#genderpolitics

LAPD the next victim on the block

Notice a theme? Left-wing city governments around America are entertaining and enacting cuts to police budgets. Minneapolis City Council is going even further. It is debating “to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and start fresh with a community-oriented, nonviolent public safety and outreach capacity.

This group of LAPD officers stood up to LA City Councillor Monica Rodriguez to tell her if it wasn’t for them, Los Angeles would be a charred mess.

The police spokesperson responded,

Now you’re cutting from their families and they put everything on the line? We are going to fight… At the ballot box.

So the good cops in the LAPD will suffer for the actions of a few.

LA City Mayor Eric Garcetti is the politician who proudly championed that he would have the water and electricity cut off for any businesses that didn’t comply with the stay at home order. He also proudly banned sunbathing on dry sand.

These politicians are insane. If they want to invite the exact destruction to the cities they control under the belief that defunding the police will prevent it, they couldn’t do a better job than they’re doing.

Pathetic.

The Right has no problem with the Left’s free speech

The Left misses the point every time. Conservatives don’t wish for Clementine Ford’s free speech to be curtailed or reined in at all. On the contrary. We think her comments speak for themselves. This comment was far from her worst. She is proud of her “potty mouth” as her Twitter handle boasts.

We find it utterly contemptible that the City of Melbourne’s Lord Mayor Sally Capp didn’t stand up and send a message by cancelling the grant funded by ratepayers. Instead she said it couldn’t be undone and expressed it only as, “deliberately divisive and incredibly unhelpful.

While Ford walked back her comments with a ‘sorry, not sorry‘ tweet, had a man written “honestly, the corona virus isn’t killing women fast enough” the grant would have been rescinded immediately and the individual raked over coals for weeks.

The hypocrisy of the left is astounding. Recall soon to be retiring conservative radio personality Alan Jones who told NZ PM Ardern to “shove a sock down her throat“. We pointed out the sanctimony of brands like Koala who pulled advertising on the grounds that Jones didn’t reflect their values while at the same time had Clem Ford run a mattress campaign for them. It’s not the principle that matters but the side.

So please Clementine, tell us what you think always. Men aren’t triggered by such ridiculous empty rhetoric. They just find it appalling that the people entrusted to administer ratepayer funds can’t summon up the courage to practice the most basic level of governance and send a message that they have standards they hold ALL people to.

Way to go, Joe! If you vote for Trump, “you ain’t black”

Joe Biden just keeps the gaffes going.

On Friday morning the former VP said, that if black Americans are unsure whether to support him over Trump in the November 2020 election, “then you ain’t black.

Such is the scourge of identity politics within the ranks of the Democrats that Biden is not the only one to think that minorities aren’t entitled to individual thought. Democrat Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (of The Squad) infamously said during the Trump “shith*le country” saga,

We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.

How quickly The Squad (AOC, Pressley, Tlaib and Omar) denounced America’s treatment of minorities when it was that very system that enabled them to attain public office at the highest level.

Essentially, they hold on to the tenet of telling constituents to shut up and conform to the stereotype of their minority status so it can be exploited. Funny how the supposedly racist Trump has done more for black Americans in economic and employment terms before the pandemic than any Democrat preceding him.

Biden, Pressley and other like them behave like the very racists they condemn.

Biden later apologized on a call with the Black Chamber of Commerce, “I should not have been so cavalier. I’ve never, never, ever taken the African-American community for granted…I shouldn’t have been such a wise guy.”

Osaka Mayor says men should food shop as women are too indecisive. We disagree

Osaka Mayor Ichiro Matsui said that men should do the food shopping during coronavirus as women are indecisive and take too long.

We would disagree with Mayor Matsui on the subject of food shopping.

There is literally nothing more terrifying for a husband than being sent into battle with a list from the wife, especially when the receipt will be scrutinized for the cost and quality of selected items. Hours can be lost in a supermarket trying to limit the number of offences that will come from the inquisition that will inevitably follow upon his return.

Hijacking a pandemic for publicity

Here we go again.

600 and counting “behavioral scientists” have co-signed an open letter to the UK Government to express their concerns over the Coronavirus response.

Spend a few moments going through the excel file of signatories and it is a random walk. Professors in psychology, PhD students in statistics, undergrads in law, economics and engineering. Many from the University of Warwick. Presumably someone hung around the student refectory to get anyone to sign it.

It wasn’t so long ago that we had a bunch of smug psychiatrists who told us Trump wasn’t mentally fit. The lead claimed she was a member of the World Mental Health Council. Big name with 6 digit membership, right?

For reference, the American Psychiatric Association has c. 38,000 members. We could be easily led to believe the WMHC had multiples of that. Sadly not. It has a total of 37. Yes, thirty-seven. Given the World Psychiatric Association represents 200,000 members worldwide, we can get a fair idea of how much ‘pull’ WMHC hasn’t.

Or the 11,000 supposed scientists who co-signed a letter on climate change only to be caught with Mickey Mouse, Araminta Aardvark and Albus Dumbledore among the names. Precious little due diligence to ensure it had credibility.

Or the 268 Aussie academics who endorsed Extinction Rebellion. Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter was Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility.

Eerily, over 90% of the signatories did not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science. Many of the woke academia came from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender and racism. Can you feel the bias?

Or the other open letter to The Times co-signed by “businesses” who supported Extinction Rebellion in the UK. We attached their own published business models in distance of each HQ from the protest epicenter. It’s easy to say how woke they are about impacting local businesses when you’re nowhere near the problems.

When will this vacuous virtue signaling stop?!

Now I know my ABC

FNF Media has finally got around to updating the state of our ABC as compiled in the 2018/19 annual report.

The national broadcaster still believes we should fork over even more taxpayer dollars to keep this icon producing more of what the citizens supposedly demand, even though more of the audience believes that “efficiency/management quality” is headed south (p.158) and overall ratings continue to slide.

Despite over $1bn per annum, why do ratings in the metro and regional areas keep falling? We wrote about this last year:

Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 the TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Hardly a stretch.

In 2018/19 it fell into the mid-40s. So inside of 13 years, ABC audiences have shrunk by 10-15%. That is appalling.

We have argued for a long time that the ABC needs a complete overhaul.

In the 2018 annual report, the ABC staff survey revealed engagement was at 46%, 6% below the previous survey. This put the broadcaster in the bottom quartile of all ANZ businesses. Reform was and still is desperately needed.

ABC staff complained that management didn’t do enough to get rid of underperformers. Another clear signal that state-sponsored mediocrity was tolerated and staff didn’t like it.

In the 2018/19 annual report, Chair Ita Buttrose AC made the following comments,

Staff morale was badly shaken, and my priority has been to reinvigorate it by restoring order and enhancing good governance with the help of Managing Director, David Anderson, and his management team. Our employees, in content areas and vital support functions, need a strong sense of direction and a feeling that management has their backs. I feel we are now providing it.

Tucked away in the back pages (p.216) is an interesting subsection on the Code of Practice. There is some eye-opening content with respect to the way it conducts its business.

Take this gem to start with on complaints as to whether it constitutes a potential breach of the charter:

A complainant is entitled under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (“the BSA”) to take their complaint to the ACMA if, after 60 days, the ABC fails to respond to the complainant or the complainant considers the ABC’s response is inadequate.

The ACMA has a discretionary power to investigate a complaint alleging the ABC has,
in providing a national broadcasting service, breached its Code of Practice. Section 151 of the BSA provides that the ACMA may investigate the complaint if it thinks that it is desirable to do so.

The ACMA’s jurisdiction under sections 150-151 does not encompass the ABC’s print content or content disseminated by the ABC over the internet or through mobile devices.

Print and internet-based content fall out of the remit for complaints. So technically ABC can say what it pleases. ACMA is hardly wielding a big stick when it comes to the ABC.

Accuracy is a fun area which would seemingly fall foul of rarely being presented in context:

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Why did the ABC report that less than 1% of burnt area in the recent bushfires had been started by arsonists? Given that most fires couldn’t be attributed to anything at the time, the ABC forgot to mention the “unknown” category so it could slice the data so it could list the smallest possible percentage. 12,000 fires had been reported since August 2019. 1,700 had been investigated with 42% reported by the NSW Police as deliberately lit.

Impartiality

…The ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Why did it allow a bunch of radical feminists to openly call for the murder of men, providing a platform to a convicted terrorist or happily release a tweet that said former PM Abbott liked anal sex? Or calling conservative politicians “c@nts“? Guess we’re just not open minded enough.

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.
4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic
principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Why does the ABC constantly run a climate alarmist narrative? Why does Q&A attack conservatives on the panel almost every episode?

Secret recording and other types of deception

“5.8 Secret recording, misrepresentation or other types of deception must not be used by the ABC or its co-production partners to obtain or seek information, audio, pictures or an
agreement to participate except where:

(a) justified in the public interest and the material cannot reasonably be obtained
by any other means; or
(b) consent is obtained from the subject or identities are effectively obscured; or
(c) the deception is integral to an artistic work.

In cases, the potential for harm must be taken into consideration.”

Why did the ABC insert ­itself into the election campaign with a program timed to derail the election prospects of the Left’s hate ­figure, Pauline Hanson and One Nation? An Al ­Jazeera expose, How to Sell a Massacre, was a sting three years in the making, employing hidden cam­eras to ­record One Nation’s ­unsuccessful attempts to solicit foreign funding with the aid of the National Rifle Association. Why was the ABC consorting with the national broadcaster of a foreign power which has highly exceptional human rights standards which flies in the face of all the woke agenda pushed by the ABC? Double standards much?

Privacy

Privacy is necessary to human dignity and every person reasonably expects that their privacy will be respected. But privacy is not absolute. The ABC seeks to balance the public interest in respect for privacy with the public interest in disclosure of information and freedom of expression.

That is a whole can of worms. Can we trust the ABC to execute fairly in this regard?

Harm & Offence

“7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
7.2 Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context, make
reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content through the use of classification labels or other warnings or advice.”
7.6 Where there is editorial justification for content which may lead to dangerous imitation or exacerbate serious threats to individual or public health, safety or welfare, take appropriate steps to mitigate those risks, particularly by taking care with how content is expressed or presented.
7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.”

Again, what purpose was there to get a panel of radical feminists outright calling for the murder of men? Or just use taxpayer funds on an article on how to give blow jobs?

Kids Programs

Take due care over the dignity and physical and emotional welfare of children and young people who are involved in making, participating in and presenting content produced or commissioned by the ABC…Take particular care to minimise risks
of exposure to unsuitable content…

Why did the ABC run a kids program attacking white privilege?

We have long supported a shift to the TVNZ model, where the kiwi national broadcaster is forced to raise most of its own revenue by appealing to the demands of the market.

TVNZ gets $310m of its $318m purse from advertising. It’s staff costs excluding capitalizing into programs is $72m which converts to 23% staff cost/revenues. They do with 642 FT employees. Revenue/employee is $495,000 vs half that at the ABC. It paid a dividend back to the government of $3.7m. i.e. it is a revenue generating asset.

In 2007, TVNZ had $339m in revenue. It employed 1,023 people. Therefore revenue per employee was $331,380. So in a decade, TVNZ efficiency improved almost 50%. A 6% cut to revenue on 63% reduction in staff. TVNZ ratings are up too.

So instead of Ita Buttrose impersonating Oliver Twist she should be channeling Jerry Maguire and asking advertisers to “show her the money!”

The ABC needs to live in the real world of media because it provides no distinct differentiation from what is already available in the marketplace. You see our ABC should be confident that it has a sustainable audience for its type of journalism. It shouldn’t be one to fear but one to embrace.

For the ABC, it’s best not risk it. Easier to suck on the teat of the taxpayer and ask for even more money so it can try to arrest the decline in so much content that is totally unsalvageable.

Victoria to become 100% female if superannuation laws passed

The Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria is wanting to push legislation to allow companies to pay women a higher rate of superannuation than men to close the gap. Adjustments to the Sex Discrimination Act would be required.

Given the legislation that allows one to change gender without question in Victoria, why would anyone identify as male if their superannuation might be higher with a company that wanted to be woke? Who are companies to deny my right to identify as the gender I claim to be.

Even if companies wanted to voluntarily pay women more superannuation, they should prepare for a revolt by men. As bogus as those making a gender change claim might be, if they have it formalized on their birth certificate then, as a matter of law, companies would be forced by their own hand to pay men who identify otherwise.

The market is a wonderful weighing mechanism. Obamacare was one of the largest contributing factors as to why 94% of jobs growth under President Obama was part time. Companies avoided red tape by bypassing the legislation that would raise costs to unsustainable levels.

If governments want to create higher unemployment, pushing higher super is one way to put a brake on jobs growth and push companies to hire cheaper male employees.

So by the very misguided altruism of the Victorian government, women could end up worse off and the gap even wider.

What if a person with genuine gender dysphoria identities as a trans male. That would mean under the legislation a company would be entitled to lower super payments.

There are plenty of other ways to address the gap – this isn’t one of them.