On the issue of feminism and equality of the sexes, I would like to thank Antoinette Rydyr (in her article "Feminism Versus Freedom", Prohibited Matter #5) for her excellent, accurate and articulate comments about bull-feminists and their strange tendency of thinking no-one matters unless they agree with the feminist philosophy: that all men are rapists and therefore to achieve an equal society we must ensure that only women have rights.
At the risk of raising the ire of hardcore feminists the world over, let me say point blank that the single biggest weakness in the whole feminist (bowel) movement is the strange belief that women can somehow achieve equality without men. No way! I am sorry to have to tell this to you ladies, but it is impossible for women to achieve any kind of equality at all, unless it is equality between women AND MEN! These are the only two sexes, women and men (if we rule out gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trisexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, string-vestites, leather-freaks, eunuchs, hermaphrodites, etc.), so unless women achieve equality with men, how the hell are they supposed to achieve equality at all? Man-bashing female-domination (which hardcore feminists like Carmen Lawrence and Ita Buttrose, and male feminists like John Cain and Paul Keating seem to want) is not equality!
Before I go any further, let me set the record straight on the hardcore feminist term "inverted sexism". Not so long ago Ita Buttrose polluted the airwaves with a burst of verbal diarrhoea in which she said that due to there being more men than women at the executive level in this country, inverted sexism was necessary to even things up. I disagree with this for two reasons. Firstly as the cliché goes "two wrongs don't make a right". Or to put it another way "Sexism + sexism = Double-sexism", not equality as Ms Buttrose seems to think. If sexism is wrong (and obviously it is) then double-sexism is doubly wrong. Secondly the term "inverted sexism" is nonsense anyway. There is no such thing as inverted sexism, because, despite what Ms Buttrose would have us believe, sexism does not mean "discrimination against women by men". Sexism means, "discrimination against women or men on the basis of their gender". So if we follow Ita Buttrose or Paul Keating's policy of giving jobs to women because they are women, not because they are the best person for the job, we are not guilty of "inverted sexism", we are guilty of "flagrant sexism". The only kind there is. The whole point to equality is that when a job is available the best candidate should get it regardless of their gender. When we decide to pick a woman for a job despite knowing she is not the best candidate available, we are not "evening things up" as Paul or Ita would like us to believe, we are acting in an openly sexist manner.
Over the last few decades of lunacy under John Cain, Joan Kirner, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, all kinds of incredibly sexist legislation have been introduced in this country under the guise of equality. (And let me say here and now before anyone accuses me of political bias against the Labor Party, that I was born and raised in Melbourne's Western Suburbs, the heartland of ALP country in this state, and I have voted ALP at every election I have voted at so far, except once, when unable to bring myself to vote for that idiot John Cain any longer, I put a blank ballot in the box. I will never vote LIB/NAT unless they can force themselves to make the decision to stop recruiting most of their candidates from the ranks of the Ku Klux Klan!) To name a few:
JOBS ADVERTISED IN THE VICTORIAN STATE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE. Traditionally all state government jobs are advertised for two weeks only, and it is up to you to find any suitable transfer or promotion and apply within that time. However, in the mid 1980s, as a way of achieving equality in the workplace, John Cain introduced an interesting modification to this rule. Namely that at the end of the two week period, if no woman had applied for the job, it must be re-advertised, for as long as necessary, until a "suitable number of women" have applied for it. And during the re-advertising period (which might end up many months if no women were interested in the job), only women could apply for the job. There are a number of problems with this legislation. To name two: firstly it doesn't work both ways. If at the end of the initial two-week period only women have applied for the job, no men, the job is not re-advertised until a "suitable number of men" have applied for it. They simply interview the woman applicants and pick the most suitable one. Another problem with this incredibly sexist piece of legislation is that if a section is grossly short staffed (a case with many Victorian Government departments despite what the news media wants you to believe!) and desperately needs to fill the vacancy, it is no help to them to have to hold the job open for possibly month after month so a nutcase feminist premier can suck up to the hardcore feminist minority!
If John Cain had wanted genuine equality between women and men in the workplace (as I do) his legislation would have said, "If at the end of the initial two week period there are not applications from both men and women for a vacancy, the vacancy must be re-advertised until at least one member of each sex has applied for the job. During the re-advertisement period, members of either sex can apply for the job!"
FILLING JOB VACANCIES UNDER THE CAIN GOVERNMENT.
In the Victorian public service, rather than simply selecting an applicant to fill a job, they use a method of attrition. If five hundred people apply, they try to weed out two hundred while reading the written applications. Of the remaining three hundred, they try to drop at least two hundred more after the first interview, then another fifty after the second interview, another forty after the third, and so on to quickly get down to just one remainder who gets the job. In the late 1980s a piece of sexist legislation was introduced into Victoria saying: "Once the number of applicants for any position has been reduced to the best two, if they have equal qualifications for the job, equal experience at the job, equal education, and are equal in all other factors, so it is impossible to split them other than on gender; if one of them is male, the other female, then the woman must be given the job." I kid you not!
This is a classic example of John Cain's "two wrongs do make a right" philosophy. His weird notion that the way to cancel out sexism against women is to sexually discriminate against men. Frankly if there is no other way to split the best two candidates it would be a hell of a lot fairer to toss a coin or pull a name out of a hat than to select on the basis of gender, in direction opposite to Cain's own claim to want jobs filled on the basis of ability, not sex!
Hardcore feminists often accuse men of paranoia when they talk about being discriminated against but frankly it's hard not to become paranoid under this kind of harassment!
I remember in May 1990 when I applied for a job at the (then) Kings Street branch of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). I was nothing short of disgusted when the first question the feminist employment officer asked me was, "Would you have any problems working in the same office with women?" I was so angry that, despite being a pacifist, frankly I almost belted the smug bitch in the face! If women expect to be treated with respect in the workplace by men, the very least they can do is show a little respect to men in the workplace also!
Because of this treatment I should not have been surprised when I started there to find a noticeable difference between the way women and men work at the ATO in the 1990s. Namely that while the women freely chatter about private matters while working, the men never say anything inside the building that is not directly work related. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying anything sexist about women in general talking more than men. Rather it is a matter that the men at the Australian Tax Office are all afraid of being misunderstood or misquoted to the Gestapo (Equal Employment Opportunity) officers. It is no exaggeration to say the men are afraid that Big Sister is watching over them. If that makes me paranoid, then there were about 400 other paranoid men at the Kings Street Branch of the ATO in those days.
A classic example of "equality" in the public service came to light a few months after I started there. To help new workers acclimatise themselves to the ATO, the Tax Office had us spend an hour a week for the first six months at induction sessions where we were both given the chance to learn procedures and also an opportunity to bitch about anything we wanted to. A friend of mine, named Paul, brought up a situation of inconsistency in the way workers were being treated: his desk was in the very corner of a room, so no-one had any reason to ever go behind it or see what was on it. Yet he was reported for "sexism" because he had a photo of his fiancé in a very modest bikini on his desk. The woman who reported him had had no reason to go behind his desk, but had done so solely because she suspected he had a picture of his girlfriend on his desk. At the same time when he went down to the Personnel Section, where most of the employees were women, he was shocked to see full-frontal cut-outs of nude men pinned up all around the walls and notice boards where anyone entering had to see them. Quite understandably he wanted to know why a man could get in trouble for having a photo of his own fiancé in a bikini, on his own desk, where no-one could see it unless they made an effort to do so, while women could get away with showing full-frontal nude men in public where hundreds of people a day would see them?
To me the worst aspect of this whole sordid hypocrisy was that the induction officer, herself a hardcore feminist, laughed it off, refusing to take it seriously. Make no mistake; if the full-frontal nudes had been women, the men responsible would have been dismissed!
One of many, many problems with Paul Keating's version of equality is the strange way it not only defies logic, but also defies the constitution on occasions. Two instances in point: When the sexual harassment laws were first introduced under the Hawke Government there was a sensible clause saying that for a woman to convict a man she had to be able to show reasonable grounds for believing that the majority of women would have been offended by what the man said or did. Clearly this is not unfair to women, since if the man tried to force her to have sex with him, grabbed her breasts, etc., this would offend any woman and she could convict him. But if he did something no more than tell a sexist joke that many women would laugh off then he would not get into major trouble. Early in the Keating regime this sensible legislation was scrapped so that if a woman grossly overreacts to something the man has done and is the one woman in a million who would be offended by it, the man is out of luck and can be sacked or prosecuted. A case in point: soon after this legislation came into effect the male secretary of a female government minister put on his boss's answering machine a joke that said, "Some men like women with short legs, some men like women with long legs, and some men like somewhere in-between." This was a childish act, and the man should certain have been reprimanded in some way. But it did not warrant him being sacked and having his superannuation confiscated (some thousands of dollars). Which is exactly what happened!
The second example of "equality" defying the constitution relates to the way a man is now assumed guilty till proved innocent. So that if there is no evidence, just his testimony versus his accuser's testimony, he is automatically convicted. The Australian constitution still states clearly that a person is "innocent till proven guilty," not the other way around! So when a case comes down to the accuser saying this, the accused saying that, no witnesses, no evidence, by the constitution and all principles of the democratic system the accused must be found not guilty. This clearly does not happen in cases before the Equal Opportunity Gestapo. It is virtually impossible for a man to clear himself at a sexism hearing once accused, unless he has a woman who will testify for him. A case in point (as reported in the Melbourne Herald-Sun in the early 2000s): two biology teachers, one male one female, were discussing anatomy in the staff room during a free period. Unbeknown to them a young student teacher was listening in (and moved closer so she could overhear every word). Later she reported the man for talking dirty in front of her and at his inquisition the feminist commissioner called him a pervert to his face. He only got off, with no apology for the insult, because the woman teacher he had been talking to came forward and told the truth about what had really happened. Without her testimony due to the "old girls network" we call the Equal Opportunity Commission, the man would have been unjustly convicted with no chance to defend himself. Hardly an example of the democratic process at its most inspiring!
I'm not sure what schools this young teacher expected to make a career at, but in the Western Suburbs where I was raised, if a teacher cannot handle "dirty talk" from a biology text book, I doubt she is going to survive very long. In form one at the Williamstown North Technical School, when I attended it in the early 1970s, we were dead proud of the fact that we managed to send no less than two English teachers to the loony bin in the first half of the year! This poor frail wallflower can thank her lucky stars she does not teach in North Williamstown.
Another sick aspect of this assumption that the man is always guilty is the way, in cases of non-physical "harassment"; a man now receives no warnings, no chance to try to mend his ways. Despite what the hardcore feminists want you to believe, most men are not consciously sexists. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred when a man says something "sexist" in the workplace, it is due to ignorance, not malicious intent. Therefore the man should get some kind of warning that his behaviour is unacceptable, some chance to mend his ways. A case in point: a few years ago a number of Australian journalists went overseas to cover a major political convention. One of the reporters missed the plane and had to take a later flight. When she got to the convention centre she found every hotel room in the city had been booked out. So she went to the chief reporter from her paper and asked for his advice. The man took her to a lounge where the other journalists were gathered and said "Suzie has nowhere to sleep. Who wants to sleep with Suzie?" Everyone burst into laughter, including Suzie herself. A week later they returned to Australia and Suzie still gave no indication that she had been offended by her boss's joke. However, three months later she finally reported him to the Equal Opportunity Commission. When asked why she had not reported him as soon as she returned to Australia, she replied it took her three months to decide she had been offended enough to put in a report! I kid you not! When asked why she had laughed at the joke at the time, if it offended her, she answered, "I didn't want to look like a bad sport". My answer to her would be, "You've not only ended up looking like a bad sport, but also a hypocrite and a liar!"
This is a classical case of a man having no way of knowing his conduct is unacceptable. Obviously the joke he told at her expense was sexist; obviously the woman was owed an apology. However, in turn, the man was owed the common courtesy of being told on the spot that his conduct was unacceptable and given a fair chance to mend his ways.
My belief is that in the case of non-physical "harassment" of this sort, the woman should have to give the man at least two warnings before reporting him to her supervisor, then the supervisor should give him at least two warnings before putting in an official report. That way the man would have four separate opportunities to mend his ways. And both the woman and the supervisor should have to sign a legal document pledging that the man has been given warnings on a minimum of four separate occasions. Also after the "Suzie" case (actually that was not her real name), I believe that in the first two incidents there should be a time limit of no more than forty-eight hours between when an incident happens and when a man is told his conduct is unacceptable. Likewise there should be a forty-eight hour maximum between when the third incident occurs and when it is reported to the supervisor, and at most a seventy-two hour gap between when the fifth incident occurs and when the supervisor puts in his/her report to the Equal Opportunity Commission. Three months to decide you were offended is just a load of BS!
Another classic example of the feminist version of equality is the way they legislated to get the federal government to change their terminology and funding so that instead of talking about "domestic violence", we now talk about "violence against women". This might seem merely a trifling matter of jargon, and if that's all it was I would be unconcerned. However, the reason the feminists insisted on the new terminology is because twenty Percent of cases of domestic violence in this country involve women beating up their husbands. Previously these men could apply to the government for both free counselling and financial aid. However, the new terminology means that all government assistance now goes solely to the eighty Percent of domestic violence victims who are woman. The men are left to fend for themselves. Hardly true equality!
Ultimately the biggest problem with Paul Keating's Loony Tunes version of equality is that he has maintained the old order's sexist-racist idea of "priority groups" (a term commonly used by the Equal Opportunity Gestapo to defend their indefensible actions). Under the old male-dominated order the three priority groups were Male, White, Heterosexual; under Keating's new-age sexism the priority groups are Female, Black, Homosexual. So whereas once to be an important person in Australia you had to be a white, male heterosexual, under Paul Keating's crazy system you now have to be a black, gay female. This is hardly equality between men and women, whites and blacks, or straights and gays!
Paul Keating's (and his predecessor Bob Hawke's) whole system seems to be based on the crazy belief that you can "fight fire with fire". (If you think he's right, I suggest the next time your house is on fire, try throwing burning kerosene on it. You'll soon discover you need to fight fire with water!) In other words rather than just scrapping legislation that discriminates against women, the Hawke-Keating philosophy says we must cancel it out by bringing in extra legislation that discriminates against men. A case in point: I remember when the law was first changed, under the Hawke regime, stating that clubs and organisations with more than five hundred members must be open to members of both sexes. Although I agree with this idea, I wondered at the time why such a large number, five hundred, was chosen? Why not make it fifty members? Or fifteen? Or five? I found out the answer while working for the Australian government in the early 1990s. Before the government brought in the legislation it had first spent eighteen months surveying clubs in Australia. It found out that at that time ninety Percent of men's clubs in this country had more than five hundred members, and ninety Percent of women's clubs had less than five hundred members. So that ninety Percent of men's clubs would be forced to accept female members, while ninety Percent of women's clubs would be allowed to continue to exclude male members! Obviously when the government brought in this piece of legislation, they never had any intention of bringing about equality of the sexes. They were deliberately discriminating against men! A classic example of this would be the sexist way the Fernwood Female Fitness Centre (so named after a change of ownership) in late 1995 managed to exclude its four hundred male members despite the fact that they had paid the next twelve months' membership fees and were not given any refund!
I suppose as a consequence of this article, many feminists will malign me as a male chauvinist. This is of no concern to me, due to the feminist tendency over the last few decades to use this cliché to cry down men whenever men raise any argument the feminists have no answer for. They use the term "male chauvinist" as a "magically dirty word" (the same way the wealthy in the USA use the word "communist" as a magically dirty word to destroy the credibility of social reformers like Jesse Jackson to stop them from improving the lot of America's thirty million starving ghetto class). The term "male chauvinist" has been abused so much by the bull-feminists that at best it can now be regarded as "a feminist expression that has no meaning in the real world".
The feminist tenet seems to be that a feminist should be able to say what she likes without having to ever substantiate her claims. But her opponents (especially men) have no right to voice an opinion, even if they possess solid proofs to back up their arguments. A case in point: in late 1995 Ita Buttrose was quoted as saying the simple solution to Australia's alarmingly high divorce rate is for men to stop deserting their wives. Ironically enough, a few days later the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) published a paper reporting that eighty-five Percent of all Australian divorces and separations now occur when the woman leaves the man. This doesn't mean the woman is in the wrong seventeen out of twenty times. Many of these women might be married to real bastards. Nonetheless it makes a mockery of Ms Buttrose's claim. If the ABS were right, a better solution to Australia's rising divorce rate would be for women to stop deserting their husbands!
Well, I could go on for volumes, however, I hope I have made my point. Not only is institutionalised sexual harassment of men by women rampant in this country, particularly within the federal government, but also it is fair to say that the worst sexists in the world are the ones who call themselves feminists!
© Copyright 2010