down their own side? Could it be they can exploit their beauty for some decent coin because they don’t share offense over the issue? Their looks are a virtue in their eyes. Are they wrong to use it their advantage? Would a Harvard MBA graduate apply to McDonalds for a cash register role so as to check his or her privelege to those that weren’t so lucky to study there?

Whether one likes it or not why not let sponsors decide how they want to spend their ad dollars and let consumers bury them if they find the use of advertising across a cleavage as “not with the times”? Why state control? Casey Stoner ended up marrying his pit girl and has a wonderful family now. If 10% of teams decided to keep pit girls but got 75% of the TV coverage before the start of the race could you blame them? Advertising is literally all about ‘exposure’. Or would race control demand the camera operators avoid them?

Further to that, perhaps F1 should ban the popular cockpit radio transmissions of drivers like Kimi Raikkonen who drop the F-bomb every other lap. Or is profanity now ‘in with the times’?

Should the forthcoming Tokyo Motor Show ban the use of scantily clad women standing next to cars? Last year Porsche, VW and Audi had several slick cut male models parading their products. Ladies were lining up to take selfies with these foreign himbos. If not for objectification, then what? Girls could be heard saying “cho kakkoi” (so handsome). As a male was I feeling insulted and triggered? No. I figured it was time to sign up for the gym, visit Hugo Boss for a sharp suit and book an appointment at a $300 hair stylist after I got back in shape. If I had made a song and dance about feeling uncomfortable at handsome men being treated like slabs of meat would I be granted the same rights to being offended? Not for a second.

Should pretty women be banned from starring in adverts?  Cosmetics companies have products that are pitched pretty much solely toward women but no one bats an eyelid when Giselle pouts a lipstick. Luxury goods stores also cater predominantly to women. No shortage of flesh showing off shoes, handbags or miniskirts. Why no outrage? Should Subaru be raked over coals for targeting same sex couples in its adverts? No. If it feels that is a market it wishes to tap then it should feel free to push for it. If I was offended then I could simply refuse to buy an Impreza WRX. I shouldn’t have a right to tell Subaru who it can and can’t sell to. That’s accepting diversity. Not enforcing my view of the world on others with respect to Subaru. Choice.

Put simply why should the subjective opinions of people (within reason) be such that we must comfort the wowsers at all times? Yarra Council is telling it’s 1,000 staff it mustn’t use the word “Australia Day” to refer to Janury 26, a Day celebrated since 1815! Aussie nurses and midwives are being told to check their white privelege and admit their colonial roots should a patient demand so. Shouldn’t the safe delivery of children be the only priority than have a “code of conduct” to force behaviours that have probably never if ever been an issue in decades? Bad bedside manner for healthcarers is one thing less likely to do with race, gender or sexual orientation than individual attitudes.

Still the message is zip it or be zapped. Next time you’re being told it is for diversity start running for the hills. Your subjective opinion is as equal as anyone elses provided you don’t disagree with the Marxist’s definition of ‘with the times


Diversity in Japan


Mizuho Bank was one of the first Japanese companies to openly embrace diversity and LGBT in a pride parade it promoted around 6 months ago . All the placards of ‘diversity is our strength’ and ‘inclusive society’ were displayed. The bank says it is the first in Japan to offer products which include housing loans that can be taken out jointly by same-sex partners, as well as principal guaranteed trust products — under which assets can be passed on to a same-sex partner.

According to an online survey by Dentsu in 2015, 7.6% of the population identified as LGBT. LGBT is not necessarily frowned upon at all. In fact many celebrities make a small fortune for being so. Matsuko Deluxe is a great example. She maintained her top spot in last year’s edition of the Nikkei Entertainment’s annual “Talent Power Ranking“.

For a culture that appears on the outside excessively conservative, variety shows embrace the very characters that shatter that myth. In such an orderly, consensus driven society their popularity stems from the fact they so brazenly buck the cultural stereotypes. After 20 years living here there would seem to be little evidence of blanket ‘discrimination’ against LGBT communities. Japan has existed more on a “don’t tell” mentality.

In the workplace more Japanese companies are embracing ‘nadeshiko’ to promote women. It was not uncommon to have a Japanese company look to marry off females to the legions of salarymen. So women were often overlooked for promotion for fear they’d raise kids and quit. While a terribly weak excuse to be sure one would hope that Japanese managers today  focus on hiring the best talent rather than hit predetermined gender quotas. There are plenty of talented Japanese women who can comfortably be selected on ability not gender. Although some will argue hard quotas will be needed so as to make companies feel comfortable they aren’t seen as ‘behind the times.’ Having said that government guidelines saw 90% of corporates adopt independent directors on their boards. Peer pressure seemingly works here.

However following ‘guidelines’ for the sake of it makes little sense. Were females more competent than the similarly ranked males on a 3:1 ratio in one company why not promote on that basis rather than a state suggested 2:1? If another company saw men 3:1 more skilled than women why wouldn’t a company want to rationally promote on those grounds? Indeed if companies look to succeed they should make decisions based on what is best for profitability and shareholders.

One corporate was asked this question of hiring more women at the AGM.  The CEO said he’d be only to glad to do so provided he could source suitable candidates. Hard to hit targets if the slew of applicants is 99% male. Indeed the company hires based on what it perceives as best fit for the business.

Things are changing in Japan on many fronts.

With marriage rates dwindling and childbirth nudging the 1mn mark per annum, more women are choosing to put the career first and have kids later and later.  Shotgun weddings now number 25% of all marriages and several companies are capitalizing on this trend by offering express matrimonial services. Society is changing. Note the report we wrote on the breakdown in the ‘nuclear family’ which tables in detail those seismic shifts.

Diversity in Japan. Far from wearing pussyhats and protesting with hostility there would seem to be many awaiting some centralized guidelines. While most would expect CM to tear strips off Mizuho for lining up for politicizing the workplace for once I’d credit it for “PROACTIVITY”. Indeed it wasn’t so long ago that then PM Koizumi had to tell corporate Japan that it was ok to take ties off in sweltering summer with power shortages in what was coined as “cool biz”.  Such a decision of common sense couldn’t be formulated by proactive management.

Mizuho’s credit doesn’t so much revolve around its appeals for more diversity rather for making a bold step to decide to do something like this without waiting for external guidance. With more internally driven open mindedness like this it paints a better role model for creating change.

This does not call for indoctrination of social ideals in the workplace. By all means provide hiring managers with better training on identifying talent but do not force identity politics in the office. Individual ability trumps identity every time.

So full marks to Mizuho. The message for Japan Inc to grasp from it is proactivity and common sense, not awaiting to be told what to do by some bureaucracy that is probably a worse offender of the guidelines it will inevitably seek to push.

Oxford giving extra time in exams to help women


In the fight for equality, Oxford University is allowing students ‘extra time’ during exams to help more females pass The only thing that rings in the mind is what an insult to women to think they need a leg up to make up for their supposed shortcomings in dealing with time pressure. More cultural Marxism pervading schools. The Telegraph reports

exam times were increased in a bid to improve the low scores of women, it has emerged…Students taking maths and computer science examinations in the summer of 2017 were given an extra 15 minutes to complete their papers, after dons ruled that “female candidates might be more likely to be adversely affected by time pressure”. There was no change to the length or difficulty of the questions...It was the first time such steps had been taken. In previous years, the percentage of male students awarded first class degrees was double that of women and in 2016 the board of examiners suggested that the department make changes to improve women’s grades.”

One wonders why Oxford  bothers with extra time and hand women first class degrees with a simpler test. What is the male to female ratio of students? Is that a factor? If men graduated with first class honors at double the rate of female students and it happened that men outnumbered women 2:1 then the system is surely showing no perceived bias.

What next? Give LGBT students an extra 30 minutes? Deduct 15 minutes for Caucasians? Or if you’re a disabled transgender aboriginal Muslim do you get as long as you like with the answer booklet to make sure of 100%? Sound extreme? 10 years ago if someone said women should get 15 minutes extra time people would think you’re mad. Anything goes. The ability to shut down freedom of speech and freedom of thought are rife through the education system. Full marks to them. Afterall we’ve happily submitted to accepting this nonsense.

It is utter lunacy to think that the only way to address equality is by stopping it dead in its tracks by blatant acts of educational vandalism. For Oxford to woefully submit to such stupidity speaks volumes about its future as a reputable institution that wants to foster free thinking.

One has to question why girls need a leg up when, as an example, the NSW HSC results for 2017 revealed:

76 girls snapped up first place certificates compared with 44 boys.”

Surely the boys have a right to 15 minutes extra to address this imbalance!

What next?


The Queensland Government has decided to remove ‘gender’ from licenses going forward after ‘pressure’ from the LGBTI community.  In what can only be described as a politically correct own goal by the Dept of Transport & Main Roads, surely the best way to pander to all of those minorities would have been to offer the choice of the 63 genders that are available. Imagine the amount of tax dollars we can waste on new sensitivity training for police to make sure that the can ‘protect and serve’ feelings. Or maybe that is the aim to create more state jobs?

What is a poor highway patrol officer (usually operating alone) who pulls over a driver over for speeding on the highway to do? What if he thinks the driver is over the limit when questioning him/her/zie? The bearded driver who looks male can pull out the genderless card and accuse the officer of using the wrong pronoun and request that an LGBT police officer administer any breath test procedure. In fact the driver might just claim an injustice has been served.

So will highway patrols be forced to carry a male, female and LGBT officer on pursuits with a fourth ‘independent observer’ from the Australian Human Rights Commission to ensure that feelings of drivers aren’t hurt?

We keep on being told diversity is our strength. Indeed it would be true were it not for repeated state indoctrination. We only need to look at how celebrating diversity works in places like California where one can be jailed for simply using the wrong pronoun. Welcome to the slippery slope.

EU pushes for 40% female representation on company boards

The EU in its infinite wisdom said that it wishes to mandate that company boards achieve a quota of 40% women. Even Germany considers this an overreach (even though its own goal by 2018 is 30%). This EU’s socialist charter to push for affirmative action was challenged in 1981 by Dr Thomas Sowell who completely debunked the myths put forward about the gender pay gap, discrimination and other stereotypes of minimum wage and income inequality. It is truly worth watching the 50 minutes or so of Sowell dispose of lawyer Mrs Pilpell whose weak liberal agenda gets ripped to shreds because is based on a lack of understanding and being loose with facts.

Don’t mistake the position of CM. If based on merit then have 100% female boards should they outqualify men. So assume that boards hit 40% women then what next? Should we hire a minimum percentage of LGBT, minorities, religious groups or disabled people to run companies? Since when should gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or disability be a bigger factor than capability  in running company boards? Shareholders expect one thing – returns. The Sydney Morning Herald wrote a puff piece on those boards without women on them underperforming. CM proved the hypothesis false.

CM wrote with respect to the SMH’s false assertion, “Note that the twenty companies listed in the article have the following 1yr and 3yr relative performance (i.e. vs. ASX 200). Note on an unweighted average over these 1 & 3 year periods, these chauvinistic men’s clubs outperformed the broader index by 22.7% and 89.9% respectively.”

Once again, gender ought to have nothing to do with it. Every ambitious, hard working female that has become truly successful in a man’s world never complained at any disadvantages they may or may not have had. They never played the woman card and I absolutely admire them to this day. One is a mentor some 18 years after we first met. So shouldn’t it be an insult to industrious women like her to see less hungry females given unfair advantages that weren’t earned through individual merit and effort like she had to endure to get there?

Yet such diversity programs designed to remove inherent biases in the system actually create the very discrimination it is designed to stop. All that matters is diversity of thought and if that happens to be women that provide that wisdom sign me up as a shareholder of every corporation that does so on merit. Listen to Dr Sowell – it is truly intelligent stuff. Poor Mrs Pilpell.

Let’s hope the Feds don’t take the same biases in investigations


Here we go again. The slippery slope of ‘diversity’ which does everything else other than promote inclusivity because by its very nature it is all about singling out exclusivity. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) brazenly states in its recruitment campaign that they want to get to 50/50 women. Of course there is no issue with hiring women. No ifs or buts. If you are a male, your chances of joking the AFP will be diminished no matter how qualified you might be. What has gender got to do with work performance, let alone the desire to ‘protect and serve’? In most police forces around the world the split is 70/30 men/women. Maybe it is just reflective of individual choices in careers rather than women being selectively discouraged?

The AFP wrote in response to their post,

There’s been a lot of commentary on the fact that we’re targeting women with this recruitment. We’d like to clarify a few things.

In the AFP, women currently comprise 22% of sworn police and 13.5% of protective security officers. Our goal is to increase this proportion to 35% in both streams by 2021.

Today’s ‘special measure’ recruitment action is designed to supplement our current recruitment process – we already have a pool of suitable male and female candidates who applied recently.

This action we’re taking will provide us with additional female candidates. It’s not going to displace existing recruitment pools and it will require applicants to meet all the existing gateways.

Under Section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act, the special measures we’re taking to achieve substantive equality between men and women in this organisation are legal.”

This lame excuse is yet another spineless rolling over to pander to political correctness. If. 20 candidates apply for 10 positions and there are 10 men and 10 women, wouldn’t it be best to hire 10 women if they were better qualified for ability than the 10 men? Or vice versa? So hire 5 extremely qualified women and 5 inept males just to keep a balance?

Last month CM spoke of the same garbage ‘diversity’ argument in the army.

Recruiters at the ADF have been told they must hire women or face relocation if they don’t comply. The recruiters say there are no jobs available for men in the in the infantry as a rifleman or artilleryman. But these positions are marked as ‘recruit immediately’ if a female applies. If a 50kg woman is in the artillery a 43.2kg M-107 shell is over 80% of her weight. An 80kg man would be lifting the same shells at around half of his weight. This is basic physics.

The West Australian newspaper reported one recruiter who said, “This is political correctness gone mad. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman – I just want to get the best person for the job.”

Yet the political correctness is promoted from the top. Defence chief, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, stressed the importance of diversity for the ADF. “A diverse workforce is all about capability. The greater our diversity, the greater the range of ideas and insights to challenge the accepted norm, assess the risks, see them from a different perspective, and develop creative solutions.”

So once again we are told to view this nonsense as completely acceptable. That the AFP puts gender above ability. Ability and passion are all that matters. Shame on the AFP for having a blonde white woman instead of one from a coloured background for maximum virtue signaling mileage. For all of the AFP’s expertise in forensic science it is an embarrassment to see them use a most flawed identikit for recruitment.

So what is next after the 50/50 target is hit? After all the AFP seeks to match society. Surely what follows is balance in sexual orientation, faith, race and other irrelevant aspects which should be irrelevant to job performance – all in the name of diversity – what a joke. Let men and women chose the AFP of their own volition and take the best of the crop.

Welcome to the nanny state.