#identitypolitics

Why free speech matters, even for those accusing firefighters of wife beating

The Greens have proven exactly why free speech, they so detest, is so important. It is by this inalienable right that we get to see the true colours of people or movements. We don’t have to like what it is said. In this case the very party that gave a platform to the individual in question has now distanced itself.

During the bushfires, these unhinged lunatics within The Greens have spoken of the government as “borderline arsonists” and promoted domestic violence advocate, Sherele Moody, who said,”Women become extremely unsafe when, generally, the men return home from the fires and subject them to domestic violence.

So instead of heaping praise on the brave souls defending lives and property, often as volunteers, Moody accuses them of being wife beaters. By that logic, maybe some of the brave female fire fighters go home to beat their husbands because cataclysmic events cause domestic violence to peak. It is a ridiculous assertion.

Has Moody got the full facts?

Let’s explore the research. According to a UK study,

“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.

The percentage of gay or bi-sexual men (6.2%) who suffered partner abuse in 2008/09 is nearly double the number for heterosexual men (3.3%). Lesbian women (12.4%) as a percentage also suffered far more partner abuse compared to heterosexual women (4.3%).

The US National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS) conducted in 2010 showed that 25 million men had claimed they were victims of some form of sexual violence by an intimate partner or acquaintance. Heather Jo Flores wrote in The Independent with respect to disrespecting women, 

Men, it’s not our job to keep reminding you. Remind each other, and stop abusing. It’s as simple as that. Until men speak out against men who abuse, this will never stop. How about y’all post “I ignored it and I won’t anymore” instead? Because #hearyou doesn’t cut it. Just hearing us doesn’t cut it. Taking action, speaking out, and showing zero tolerance for abuse is the only way through. Silence enables. Be the change..So why do men need to have multiple victims come forward before anybody says a damn thing”

Flores went on to say, “Yes, I know men get abused too. Once in a lifetime, maybe a handful of times, in extreme situations. And they get abused by men, mostly. Just like us…I write this to ask: why are we still demanding that women out themselves as survivors, again and again and again, rather than demanding that men out themselves as abusers? Violence against women is a daily reality,.”

In the 12 month period conducted in the NIPSVS survey, 6.46mn women and 6.1mn men were victims of sexual violence by their partner, an acquaintance or stranger. 4.74mn women were victims of physical violence by men and 5.365mn men were victims of physical violence by women. Hardly a handful of times, nor at the hands of men.

1.555mn men claimed their intimate female partner hit them with fists or a hard object vs 1.289m women making the claim. 3.13mn men were slapped by their women vs 1.85mn women being slapped by men.

Awful stats on any measure. Still, it puts paid the notion that men are generally victims of other men once a blue moon. When it came to psychological intimidation around 20.5mn men were victims of it vs 16.5mn women.

The NIPSVS survey was conducted again in 2011 and revealed much the same trends.

Moody was foolish to say that people who sacrifice so much to save lives seek to balance their spiritual yin by bashing their partners. Anyone can see how silly her remarks were although the ABC is probably quietly kicking itself for not inviting her into the Q&A panel the other week with the rest of the radical feminists who want to kill rapists and burn things.

This is why free speech is important. Sometimes we need to get such people out in the open to undermine themselves. Her credibility is duly shot. This hopefully sends a message that the people who may seek to pick up Moody’s mantle look to use better balance when prosecuting a legitimate problem without having to smear those who are worthy of our deepest praise in the process.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Inner West Council to host the 2020 Oppression Olympics

Image result for victim card

Who would have ever imagined that the left-leaning Inner-West Council (IWC) would push to change the celebration of Australia Day which, according to Mayor Darcy Byrne, marks “for Aboriginal people, the beginning of colonisation, dispossession and the removal of children, the deliberate destruction of language and culture, there is a better and more mature way to commemorate the day that includes them.” to an Aboriginal festival called Yabun (which means music to a beat)?

What is this obsession with local councils to act in this way? Residents just require them to collect rubbish, make sure loo paper is replenished in local park lavatories and mow the lawns. If one bothers to read through the annual reports of these local councils one can see just how much spare time these people have on their hands. It is insane.

Take the Northern Beaches Council claim that it had saved 293 tonnes of carbon in the council area in the 2017-18 period. Put it against Australia’s CO2 impact vs the entire atmosphere meant that Northern Beaches hammered home a mammoth 0.000000000699857% saving! Yes 9 zeroes. How much hot air was wasted in meetings on that initiative? The ultimate irony was the cover of the Annual Report displayed its least fuel-efficient vehicle!

Or Ryde Council’s climate emergency! Referring to the Ryde Council Annual Report 2018 financials section one can see that it spent on what it terms “Environmental Programs” a grand sum of $547,000, down from $556,000 the previous year. To put that in context of budget expenditure, this climate change fearing council spent, wait for it, 0.34% of the total annual revenue on saving the planet. Ryde Council even grandstanded with,

This includes a commitment to divest its investment portfolio from fossil fuel-aligned financial institutions, supporting renewable and clean energy solutions and becoming one of the first councils to phase out single-use plastics.

The irony was that Ryde Council’s financial details list it has next to nothing in investments outside of fixed interest product. Beat that chest but beware of the medals you’ve pinned to yourselves as you sip lentil smoothies through a paper straw.

Back to IWC. In order to deal with the supposed oppression of 2,038 indigenous Australians out of 198,024 residents (i.e. 1% of the local population), did the IWC think to publish the tidal wave of complaints from this minority that demanded the move? Or did IWC do as the Yarra Council did in Melbourne and survey their mates to get the result they wanted? Recall Yarra councillors backed the Australia Day ban recommendations by pointing to an online survey of 88 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, with 82% of respondents supportive of the change. Another 281 people were polled in a separate street survey, with 45.9% agreeing council should support the campaign.

In fact, it was even worse. IWC sought feedback after the 2019 Australia Day event and 37  (thirty-seven) people – “19%” of whom identified as Aboriginal – responded to an online survey, with most opposed to holding a celebratory Australia Day event. Most? 19 people would be a technical majority. So 0.0096% of the residents opposed it. Must be considered a landslide by the IWC?

If these IWC councillors are so triggered by Australia Day and the mistreatment of minorities two centuries ago, perhaps they should sack all 1,038 council staff members and hand them over to the original owners of the land as an overt sign of destroying the white patriarchy and atoning for the sins of people they had no relationship to who did things to others before they were born?

But of course, as ever with the identity politics driven left, creating oppression where none exists is a forte. Why not just embrace the idea that 196,000 other residents would probably be more than happy to have the inclusion of Yabun without the exclusion of everyone else.

Alas, this is the Australia CM has returned to after 20 years. Everyone trying to outdo the other in the moral preening stakes. We are a complete laughing stock. Sadly, we accept too much of this nonsense which only eggs on activists to push for ever more ridiculous demands.

As Thomas Sowell once said,

“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.”

Indeed if IWC see these people as perpetual victims perhaps they can reflect that charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.

M&S pushes sandwich equality

Corporate virtue signaling at its finest. Marks & Spencer hijacks a movement to sell lettuce, guacamole, bacon & tomato (LGBT) sandwiches. Where is the quinoa or Italian tomatoes to include the Q & I minorities? Shame on the marketing team. Surely deserved of a written warning? Did they use soy ink and recycled paper? How thoughtless to have bacon as an option for “B”, given it is most certainly not Halal?

M&S is free to make & sell what it likes. Although the LGBT is made with political correctness to appear woke. Perhaps an ANTIFA sandwich? Asparagus, nutmeg, tomato, iceberg lettuce, fennel and artichoke? A REMAINER baguette? Ricotta, egg, mustard, apple, Idaho potato, nuts, eggplant and radish. A Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) focaccia made from turkey, dill and sauerkraut? Or a Greta ? Ginger, radish, egg, taramasalata and almonds?

For equality in the debate, why not make a White Patriarchy (WP) sandwich with white bread and pastrami? A right wing nut job (RWNJ) ciabatta made of rye, walnuts, New York steak and jalapeños perhaps? A NAZI roll? Nutella, anchovies, zucchini and iodized salt?

Then see which politically correct sandwich sells the best? C’mon M&S, spice it up and allow people to have a laugh at lunch rather than push a narrative.

Time for a Lefty loaf. Lettuce, egg, figjam, turnips and yams. It seems unfair at a time the left wants to eat its own that there isn’t an offering on M&S shelves.

Sadly this isn’t far off the truth in 2019

In the whacky world of trying to justify the ridiculous, this parody is a great stab at identity politics in sport…

“Houston, we have a problem” (with Hillary)

Poor Hillary! NASA (founded in 1958), back in the late 1950s & 1960s, probably weren’t rejecting applications based on gender as a form of sexism but because to be an astronaut in those days meant one had to be at the elite end of an exceptionally high pool of candidates that were invariably drafted from US Navy, Marine or Air Force jet-fighter corps where no women were serving in such roles at the time. John Glenn served as a fighter pilot in WWII, as well as Korea. Moonwalkers, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were Korean War fighter pilots. Michael Collins, the spring chicken in that group was a USAF fighter pilot. Noticing a pattern Hillary?

Back then, spaceships weren’t as automated as today. The space programme 70 odd years ago required pilots with in-depth flight experience, as technology back then was very much in its infancy. Exploring the flight envelope was properly in the danger zone. Perhaps the mood at NASA back then was one of chivalry, not gender bias. Maybe they believed in keeping women out of harm’s way after the war, rather than acting like a cabal of white male supremacist misogynists?

Although if Hillary bothered to check her history it shows us that Sally Ride became the first American woman in space back in 1983. 36 years ago. Diversity and inclusion in the rocketship have been around for almost 4 decades!

Did Hillary forget the brave souls including Christa McAulliffe who lost their lives in 1986 on the space shuttle Challenger?

CM once wrote to BMW Motorsport racing as a clueless 16yo car fanatic with dreams to become a racing driver. Sadly, CM’s dimensions (6’2″ and 100kg at the time… err hem even worse now) were not the stuff that would have been suitable for anything other than semi-trailer rigs which BMW didn’t make. Sometimes, at the pinnacle of certain professions, physical attributes, unfortunately, rule certain folk out.

It is none-the-less amazing to witness the oppression Hillary Clinton has faced during her life. Doesn’t your heart bleed? CM thinks many Americans would gladly see Hillary as an astronaut with a one-way ticket. Jettisoned as space junk. Can you imagine if Apollo 13 had Clinton on board during that rescue mission? She would undoubtedly be arguing with Mission Control on how things should be done, not the other way around. At least now, she would have made up for the weight deficit that ill-fated mission required to get the module safely back to earth!

Everything you missed from the 4th debate

Tulsi Gabbard is the only nominee with any credibility. The rest look a complete clown show. Enjoy. Elizabeth Warren claims she has been in 70,000 selfies. Got to be an election winner on that alone.

Interesting to see that former President Obama has endorsed scandal clad Justin Trudeau in Canada but he won’t say one word to back the “best VP in American history” Joe Biden. Let’s hope Obama’s predictive powers extend to Canada as they have Brexit and Trump.

#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.