#genderpolitics

#CancelWhitePeople Sarah Jeong dumped by NYT

What irony that The NY Times finally came to the conclusion what the majority knew about potty mouthed Sarah Jeong, albeit 12 months too late. The picture above shows a selection of tweets before she was hired by NYT. Despite that, NYT defended her hire.

CM wrote back in August 2018,

“Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.

The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?

After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.

How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.

CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.”

Now the NYT has terminated her contract. Undoubtedly her contribution was as empty as her Twitter bile. She will now be a contributor, a rather large downgrade from being on the editorial board. She tweeted about the NYT paying attention to subscriber numbers, something the paper might have considered at the start.

Maybe her impact was one which didn’t ring the turnstiles at NYT. It is likely the same reason why The Guardian begs for charity instead of coming to terms with the fact that the content maybe the problem.

Note NYT is offering Aussies an 80% off subscription deal for a year.

Spectacular own goal scored by our elitist academics

Image result for marxist university poster

The beauty of those that wrote this open letter supporting the Extinction Rebellion throws up some very enlightening facts. Read it and weep. Not the letter – the stats.

Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter is Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility of the cabal of 268 academics who believe they have some sort of intellectual superiority over us. If one ever wanted proof of our judiciary leaning hard left, 12% of the people that signed this document were in law-related fields.

Yet, why couldn’t they sign up a majority of scientists in the profession of the very climate change emergency they wish to sanctimoniously lecture us on? And we are paying billions to these schools to educate us? Hmmm.

Many of the woke academia come from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender, racism…are you catching the drift of those supporting XR? Even Monash University’s Campus Operations Manager and Telephony Application Administrator signed it! Wonderful individuals but should we hold our educators to such high standards when anyone’s opinion will do?

Eerily, over 90% of the signatories do not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science. Which means, why weren’t the scientists in these universities willing to commit their names to a cause that fits their ideology? Who needs them when one faculty member from Monash University deals with ‘Imaginative Education‘?

61% of the signatories were from universities situated in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria. Within that, 65 (more than all those that signed from NSW universities = 63) of those 164 names from Victoria were from RMIT, the school where the lecturer offered bonus points for sending selfies from the school climate strike. Precious little free thought one imagines.  Monash had 44. So two universities in Melbourne made up 109 of the 268 Add La Trobe University and half of the signatories are from Victoria. Premier Dan Andrews must be proud.

Tinonee Pym, a research assistant at the Swinburne University of Technology in NSW helped pen,

C’mon, no one wants a dick pic’: exploring the cultural framings of the ‘dick pic’ in contemporary online publics

Undoubtedly this research has only certified climate science credentials at Swinburne University to convince sceptics of the validity of XR.

Southern Cross University was the only group of signatories where the majority had a connection to a faculty related to climate science.

On reflection we should be exceptionally happy these woke academics have opened themselves up to how empty their rhetoric is. The overwhelming majority of signatories are from liberal arts backgrounds. Surely with the aggregate IQ of 268 people they could have realized the flaw in pushing a cause where the qualified people that can prosecute the argument for them are conspicuously absent.

We need a Royal Commission on our education system. The gaping holes in standards are self-evident. This is an unmitigated clown show.

The Woke will end up being the Joke – as usual

Do the marketing departments of these corporations honestly believe they will gain anything via this ill-considered moral preening? Do they have any real cohesive cognitive plan outside of vacuous virtue signalling to appeal to an existing or potential client base that has already moved on?

What is the bet had Alan Jones told PM Scott Morrison to shove a sock down President Trump’s throat that they would have said absolutely ZIP. Maybe they’d up the spend? The double standard is guaranteed. What it really says is that the marketing teams are pandering to their bigger client – trying to appear relevant to their own management team. Such gutless and spineless actions speak volumes of the utter uselessness of marketing teams in general.

Before dozens of woke corporations pulled their adverts from the top-ranked radio jockey, did they ponder for one second that their clientele who listen to him probably haven’t collapsed into an inconsolable heap? What is more, they couldn’t care less what Anytime Fitness, Chemist Warehouse or Big W think.

It doesn’t take much imagination to work out the utter brain dead groupthink in these marketing meeting rooms (echo chambers) of corporate Australia as they seek to self-censor to justify their glaringly redundant roles. No rocket science is required. Big W could have had a special campaign on socks and BBQ charcoal. When did Australia lose its sense of humour? Especially at the expense of our neighbours across the ditch. It is not to condone Jones’ remarks but it is only because NZ PM Jacinda Ardern is the high priestess of woke causes that these corporates have buckled.

If the decision to advertise on Jones’ program was made because of his reach and ideally the “right” demographic for their products, will they stand to gain anything from this? Haven’t they studied Gillette’s latest 180-degree flip on trying to win back customers they have probably lost for good in that ridiculous self-inflicted $8bn brand destruction?

The Jones’ clientele is likely to remain exactly the same. The ratings will unlikely budge a jot. The activists moaning to have ads pulled are probably the least likely to use their products and services in any case.

For instance, why would anyone think that Commonwealth Bank (CBA), which has been found seriously wanting in the ethics department after the Royal Commission, has any leg to stand on over Jones’ remarks? CBA is still pondering what to do. Do they follow the herd (proving marketing departments aren’t warranted) or twist 2GB’s arm to get some bonus slots for showing loyalty?

Here’s an idea. Why don’t CBA and others leave the moral grandstanding to their customers? When people withdraw cash at an ATM it is highly unlikely they’re going to punish them by closing their accounts. Why not keep tabs on the number of complaints from its 10m customers and see if they number more than 0.000001% of the total. Don’t marketing departments use data? Clearly not.

So watch this space. Corporate boardrooms might think their marketing teams walk on water but if they opened their eyes for a moment would soon find their utter lack of creativity and zero value add as clear as crystal. Or maybe they’re just as out of touch to fall for the Yes, Minister PowerPoint presentation.

Look at the bullying by groups such as Mad Fucking Witches. Can corporates take activists seriously with names like that? How weak are they to fold when words like “complicit” are thrown at them. Once again marketing departments should study data, not fear standing up for themselves.

The double standards of companies like Koala Mattresses, which is happy to have the potty-mouthed Clementine Ford as a brand ambassador (who has a long track record of tweeting profanity, misandry and killing all men) but preach sanctimonious tripe over pulling advertising from Alan Jones’ program.

Make no mistake. The woke are already looking like the bigger joke. These self-appointed enforcers of a moral points system President Xi might approve of have even ignored Jones’ unconditional apology for his remarks. Tells you exactly what ideology is being preached inside so many Australia’s companies. It is hardly the stuff that will rescue them in a slowdown. The ones which have cut Jones have signalled why they don’t make good investments. Get woke. Go broke.

NB Mad Fucking Witches deleted this post because as always with the radical left the only free speech that matters is their own.

Open letter to the Hon. Cate Faehrmann MLC

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann MLC,

The public wishes at all times for politicians to represent them. However, a member of parliament should refrain from full-blown activism. No one questions reasoned conviction. There is a difference.

However, is it right for you to openly support rallying protestors to potentially disrupt law enforcement in the neighbouring state of Queensland over Adani? To then claim Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk’s government was out of line to “silence climate and anti-Adani activists” who were disrupting a public that overwhelmingly voted in favour of Adani going ahead. Perhaps you might reflect on what some may view as a double standard of silencing those that criticize you for failing to prosecute arguments on your own social media pages?

Do you represent the people of NSW or Queensland? Because if it is the latter you should be running for office there. We have no business meddling in their politics as much as they have no say in how ours is run. That’s how democracy should behave.

In what should have been an important speech you made about women’s rights on abortion, you had to drag it into irrelevant mudslinging surrounding the gender pay gap (illegal), identity politics (feminism) and treating domestic violence as a one-way street.

According to a UK study on domestic violence,

“Male victims  (39%) are over three times as likely than women (12%) not to tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.

The number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has increased sevenfold since 2004/05. From 806 in 2004/05 to 5,641 in 2015/16…In 2015, 119,000 men reported to English and Welsh police forces stating they were a victim of domestic abuse. 22% of all victims who report to the police are male. In 2012, 73,524 men did…

Men don’t leave abusive relationships for various reasons – the top reasons being: concern about the children (89%), marriage for life (81%), love (71%), the fear of never seeing their children again (68%), a belief she will change (56%), not enough money(53%), nowhere to go (52%), embarrassment (52%), not wanting to take kids away from their mother (46%), threats that she will kill herself (28%) and fears she will kill him (24%). 

Of those that suffered from partner abuse in 2012/13, 29% of men and 23% of women suffered a physical injury, a higher proportion of men suffering severe bruising or bleeding (6%) and internal injuries or broken bones/teeth (2%) than women (4% and 1% respectively). 30% of men who suffer from partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.

Let’s be clear – domestic violence is abhorrent on every level, but it is disingenuous to suggest it is a one-way street because it is simply not. Thank God for those toxic males who took out a knife-wielding perpetrator in Sydney’s CBD recently. You may note that Gillette has now flipped its ‘woke’ advertising campaign to champion what it recently censured to the cost of US$8bn in destroyed market value.

You even took the liberty in your speech to have another swipe at Alan Jones AO in what one can only deduce in the hope he loses his job. You went as far as highlighting ‘male’ and ‘female’ in bold font when referring to him. To what aim?

Unfortunately for you, his career is a matter for his employers, not for a NSW MLC with an axe to grind. He broke no laws. If this speech was truly about abortion, why the need to attack a radio presenter for holding different beliefs to you? He admitted he crossed a line and apologized for it sincerely and publicly, including a letter to PM Ardern who gracefully taunted him back with a sledge over the likely outcome in the Bledisloe Cup. Touché. Two adults who made peace between the only parties concerned.

Since when is it your business, or anyone else’s, to barrack for his dismissal? If you support free speech then you should support it even when those views clash with your own, including Alan Jones. People can make their own minds up about him. He has been put on notice by his employer. It has been sickening to witness those utterly spineless advertisers hiding behind self-censorship post the Ardern event.

If we looked at the ratio of men Jones has pilloried on his radio program over the years it would far outweigh any misogynistic narratives you secretly must wish to be true. It would be safe to assume you are not a regular 2GB listener in the mornings. Perhaps you might ask Peta Credlin if she believes he is the misogynist you charge him to be to cohost a Sky news program with her? For your speech on abortion could be equally interpreted as misandry, given the one-sided stance it took.

Yet on the subject of abortion, it might help to delve into all of the facts.

It is an absolute necessity to ensure safe hospital/clinic-based abortions are made available where it is warranted and necessary. It should never be seen as a way to sacrifice those on the altar of convenience, especially where some cultures choose to do so on the basis of gender, usually at the expense of females. So much for feminism.

Do you think this is only a traumatic thing for women? Is it possible that some fathers of the fetus can suffer considerable anguish with regards to termination? Should they wish to raise by themselves, should they be denied that right, no matter how small the probability of such a scenario?

1,000 women may die from unsafe abortions in The Philippines. It is terrible. Your speech made reference to the WHO and the five million women hospitalised from abortion-related complications. 47,000 die. Another awful statistic.

Perhaps you might look at the even more ghastly stats on abortion.

c.700,000 fetuses are terminated in America each year. Down from 1.4 million in 1990. Hardly stats to cheer about. Of course, the arguments for a woman’s right to choose will always be thrown at pro-lifers. Yet allowing termination until birth in places like New York, a city that lit up monuments in celebration of being able to terminate right up to the point of delivery rightly raises concerns about infanticide.

Eurostat statistics on abortion reveal that Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy alone terminate a combined 760,000 fetuses per annum. Across the EU-28 there are 1.25mn terminations. Without getting into a debate on abortion rights, the pure statistical number points to 20.4% of fetuses never make it out of the womb alive.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, some 56 million abortions occur annually. Every. Single. Year. To think that WWII saw 50 million deaths in 6 years of conflict with the widespread use of lethal weapons. So abortions kill at a far higher rate than global conflict. What a sobering thought.

Now even the religious “far-right”, as you call them, can distinguish between medical need and the irresponsibility of couples to engage in sexual activity. RU-486 was supposed to be the miracle cure that ended abortion for good but the numbers remain so high. It is tragic. We should all reflect on how to improve the choice set made available.

You claim that a mother might not be positioned to give the best start in life to a child. Is that the only out? What might the fetus say? Unfortunately, the fetus doesn’t get any rights and this is what some “far-right” people question. You might argue it is just a clump of pre-formed cells. What if that tissue turned into the next Einstein or Mother Teresa? You would actually find more pro-life advocates support alternatives to abortion, including far more robust adoption facilities to give the unborn the right to life. At the moment the current rushed debate in NSW Parliament is purely binary.

With respect to Planned Parenthood (PP), only 3% of its patients are abortion-related in number. Most of it is related to pap smears, health checks, birth control and other consultations. Yet in its latest annual filing, every single division saw a decline in business activity except abortion and guess what? Total revenues rose appreciably. Which essentially means that abortion is the highest margin service offered by PP.

Which begs the question, why is there a pressing need to rush abortion legislation in NSW? People are free to travel to Queensland or Victoria to have it conducted as much as someone in Alabama can travel to New York to have a procedure.

That is not a valid reason to prevent an update to abortion legislation in NSW but it has been so ill-considered and done under unnecessary pressure without balanced and reasonable debate or due process. It deserves nothing less, even if it includes dragging those from the stone-age kicking and screaming. No wonder the Premier has had to back down. It was poorly executed from the start.

You’ll find the “far-right” less of a menace by allowing reasoned legislation based on common sense and civil discourse.

As far as forcing doctors to conduct abortions against their conscience, that is something that has no place in any legislation. There will undoubtedly be enough medical practitioners who do not carry guilt in conducting abortions yet the state has no place forcing the will on those who don’t. Surely the marketplace in our digital world can quickly separate those who will and won’t terminate fetuses purely based on gender selection.

If you truly wish to advance the cause of women’s rights, engage all sides of the debate. Your opinions are as valid as those on the other side of the coin. They should be weighed by the market of free speech.

The power of listening to all perspectives is what is needed more than ever in politics. Instead of defending your own, defend those of others. If your arguments are compelling then they will stand on their own merit.

Yours sincerely,

M. Newman

Man of Steal tripped up by his own kryptonite

The pin-up boy of politics, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, has been found guilty by the Conflict of Interest & Ethics Commissioner (COIEC) of being involved with interfering in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal. Only 70 days to go before Canadian peoplekind can sack him at the election because he is not looking to resign.

What a shame this darling of the left has fallen foul of breaching the ethics code, not once but twice. One hopes Canadians would have wanted him to prioritize his own ethics before lecturing them on feminism, climate change, cutting $10m cheques to convicted terrorists and not having enough money to support veterans.

The COIEC wrote in his summary,

The first step in my analysis was to determine whether Mr. Trudeau sought to influence the decision of the Attorney General as to whether she should intervene in a criminal prosecution involving SNC-Lavalin following the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The evidence showed there were many ways in which Mr. Trudeau, either directly or through the actions of those under his direction, sought to influence the Attorney General.

Having reviewed several possible means of intervening in the matter, Ms. Wilson-Raybould made it known in September that she would not intervene in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision.

Mr. Trudeau met with Ms. Wilson-Raybould on September 17, 2018, at which time she reiterated her decision to not intervene in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to not invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into a remediation agreement. She also expressed to Mr. Trudeau her concern of inappropriate attempts to interfere politically with the Attorney General in a criminal matter. Following this meeting, senior officials under the direction of Mr. Trudeau continued to engage both with SNC-Lavalin’s legal counsel and, separately, with Ms. Wilson-Raybould and her ministerial staff to influence her decision, even after SNC-Lavalin had filed an application for a judicial review of theDirector of Public Prosecutions’ decision. These attempts also included encouraging her to re-examine the possibility of obtaining external advice from “someone like” a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Unbeknownst to the Attorney General at that time, legal opinions from two former Supreme Court justices, retained by SNC-Lavalin, had been reviewed by the Prime Minister’s Office and other ministerial offices. Meanwhile, both SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister’s Office had approached the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to participate in the matter. The final attempt to influence Ms. Wilson-Raybould occurred during a conversation with the former Clerk of the Privy Council on December 19, 2018, as an appeal, on behalf of Mr. Trudeau, to impress upon her that a solution was needed to prevent the economic consequences of SNC-Lavalin not entering into negotiations for a remediation agreement.

Simply seeking to influence the decision of another person is insufficient for there to be a contravention of section 9. The second step of the analysis was to determine whether Mr. Trudeau, through his actions and those of his staff, sought to improperly further the interests of SNC-Lavalin.

The evidence showed that SNC-Lavalin had significant financial interests in deferring prosecution. These interests would likely have been furthered had Mr. Trudeau successfully influenced the Attorney General to intervene in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision. The actions that sought to further these interests were improper since they were contrary to the Shawcross doctrine and the principles of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.

For these reasons, I found that Mr. Trudeau used his position of authority over Ms. Wilson-Raybould to seek to influence, both directly and indirectly, her decision on whether she should overrule the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to invite SNC-Lavalin to enter into negotiations towards a remediation agreement.

Therefore, I find that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 9 of the Act.”

Trudeau had a hard task to out do his father for political incompetence. Yet he has exceeded admirably. From wearing Indian garb on a state visit to prosecuting the case on a plastics ban with water box bottle things and waving to empty airfields or speaking at the UNGA to a scattering if disinterested people on their mobile phones.

CM still wishes Rona Ambrose was Leader of the Conservatives but it looks as though Andrew Scheer shouldn’t have too much trouble becoming the next PM.

Extinction Rebellion prepares for the communist catwalk

That’s it folks. Forget fashion. Ditch your Manolo Blahniks. Shred your DVF dresses. Burn your designer Armani jeans in a pyre. Even better write a placard and protest outside Gucci or Louis Vuitton. It’s for the planet you know.

Extinction Rebellion (XR) has said London fashion week is unsustainable. Ladies, prepare to wear drab grey gender neutral pant suits from now on. Men will be allowed to wear a skirt presumably so as to foster transgenderism. This will be year round. We’ll be allowed one set only.

The Guardian journalist, Lucy Siegle, wrote,

“the environmental group Extinction Rebellion has seized the initiative, writing to the British Fashion Council (BFC), conveners of London fashion week, demanding it is scrapped in favour of “a people’s assembly of industry professionals and designers as a platform to declare a climate and ecological emergency”

So let’s get this straight, these XR hippiecrits use the very materials and dyes to make a fashion statement to push their agenda.

Tell you what XR, given that China is the largest producer of textiles, please take your protest to Beijing. While you’re at it you can protest China’s 29.3% (and growing) impact on CO2 emissions. Two for the price of one. President Xi would warmly welcome your presence in one of his jails. Afterall you encourage peaceful arrest although you might want to update your legal assistance page for those who do end up being arrested in Tiananmen Square.

Berkeley to drop gender-specific words from city code

Image result for rigel robinson berkeley

Rigel Robinson, a young councillor in Berkeley, California has said that “words matter“. The city will remove gender-specific language like “manhole” and change it to  “maintenance hole.” In his proposal, the words “policemen” and “policewomen” will also be phased out. “He” and “she” will also get the boot in favour of “they”.

Robinson remarked, “Having a male-centric municipal code is inaccurate and not reflective of our reality…Women and non-binary individuals are just as entitled to accurate representation. Our laws are for everyone, and our municipal code should reflect that.

To think of how many non-binary individuals will be able to overcome these deep traumas and get through the day knowing that the metal covers in the road will be renamed. However, what if a maintenance hole identifies as male? Seems unfair that inanimate objects aren’t respected.

Sadly, the only maintenance required is to fill the vacuous space between Robinson’s ears with things that actually matter to residents, even those liberals in California.