PART ONE: GENERAL COMMENTS
In my article "Between Women And Men," I attempted to look at the issue of the rights of women and men in the workplace from a strict, hard-scientific viewpoint, citing example after example from real life to back my claims. Unfortunately, it seems some people are unable to cope with scientific arguments using case histories to prove their point, but prefer off the cuff opinionated arguments instead. So, the following article, intended as a follow up to my last article, sets out only to outline my views and opinions, with far fewer case histories than my previous article.
This article is not intended to be a sequel in any true sense, but rather to look at another connected issue. In "Between Women And Men" I looked at the issue of what is wrong with the way the Hawke, Keating, Howard and Rudd governments have gone about the issue of equality of the sexes. In this article I try to provide the answers, where possible, to how we can reverse the evils done over the last twenty-seven years or so, to actually achieve equality between women and men in the workplace.
Before we can answer the question of how to achieve equality, however, we first have to establish just what we mean by equality of the sexes. According to the hard-core feminists and the Affirmative Action Bureau, equality of the sexes in the workplace means a situation where fifty Percent of all jobs from base level, to company directorships are held by men and fifty Percent by women. To achieve this, it seems, the men must be prepared to accept any number of situations where inexperienced women are promoted over them for jobs the women do not have the qualifications for and the men passed over do have the qualifications for. Is this really equality?
And just how practical is it to attempt to manipulate the workplace to achieve this ideal fifty/fifty job allocation situation? The Melbourne Herald-Sun (January 6, 1997), printed an article "WOMEN'S JOB BLOW" which quoted a study by Professor Andrew Hede, Dean of Business at the Sunshine Coast University as saying that at the current rate of affirmative action practised by business in this country, it will take another one-hundred-and-seventy years to achieve a situation where all jobs in society are divided exactly fifty/fifty between women and men. Yet despite men already having been treated as second-class citizens in this country since the early 1980s, hard-core feminists like Jocelynne Scott have been calling for even harsher treatment of men in regard to job opportunities and promotional prospects in the workplace. As if being second-class citizens was not bad enough, it seems for the sake of equality men must now settle for being reduced to third-class citizen status.
And even if we should ever achieve this fifty/fifty job allocation between women and men, how long will it last? It is commonly accepted that men are more aggressive in the workplace when it comes to chasing down jobs and promotions. And despite what the feminists want us to believe, it is never easy in real life to get promoted in any industry. In family businesses and businesses employing a handful of people, it may be a case that the boss knows every worker by name and whenever a promotion opportunity arises, the boss knows who is the best employee below that level and therefore the best person to promote. But in ninety-nine Percent of businesses the bosses, owners, or directors do not personally know any workers below the top executive level and cannot instantly select the best candidate for the post. In most cases promotion is achieved through a major bull-dust-orientated system of written applications and promotion interviews. Under this feeble system the person most likely to get any promotion, is not the best or hardest worker, or even necessarily the smartest worker. Rather the person most likely to get any promotion or senior position is the bossiest, most aggressive person, best able to promote himself or herself as the apparent best person for the job. This is why we all know people who are good, honest, hardworking, even seemingly brilliant types, who when they retire after decades in the same work place have never been promoted off the bottom rung of the job ladder. It is also why (particularly in the Australian public service) most of the top executives seem little better than morons, hardly able to work out how to put their own pants on, let alone run an office or department. Called SES officers (Special Executive Staff), the common workers, behind their backs call them "Spastic Executive Staff". Because, the whole corrupt process of promotion in anything but the smallest of firms means the most aggressive, biggest bull-dust-artists are the ones most likely to get any promotion. This leads to a sort of pyramid effect, where at the bottom level most workers are competent. At the second bottom level again most workers are competent, but a few less. At the third bottom level again a few less workers are competent. Then the next level a few less again, until by the Spastic Executive Staff almost no-one is competent.
If this is the case, then in one-hundred-and-seventy years from now once the corruptly sexist process of Affirmative Action Man-Bashing has brought about a fifty/fifty allocation of all jobs between men and women in the workplace, how long will this situation last? Surely, as soon as Affirmative Action Sexism is stopped men will start to get promoted ahead of women again, start to dominate the upper echelons of business again, forcing the feminist to re-introduce the process of Affirmative Action Man-Bashing all over again. Are we to keep suffering through this process in cycles ad-infinitum, ad nauseam. Or will the rights of men be so thoroughly downgraded by then that Affirmative Action Sexism will be maintained forever? So that despite the claims of feminist groups to want equality of the sexes, we will never again having anything bordering upon sexual equality in this country, but instead will have the evil regime of Affirmative Action Man-Bashing down grading men's rights and business rights forever.
I mention business rights, because another problem with Affirmative Action Sexism is, that by deciding whether to employ or promote someone because of what they have between their legs, rather than because of their ability to actually do the job, it is only a matter of time before industries who have passed over many competent men in favour of incompetent women will start to go bankrupt. It is my prediction that within a decade we will see some huge businesses (possibly even as huge as BHP or AMP) going bankrupt because by endorsing Affirmative Action Sexism, they will have promoted too many incompetents to the upper echelon of directorship, and these incompetent directors will make too many crazy decisions for their company to survive. If a firm the size of BHP or AMP goes bust, it would wipe out the life savings of perhaps eight to ten percent of all Australians in the swipe of a pen. Then at last you could be sure the evils of Affirmative Action Man-Bashing will be taken a little more seriously than they are now by many people. Of course, for the one-point-eight to two million Aussies driven bankrupt, it will be a little too late. I would suggest at that time Affirmative Action Nihilism will cut so completely across the gender line that there will be as many women screaming about it as there now are men. (Although, to their credit, many fair-minded women are already calling for the abolition of Affirmative Action Sexism. And it is certainly not the intention of this article to suggest that all women are persecuting men; only the sexist idiots who call themselves feminists!)
* * *
PART TWO: ITEMISED SPECIFICS
At the moment Australia is a sexist, man-bashing society, masquerading as an equal society. To achieve actual equality the following needs to be done:
1) THE DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN'S AFFAIRS should be scrapped. As Jan Murray correctly said when this department was launched, "Why do women need their own department if men don't? Women are not a minority!" This is absolutely true. In our society fifty-two Percent of people are women. Women most definitely are not a minority; thus the whole concept of a Department of Women's Affairs is sexist and man-bashing. If we are ever going to have actual equality in our society, women must learn to stand on their own two feet. Unfortunately at the moment too many women live in the Twilight Zone, and then cry sexist when they cannot compete with men in the real world. Until women come out of the Twilight Zone and live and work in the real world, of course they cannot compete in the real world. Common sense should tell us this, yet it seems very few feminists possess the faculty of common sense.
2) AFFIRMATIVE ACTION should also be scrapped. This is most definitely sexist. As Antoinette Rydyr points out in her cartoon "Slugman", affirmative action is where women without qualifications get jobs because they are women, in preference to men with qualifications. This is certainly man-bashing sexism. The whole point to equality is that men and women should not be discriminated against because of their gender. If we promote women because they are women, clearly we are selecting people on the basis of their gender, and thus discriminating against men because of their gender. Therefore we are most definitely being sexist.
Another factor to consider, is the evil, insidious way the Affirmative Action-Sexist Bureau has been attempting to blackmail employers into supporting Affirmative Action-Sexism, by publishing lists of employers who do not return filled in the thousands of affirmative action forms that the Affirmative Action-Sexist Bureau sends round each year to all major firms these days. It has been claimed by employer groups that if they filled in all the forms the Affirmative Action-Sexist Bureau sends to them each year, it would cost them at least $5,000; just to keep in sweet with a dictatorial government department. As a consequence many firms (even those we use Affirmative Action-Sexism in their hiring and promotion process) do not bother to fill out these forms.
The Affirmative Action-Sexist Bureau has retaliated against these firms by printing a hit list of so-called sexist firms who do not return all their forms on time. Now remember, many of these firms actually do operate along Affirmative Action-Sexist lines. They simply are not prepared to spend $5,000 of their own money to keep in sweet with the Affirmative Action-Sexist Bureau. Nonetheless they have their name published as a sexist employed with the implicit threat of possible further government action against them. Some people have suggested I am paranoid to suggest Australia is no longer a democracy. But for the Lord's sake, what the Affirmative Action-Sexist Bureau is engaged in is nothing less than Big Sister Watching Over you. It is totalitarianism of the order that writers of the calibre of George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, and Yevgeny Zamyatin (whose book "We" was the basis of both "1984" and "Brave New World") have warned us about over the last eighty years or more.
Although in fairness to the Affirmative Action Sexist Bureau I can see one good thing about its hit lists. Namely that they will be useful for those of us who support equality of the sexes in the workplace (and therefore do not support Affirmative Action Sexism), by acting as a list of the firms that we should try first when looking for employment. When seeking non-writing work to support me, I will certainly make it plain to all prospective employers that since I support equality in the workplace, I cannot work for any firm, which supports the sexist obscenity of Affirmative Action Man-Bashing.
As I have said above, the Affirmative Action-Sexist Bureau is rotten through and through to the core. It is beyond redemption, and if we ever want a truly equal society, it certainly must be abolished.
3) THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION should be scrapped. The concept of an Equal Opportunity Commission is certainly a good idea, if we want an equal society (and I hope to God we all do). However, the problem is that it was infiltrated by hard-core loony tunes feminists from day one. And from day one the Equal Opportunity Commission in this country has been rotten through and through.
For the Equal Opportunity Commission to have been honest, a number of safe guards should have been instigated from day one: Firstly, at least eight commissioners should sit on each hearing, with fifty Percent of commissioners having to be men; fifty Percent women. Secondly, at least a two-thirds majority should be required to achieve a conviction. That way if the fifty Percent women turn out to be loony tune feminists; sexually biased against all men, they cannot bring down an unfair verdict against a man, without at least some of their male colleagues voting with them. Thirdly, (as was the case prior to the Paul Keating regime) when a woman brings a case against a man there should be some burden of proof upon her that her reaction to what the man has said and done is a reasonable reaction. At the moment if 999 out of 1,000 women would laugh off the man's actions or words, but he is unlucky enough to get the 1 in 1,000 who takes offence, that is just his bad luck. Clearly this is unreasonable. If most women would not take offence at what has been said or done, then the women who has taken offence is acting irrationally and probably should be given some form of counselling to help her back to mental health. Fourthly, democratic and constitutional practices should always be observed. For instance the Australian Constitution says that "A man is innocent till prove guilty" of any charge brought against him. Yet the Equal Opportunity Commission has flagrantly ignored this on many occasions by deciding against the man in cases where a single woman brings a charge against a man who denies the charge, and where neither of them can provide any evidence or witnesses. In an open court such a case cannot legally be tried, let alone convicted. The case would have to be thrown out of court from lack of evidence, since in a democratic society the word of one person is equal to the word of another, so the claims of the accused and the accuser cancel each other out. Yet time and time again the Equal Opportunity Commission have tried such cases and brought convictions against the man accused. In doing so they have not only acted immorally but also illegally. They are also acting in a flagrantly sexist manner, since their whole basis of conviction is the sexist assumption that men always lie and women always tell the truth!
If the Equal Opportunity Commission were even remotely interested in equality, they would throw out without hearing any case when two or more commissioners believe it is a ratbag case, or when there is not enough evidence to bring down a fair conviction.
Taking the above into account the Equal Opportunity Commission is too rotten to the core to be fixed, so it should be scrapped. In its place the federal government should give a small amount of money to the Free Legal Aid to cover the rare cases of actual sexual discrimination. I stress this should be a small amount, since at the moment well over ninety Percent of cases the Equal Opportunity Commission hears are ratbag cases that should be automatically thrown out without hearing.
4) THE FAMILY COURT should be abolished due to its corruption and incompetency. If this manifesto is about nothing else, it is about the belief that people should be mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions. This is clearly not the case with the sexist, man-bashing Family Court at the moment. Not only is it flagrantly splitting up families, destroying lives, treating men like dross, it is also murdering men and children!
Like the Equal Opportunity Commission, the family court is at heart a sexist, man-bashing organisation. It begins with its sexist habit of virtually always giving custody of children to the mother after a separation or divorce. This is based of the sexist and old-fashioned assumption that women are somehow natural parents and therefore better parents than men. In actual fact historic evidence belies this assumption. Child welfare experts and psychologists will tell you if you ask that historically women have generally been awful parents (either as single parents or as married parents). It is historical fact (so the psychologists assure us) that at least ninety Percent of all the children in history (both in advance civilisations and primitive societies) who have died before adulthood, have died due to neglect by their mothers. Yet it seems, in the "minds" (I use this term inadvisably) of the family court, that women are somehow automatically fitter to be parents than men are. This is sexist, man-bashing as well as historically, proven to be untrue. Children who die from neglect by their mothers this way are certainly murdered by the incompetents at the family court.
Another way the family court (or should that be the infamous court?) are responsible for killing children is by driving men to the point of despair where they crack under the strain and go on the rampage. Either killing their ex-wife and children, themselves and their children or possibly themselves, their ex-wife, and their children. Frankly the so-called family court is more like Charles Manson's Family than a court. Charles Manson killed only fifteen or sixteen people and is behind bars forever. The Australian family court has killed dozens if not hundreds of people over the last few decades, so why in the Lord's name aren't its commissioners behind bars, when without a doubt they are Australia's greatest ever mass-murderers?
It is very difficult for any parent to have to live permanently without their children. But even more difficult, when the sexist nature of the family court decrees in advance that one of them does not have the right to even try to get custody of their children. Supposedly Australia is now a sexually equal society, yet the sex of the parents still determines who gets custody of the children (the mother virtually always), and who pays for their upkeep until they leave school (the father virtually always).
A fairer system would be where whichever parent has the higher income, and greatest chance of supporting the children without child support from the other parent or the federal government, to get first choice to have custody of the children. If they choose not to have custody of them, then, and only then, should they have to pay child support if the other parent has the children.
I know the feminists will have a fit at my suggestion women should not automatically get child-support because the family court chooses not to allow their ex-husband to even try to get custody of his own children. However, if we are ever going to have a truly equal society (against the wishes of the feminists) then it is necessary for women to one day learn to stand on their own two feet. If we are going to have equal pay for women, we must also have equal work, and equal responsibilities. At the moment women are not very good at taking responsibility. For so long women have been able to sit back on their backsides watching TV while hubby goes out to work, busts his gut to earn a wage, and then simply give half the money to the woman. So that even in these liberated times, when women claim it is their rights to never consider their husband or ex-husband's rights, they still seem to regard it as their birthright because of their sex to keep holding their hand out toward the man whom it seems even in the liberated society is supposed to happily remain the money-provider forever.
No, it is time to introduce total equality of the sexes (whether women like it or not). It is long since time for women to learn to stand on their own two feet, support themselves and not expect their husband or ex-husband to always pay their way through life. It is time for women to compete for custody of their children in a divorce or separation and not automatically get custody due to the fundamental sexism of the Family Court. It is time for women to compete for jobs and promotions equally and expect to get them when they are the best candidate, but never expect to get them solely upon gender lines when they are not the best candidate for the job.
And it is time for women to take responsibility for their own actions, not always blame men when things go wrong. A case in point would be the controversy over silicone breast-implants going wrong some years ago. What amazed me the most was the number of women who put all the blame for their plight upon their husbands or boyfriends, or the doctors who did the implant surgery. Now even if boyfriends or husbands pressured women to have implants, no husband or boyfriend ever made the ultimate decision for his wife or girlfriend to have implants, since without her permission it could not be done. Likewise when it comes to blaming the doctors. Yes, some of the implant surgeons were less competent than they should have been, and federal legislation probably fell down on regulating such implants. However, I have never heard or seen evidence of a single surgeon tying down a woman and forcing her to have breast implants against her will.
There is an old saying, which would now be regarded by many as sexist: "Vanity, thy name is Woman!" When it comes to breast implant surgery this statement is not sexist! It is the literal truth. Despite what most implant recipients still try to claim no women ever had breast implant surgery (other than to replace a breast lost to cancer) for any reason except her own vanity.
So to achieve complete equality of the sexes women must have the right to sue any employer who passes over her for a job or promotion because she is a woman. But equally she must not have the right to get a job just because she is a woman. As I said in "Between Women and Men", since the days of John Caine in the 1980s Victoria has had sexist legislation in place whereby if the best two applicants for a job or promotion are a man and a woman and there is no splitting them on experience, education, work history, or any other factor, then the woman must get the job because of what is between her legs, not what is in her head!
To achieve complete equality of the sexes, women must acknowledge that there are two sexes, men and women (as the feminists pointed out in the 1970s before they became rotten through to the core and feminist became just a polite euphemism for "Flagrant Man-Bashing Sexist"), and that if women expect a fair deal in the work place, they should have the courage and honesty to stand up for the rights of men in the work place also.
To achieve complete equality of the sexes, women must give up such sexist institutions as Affirmative Action and the corruption of the Family Court where unless they are convicted child-murderesses, the mother virtually always gets custody of children after a separation or divorce.
To achieve complete equality of the sexes women must start to pay their own way in life, not expecting constant handouts from former husbands, and must learn to take responsibility for their own actions not always blaming their husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or any other male they can think of to slander.
The reality is that women no longer never the flagrant sexism of Affirmative Action to achieve success (if they ever did), look at three great examples of successful Australian women: Janet Lassiter, Catherine Cummin and Julia Gillard. None of these women have ever promoted themselves by gender, only by their deeds and actions. All three are widely respected in Australian political circles, all three are hugely respected by me personally, and all three have refused to ever use feminism or Affirmative Action to achieve success. All three have succeeded upon their drive, ambition and ability alone. And all three have been greatly successful: Janet Lassiter and Catherine Cummin in the Maryibyrnong City Council and Julia Gillard as a federal politician and now our first female prime minister. Although to Ms Gillard's credit she is not promoting herself on gender for the upcoming federal election, only upon her already ample achievements.
When this article appears I am sure the hardcore, nutcase feminists will slander me, calling me a sexist. But this article is not about putting down women. It is about my belief that both women and men have a right to absolute equality. But neither sex has the right to unfair advantages due to an accident of gender.
© Copyright 2010