#diversityisourstrength

Chinese military to crush Australia with a microphone & speaker

D05E28D1-B7F0-419A-8C7A-A44ABFEE5A97.jpeg

Here is a thought. If you get easily get triggered by gender bullying don’t join the military. Command Sgt. Maj. Edward Mitchell of the US Army said, “War doesn’t distinguish between gender and age. You can be 20 years old on the battlefield, or you can be 50, and you’re going to have to accomplish the same mission.”

China must be laughing. Instead of buying state of the art weapons to combat the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) it’d be better off popping down to its local consumer electronics store and investing in a microphone and a ghetto blaster so it can gender bully our overly sensitive LGBT soldiers into surrender. Never has the Knights who say Ni! scene from Monty Python’s Holy Grail summed up our leaders’ pathetic pandering to turning our military into a laughing stock.

However is it even true that all LGBT soldiers to a lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer individual feel in any way triggered by this garbage? Odds on the majority probably don’t but the top brass actively undermines them by classifying these individuals as a homogeneous group. The DoD and ADF probably consulted a few outside activists and drew a conclusion rather than ask those it directly affected. Canada made this very same mistake over Bill C-16.

Let’s be real. The majority of our troops join the military for love of country and sense of purpose. CM had drinks last week with a brave veteran who is setting up a technology to help the 10s of millions who suffer PTSD to cope. It is such a noble quest and CM will be an active member driving it.  He said he is sick to death of burying his mates from PTSD related suicide. It is a hard life in the military. Like CM wrote last week, the military shouldn’t be actively hiring spent cartridges. It is up to all people who join to fall under one purpose rather than expect preferential treatment. If corporates were to adopt the biased recruiting practices of the ADF they’d be fined, jailed and outed.

Yet our Minister for Defence is pushing for a “let’s turn our armed forces into a social experiment”agendaThe ADF has rolled out a “100 days for change” programme to encourage indoctrination of social diversity. Not diversity of thought or skill but identity. The Navy even painted finger nails pink to celebrate they were doing our bit. What a slap in the face of those who have served/currently serve.

As written last week, the ADF’s own gender study showed that half the female troops it was  designed to help think its pointless. Morale is skipping along at all time lows and people wishing to quit the military keeps climbing. Why does the military top brass not see that boosting morale won’t come from investing in magic pixie dust body armor to protect against hurt feelings? Yet the Department of Defence wants the ADF to double down on this stupidity.

Those that serve in the military just want to know that the person next to them is the most capable and solid individual both physically and mentally. In the pitch of battle, someone who will get feelings hurt when a commander gives an order will likely cost lives. Soldiers even have red cards they can pull on their commanding officers if they feel triggered during training. To that end soldiers know that gender, sexual orientation, race or religion play next to know part in a fire fight. Skill, courage and bravery do.

If the PC brigade has its way the next thing we know, LGBTQI battalions will march in rainbow camouflage. Sexual orientation and gender are irrelevant. The tasks don’t change on the field of battle.

If only CM’s grandfather Lt. Norman Martin Peterson – who served from 1939-45 – was able to read this nonsense! He was an eloquent and graphic writer from the battlefields of Crete, North Africa and the Pacific Islands but something tells me he would launch a verbal barrage to smash these PC fools into surrender.

Minister Payne should wake up and show the type of “pride” in the armed forces as one that is feared and respected. Is it any wonder we are among the most desired peace keepers because of our record of not being trigger happy cowpeople? As Gen Mattis once said of Aussie SAS troops, “I wish we had more of you sons of bitches among our allies!

The way we are politicizing the military shows the real enemy resides within our barracks. China is writing anti-PC taunts as we sleep. Maybe they don’t even need the speakers. Just make a YouTube video and stream it direct to hacked cellphones.

The US Army talks about the role diversity plays in the military

2768465E-C778-46C6-AA4F-6FCE573E77E8.jpeg

As Australian Navy personnel switch from rustproofing vessels to varnishing fingernails in pink, the US is upping its game on making sure fitness requirements are raised.

War doesn’t distinguish between gender and age. You can be 20 years old on the battlefield, or you can be 50, and you’re going to have to accomplish the same mission. This test helps you execute your warrior tasks and battle drills, no matter who you are,” said Command Sgt. Maj. Edward Mitchell, command sergeant major of the Center for Initial Military Training, during a test exhibition at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia.

The minimum Army standard is a 140-pound deadlift, a 4.6-meter power throw, 10 release push-ups, 3:35 minutes on the sprint-drag carry, one leg tuck and a two-mile run in no more than 21:07 minutes.

For the combat MOSs or units, it’ll be a 180-pound deadlift, a 8.5-meter power throw, 30 push-ups, 2:09 sprint-drag-carry, five leg tucks and 18 minutes for the run

Army Times reported that senior leaders have been trying out the ACFT for months. Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey and Maj. Gen. Malcolm Frost, the head of CIMT, told reporters in July that they had both taken it ― and that they both needed to work on lower body strength for the deadlift.

The Army is also considering raising the standard higher again before implementation in 2019.

Contrast that with Australia where we are dropping standards for the sake of equality and diversity. Let that sink in.

 

If you’re easily triggered don’t join the military

281C303E-99E3-4815-BD0C-60DF6EB69C94.jpeg

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) should never be actively trying to recruit spent cartridges to serve. What is the purpose to train people that don’t wish to step in harm’s way? Yet our top brass is hell bent on diversity and equality targets. Let’s not get the message confused. Those who actively seek to defend our nation with dignity and bravery deserve our highest praise and support. As written yesterday, it is absolutely clear that the project, even by the ADF’s own data and reporting, is failing. Instead of admitting defeat, the armed forces leadership believes doubling down is preferable.

The Navy thought serving RAN seamen painting fingernails pink in order to push the ‘100 Days for Change’ campaign was more virtuous than spending to defend our nation. Make no mistake, China’s military is not pandering to politically correct posturing. They must have chuckled at this overt display of weakness. President Xi wants to make his country the dominant, God-fearing player in the region and as far as displaying weakness goes Australia may as well hand over the keys to the Lodge.

8CFA86F1-D49C-41F8-8F36-2069B5DF13EF

Speaking to people related to personnel in the Defence Department yesterday, the argument was that diversity is a good thing. When asked to defend the position the individual couldn’t come up with a credible answer. The strongest argument offered was that allow smoother integration into civilian life. Since when did it become a current employers role to help the transition of leavers? Surely the aim is to keep soldiers for the long term not support the 25% who are actively looking to quit.

CM posed a question back. Usain Bolt can run 100m faster than me. I’ve wanted to hold the 100m world record since I was a kid. In order to fulfil my subjective sense of self worth he should be forced to run 150m while I’m at 75m. It’s a stupid argument.  Much like a heavyweight male boxer fighting a female heavyweight in the quest for equality.  The man is likely win 100% of the time. Look at men identifying as women  making such a mockery of women’s sports. Let’s openly accept that I’ll never beat Bolt and there is no point pretending it. If the ADF want to celebrate diversity, embrace the existence of biological and  physiological differences. Stop this nonsense that “diversity is our strength”  because outside of diversity of thought it doesn’t.

Therefore “if” men happen to be more qualified in terms of strength, endurance, fitness, accuracy or whatever metric that is chosen, why shouldn’t they be recruited over women? If women prove to be superior than men on the same metrics then they should be hired over the men they beat.  As written yesterday, the ADF lowered the targets for women because they were too onerous in the hope the execution rate would be more easily achieved yet they missed by a wider margin. Instead of actively accepting fewer women are interested in a military career than men, males are actively discriminated against. Recruiters face demotion for not complying with big brother. In civilian life companies would be fined and face jail terms for operating similar structures. So much for equality!

It’s not rocket science. The military should never be a social experiment. Period. Our military leadership even wants to ban death symbols. Honestly if death symbols make our troops feel better morale then let them. What  surprise that our diversity programs are sinking morale to record lows? Even a large slug of female military  personnel don’t believe these programmes are effective yet we will push our Waterloo strategy.

CM is going to take a wild stab in the dark. War veterans or those in special forces must be rolling their eyes. Some SAS soldiers have confessed that in training, new cadets are able to raise a red card if they feel their instructor is being too harsh? Discipline is the most important part of a military. Following orders. Surely in the heat of battle a commander needs to be able to order troops to take a hill or position, not spend crucial minutes debating subordinates on the validity of the plan. If one is so easily triggered by members of the home team how effective could they possibly be in battle? Instead of waving a white flag why not waggle pink fingers to the enemy in the hopes they won’t be shot?

Time for the military to be handed back to professional soldiers not caught up in political correctness. If our enemies are “sons of bitches” best we become “total sons of bitches” rather than “fairies”.

Diversity in the ADF – lower targets missed by even wider margin

D61DCB9C-6778-4D4B-BCBE-83002FA4E1EC.jpeg

What sort of defence force can Australia rely on if our military brass blathers on about the importance of “diversity”? The irony is that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) reduced the actual female recruitment target and missed it by an even wider margin. Instead of respecting the pure vocational choices of men and women somehow the military seems to think ever higher levels of discrimination will overcome it. Military morale is not high.

Navy News reports that,

100 Days of Change, running from July 1-October 8, aims to strengthen the momentum for individuals to improve our operational effectiveness by committing to gender equality and equity at all levels.

There is only one thing a military needs to do – be capability effective. It should focus on candidates who fit that requirement. Nothing else matters. Yet RADM Mark Hammond said,  “We must do this as one Navy, regardless of age, rank, race, religion, sexual orientation, ability or gender,” Indeed he should but such outcomes do not come through blatant discriminatory practices.

Shouldn’t a military focus on capabilities of the individual – whether he/she meets the “same” minimum fitness requirements (women have easier standards to pass), can hit enemy targets or whatever objective is set out. If 100 women are better than 100 men for the specific role then the military should hire 100 women and vice versa. Imagine if 100 men proved to be more capable than 100 women for a particular skill? In order to to hit targets, 25 men would be shunned to make way for inferior skills. If 100 women were better in this hypothetical situation, imagine the outrage if only 25 were selected for the 100 positions to keep the diversity target? It wouldn’t and shouldn’t happen.

Is discrimination, where recruiters face demotion if they don’t hit gender based targets, the way we want to run a military? Let’s take a look.

In the 2015-16 Women in the ADF report we see the Navy wishes to have 25% women by 2023  it stands at 21.3% today, up from 19% in 2016.

935713BD-645B-4A29-A199-C16CC4CC7822.jpeg

If we were to look at actual vs target, it seems that the path is diverging. Isn’t that indication that women are less interested in the military as a career choice? Yet the Navy is forced to discriminate against males in order to hit targets.

So has the Army  it wants 15% by 2023 and is tracking marginally ahead with the ultimate aim of 25%. Could it be that 15% is the “natural” rate of women wanting to join the armed forces?

D3E8E0E5-1004-4F34-BFAB-AC80B4A36E6A.jpeg

The Air Force is also aiming for 25% by 2023 but is tracking below target.

52794261-2AE5-489E-BE1B-C5AC9F68A43E.jpeg

We should reflect on a study conducted around the world covering over 100,000 subjects which revealed that the countries with the biggest push/policy provision for equality and diversity cause the opposite to occur when choices are exercised. Scandinavia is the perfect example. Men and women don’t sort themselves into the same categories if we leave them alone to do it of their own accord through policies that tend to maximize equality. In Scandinavia it is  20 to one female nurses to male and approximately the same male engineers to female engineers,

Yet look at the lengths the Royal Australian Air Force goes to in order to hit diversity through blatant discriminatory practices.

“In support of this growth path Air Force has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, a number of recruitment and retention initiatives such as:

  • specific female recruiting target
  • Women in the Air Force marketing campaign
  • continuation of embedded specialist women recruitment team in Defence Force Recruiting
  • the trial of a reduction of Initial Minimum Period of Service (IMPS)
  • introduction of the Graduate Pilot Scheme (GPS) for women
  • changes to direct entry female pilot return of service obligations
  • continuation of experiential camps for girls (technical and aircrew focussed programmes)
  • release of an Air Force produced recruitment guide, ‘PropElle’, to support female pilot candidates through the recruitment process.

No such programs are available for men.

Despite all these programmes, surely any squadron leader with any common sense wants the most effective fighting force. Once the canopy closes, they depend on each other.

What an insult to women to think they need all these artificial prop ups to get ahead. Every ambitious women CM has ever met has never relied on free kicks but sheer determination, grit and above all ability.

53450D05-9E3C-4C77-B72C-9231FAA284E7

It is clear in the table above that all three military branches missed female recruitment targets in 2015/16. The irony is even after lowering the numerical targets of female hires in each military branch over 2014/15, recruiters missed by an even bigger margin. Evidence that on balance women are less likely to join the military when driven by personal choice!

The ADF paper also notes that women quit at higher rates than men, especially at the trainee stage. Men are also much more likely to remain in the military than women after 18mths of parental or maternity leave.

CB5A7FDE-B49A-4DE7-A6DB-854AB4228C42.jpeg

In terms of gender pay gap there are marginal differences. In the senior ranks – Commodore (Navy), Brigadier (Army) and Air Marshall (Air Force) – women are paid more than men on average. Although the ADF “determines work value and subsequent remuneration proposals based primarily on capability delivery. Where there is a direct or similar civilian (non-military) occupation, market relativities may contribute to remuneration determinations. One example of this is in Defence’s technical trades, where there are measurable market influences and relativity for trades such as vehicle mechanics.

In terms of effectiveness of these diversity programmes,  the data is also telling  a little more than half of women think it makes  difference. 45% of men also agree. Hardly overwhelming evidence.

BE9BBB6A-F48A-4283-BC08-067BE1397457.jpeg

When addressing morale, only 40% of men and women feel positive. Confidence in senior leadership was around 63%. Not exactly the figures that make a war fighter. 22% of women are actively planning to leave the military and 25% of men. If the military keeps it up perhaps male  resignations will help boost the percentages of female recruits that don’t seem keen to join.

2BEAE1C5-8B50-453A-85AC-83060F4D0952

The military is the last place that social experimentation should be conducted. Let’s be clear that China, Australia’s most realistic threat in the Asia-Pacific, doesn’t practice diversity in the PLA. It projects capability.

Should our frigates be sunk, our fighters shot down or our artillery troops shelled to smithereens, at least we can say they didn’t die in vain but won the war of diversity. Await the rainbow camouflage to broaden our “wokeness”

Bosch Japan celebrates diversity in the kitchen

419C95B1-7517-4928-ACBA-2D8DCFAE27F9.jpeg

“In order to create a diverse environment, we first begin to understand!”

Hello! from the Bosch, Public Relations team!
From this week, the Bosch Japan group begins with the diversity of the country’s food in the dining room at each office factory.

This is a part of the initiative of ” Diver City Day which is widely expanded around the global Bosch group.

The aim of the initiative is to have a new approach and its own ideas, and to be able to respond to a variety of customer needs, and eventually the company’s success will lead to the success of the company.

We want to build a variety of HR initiatives in order to create more diverse environments in the future!

What is this obsession with corporates feeling compelled to ram “diversity” down staff throats? Why not just serve foreign cuisine and let staff enjoy it? They’ll notice it. Stick a Thai flag in the meal if need be to denote where it is from.  Why not let them provide feedback of their own volition? Will the workers all of a sudden feel after eating Egyptian cuisine that their customers at Mazda are in need of Arabic on their diesel pumps? Why not secretly record lunchtime conversations to ensure staff are “on message” otherwise force them to do hours on end of appropriate workplace behavior classes? Did the diversity brigade in the kitchen consider that Jews or Muslim staff (if any in Japan) can’t eat pork? Lest they be offended.

Bosch is an auto parts manufacturer which in Japan would serve predominantly Japanese customers. Will diversity rally the troops to higher levels of excellence? Completely immeasurable. Will Bosch customers select them on the cost performance of their products or pay premiums because the staff canteen serves chicken satay and tacos?

Indeed if Bosch HR & PR think they have a diversity problem that requires remedying through the kitchen then perhaps we should question their substandard hiring practices that allowed such bigots on the factory floor in the first place. Seriously, if they feel that staff are so out of touch that they require re-education, why not waste more money on internal indoctrination. Bosch be warned – virtue signaling can backfire.

Look how well things have gone for Starbucks preaching their virtuous side. Now staff are concerned their seating areas/bathrooms (now open to all after bending to social pressure based on something they were well within their rights to do) will be open to homeless people or drug addicts looking for a place to shoot up. So in order to appeal that the coffee chain is of higher moral standing they’ll happily trade alienating paying customers to achieve it. Lunacy. By that measure every corporate office should open their amenities to anyone. How shameful they put their businesses before humanity.

Maybe Bosch should look to hire based on diversity rather than quality of engineering talent. You can be sure that’s won’t lead to “success of the company”. Quite the opposite. Note Bosch is sponsoring these ads on social media. Pathetic. It is sort of like those people that profess their love and happiness endlessly on social media. So lacking in confidence are they in their partners that they feel safer telling the world instead of the one that matters.

Overthrow the Monarchy? What would the left do without it?

52000C3D-E1D1-4EBC-ADCA-149651BC8069.jpeg

Kenan Malik of The Observer wrote of the need to ditch the monarchy. His view was that adding skin colour to the mix won’t change the overall desire to throw it in the dustbin of history. He said,

Nor can I work out why adding a few more black dukes and duchesses, or even kings and queens, should be a step forward. Equality does not mean making inherited privilege more “diverse”. It requires us to get rid of the whole shebang. Adding a splash of colour to a feudal relic is not my idea of social progress.

So typical is the envy of the left that they want to strip everything from the Royal Family and make them all commoners. Why not turn Buckingham Palace into a soup kitchen and boarding house? Put Queen Elizabeth into a waiting list for public housing. Ignore that Prince Harry and others in the Royal family have served their country in the armed forces. Harry put his life on the line in defence of his country. It is a wonder whether Malik has served his country with as much distinction. What fine men the princes have become despite the tragic loss of their mother.

However we should examine the hypocrisy of the left to overthrow the monarchy. BBC, the socialist biased state broadcaster rejected its charter and couldn’t help itself throw President Trump under the bus in terms of comparing crowd numbers at the Inauguration versus Harry & Meghan’s wedding. Three things;

1) were it not for the overwhelming popularity (18mn watched it in the UK alone and 100s millions worldwide) of the Royals then the BBC couldn’t have an opportunity to bash the President in this way;

2) for the Queen to accept a divorcee into the household to marry her grandson shows how ‘progressive’ Her Majesty is. Good luck getting the Japanese Imperial Household Agency accepting something like this. The left should praise her open mind not censure her for being an out of touch bigoted granny and;

3) the wedding was all about diversity which the left loves so much. The 14 minute self-indulgent hijack (sorry, sermon) from a black bishop to a black cellist to a black choir. The music was indeed delightful. Harry even drove away in a ‘save the environment’ electric Jaguar E-type although one could argue that an original petrol version might not have started.

Malik should study the 2015 survey by Yougov which found 68% of the British public believe the monarchy to be good for the country and 71% think it should remain in place. The total annual cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is £292m. Brand Finance Research believes the monarchy tips in around £1.8bn per annum to the UK economy. That is to say they more than pull their weight.

He shouldn’t envy the Royals but pity them. Think of what the Queen has sacrificed in the 66 years she has ruled. Sure the accommodations at Buckingham and Windsor Castles are comfortable, not to mention the numerous butlers and servants who make life easier but think of what she has had to give up in terms of privacy to serve her country. Think of the paparazzi who hounded Diana to her death over 20 years ago. The Duke & Duchess of Sussex will be increasingly scrutinized by the media. The mainstream media would die without the monarchy.

Yet Malik drones on about his real hidden agenda suggesting, “As for the belief that Meghan will break down barriers for black people and make minorities more accepted as truly British, that’s as anachronistic as the monarchy. Faced by an abusive skinhead or by a police officer about to stop and search me, my first thought has never been: “If only there was a black Windsor, then I might be accepted more.”

How in the name of all that is holy that he can talk of how poorly minorities are treated by the British police in 2018? Perhaps he should look at the shameful cover-ups over ‘Asian rape gangs’ by the police over decades to show how the complete opposite is true. Or answer why two ‘white’ fathers were arrested by the police for trying to rescue their underage daughters from rape dens? They were charged with illegal entry and disturbing the peace. Or the arrest and deportation of EU citizen Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone looking to make a speech at Speaker’s Corner and conduct an interview?

Society may be far from perfect but to run these identity narratives using the monarchy as a beacon of bigotry serves no purpose when the facts are examined. Perhaps he should take up his victimhood with London’s first Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan because voters are so against minorities. No, it’s just easier to imply that white Brits are xenophobes and the monarchy embodies that same white privilege. Until we guillotine the Royals, the sharp remedy that will cure this lack of diversity awaits.

Zip It or be Zapped

EE607F58-63C2-419F-8427-7C4C0E6A322F.jpeg

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