#genderpolitics

One of the best interviews on identity politics you’re likely to see

Probably one of the best interviews of liberal logic being tipped on its head. The interviewer Cathy Newman defines everything about why identity politics is so divisive. From 22 minutes on you can see the guest, Jordan Peterson, utterly (but politely) destroy her illogical and hypocritical arguments after enduring 22 minutes of her nastiness. A joy to watch.

What next?

79D51C3D-04F6-4171-9104-0FDBD84CBFDF.jpeg

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.

Oprah – fantastic delivery to those lost in fantasy

793B184A-1AC1-4534-B290-05D68F701A07.jpeg

One can’t fault Oprah for delivery. Her Cecil B. De Mille award speech justifies her position as the highest paid performer in Hollywood. She’s eloquent! Despite her speech to an audience full of hypocrites who applauded every aspect of the victim culture that has not held 99% of them back. She is unsurprisingly lighting up liberal social media feeds. Hail the identity politics!

Oprah is the poster child of how America rewards talent no matter what background one comes from. She earns $140mn a year. While she can talk of the importance of the civil rights of the 1960s from a lino floor watching Sidney Poitier win the same award, the America today (and decades ago) hasn’t  held her back. She should be celebrating and acknowledging that change not rattling off how unjust the world still is. Sure it isn’t perfect but the injustices of the 1960s are virtually non existent by comparison. Show me a perfect society and we’d all move there.

After all a black president served two terms in America. Had he not won those elections would civil rights in America been immeasurably worse off since 2009?  Would parents of African-American descent have told their children to hold tight to their injustices had he lost? Or did they tell them to chuck them away when he won? Why wouldn’t Oprah cheer that? Afterall the virtue signallers in the audience would smile, cry and swoon on anything she said so out of touch with the world they are

While the washout from the Weinstein saga has yet to finally flood them out, here was Hollywood trying to sell themselves as paragons of virtue. Champagne socialism is alive and kicking.

It was so ironic that immediately after the Oprah speech Natalie Portman introduced the “all male nominees for best director” which only amplified how full of it Hollywood is. Could it be that most directors are male? The Golden Globes said that Barbara Streisand was the only female winner of a best director award in 1984. Could it be that Spielberg or Ron Howard pulls movie financing  more adeptly than others regardless of gender? Previous track record -> future sales expectations -> higher financing -> better cast -> more sales etc. it’s based on economics not gender.

Then Jennifer Chastain jumped in with the 23% gender pay gap quip in a room where they all get paid millions. Leading actors get paid more depending on movie, budget and a whole host of issues. I doubt Meryl Streep has suffered a 23% pay gap to her male actors in any of her movies since Sophie’s Choice or Kramer vs Kramer. Geena Davis added to the pay gap nonsense in her introduction. Yawn.

Yes, Oprah grew up in Jim Crow times. Indeed she witnessed first hand those injustices. Once again isn’t a night of virtue signaling better served by focusing on positives than nothing but negatives. Of course not. It’s terrible being a multi millionaire.

Frances McDormand talked of the time for a female president. Barbara Streisand banged on about gender inequality. By her own admission she won an award 33 years ago.

So the Golden Globes was all the same rubbish. 100s of Hollywood celebrities thinking their words carry any meaning or weight. Every social justice case was put to full effect. If they actually believed their own nonsense they’d do their utmost to repeal the very civil rights thy fight so vigorously to defend.

Iceland legislates equal pay for women

FD6A0813-35BF-444A-8544-C58363BEACB0

Google statistics on the gender pay gap and you can find an endless supply of stats supporting women earning a fraction of that of men. Iceland has now made it law. Companies with 25 members of staff and over are obliged to obtain government certification of their equal-pay policies or face being slapped with financial penalties. It makes absolute sense to pay equally for identical work but we all know from our own experiences that all workers don’t perform equally in the same role. That goes for both genders.

Take two salespeople (ignore gender for now). They both work the same hours, are both the same age and have exactly the same qualities. Over whatever time period set the first outsells the second person on a 2:1 basis. Competition in their industry is rife and the employer is worried that it might lose one of is better performers if it can’t reward them appropriately.

In a previous role as head of a sales department, the top saleswoman was paid considerably more than male counterparts for “performance”. Same role, same rank, similar age and tenure. Better pay. It was rational. Gender was irrelevant. Performance was what mattered. Would the Iceland law makers censure the gender discrimination against the men in the team? Not likely. Surely it would turn a blind eye and inwardly celebrate an overturn of decades of perceived injustice!

Companies will get tied up in irrelevant, costly and onerous red tape to defend common sense. That is time consuming. Companies will need to hire a whole department to protect them from behaving too commercially or rationally. All of a sudden instead of dealing with customers staff and management spend a growing amount of time ticking internal boxes so the company doesn’t get into any trouble. Customers lose and ultimately the company becomes less profitable as a result. Lose lose.

Take it a step further. If companies could hire one group for 20% less than another for exactly the same output why would they bother paying a premium for it? Makes no sense. So the argument that women are paid less for the same role is nonsense. Why would companies bother to hire men?

Take the world of super models. The top 20 females get paid north of $1mn per annum. There are two males that achieve it. Where are the masculinists screaming for equal pay? Is it not the corporation that sees more value in having Giselle Blundchen’s sultry looks than some 6-packed dude from the Polo Ralph Lauren catalogue? Same work? Not same pay! Still Giselle’s agents know her value to the ultimate revenues of a cosmetics company that Joey Sixpack simply can’t generate. Is that unfair? Surely if Giselle has her pay capped at 1/10th current pay she might refuse to work.

Regardless of the debate over gender balance, it is not strange to see men dominate the numbers in the military, emergency services and construction. These are workplace choices. If 80% of the people who want to apply for a particular industry are men or women then why force gender balance? Doesn’t the sheer number of men or women applying for a particular type of job speak volumes about real interest? Should army recruiters in Australia face demotion if they don’t hit gender targets? Should we want our military to be a social experiment or the most capable force of defending a nation? If more men are willing and capable to serve in artillery battalions why should we deny them? Isn’t motivation a desirable trait?

Another flaw in the gender pay argument is that of classification. Stanford Professor Thomas Sowell suggested personal and workplace choices account for much of the gap…perhaps the biggest reason is biology. Women make up 50% of the workforce but give birth to 100% of the babies. And if women choose to have children, their incentives change and this affects their choices of jobs, careers, continual service and hours spent on the job…and data compiled from the Census Bureau, unmarried women who’ve never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men…according to the Labor Department, “of men and women who work 30 to 34 hours a week, women make more, 109 percent of men’s earnings.

Of Sowell’s points, continual service is important. If a woman takes 10 years out of the workforce to raise kids while her husband is able to continue in his job one would imagine prospects for promotion would be on balance higher than hers if she returned to the workforce after a long absence. It doesn’t preclude women couldn’t climb a ladder or overtake her hubby but on balance this is but one factor.

The gender pay gap is a statisticians dream. One could slice and dice it to get the result one wants. However isn’t it an insult to women to think they need a regulated leg up in life? Some of the most successful women Known to CM are determined and the last thing that crosses their mind is that being a women is an impediment. Their drive and determination was an inspiration.

The left leaning Fairfax Media is already pointing fingers at Australia to adopt Iceland’s lead. Just what Australian industry needs. More red tape.

How well do you know your pronouns, bigot?

IMG_0880.JPG

How well do you know your gender pronouns? To be honest I was unaware of what they were. I had to look them up. After all laws in some parts of the world will make it a criminal and jailable offense to knowingly call someone by the wrong pronoun. Will the government be posting gender pronoun indoctrination reference sheets to all citizens? Will we have Gender Police roaming the streets like the Saudi religious police who enforce blasphemy laws?  How will governments be able to write to citizens using “Dear Sir/Madam”? Unless they add another page making sure all other variants are included. The above table is but a fraction of the number of pronouns there are.

Google’s banner when searching for ‘gender pronouns’  list – gender neutral, 4chan, they, non, non-binary, agend, personal, respect gender, different, LGBT, table English, neopronouns, inclusive, special snowflake, muh, non conforming, genderque, more than two and so on. Vanderbilt University for instance has wall plaques for staff which denote their preferred ‘pronouns’. At what point did people’s sense of self esteem become so fragile that governments are prepared to fall for it and introduce made up language and make laws to enforce it? Learning the times table was hard enough. Honestly, are people expected to learn Ne, Ve, Ey, Ze, Zie or Xe and all the variations? How psychologically weak must someone be to protest at being incorrectly referred to?

Yet this is the world we are creating. Gender fluid schools, cross dressing, penis tucking and chest binding for primary school students…the list goes on. Boys in Victoria will be allowed to wear uniform dresses to school. The same Victorian government is proposing that medical staff at schools be given the right to dispense drugs such as the contraceptive pill to girls as young as 11 without parental consent. Ottawa has introduced a law – Bill 89 – which gives the state the right to dispossess parents of their children who question their child’s identity.

All the while we are told identity politics is all about ‘inclusiveness.’ How can one have inclusiveness if these minority groups wish to remain openly and proudly exclusive? If we were truly striving for inclusivity then race, religion, gender identity, sexual preference and so on would not be barriers to anything. Why do governments even need to  consider changing public documents? What if you don’t identify as male or female and fly into a country where the customs entry card only lists M or F? Are they right to refuse entry or if they arbitrarily note you as male when you identify as something else? Will you protest at the customs official’s ignorance?

Progressive? Most people probably couldn’t care less what some people identify as. Next time I fly Qantas I am going to identify as an 11yo 4th gender African Wahhabi with dwarfism so I can fly at 50% off and see how far I get. Who are they to deny me? To get what I am on about listen to this interview on this very subject of ‘identity’ and the lunatic aruments made. Anyone who disagrees must by definition be a racist, sexist bigot and prosecuted. Sadly in the real world I have the worst identikit imaginable. I check all the wrong boxes which makes me the suitable target for all of this irrelevant nonsense.

Still to those that must identify with a different pronoun ask yourself – how incomplete is your life to feel that this will some how give you some sense of recognition you were lacking when referred to as he or she? Perhaps I should congratulate you in being able to get authorities to buy into this politically correct rubbish.

This push for identity stereotyping has to stop

IMG_0496

What is with the progressive push to add extra identities for passports, drivers licenses and other official documents? What is this huge push toward exclusivity preached by groups that plead for inclusivity? What is wrong with accepting biology for what it is? You’re born as male or female. You just are. It isn’t political. Whether a man chooses to identify as a 6yo girl is irrelevant. Honestly how much is one’s life going to change by being able to specify an identity?The reality is that hardly any of these people are ‘true’ victims other than in their own minds. The best example of true victims that wanted anything but to be stereotyped can be found on a wall at the Auschwitz museum in Oswiecm, Poland. An identification chart is on prominent display. It marks the deliberate labeling of people’s ‘identities’. One might be a Jew, a homosexual Jew, a political Jew, a gypsy, convict, political prisoner and so on. That your ultimate treatment may vary on what you were identified as. Everyone of these identity seekers today possessing absolutely superior human rights than these people murdered at the hands of true Nazis should visit the hall of pictures. Beautiful families and children who did nothing wrong other than to be Jews.

Look for Reina Kohn. A gorgeous 5yo child who perished. If you don’t weep at her murder there is something wrong with your moral compass.

IMG_0498.JPG

Look at the picture of Abraham Feiler. Look at the fear in his face. Murdered for being identified as a Jew

IMG_0499

You mean to tell me that fighting for the right to allow minorities to jail people for using the wrong pronoun (such as that being mulled in California) is in anyway comparable on a victimhood scale vs Abraham Feiler or Reina Kohn?

Time to wake up and end identity politics for good. The reality is that 99% of people have no issues with minorities having the same civil rights as others.

While Australia enters the same sex marriage debate, the 2011 Census highlighted same sex couples as 0.7% of total relationships. Those identifying as husband & wife in same sex couple relationships was less than 0.03%. It is a rounding error. Yet the debate over it is nothing short of sickening in the way it seeks to vilify those who think differently. People saying that you can’t cheer a gay sportsman like Ian Thorpe and then reject SSM. Then we have the Sydney Council spending $100,000 on the “Yes” campaign and Zero on the “No” campaign. Is that in anyway a sign of government respecting all views? Or only the ones that matter.

Yet everyday there is a new fight for some sort of social injustice and safe space trigger warning pushed by people who are so far removed from proper hardship as to beggar belief. Like I said to people when the Fukushima reactor melted down. The further away you get the more hysteric people become.

4 things that struck me including lightning that attacked the wrong Bolt

IMG_9130.JPG

4 things struck me this week about the depths we are allowing our society to plunge to. Reading much of the social media feeds it seems more people are prepared to defend the indefensible. That people are happy for the state to put forward bills that take away more freedoms, some who complain at the correct application of asylum policy and some willing to resort to physical violence on those who merely express free speech because they can’t win the debate in the marketplace for open debate.

1) All week we have been subject to the news in the aftermath of the London terror attack. If anything the tide seems to be shifting toward those that are wanting a more heavy handed response. The argument that the majority are peaceful Muslims is a reason to go soft on the violent minority is preposterous. Yet politicians including Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten, think words like “Islamic” are mutually exclusive alongside “extremist” or “terrorist.”

Whether one wants to debate the Quran verse for verse to justify separating these words is irrelevant. When such people scream in crazed tones about “Allah” as they carry out their evil deeds their interpretation is crystal clear. Some truly think that we win acceptance from those supporting caliphates by denying our own identity. Why give up on our culture for those beings who have no interests in enjoying the freedoms we provide much less reciprocating our kindness? Moreover the fate of most jihadists is generally so short they aren’t around long enough to benefit from our weakness.

It’s getting ever more ridiculous too. Countries  like Canada passed M-103 to ban Islamophobia forgoing every opportunity to include other religions by name. Germany now fines people who express concerns on social media over such Islamic extremism. Who could forget the cover up on rapes and sexual assault in Cologne on New Years Eve in 2016? Instead of taking a zero tolerance approach to the problem, honest citizens are gagged and threatened for raising a concerned voice because it is politically more acceptable.

I’ve just been in Victoria where a jihadi, who had terrorist links, murdered someone while on parole the other day. He died in the encounter. Instead of the Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews admitting fault for allowing him to roam the streets he turned the shortcomings of his own state’s legal decision making process into a blame game on the federal government for not dictating more powers over such rulings using the intelligence of ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. Well he has access to all that information and cooperation from these bodies yet still decided to let a jihadi out in general population. For a Premier that relishes government control over almost everything, how ironic that he tries to pass the buck when it is about subjects that may offend his voter base. Lame.

2) Ontario – how can people sit there and accept a law which allows the government to take children away from parents who refuse to accept their child’s gender identity or expression? Perhaps the parents should be tortured for good measure? If any parent was confronted with such a discussion with their kids most would be very concerned and want to be absolutely sure of the reasons behind such a decision. My kids have changes of mind over what they want for dinner. If dealing with sexual identity or expression most parents would naturally want to investigate the facts of why their child would seek to switch genders. It’s not just common sense but hard on parents too. It’s a serious topic. If we’re going to allow children to be able to overrule their parents on such decisions about their body, why not let them vote or drive at age 9? This is not saying they don’t have a voice. Why not suggest family counseling to help parents and children better understand the situation rather than threaten to snatch their kids for non compliance? Totalitarianism anyone?

Don’t forget that no matter what, parents are legally responsible for their kids. They have the stresses when they are sick, when they break bones in a park, come home late without phoning in, not to mention putting them thru schools, pay down a mortgage and so on. I wonder how many of the Ontario lawmakers are parents themselves?

3) I attended a speech given by the Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton earlier this week. Get Up had decided in its infinite wisdom to protest and try to prevent the forum. Instead of allowing others to express different views they wanted to shut it down in fine totalitarian fashion. Dutton gets a lot of rough treatment in the press although he is one of the few conservatives left in the Liberal Party. It’s a tough portfolio because opinions are so divided. His department cancelling the visas of seven Iranians who claimed asylum on grounds their lives were in danger only to be caught flying back to Iran for holidays. Not only did they deliberately lie to the government authorities and Aussie taxpayers they schemed our highly valued citizenship inappropriately. It doesn’t matter what race or ethnicity applicants are, we shouldn’t tolerate those scamming the system. We still have 5,000 asylum seekers who refuse to give up their identity or background. They have a deadline this year to do that but most are still refusing. What do they have to hide? Surely they’ve come here as a safe haven and if they’re truly escaping danger their stories should check out. Otherwise one has to assume they’re here illegitimately. Is this the image of a future model citizen? Is citizenship to be given away like confetti or is it a privilege worth cherishing? Yet all we hear is racist, bigot or worse if we raise any objection, sometimes with violent repercussions. The government has fast tracked the visas of 700 Yazidi women who have seen the males in their households murdered in front of them while they’ve been raped and made sex slaves by their medieval ISIS captors. Women from the Dept of Immigration have volunteered to go to these hot zones to accelerate their evacuation. So for all the flak Dutton cops, where are the feminists and progressives applauding such humanitarianism? They only want to focus on the gripes, red tape and protests to hinder the department’s efficiency to process the needy versus the selfish.

4) Which brings up the final strike. Conservative news columnist and TV presenter Andrew Bolt was physically attacked by leftist protesters yesterday for no other reason than to shut him down. Not only did he admirably defend himself in the unprovoked attack several media outlooks tried to turn it against him, suggesting he was a party to it. I’m sorry but what a slur. First, they were protesting his long held beliefs. I can guarantee you wouldn’t find Andrew Bolt initiating violence much less plotting to attend and disrupt a book signing event of a Marxist author. One he fervently believes in  free speech and secondly wouldn’t waste his time going out of his way to attend it. If these bullies of free speech can’t win an argument in the market place of open debate one has to assume their position is fatally weak to begin with. Having to ambush and spray glitter at a person who has completely fair and defendable positions is frankly pathetic. I dare them to ask to go on his show and debate their positions vs his. They would be forced to turn the glitter gun on themselves to hide their embarrassment one would imagine.

Be thankful we have people like Andrew Bolt not afraid to stand up for their beliefs. That stunt yesterday only makes Andrew Bolt look more right. At the same time all they’ve really done is kick an own goal by drawing even more attention to his number one rated blog, editorials, TV and radio programmess while they’ve attracted the attention of the North Melbourne Police.