#unconsciousbias

86% of Americans agree in two parent households

A Rasmussen Reports online survey “finds that 86% of American Adults still think it is at least somewhat important for children to grow up in a home with both of their parents, including 61% who think it’s Very Important. Just 10% say growing up in a two-parent home is not important, including only three percent (3%) who say it’s Not At All Important.”

CM is reminded of a NY Times hit piece on racial bias in schools which overlooked the high correlation of single parent households, truancy, matriculation and troubles at school.Referring to the number of kids living with both parents/step-parent (according to a 2015 Pew Research Center study) in America we found:

Asian: 82%

White: 71%

Hispanic: 55%

Black: 31%

The GAO stats make clear that Asian kids get caught up in the least amount of disciplinary action both by absolute and percentage wise. Blacks the most, Hispanics second and whites 3rd. Could it be an inverse correlation?

Psychological studies have shown boys seem to be more impacted by the lack of a father in the house than do girls. Children (especially boys) raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market. They are at greater risk of parental abuse and neglect (especially from live-in boyfriends who are not their biological fathers), more likely to become teen parents and less likely to graduate from high school or college.

survey taken by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the US back in January of 1993 revealed poverty, alcoholism, student apathy and absenteeism were cited as big problems in secondary public schools. Lack of a parent was high on the agenda.

The American Psychological Association, “poor (bottom 20 percent of all family incomes) students were five times more likely to drop out of high school than high-income (top 20 percent of all family incomes) students…Family poverty is associated with a number of adverse conditions — high mobility and homelessness; hunger and food insecurity; parents who are in jail or absent; domestic violence; drug abuse and other problems — known as “toxic stressors” because they are severe, sustained and not buffered by supportive relationships…Community poverty also matters. Some neighborhoods, particularly those with high concentrations of African-Americans, are communities of concentrated disadvantage with extremely high levels of joblessness, family instability, poor health, substance abuse, poverty, welfare dependency and crime

Broken homes and poverty are undoubtedly a big issue. The report said, “Besides lack of parent involvement, the school problems viewed as serious by at least 10 percent of public school teachers included student apathy, poverty, student absenteeism, student disrespect for teachers, parental alcoholism and/or drug abuse, and student tardiness. Behaviors and attitudes of students were more likely to be seen as problematic by teachers at the secondary level than by teachers at the elementary level. Parent alcoholism, on the other hand, was described as “serious” as often by elementary teachers as by secondary teachers and poverty was described as “serious” more often by elementary teachers.”

85% of kids likely to go to college or higher levels of education came from stable family backgrounds. 61% of kids likely to drop out before graduating high school are from broken homes. Sixty One Percent!

Of course socio-economic factors impact these statistics too.

CM has no moral high ground to talk from as a divorced parent but there is no question stable parenting helps. 86% of Americans might agree with the benefits of two parents.

Note that divorce rates in the US have fallen from 4.8 per thousand people in 1992 to 2.9 in 2016.

Marriage rates have declined in the US but there is a higher propensity among millennials to stay together meaning fewer marriages aren’t converting to fewer divorces.

Starbucks works harder to alienate customers

7DE96057-6A10-4719-9B7E-D2878CAE54AD

This sort of in your face political correctness propaganda is becoming too much. Starbucks closed 8,000 stores on Tuesday and reached out to activists and bias training experts to put a curriculum together for its 175,000 workers to prevent “unconscious bias ”

While training staff is never a bad thing, do the human resources/ PR department at Starbucks honestly think that explicitly educating white people about their racism (if it truly exists on any scale to warrant the conscious bias based indoctrination) will do anything other than alienate more customers? What a smear on the majority of clientele and staff who no doubt exercise decency when transacting their skim milk doubleshot latte.

CM had an interesting chat earlier this year with a senior manager of a global corporation. He was recruiting but was told by his HR department that there is a risk he might have ‘unconscious bias.’ In order to mitigate those fears HR blanks out anything it deems might trigger it. Think of wartime correspondence from the front line to families at home.

Unsurprisingly he takes such things as a slight on his own character. That despite two decades of loyal service the company all of a sudden deems his judgement (which til then was never called into question) as something to regulate.

The irony of modern HR departments is that they seem to go out of their way to find out every detail on gender, race, religion and disability during the application process in order to enforce their own ‘conscious bias’.

Welcome to HR which is fast becoming the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984.

Checking privilege or checking presumptions?

CM has lost count of the times the white privilege moniker has been thrown about as a way to shut down debate. There is an almost uncanny wish for liberal whites to white-shame other whites these days. It seems that 99.9% of those who throw the white privilege word are white themselves. The tacit argument is that they feel they gain acceptance with non-whites by denying their own identity. Have non-whites come out en-masse demanding this? Virtually none that CM has met.

The left is obsessed with this idea that all minorities are distinct groups who share identical thoughts and beliefs. Take the radically leftist inspired C-16 compelled speech laws in Canada where the trans community took what was supposed to be a compassionate piece of legislation as one where they felt betrayed by the lack of consultation and presumption of shared voice. There is a fantastic scene from Freedom Writers to this very point. Do these supposedly justice for all human rights crusading cultural Marxists assume all minorities are facsimilies within their clusters? Why do these activists become self appointed spokespeople for these groups? It is exactly this type of condescending action which creates the very division they are trying to stop. Diversity of thought among individuals, anyone?

Take these posters from the University of San Francisco (uSF). Karl Marx may have recently turned 200 but his legacy lives and breathes in California. So much for universities being the cradle of free and open thinking. The University of Texas has the MasculinUT program which is equally obtuse. Men must not feel obliged to express unrestricted masculinity. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200 – why not castrate male UT students or force inject female hormones instead? Let’s not start with the mind-bending educational programs forced on pre-schoolers across the world. The designers don’t even hide the agenda. Not to mention Bill 89 in Ontario which allows the state to remove children from parents who don’t accept their gender identity in time. Or a Massachusetts kindergarten that has banned the use of the word ‘best friend’ for the sake of inclusivity. We’re even being told to ask for an infant’s consent to change their diaper. It is a slippery slope that the left wants considered mainstream when it is patently empirically extreme.

Apart from the deeply condescending nature of the uSF posters, are Christians the only religion that should feel privilege? Why not Buddhists, Jews, Hindus or Muslims? Do those groups not observe religious holidays? Do the majority of Muslims protest Christians celebrating Christmas? No. Do Christians take to the streets when Muslims celebrate Ramadan? No. When you’re busting to go to the bathroom do you consciously check cisgender privilege? Most likely not. It is surprising more cisgender women don’t cross the border to use male bathrooms when their line in long. Probably because of a group assumption that men are less hygienic and might leave the toilet seat up.

Let’s look at some of the leftist thinking about ranking ‘privilege’.

F38D1570-0A3B-4AFF-AE6E-B7E046CFCEEB

Take the quick test above. According to this table you will need to become an other, intersex, gay, trans, Middle Eastern, homeless, blind, disfigured, short, Muslim scientist (presumably climate professors get extra negative scores) to maximize all potential disadvantages. There is no worse combination for future victimhood in the liberal identikit than a tall, white, straight, cis male who works in finance. Although thankfully Australians are regarded at the lowest spectrum of whites. Still, how unfair to the Japanese who have gone through two decades of virtually no economic growth and untold natural disasters to be compared to Aussies that have had 25 years of unfettered economic expansion and face some dangerous snakes and spiders. Or is that a function of the Japanese being required to check their colonial past throughout Asia in the early 20th Century?

White privilege is just another tenet of group categorization. Should whites pay a tax to offset their level of privilege, presumably relative to their position on the chart above?

Going back to the white privilege shamers, many of those CM knows have backgrounds in finance. In an industry that is often tagged for having a penchant for deregulation, free spirits and mugging Main St. is anything but, when so many scream to the world at their virtuous moral code. How many of them support so many ideologies around equality of outcome despite most of these ‘white’ investment bankers being the first in line to cry foul if their ‘supposedly’ superior skill sets have not been rewarded accordingly. So while on the outside they protest so much injustice and inequality, they scream like libertarians internally. They can’t have it both ways. CM has always been a libertarian and believes in equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.

CM appreciates there are injustices throughout the world but the worst way to achieve it is by compelling it, even under the veil of affirmative action. The case studies of doing so are overwhelmingly conclusive of producing the opposite outcomes. If everyone is assured the same result, why bother studying or striving for the extra mile? It is counter intuitive. It is also downright demeaning to assume that ALL ambitious minorities are crying to be given a leg up.

The most recentwhite privilege jab was over a discussion of the freedom of speech of NFL kneelers. Because many of the players happen to be black, CM needed to check white privilege. The only argument CM made was that these NFL players were employees who have a boss. How dare CM silence these people fighting for a cause! CM argued that no one is claiming they do not have a right to protest but if their bosses are witnessing customers (aka fans) deserting the games, hence impacting revenues which ultimately impedes the ability to throw multi millions to the same players something has to give. Put simply they have a business call to make. Make it all about police brutality but when harsh economics ends up seeing players sacked, don’t cry to CM. Is your boss unfair to sack or demote you if you are not prepared to please customers in order for the business to stay afloat? Just take a knee and see how far you get. CM bets none of you will. You know full well the boss is entitled to expect a return on the money he or she pays you. The boss isn’t doing it solely out of generous spirit. The NFL bosses aren’t questioning free speech but forecasting the net present value of the franchise.

The irony is that most of the kneelers (although CM read that Colin Kaepernick does invest into some of the causes he is protesting) do not invest their own spare time to fight those injustices. Many are trying to stay out of the courts given their all too frequent misdemeanors off the field – rape, DUI, resisting arrest, dog-fighting etc. Yet the white privilege shamers come forward with the argument that fans should put up with it. The liberal creed is that ‘social justice’ must be beaten into viewers. Do these SJWs get that the more they hammer these messages home the further they drive the people they’re trying to convince away? If we can white shame these spectators enough they’ll cave, right? Wrong. Little do they realize that these same fans might have financial, marital or employment stresses that the game is supposed to take them from? Is it just white fans seeking remediation? Most certainly not.

White privilege was hurled at the US education system for unconscious racial bias. What The NY Times article failed to document was that 99.6% of ALL kids stay out of big trouble which would result in serious disciplinary action, including arrest. All too easy to dumb it down to colour alone, yet when looking at liberal (Brookings Institute) or libertarian (Heritage Foundation) think tanks, both point to broken homes as a major cause of problems in graduation rates and disciplinary action. This has been documented over decades. Yet the liberal view is that all this division can only be attributed to white privilege. Torn asunder if black libertarians like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder or Candice Owens don’t tow the line.

Skin colour seems to be a single-variable regression to white shamers. Does CM tell his half-Japanese kids to moan and complain that they are mixed race? Or does he try to impart to them the value of hard work, diligence and making their way through application and effort? They hopefully get the message that their father has tried to impart to them many times that the ‘taste of victory’ is umpteenths times greater the harder the challenge. Did Oprah become the world’s highest paid entertainer for hard work or just because she is black? Should we gut the NFL and put in less competent white players to ensure that ethnic balance is restored along the lines of population weights? Would fans want to pay a premium to see inferior performance? White shamers would suggest they would. Common sense would say not.

Yet, white privilege is the problem that if fixed will supposedly solve everything. Australian nurses and midwives are being told in the latest code of conduct to check white privilege and admit their colonial past to expectant mothers of other backgrounds. No seriously, instead of focusing on ensuring safe deliveries they are being asked to bow down to this ridiculous indoctrination. Will mothers giving birth feel empowered that the midwife grovels or marvel in the miracle of bringing life into the world?

Little by little, freedoms are being forcibly removed from society under the guise of political correctness. Reasoned debate is ignored. Outcomes are engineered in a way that ensures the data fits the legislation. Canada is one of the worst examples of this in action and the latest polls against PM Justin Trudeau reflect the backlash. Instead of debating sensibly through democratic means, the left wants to channel their doctrine through education and compelled speech. The left shouldn’t be surprised when a growing list of countries throughout Europe are becoming fed up with centralized control and voting at a sovereign level to disassociate themselves. Even if Brussels still tries to influence those constituents as to how they democratically choose to sustain their cultures, as evidenced this week in Italy.

Take the UK stance over Islam. British authorities seem so afraid of their own shadow that they have introduced a two-tiered approach to the control of citizens that would even make Lenin blush. Not initially by design but by avoidable mistakes. The dithering non-confrontational nature of the Brits means that they muddle through issues which end up making them more uncomfortable and put the population in a worse position, period. There are undoubtedly swathes of Muslims who detest the way they are tarred with the same brush as the more radical among them that are behind terrorist activity or grooming under-age girls for rape and sex trafficking. Rightly so. Any group of Christians would feel equally appalled to have their faith associated with sexually deviant priests molesting young boys. Therein lies the danger of generalizing groups rather than correctly targeting individual perpetrators, regardless of whether religion has been taken out of context to commit crimes.

Radio presenter and founder of Quilliam, Maajid Nawaz, has openly critized the UK authorities for pandering to political correctness.

For too long in this country, we have ignored the issue of grooming gangs. Of young vulnerable teenage girls who have been victimised, drugged, raped and abused…Whether it’s the Rotherham case or all the other cases that were replicated across the country, it is both the conclusion of the prosecutor in the Rotherham case…or indeed the official inquiry into why it took so long for these young vulnerable under-age girls to get justice – both of those concluded that fears of racism prevented us from coming to the defence of vulnerable under-age girls…Fears of racism meaning that the state was scared that it would be accused of being racist if it rightly arrested and prosecuted largely British Pakistani Muslim men in their abuse of under-age white teenage girls…If we hadn’t all been silent, if we had all addressed this issue head on when it needed to be addressed, when it was time to address it, then the void would not have emerged for the populist agitators to fill that gap…

Nawaz holds no punches. The British government has presumed the majority of Muslims may get offended so 1,000s of innocent under-age (white) girls became sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. One Labor politician claimed that these rape victims should shut up for the sake of diversity. Should that be categorized as a white privilege offset? Presumption is a dangerous game. Are people surprised when the cover up is finally exposed that Britons become enraged? It is hardly a win-win for the Muslim community at large to have this fester beyond the squalid state it already has become.

Yet examining the state of UK prisons, inmates identifying as Muslims number 15% of the population despite being 7% of the UK population. Is that a sign the judiciary is being biased against the Tommy Robinsons of the world? No. While the drive-thru jailing of him last week apears overly biased, the explosive growth in the Muslim prison population would not exist were the courts targeting non-Muslims. If only the courts were able to expedite justice for these poor girls as quickly as Mr Yaxley-Lennon.

Examining the huge surge of violence (against fellow inmates and guards), an 800% leap in unexplained deaths (aka murder) and the 6 fold jump in call outs of the tactical riot squad within UK prisons over the last decade coincide with the doubling of jailed radicals. It must worry the law makers no end to how they solve for this disturbing rise in crime and stick to politically correct narratives.

The simple solution is to engage a broader section of all communities beyond those that have clearly produced no tangible results. When will they realize it is not working and DO something about it, rather than presuming the several speak for the whole?

If liberals desperately covet diversity and identity politics for the good of peoplekind, they are going the wrong way about it. Shaming others has proven to be a recruiter for the right. To put this in chess parlance –

The best chess move is the one which your opponent least wants you to make

Instead of ostracism and presumption, try engaging individuals rather than expect them to accept accusations of association to groups that they may abhor.

Racial bias in US school discipline? Some shocking correlations

1FFB4DF3-DBB4-4BD8-8331-F791394EFBF4.jpeg

The GAO has published a 98 page report on discipline in US schools. In a perhaps somewhat irresponsible manner of formatting, it suggests that teachers seem to pick on particular races and disabilities for those reasons alone. It is as if teachers are pushing kids with wheelchairs uncontrollably down ramps. Yet, ‘disability’ of course includes mental problems which could range from anxiety to depression. 11.7% of students are classified with a disability. Yet delving deeply within the stats, of the 56 million K-12 students, 5.7% have been in detention, only 0.4% of the total have been referred to law enforcement, 0.3% have been expelled, 0.2% received corporal punishment and less than 0.1% have been arrested. In short, 99.6% of students stay out of ‘big’ trouble and 94.3% stay out of detention. Single parent households and poverty levels are highly correlated to discipline. Reporting the headlines of the GAO makes for shock and awe but had they reported the 0.X% stats it would deflate the rhetoric.

The NY Times article implied there must be some sort of unconscious bias as teachers were being bigoted bullies. Doesn’t the mainstream media defend the very same people as the last bastions of educational excellence against the tyranny of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. 80% of teachers are white. Although this has been on a long term decline.

If white students (K-12) represent 50.3% of the total is it fair to assume that they should hold an equal % of disciplinary actions? Do crime stats and incarceration rates reflect race based demographics anywhere in the world? In America, 24.7% of students are Hispanic and 15.5% are black. When it comes to higher levels of poverty, Hispanics are way under-represented in the disciplinary stats despite being higher proportions of the students. Whites are punished more or less in line with their population in that bracket.

In the interests of gender equality, why are girls, at 49% of all students punished at half the rate of boys? Unconscious bias or is it through our own experiences, women are far less likely to bring the wrath of teachers in class? A reasonably safe assumption to make.

Nearly half of all public school students went to schools where 50% or more of the students were low-income, and about a quarter went to schools where 75% or more of the students were low-income. Of the 11.5mn students in 75-100% low income backgrounds, 1 million spent time in out of school detention. Of the 9.9 million students in 0-25% low income schools, 217,000 spent time in out of school detention. 128,500 of those were white. Whites make up 78% of 0-25% low income school populations and only 16% of 75-100% low income schools. Therefore it stands to reason statistically that if students in less poverty stricken schools trigger fewer disciplinary issues, then the stats would naturally bear out such differences rather than it being pure racial profiling.

So it would appear that low income would impact the rates of delinquency. Referring to number of kids living with both parents/step-parent (according to a 2015 Pew Research Center study) in America we find:

Asian: 82%

White: 71%

Hispanic: 55%

Black: 31%

The GAO stats make clear that Asian kids get caught up in the least amount of disciplinary action both by absolute and percentage wise. Blacks the most, Hispanics second and whites 3rd. Could it be an inverse correlation? Psychological studies have shown boys seem to be more impacted by the lack of a father in the house than do girls. Children (especially boys) raised by single mothers are more likely to fare worse on a number of dimensions, including their school achievement, their social and emotional development, their health and their success in the labor market. They are at greater risk of parental abuse and neglect (especially from live-in boyfriends who are not their biological fathers), more likely to become teen parents and less likely to graduate from high school or college.

survey taken by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the US back in January of 1993 revealed poverty, alcoholism, student apathy and absenteeism were cited as big problems in secondary public schools. Lack of a parent was also high on the agenda.

The American Psychological Association, “poor (bottom 20 percent of all family incomes) students were five times more likely to drop out of high school than high-income (top 20 percent of all family incomes) students…Family poverty is associated with a number of adverse conditions — high mobility and homelessness; hunger and food insecurity; parents who are in jail or absent; domestic violence; drug abuse and other problems — known as “toxic stressors” because they are severe, sustained and not buffered by supportive relationships…Community poverty also matters. Some neighborhoods, particularly those with high concentrations of African-Americans, are communities of concentrated disadvantage with extremely high levels of joblessness, family instability, poor health, substance abuse, poverty, welfare dependency and crime

Broken homes and poverty are undoubtedly a big issue. The report said, “Besides lack of parent involvement, the school problems viewed as serious by at least 10 percent of public school teachers included student apathy, poverty, student absenteeism, student disrespect for teachers, parental alcoholism and/or drug abuse, and student tardiness. Behaviors and attitudes of students were more likely to be seen as problematic by teachers at the secondary level than by teachers at the elementary level. Parent alcoholism, on the other hand, was described as “serious” as often by elementary teachers as by secondary teachers and poverty was described as “serious” more often by elementary teachers.”

85% of kids likely to go to college or higher levels of education came from stable family backgrounds. 61% of kids likely to drop out before graduating high school are from broken homes. Sixty One Percent!

So before reading into it that teachers must be subconsciously racially profiling students in handing out punishment, perhaps the overwhelming weight of societal evidence points to far bigger problems that need addressing. Poverty, single parent households and a whole raft of issues need dealing before the government watchdog should report back racial bias at a top down level. According to the logic, perhaps teachers should be forced into student discipline quotas. That way (un)conscious bias won’t afflict teachers and whites can be punished in line with their demographically representation.

Let’s not forget that financial institutions have often been targeted for charging black customers higher interest rates on loans than whites. What they always fail to mention is that Asians pay even lower rates than both. That is the problem with selectivity in data without meaningfully looking at the broader picture. Just like the recent Florida school shooting where a look at what is going on in terms of school security over decades paints a different picture to what the mainstream narrative would want us to believe.

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

 

Unconscious bias vs conscious bias

A156C441-ED7E-489C-9523-5B7EBF41C3AF.jpeg

An interesting chat this week with a senior manager of a global corporation. He is recruiting but was told by his HR department that there is a risk he might have ‘unconscious bias.’ In order to mitigate those fears HR blanks out anything it deems might trigger it. Think of wartime correspondence from the front line to families  at home.

Unsurprisingly he takes such things as a slight on his own character. That despite two decades of loyal service the company all of a sudden deems his judgement (which til then was never called into question) as something to regulate.

The irony of modern HR departments is that they seem to go out of their way to find out every detail on gender, race, religion and disability during the application process in order to enforce their own ‘conscious bias’.

The Australian Defence Forces are also being bullied into conscious bias. As CM wrote several months back,

“Recruiters at the ADF have been told they must hire women or face relocation if they don’t comply. The recruiters say there are no jobs available for men in the in the infantry as a rifleman or artilleryman. But these positions are marked as ‘recruit immediately’ if a female applies. If a 50kg woman is in the artillery a 43.2kg M-107 shell is over 80% of her weight. An 80kg man would be lifting the same shells at around half of his weight. This is basic physics….The West Australian newspaper reported one recruiter who said, “This is political correctness gone mad. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman – I just want to get the best person for the job.”

Perhaps the revealing thing for corporates is more simple. If they don’t think they can trust their employees to act ethically and responsibly during the hiring process then why do they keep such reprobates on the payroll? Surely they show unconscious bias to their colleagues and clients. Maybe HR departments can use their own mastery of conscious bias to weed them out.

Welcome to socialist recruitment gone mad.