Diversity Council Australia fails to understand ‘diversity’

A brief introduction to the ‘Diversity Council Australia’

“Diversity Council Australia is the only independent, not-for-profit workplace diversity advisor to business in Australia. We offer a unique knowledge bank of research, practice and expertise across diversity dimensions developed over 30 years of operation. In partnership with our members, our mission is to:

  • Lead debate on diversity in the public arena;
  • Develop and promote the latest diversity research, thinking and practice; and
  • Deliver innovative diversity practice resources and services to enable our members to drive business improvement.

DCA provides diversity advice and strategy to over 300 member organisations, many of whom are Australia’s business diversity leaders and biggest employers.”

Further information is available at DCA’s web site/Facebook page/Twitter account and ACNC register entry

The most recent annual report shows income of approx. $1.5 million, of which approx. $1.1 million was generated by annual subscriptions. Although DCA does not appear to the recipient of government grants like so many other feminist organisations, many member organisations are public sector agencies.

The staff at Diversity Council Australia comprise ten caucasians, nine of whom are female … but everyone has different hairstyles. Diversity? Tick. The DCA’s “employee benefits expense” in 2015 totaled $871,798, with “key management personnel” compensation paid or payable being $203,873.

(Just what is it with these feminist organisations who think that gender parity should only be imposed on other peoples businesses or agencies? The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is a classic example, with plenty more here.)

Background to the DCA’s Annual Diversity Debate 2016

Imagine an organisation called the ‘Alternative Diversity Council Australia‘ which organised a debate entitled ‘Is engaging women the game-changer for gender equality?‘ (It sounds a bit condescending to even pose the question, doesn’t it?) Oh, and the organisers decided not to have any feminists on either team. In case their views were a little too, you know, confronting.

Scarcely imaginable right? The organisers of such an event would be torn to shreds in both the mainstream and social media. It just wouldn’t fly.

But thanks to the arrogance and hypocrisy of contemporary feminism all one needs to do is flip genders and everything is magically ok.

And so on the 8 November 2016 Diversity Council Australia convened their Annual Diversity Debate on the topic of engaging men in gender equality.

Let’s consider the definition of ‘diversity‘, which includes:

  1. The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
  2. Variety; multiformity
  3. The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
  4. A point of difference

And so who were the panelists, and just how diverse a group were they? The panelists were Kate Jenkins, Pip Marlow, Stephen Barrow, Clementine Ford, Benjamin Law, and Michael Flood. At first glance similar demographics … but let’s focus on belief systems with regards to gender issues.

Were there any men’s rights activists (‘MRA’) amongst them? Anti-feminists/non-feminists/egalitarians? Nope, they are all self-professed feminists (or perhaps pro-feminist/white knight in the case of Stephen Barrow). Further, at least three of the panellists are virulently anti-MRA.

benlawDoes the panel represent a diversity of perspectives on the issue of gender? Of course it doesn’t. As supporters of the same ideology the panelists represent quite the opposite – they represent a ‘uniformity’ of views.

Further, the invitation to the event sets the parameters of the debate firmly within the realm of feminist-approved topics:

“Progress has been made towards achieving gender equality in the workplace, yet significant issues still remain – such as the persistent gender pay gap, the serious under-representation of women in leadership, and the widespread prevalence of discrimination (for both women and men) when it comes to pregnancy, parental leave or a return to work.”

Now let’s consider the definition of ‘engage‘ (as in ‘engage with men’), which is to:

  1. To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
  2. To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
  3. To attract and hold fast
  4. To attract or please
  5. To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
  6. To betroth
  7. To bring troops into conflict

This sounds rather like drafting men into servitude, so perhaps ‘engage’ is not the best term to use here. And indeed, the model of engagement proposed by the ‘yes’ team was very much a one-sided affair. This came as no surprise given the participation of Kate Jenkins, whose predecessor at the Australian Human Rights Commission was Elizabeth Broderick and chief architect of the ‘Champions of Change‘ program.

This component of the feminist vision translates into recruiting men in positions of authority as tools to enhance female privilege through the use of shaming and appeals to chivalry. It does not involve any reciprocal responsibility to listen to, understand, or render assistance to men.

I’d prefer to think that engagement, in the context of the DCA debate, would entail a two-way symbiotic relationship between men and women, with each group listening to/asking questions – and then committing to help one another.

On the contrary, the typical model of feminist interaction when men dare mention issues that detrimentally affect them, is to tell them to STFU and stop being whiny man-babies.

The following posts discuss and provide examples as to how feminists typically engage with men in the real world:

Beware the ire of an angry feminist
On the censorship and erasure of non-feminist perspectives and opinions
Regarding online harassment
A feminist laments: “Why do so few men turn up to hear women speak?”
“I wonder if we men would have behaved the same seeing women at a summit for men?”
White Ribbon Campaign to men: Stand up! Speak up! Shut up!
Regarding the notion of ‘Ironic Misandry’

Put simply, feminists could care less about helping men, excepting perhaps a few exceptions where benefits to men were collateral spin-offs from the primary goal of enhancing the relative position of women.

And let’s not forget the sponsors of the debate: NAB, Optus, Johnson & Johnson, BAE Systems and Boardroom Media. I look forward to seeing these organisations also support causes that benefit the welfare of men and boys, for example the ‘One in Three‘ organisation.

The outcome of the DCA’s 2016 debate

The following image says it all. Audience members left the event even more biased against men than they were when they arrived. That’s some negative outcome. A result that’s hardly likely to accelerate progress re: mutual respect and gender equality, is it? But to the DCA this was a “great night“.

dcadebate

Here are some of the tweets that emerged from the floor of the debate:

dcadebate1dcadebate2

dcadebate3dcadebate4

Was there some way in which DCA might have redeemed this otherwise farcical event? Aside from having a diverse and representative discussion panel? There was one other thing. Readers might have read elsewhere in this blog about the film The Red Pill, and the problems currently being experienced regarding finding screening venues.

Why couldn’t the Diversity Council have organised a screening of The Red Pill as either an adjunct to the debate, or as a subsequent event. What better gesture via which the Council establish credibility, in the broader (non-feminist) community, than to arrange a screening of this notable film concerning issues affecting men and boys.

If the council truly believed in diversity, in gender equality, and in engaging with men … then they should go ahead and walk the walk … engage.

But they don’t. And they won’t. And the gender debate – and the community – is all the poorer as a result.

Since when did it become acceptable for public servants to block people on social media in the absence of threats or abuse? Since now it would seem

Most public sector agencies, and many businesses, develop and enforce policies to guide their employees in the appropriate use of social media. The focus of most such policies is to reduce the likelihood that employees will post something that compromises the organisation that they work for. Conversely, the main criticism of social media policies is their potential to muzzle employees from communicating freely with the public.

A study commissioned by the Australian Electoral Commission recognised that “social media afford(ed) new opportunities for engaging citizens in democratic processes” (p8), but warned that sites can “become ‘digital enclaves’ or ‘echo chambers’ for small groups of like-minded citizens who dominate discussion.” (p29)

Social media policies may make provision to block members of the public who post spam or abusive or threatening messages onto the Facebook page/Twitter stream/etc of the organisation in question.

Few social media policies, however, seem to address the issue of whether staff are allowed to block/ban or remove posts in relation to members of the public who post material that is not offensive, but which may embarass the individual/organisation and/or promote or reflect alternative ideologies or belief systems.

Granted, my research has been limited, but the sole exception I have come across thus far in the public sector is the ‘ACT Government Social Media Policy Guidelines‘. That policy includes the following clause:

“Openness and transparency should be the defaults, meaning blocking users on Twitter and locking Facebook groups designed for public interface is not advisable” (Source – refer page 27)

This topic recently reared its head as a result of my interaction with a government agency known as the Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’).

As readers of this blog would be aware, I maintain an ongoing interest in the operation of the AHRC (example). That being the case I periodically check the relevant social media accounts to maintain an awareness of what is being said and done, and occasionally to comment.

The other day I was surprised to discover this notice upon attempting to view the Twitter stream of the Sex-Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins:

Jenkins2

I looked at my most recent tweets to Ms Jenkins to see if I had inadvertently stepped over the line re: civility. This is what I found:

jenkins1

Fairly tame stuff, huh? As I expected. I challenge Ms Jenkins or anyone else I have communicated with to produce anything that they consider to be so offensive as to justify punitive action. I mean aside from generalised hurt feelings arising from transgressions against cherished ideology.

I’m both a tax-payer and a former public servant, and I would no sooner have binned correspondence from the public/hung up on people/etc than walk to work naked. And make no mistake, blocking constituents on social media is the current-day equivalent of such actions. How things have changed.

I wonder if such action is permissible for federal public servants under the existing legislative/regulatory framework? I wonder how commonly it occurs, and whether anyone actually knows?

I also wonder if the staff who engage in this type of systematic disengagement are more or less likely to hold particular ideological views? This PEW Research article, for example, found that the people most likely to block others on social media held consistent leftist/liberal views.

As I discussed in another blog post, this default position of silencing rather than engaging dissenting voices has become a hallmark of gender feminists.

It must be quite intoxicating to believe that your position is so right, and others so diabolically wrong, that dialogue with unbelievers is not just redundant but seemingly an affront to decency.

General guidelines for public sector staff,  in relation to engagement with the public including via social media, are set out in ‘APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice‘. It contains a number of provisions relevant to this issue such as:

2.2.3 The Directions about this Value require APS employees to engage effectively with the community, working actively to provide responsive, client-focused service delivery. <snip> Employees must also ensure that decisions and interactions with clients are objective and impartial, and in accordance with government policy.

4.5.7 <snip> employees should avoid partisan comment and ensure that their approach to speaking publicly about policies supports public confidence in the capacity of the APS to be impartial.

5.1.3 A real conflict of interest occurs where there is a conflict between the public duty and personal interests of an employee that improperly influences the employee in the performance of his or her duties.

The Australian Human Rights Commission comes under the oversight of the Australian Attorney-General. That being the case I approached that Department (the ‘AGD’) as follows:

“Today I noted that I had been blocked from accessing the Twitter stream of a senior member of staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Prior to this occurring I can confirm that I did not communicate in a manner that was abusive, threatening, etc (nor make an excessive number of posts for example) … actions that would reasonably justify being blocked or banned.
Such an action on the part of a senior public servant appears not just unprofessional, but amounts to censorship being applied to stakeholders simply on the basis of holding a dissenting viewpoint.
I am writing to you now to request details of the guidelines under which staff (or agencies themselves) within the AGD are permitted to ban or block members of the public from social media streams or pages. Specifically, is such an action even permissible in the absence of bad language, threats, etc?
I look forward to receiving your timely advice regarding this matter.”

The AGD subsequently replied:

“Thank you for contacting the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (the department). The department is not able to directly assist you. Your enquiry would be more appropriately directed to the Australian Human Rights Commission … “

The social media policy for the Human Rights Commission is provided here. The policy does not clearly state whether staff members are empowered to block people for reasons other than those specified therein – which I did not contravene.

I then directed relevant questions to the Australian Public Service Commission (‘APSC’) and the AHRC. In their initial response the AHRC directed me to their social media policy, which I had already indicated I had read. I replied:

“I am seeking an indication from you as to whether the Commission has either a policy or accepted practice whereby members of staff are empowered make
unillateral decisions to place blocks or bans on members of the public
seeking to access and engage with various online portals estatblished
by the AHRC.

As I indicated in my initial email, my focus is on situations where
there has been no clear contravention of the  standards of behaviour
set out in your policy.  I look forward to receiving your further advice on this matter.”

The subsequent response from the AHRC again directed me to their Social Media Policy. From that I think we can assume that they have either not understood the nature of my concern, or that such concerns are only to be addressed on an ad hoc basis.

In contrast I received useful feedback from Paul Casimir, Director Integrity, Employment Policy Group at the APSC:

“The Australian Public Service Commission has not developed guidance for APS agencies about the circumstances in which it would  be appropriate for an APS employee or an APS agency to block access to a Twitter feed or similar social media platform. This is a matter for individual agencies to consider in each case having regard to a number of factors including, but not limited to, the obligation under the Commissioner’s Directions to engage effectively with the community.

Where an APS employee has acted in a manner inconsistent with the APS Values or Code of Conduct that matter may be referred to the head of that agency for consideration as a potential breach of the Code of  Conduct.

However, it may also be relevant to you to know that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Kate Jenkins, is a statutory officer appointed under the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. As such, she is not an APS employee and is not bound by either the APS Code of Conduct or the APS Values in the way that APS employees are. The excerpts of your blog post from the APS Values and Code of Conduct In Practice do not apply to her.”

rightstalk-access-cropped

My own position on this matter? I don’t take Ms Jenkins gesture personally in the least. I do find it ironic, however, that someone whose job it is to protect rights should be so amenable to the removal of rights. Indeed the Commission is on record as asserting internet access to be a fundamental human right. The possibility that Ms Jenkins action was tainted with a degree of misandry is similarly repellent.

I believe that the sort of waspish and self-indulgent behaviour common to online feminist echo chambers is completely inappropriate when transposed to the digital portal of a public sector agency. In the latter situation the priority should not be shunning and shaming, but rather sharing and engaging. Such as approach should be consistently applied to all interested stakeholders – regardless of their ideological preferences and/or the extent to which their views align with those of the relevant agency or individual managing the account.

When banks divert from banking to social engineering

Mid-way through 2015 the ANZ bank in Australia opted to join the chorus of ‘enlightened’ corporate entities banging the feminist drum at their customers expense.

The bank’s first step was to release the ANZ Women’s Report: ‘Barriers to Achieving Financial Gender Equity’. And no, in case you wondered, there is no corresponding ANZ Men’s Report. There never is. This despite the fact that, in this instance, many men also “fall behind and retire in poverty“.

“For many years people have been trying to tackle issues around gender equality by asking men and women to change. This approach will not work.

What we need to do is to look at the systems that are holding women back from achieving their full potential. And when we’re talking about systems we’re referring to structures and practices in our schools, workplaces, businesses and community that reinforce biases. These systems need to be redesigned so they are fairer for women, recognise the unique strengths and talents of both genders, and equally support the success of both genders.”

So apparently we can’t ask women to change what they’re doing, even if it directly contributes to their predicament. Nope, we have to change the “systems“.

Since then various related ‘initiatives’ have emerged such as ideologically correct videos (below), and a decision to contribute an additional $500 into the superannuation accounts of female staff based on the feminist misinterpretation of the gender paygap.

Being unhappy about witnessing this regressive move I contacted the bank, firstly via Twitter and then email, to express my concern and dissatisfaction. Our subsequent email exchange is shown below:

“Thanks for getting in touch with us to provide feedback relating to ANZ Women’s Initiative that was launched on the 29 July 2015. This kind of feedback is valuable to us because it helps us better understand what’s important to our customers. 

ANZ is committed to being a socially responsible bank, and we believe that from time to time we have a responsibility to take action on important social issues. We understand that some of our customers and employees hold different views on our decision to make additional superannuation contributions for our female employees, and we respect your right to hold this view.

Research shows that in Australia, women retire with 47% less superannuation than men – and 1 in 5 women yet to retire has no superannuation at all. This is driven by a range of complex factors.  However, on average women retire earlier and live longer than men, so the importance of having enough superannuation is even greater for women.

ANZ has weighed up all of these factors and is comfortable that the payment to female staff is a positive step that will help women to overcome the gap.

ANZ takes the issue of discrimination very seriously and in developing these new measures considered the relevant Sex Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination Laws. The payment is permitted under Australia’s anti-discrimination laws because it is a “special measure” designed to address this super gap that our research clearly demonstrates between men and women.

Our action has the full support of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner advised ANZ that, in her view, ANZ’s initiative is consistent with the objects of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. ANZ has also been given a 10 year exemption from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Commission (because NSW is the only State where the anti-discrimination legislation does not contain a “special measures” exception).

 ANZ views this initiative as a positive step to support women and help close this gap in superannuation savings so they have greater security in retirement. While you may disagree, we do appreciate you taking the time to provide us with this feedback.”

I wrote back to the bank:

“Thank you for your prompt response. I disagree with your rationale for promoting feminist policies at the expense of your customers and shareholders. My original position on this matter remains unchanged and unresolved.

1. Whether women retire with less or nil Super is a reflection of their personal choice. Choice about what type of training they undertook, choice about what field of work in which they seek employment, choice about how much overtime they do, choice about whether they take time out during their careers.

2. Those women who choose to get married often then have the choice to be stay at home mum’s (and be supported by their partner) or not. Most women enter marriage with less assets then their partners, or in debt. Most divorces are initiated by women, who then tend to walk away often with in excess of 50% of their partners assets, even when those assests were accumulated prior to the marriage.

3. The wage gap is a much debunked misrepresentation of the true situation in relation to income received by men and women and cannot be validly used to ‘prove’ gender discrimination. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/the-myth-of-wage-disparity/

4. Women live longer in large part because disproportionately more is spent on research into womens health and on the treatment of womens health issues, and because men are more likely employed in relatively more stressful and higher risk occupations (one reason why they are, on average, in receipt of higher incomes)

In summary for every disadvantage suffered by women there are benefits or advantages, as is the case for men. Therefore it is inappropriate and discriminatory to single out women for incentives/rewards for real or imagined discrimination faced by them, but at the same time to ignore issues that negatively impact on men.

The fact that the additional payment to women by ANZ was ratified by the former AHRC sex-discrimination commissioner is more a reflection of her partiality and gender bias rather than vindication that ANZ’s policy was truly a fair and appropriate one. That issue is discussed in this article – http://www.fighting4fair.com/uncategorized/gender-bias-at-the-australian-human-rights-commission/

And the bank duly wrote back:

“Thank you for your email and further feedback which has been noted. As your concern is regarding a policy decision made by ANZ, the Customer Advocate will not become involved. It is not the role of the Customer Advocate to review or change a matter that relates to ANZ’s setting of staff benefits. If you wish to escalate your concern you may contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.”

Whereupon I said:

“Thank you for your prompt response but my concerns with ANZ’s decision to re-orientate itself in lockstep with feminism philosophy runs deeper than simply the $500 payment to female staff. In the absence of other options I will now investigate/consider the appropriateness of lodging a submission with the Financial Ombudsman Service”

(… to be continued)

See also:

What? No, Women Shouldn’t Be Paid More Super Than Men, by Corrine Barraclough (26 May 2017)

Why we’re backing women, by Lorraine Murphy, National Australia Bank (6 March 2017)

Young women can budget in the short term but struggle with long-term investments: survey (14 February 2017) A very gynocentric article, but which does support the value of addressing financial literacy/skill to enhance post-retirement financial status.

Banks preaching about gender wage gap myth, by Rita Panahi (28 October 2016)

Female tech leadership to get $1m boost (4 October 2016)

Shareholders slam CBA’s ‘diversity’ bonus (27 September 2016) Australia

It would seem that National Australia Bank has now jumped on the bandwagon (August/September 2016) See below and here. Perhaps trying to regain their feminist cachet after an earlier #fail

nab

I see that both ANZ and NAB have directors on the board of Diversity Council Australia. DCA are, amongst other things, the organisers of this feminist talk-fest planned for November 2016.

CEOs say women will be promoted and men should get used to it or leave (24 August 2016)

Radical proposal to force bosses to fork out extra super for women (3 June 2016)

Angus Aitken out at Bell Potter after ANZ Michelle Jablko email (26 May 2016) with further background to this episode in this interview with Kate Jenkins

Tweet from Paul Edwards, Group GM Corporate Communications at ANZ. So now it’s forbidden to criticise women in the finance sector (misogyny!). In the words of Miranda Devine: “Where is the sexism? You know what damages women? Cheap virtue signalling PC BS like this”

The Superannuation Gender Gap (21 April 2016) Australia. Related reddit discussion thread here

Australian bank buys into the gender pay gap rubbish (9 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here. Note the observation about the Bank disabling comments on their Facebook page and cleansing earlier comments – as feminists are wont to do.

Australian bank ANZs new ad. Pushing the wage gap myth on children (March 2016) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

‘Blatant sexism’: ANZ’s #equalfuture campaign cleared of discriminating against men (4 September 2015)

ANZ pays women extra super (31 August 2015) A very long-running discussion in the Whirlpool online forum

ANZ bank giving female employees an extra $500 to correct gender pay gap (August 2015) Reddit mensrights discussion thread

ANZ Bank launches a super deal for female employees (29 July 2015)

ANZ pushes its new gender diversity measures in national campaign (29 July 2015)

This article suggests that women might be better off considering the impact of financial literacy on their retirement savings, rather than complaining about the wage gap.

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 2)

My initial post regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) can be found here. This post addresses the performance of the AHRC following the departure of former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, in September 2015.

There was a considerable delay in appointing a new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. In the interim several articles on the issue emerged, these penned by feminist journalists with notable anti-male credentials (see here and here).

Sex discrimination commissioner job still vacant as government continues to stall (6 January 2016) This article again employs that the role is purely to advocate for women, and assumes that a women will be selected for the role.

Nothing particularly substantial occurred in relation to gender issues at the Commission during this period of vacuum. That which did occur gave no cause for optimism that the AHRC’s anti-male bias had softened with the departure of Ms Broderick.

This November 2015 article discusses the finalists for the 2015 Human Rights Community Award. Note how many of the finalists worked to advance/protect the rights of men/boys. None it would seem.

This December 2015 speech by Megan Mitchell, Children’s Commissioner, began on a relatively gender-neutral note only to then introduce material which signalled feminist bias:

“Previous studies have also estimated that over 20% of children and young people have witnessed violence against a mother or step mother”

Whilst correct, this omits the important fact that as many kids have seen their mum hit their dad, as have seen their dad hit their mum. This is addressed in the ‘Misinformation’ page of the One in Three organisation’s web site:

“23% of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 years had witnessed an incident of physical violence against their mother/stepmother and 22% against their father/stepfather” (Source)

Further gender bias was reported in the mainstream media on the same day in the following manner:

Children’s Rights Commissioner urges national focus on children affected by domestic violence (7 December 2015)

“The Children’s Rights Report being released today found one in every 28 people had also experienced sexual abuse as a child, while a further 23 per cent of children have witnessed violence against their mother”. 

Now back to Megan’s speech, in which she introduced Rosie Batty, Ms Mitchell was also conveniently silent about the fact that most child abuse/neglect/filicide is perpetrated by women. True to feminist form, gender is only relevant or notable when men are the primary perpetrators of harm.

Finally, on 11 February 2016 it was announced that Kate Jenkins had been appointed the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I wonder if there were any men amongst the seven people interviewed for the position? Media commentator Andrew Bolt had something to say about the appointment of yet another woman to the role in ‘End this sex discrimination now‘.

Far more needs to be done to close the gender pay gap in Australia.” (OMG, did she really say that?) Actually Kate, the only thing that needs to be done is that people (read: feminists) should be told to stop misrepresenting it as a tool of patriarchal oppression. A good first step would be reading my blog post.

This article suggests that Kate plans to continue along the sexist path of her predecessor. Feminist high-fives all round.

jenkins

The ABC interview that follows was likewise dispiriting as Ms Jenkins said she would first like to get out to “talk to women, families …”. Go on Kate, you can say it … ‘men’ is not a rude word. Men did rate a mention later, but only in the context of more ‘damselling’ (appeal to & then exploit men’s chivalry) to win support for initiatives that further enhance benefits for women.

This was followed by more obligatory feminist parroting in relation to domestic violence (caused by gender inequality, but oops what about lesbian relationships Kate?), and the gender wage gap <facepalm>. Just brimful of fresh ideas.

#ICYMI Watch: Australia’s new Sex Discrimination Commissioner @Kate_Jenkins_ outline her plan for the role #auspol https://t.co/480sShMTuc

— ABC News 24 (@ABCNews24) February 14, 2016

In ‘What should the new sex discrimination commissioner do? Make ‘women’s issues’ everyone’s issues’ the author suggests a #HeForShe approach, because “like it or not, men are making the lion’s share of the decisions in this country“.  Not terribly original given Ms. Broderick’s much-trumpeted ‘Champions of Change’ project.

Underlying Lauren’s article is an assumption that either (1) there are no ‘men’s issues’, or (2) men’s issues aren’t significant, or (3) that it’s not the Commissioner’s job to address them.

Sooo let’s get men (who have been told repeatedly to butt out of gender-related discussions) to participate more and get behind making things better for women.

Further evidence of the ongoing gender bias at the AHRC was provided in their submission to the 2016 Federal Inquiry into Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality (refer submission 41). In that submission it was implied that all perpetrators of domestic violence were male, that males faced no negative discrimination or stereotyping, and that all victims of these behaviours or attitudes were female or transgender. There is not one sentence in that submission that suggests that the AHRC considers that men are worthy of any support, sympathy or compassion whatsoever.

Kate commenced duties in April 2016 and duly fronted up to give a presentation at the National Press Club. A flurry of pro-feminist articles followed with no suggestion whatsoever that mens/boys issues would receive one iota of attention from the Commissioner. Oh, but she has plenty of drum-banging planned in relation to the <groan> gender pay gap. Here’s one of those articles:

I didn’t imagine we would still need a sex discrimination commissioner in 2016′

I note that the Commission has added some pages to their web site in relation to Family and Domestic Violence, plus links to various articles presenting the feminist perspective on this issue. This page for example provides no corresponding statistics in relation to male victimisation, with its sole reference to that component of DV being the old feminist “overwhelming majority” mantra.

On 3 August 2016 I discovered I had been blocked from Ms Jenkins Twitter account in the absence of any threatening or abusive communication on my part. As both a tax-payer and former public servant I find this action both extraordinary and wholly inappropriate (see this post).

In ‘Australian Bureau of Statistics to discriminate against hiring men‘ (15 September 2016) we learnt that Gillian Triggs has allowed the ABS to hire only female interviewers as “men were more likely to be perpetrators of DV and women were more likely to tell their stories to other women.” Meanwhile they ignore the flip-side that male victims would be more likely to tell their stories to male interviewers – thus perpetuating the statistical erasure of male victimisation.

Please also read the related media release from the ‘One in Three’ organisation, as well as this article from Jasmin Newman.

On 12 October 2016 Kate Jenkins was interviewed about her three top priorities. I wonder how far down the list we would need to go before finding anything in relation to the welfare of men/boys? In fact I wonder if we would find any such item/s anywhere on that list?

kate

kateandclem

The images above show Kate proudly promoting book sales for misandrist radfem Clementine Ford, and then applauding the screening of much-debunked feminist anti-male hit-piece ‘The Hunting Ground‘ (article/article). What a shame she couldn’t wield her influence to have the ABC screen The Red Pill. I’m sure the cash injection by The Hunting Ground was irrelevant to this outcome. Nope, keep moving folks, no bias or conflicted interest here.

See also:

Sex Discrimination Commissioner should get real‘, by Andrew Bolt (1 May 2017) Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott reacts to Kate Jenkins gender quota proposal here, with a related article by Miranda Devine here.

Application to conduct a female-only gym (November 2016) This application linked here primarily as it contains links to other earlier determinations regarding the issue of gender segregation.

Universities Australia defends $1m donation to ‘independent’ campus rape survey (2 November 2016)

A positive development at the New Zealand Human Rights Commission (24 March 2016) Seeing this I thought perhaps in that organisation that mens rights were seen as important too. But after seeing this item, maybe they are little different from AHRC.

Here’s a project that Kate Jenkins could tackle. It concerns the lack of ‘Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Men’ (6 March 2016)

Harassment and discrimination in business and the workplace: Surprise, surprise, it goes both ways

Workplace harassment, of which sexual harassment is the most high profile component, should not be tolerated. This together with associated behaviours such as gossiping and bullying, warrant serious consideration and remedial action. Ditto for gender discrimination in recruitment, promotion and workplace policies.

One would hope that media coverage reflected actual patterns of perpetration. If the majority of perpetrators are historically male, as is likely the case with regards to sexual harassment, then a gendered debate might be called for. What we are seeing nowadays though is more a case of systematic demonisation of male managers and staff, whilst female perpetration of sexist and abusive behaviours is downplayed or even air-brushed out of contention.

Despite the fact that both men and women can (and do) perpetrate these types of behaviours or be victimised by them, media coverage focuses almost entirely on the victimisation of female staff (example). Men (both collectively and individually) are painted as the architects of toxic workplaces, responsible for victimising a slew of women as well as other men.

Conversely, the media generally avoids identifying women as having significant involvement in discriminatory and/or harassing patterns of  behaviour.

One of the outcomes of this situation is that men are discouraged from reporting abuse, in turn reinforcing the view amongst policy-makers and managers that female perpetration is little more than a rare aberration.

Some examples now follow:

Estate agent whose female boss told him at boozy Christmas lunch that she’d perform sex act on him if he hit sales target wins discrimination tribunal (1 June 2017) UK

To the workplace sleazes of the world: Your time is up, by Julia Baird (21 April 2017) Because only men can be sleazes, right?

Workplace equality meaningless unless ‘macho’ culture disappears, by Mary Barry, CEO ‘Our Watch’ (13 February 2017) Not content to simply ignore female perpetration/male victimisation, the author suggests the answer lies in feminising the workplace. But wait there’s more, as the author draws an even longer bow in asserting a nexus between the perceived overt masculinity of many workplaces, and the incidence of domestic violence in the community.

Not asking for it (2016) Australia. This article interviews 13 women about their experiences of sexual harassment. I guess no men were available on the day.

In this example the author again makes no mention of there being either female perpetrators or male victims of inappropriate behaviour (see Reddit discussion thread here).

Similar bias can be seen in ‘Know where the line is: Melissa Hoyer and Elizabeth Broderick address sexual harassment‘ (May 2014). Interestingly though, readers comments paint a quite different picture. This then prompts a furious backlash, with feminists asserting that others are seeking to downplay the significance of harassment of women and/or justify that harassment on the basis that women also harass men. This tends to be the pattern with articles on this topic, and I sense a great deal of pent-up frustration with the one-sided coverage of these issues.

(Addendum: Ms Broderick is now raking in plenty of $$ shaming business into conducting surveys of sexist behaviour which confirm, surprise, surprise, that they have a toxic culture that can only be remedied by feminist consultants.) 

If you care, then stand up and say sexism is not OK (9 January 2016) and Sexual harassment is serious business (13 January 2016). Two further typical offerings, again both ignoring the reality of women as harassers and of there being substantial numbers of male victims of discrimination.

We need to do more about sexual harassment in the workplace (6 January 2016) One need go no further than the first two sentences of the article to note that male victims have been excluded from consideration.

Sexism fail? EOC’s sexual harassment video criticised for showing mostly female victims (30 November 2015)

Australian women share their experiences with sexism in the workplace (16 April 2015) This typical mainstream media article about discrimination in the workplace lacks even a single reference to the fact that men experience the same or similar problems and issues. But again, take a look at the subsequent readers comments both here and at the relevant post in the news.com.au Facebook page … an avalanche of angry men and women pointing out how biased and inaccurate the article is.

Things my male colleagues have actually said to me‘ (10 April 2015) Don’t hold your breath waiting for part 2 ‘Things my female colleagues …’, at least not in the mainstream media. And I note that readers comments are not permitted – which is typical in the case of these anti-male hit-pieces

In contrast very little indeed, with the exception of readers comments, has been written about toxic workplaces from the male perspective. Have men been given a free pass from having to endure such experiences? Or has the plight of male victims simply been ignored, as has occurred in the case of domestic violence and sexual assault?

Unfortunately, one outcome of ignoring female perpetration/male victimisation is the relative lack of objective research. And of course as long as research bias results in such behaviour being excluded from consideration, then there is an over-reliance on conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Hardly an ideal situation in terms of getting the powers-that-be to sit up and take notice.

On that note I just google-searched using the words “My female boss …” and was surprised by the topics that automatically appeared. Try it yourself. Looks like a lot of people having problems with female supervisors. Personally, both my best and worst bosses were female. But boy, the bad ones were shockers.

Moving on, I think it’s clear that some of the behaviour that is perceived as harassment or discrimination in the workplace is a function of the different ways that men and women operate. There are gender-based differences at play, and it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that both men and women should try to understand and compromise.

This WSJ article is another in a long line of articles proposing that men need to adjust to women, but never the other way round (read the comments too). See a critique of this article here, and again I would suggest also reviewing the readers comment.

And again, this August 2016 article appearing in the pro-feminist/SJW ‘The Conversation‘ provides a remarkably one-sided view of the issue. It’s entitled ‘Calling all men! Five ways you can be a feminist at work‘, and it’s by UK academic Scott Taylor.

This provider of business training videos obviously hasn’t heard – or doesn’t care to acknowledge –  that women can also be perpetrators (scroll down to ‘Employment and Workplace Issues‘).

More recently David Schwimmer and Sigal Avia produced a series of short videos portraying sexual harassment of women (12 April 2017) None of the videos showed women harassing others or men being harassed.

The following sources consider discrimination/harassment/false allegations suffered by men/boys:

Just typed this out on another thread thought I would share, my experience being hounded out of an all female office (19 June 2017) Reddit discussion thread

Co-worker made a grievance claim to end my career, I gathered facts to prove otherwise. Compromised HR says I’m taking this too seriously an dismiss it. Advice? (4 April 2017)

Wayne County Deputy Philip Kozlowski files sexual harassment suit aginst female sergeant (3 January 2017) USA

I [25M] am getting sexually harassed by my [32F] co-worker (8 December 2016) Reddit discussion thread

Ex-Yahoo employee sues Marisa Mayer claiming she led an illegal purge of male employees (8 October 2016) with more on that issue here

Sportsman Julian Edelman groped by female fans at book signing (undated) USA

Father wins £30,000 sex discrimination case in row over shared paternal leave (3 October 2016) UK

Men are targets of sexual harassment at work far more commonly than we assume (25 August 2016) UK

‘A bunch of Gaylord Fockers’: The prejudices failing male nurses (20 August 2016)

Teaching accreditation exams reveal grading biases favor women in male-dominated disciplines in France (29 July 2016)

Lorry driver, 40, sent home from work and docked a day’s wages for wearing SHORTS on the hottest day of the year (20 July 2016) UK

Feminist instructor proudly informs readers how she discriminates against male students (15 July 2016) Australia. Reddit discussion thread with linked article.

Student investigated by uni for harassment (19 June 2016) NZ

Workplace sexism: we still don’t want to talk about it, by Kate Jenkins (1 June 2016) Australia. A sole reference to male victimisation in an article that otherwise implies sexism only affects men – should we be glad or sad? I’d suggest that one reason why men “don’t want to talk about it” is the strongly gendered nature of the debate which is equal parts disinterested and dismissive of men’s concerns.

Update on Rates of Violence in Male and Female Exotic Dancers (18 May 2016) France. Reddit discussion thread with linked article – be sure to click through to the earlier study which showed roughly equal rates of harassment/abuse of male versus female performers.

Why women need to stop complaining about their high heels at work (13 May 2016)

Workplace (In)Equality (7 May 2016) Reddit discussion thread. On situations where men & women are paid the same but men routinely given the harder jobs.

Exclusive: Calgary call centre dispatchers accuse female colleagues of sexual harassment (26 April 2016) Australian Human Rights Commission and state anti-discrimination agencies, are you hearing this? This is what happens when you focus on harassment of women 100% of the time:

“She turned towards me and she said, you can’t sexually harass a man”

Are Sexual Favors In The Workplace Discrimination Against Men? (11 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Men are victims of sexism too (18 March 2016) Some interesting readers comments

Men of Reddit, have you been sexually harassed and if so what did you do? [serious] (13 March 2016)

Male teacher numbers dwindling, work in education an ‘isolating experience’ for men (22 February 2016) Australia

Karalee Katsambanis: Male teachers face shocking prejudice (1 February 2016) Australia

Former Yahoo employee accuses company of gender bias – against men (3 February 2016) Men standing up for their rights under the law dismissed as “some kind of ridiculous trend”

Here are two of countless Reddit/mensrights discussion threads about the sexual harassment of men and boys in the workplace: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26kmyx/deleted_by_frogman/ and Bfs boss being highly inappropriate, HR shrugging it off because she was intoxicated (21 January 2016)

Colton Haynes Speaks Out About Male Model Income Inequality (8 January 2016)

Rise of the female sex pest: Think it’s only men who harass colleagues with wandering hands and crude taunts? Not any more (7 January 2016) UK

Men too are victims of sexism, finds survey (21 August 2015) Discussed results of a survey of 2,000 people in India

Sexual harassment inquiry: senior doctors say women can also be perpetrators (12 August 2015)

Women sexually harass female soldiers, says report (20 July 2015)

Traditional Scottish pub barmen stop wearing kilts as women check what is underneath (14 July 2015)

I’m being discriminated against at my job! Help! Reddit discussion thread (24 June 2015)

Privileged Feminists STUNNED by Empirical Evidence – Mike Buchanan MRA London Live TV (26 May 2015) UK

Stop punishing the family man (15 May 2015)

Why Some Male Members of Congress Won’t Be Alone with Female Staffers (14 May 2015)

The unfairer sex? (18 April 2015) Recruitment bias in the STEM sector

‘I was the victim of women sex bullies at work’ (12 April 2015)

Told by my boss I’m intimidating and less effective at my job “because I’m a male” (3 April 2015)

Gender and prestige bias in philosophy (18 March 2015)

How I learnt the importance of reporting sexual harassment in the workplace (10 March 2015) As always, have a good look at the reader’s comments

How feminist propaganda is destroying men’s lives (2 January 2015)

Verbal abuse in the workplace: Are men or women most at risk? (17 November 2014) The same study is also discussed here

Paternity leave:  The rewards and the remaining stigma (7 November 2014)

Sex discrimination against men: 10 ways employers could fall foul (13 October 2014)

Workers happier with members of the same gender, study finds (6 October 2014)

I found a hostile anti-male environment at my new job (2 October 2014) (Reddit discussion thread)

Sexism alive and well in the workplace (A brief discussion on Reddit – perhaps a bit picky but still makes a valid observation) (22 May 2014)

Domestic violence: The NFL isn’t the only workplace with a problem (23 September 2014) See the infographic, which also provides some stats for male victimisation

The myth of the glass ceiling (24 July 2014)

Sexual harassment of men revealed (25 June 2006)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2628308/Childrens-chef-Annabel-Karmel-fired-employee-rejected-sexual-advances-employed-good-looking-men.html (15 May 2014)

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/22im1h/i_work_in_pr_and_this_happened_in_a_meeting_the/

Women complain a lot, interrupt, developer says at conference (4 June 2014) The article is a beat-up but there are some interesting reader’s comments about harassment/discrimination in the workplace)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/technology/technologys-man-problem.html?_r=0&referrer=

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/22ekyr/the_tech_community_works_fine_without_females/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Discussion thread about female on male harassment

Article about male US academic taking action against harassment in his workplace (4 September 2014)

Black knights (22 March 2013)

Profile: Male nursery worker reveals how he faced sexism and prejudice working in the childcare sector (7 March 2013)

Articles concerning false allegations of discrimination or harassment at work

Deutsche Bank Executive Wrongly Fired on `False’ Sex Complaints (25 September 2015)

Monash University awarded $900,000 in indemnity costs for failed sexual harassment case (11 June 2015)

Women falsely accuse man of sexual harassment, man takes women to court (26 March 2015) This was known as the ‘Team Harpy’ case. A good Breitbart article on this issue can be found here.

Articles about how women treat other women/girls at work

“I can’t understand the push for more women in the workplace. My partner has just quit specifically because of problems with women at her workplace. Her sister also has quit her job from a different workplace for the same reason. This prompted me to ask other women I know if they have problems with women in the workplace.

The answers I received staggered me. I have two sisters that I could ask and both said they were having problems with women in the workplace at the moment, but never with men. My own mother when asked said to me, “to be honest with you the only problems I have had in my working life have been with women”.

I have asked now dozens of women when I get the chance, many that are friends, and every one of them say the same thing. That they find it difficult to work with women and that they are the cause of stress in the workplace for them, preferring to work with men.

I challenge readers to ask this question to women they come across. The answers I receive are amazing to me. A real problem that is either unknown or swept under the carpet in my opinion.” (Source)

OPINION: ‘Sexism among women is still sexism. It’s time to stop dragging each other down’ (24 March 2017)

Sexual-Harassment Claims Against a ‘She-E.O.’ (20 March 2017) USA

When female managers are better at kicking you down than helping you up (15 March 2017) Australia

‘Just got thrown a really dirty look like to say ‘ewww”: More than half of women give each other unfriendly and judgmental glares (8 March 2017)

Lorna Jane sportswear former employee Amy Robinson suing company for $550,000 (14 February 2017) This is not the first time female staff at this company have been accused of bullying (google on ‘Lorna Jane bully’)

‘Go and grab a jacket!’: Nine newsreader Amber Sherlock blasts colleague for wearing similar outfit (13 January 2017) Australia. But we’re not allowed to draw attention to women generating toxic workplaces because – misogyny! And now even Clementine Ford has weighed in about terrible it is that people dare to call out inappropriate workplace behaviour by women.

Senior policewoman ‘bared her breasts at younger colleague’ during drunken rant (30 November 2016) UK

Do women prefer female bosses? (18 September 2016)

Horrible bosses exist. But does their gender make a difference? (16 September 2016)

How The Bachelor turns women into misogynists (18 August 2016) Read this article which tells how women only undermine other women when manipulated by TV producers … then read the papers below.

Woman fired because of other women’s insecurities (10 August 2016) Reddit discussion thread

The myth that women secretly hate other women has a long history (24 September 2015) Australia. This author gives every indication of being someone who is deeply, DEEPLY, in denial. Here is a related reddit discussion thread.

A Crack in the Lens: Women working for women, by Lucy Brogden (6 May 2015)

Cutting down the tall poppies: female athletes bullied in Aussie schools (21 July 2015)

Women who don’t want to work for other women (4 May 2015) Video

Sleep with me or be sacked (14 July 2014) with the same issue addressed here where some guy is quoted as having said: “You’ll see more sexual harassment cases in Silicon Valley [like this] because of the male dominated culture“. Here are two of the readers comments that followed:

“Don’t be shocked. My female manager harassed me for years. I was maybe 24 and single, she was probably 40, married and had 2 kids. I knew her family pretty well, which made it even more weird.
For years she would come in and sit on my lap, or make comments like “If I don’t eat soon, I’m going to get goofy and rape you or something”… It was very uncomfortable. Especially since I knew her husband, and her regular “boyfriend”.. Finally, one day she was teasing me, I turned around and said, must you? She says, why is it sexual harassment? I responded, I don’t know, what if you were sitting in this chair and I was behind you tickling your neck, would that be harassment? A week or two later I got my layoff notice… So I don’t find this story hard to believe at all….”

“This is about a woman harassing another woman, but yet this running dog had to curry favor with his feminist masters and find a way to vilify men and make them responsible somehow for the wrongdoing to this female victim. Nobody can just admit that women are as prone to indulge in harassing behavior as men are”

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/more-american-and-british-men-and-women-prefer-male-bosses-to-female-bosses/

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/24/books/q-a-women-are-nurturing-how-about-cruel-especially-to-one-another.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/16/sorry-martin-amis-women-can-be-cruel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c87j-qDStUY&feature=youtube_gdata_player (Warning: Bad language and politically incorrect humour abound in the Youtube offering)

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/women-ruin-fellow-females-careers-leadership-management-australasia/story-e6frfm9r-1226780106951 (11 December 2013)

Too many women ignore their own misogyny (4 June 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2018776/Why-female-boss-womans-worst-nightmare.html

I don’t want to hire women (14 May 2014)

Women In Academia Are Less Likely Than Men To Cooperate With Lower-Ranked Colleagues (3 March 2014)

Women prefer male bosses even more than men do (16 October 2014)

Out Of The Mouth Of A Female Who Worked At Yahoo: “Who Are The Meanest People In The Corporate World? Women” (12 February 2014) USA. Go to 3:41

Bitches be mean. Ladies be crying. Let’s give them MORE responsibility! Clearly, they can handle it (31 March 2013) USA

Girl cop ‘felt up and slapped five officers’ (10 May 2012)

Women Helping Other Women? Not so Much, it Seems (15 November 2010)

Good Game presenter claims ABC gender bias after axing (October 2009) Australia

Catfights over handbags and tears in the toilets. When this producer launched a women-only TV company she thought she’d kissed goodbye to conflict… (7 April 2009) with related reddit mensrights discussion thread

Women like women more than men like men (December 2004) and related reddit discussion thread

“Hostility to the Presence of Women”: Why Women Undermine Each Other in the Workplace and the Consequences for Title VII (May 2004)

See also:

If festival crowds can unite to help a crowd-surfer, they can unite against sexual assault (6 February 2017) Australia. This article demonstrates the prevailing mindset of only men harass/only women are harassed & it’s men’s duty to defend women. The hypocrisy of creating an assistance ‘hotline’ that only caters for women is lost on these people. See also the reader’s comments

Heinous sexist culture inside STEM industries exposed, by Liz Burke (27 January 2017) Ignores discrimination and recruitment bias against men – the implication being only women are affected. Relies heavily on anecdotes, and fails to provide corresponding statistics for men (ditto) – all typical of pro-feminist journalism/’research’.

Women suffer much more work stress than men, says psychiatrist (30 December 2016) When was the last time you saw an article in the MSM entitled “Men suffer much more <anything>“? Wonder why that is

No man is above unconscious gender bias in the workplace – it’s “unconscious” (14 December 2016) And no woman is above unconscious gender bias either, but this author can’t bring herself to admit that. Perhaps indicative of her own bias?

Women more likely than men to be bullied at work: Report (30 November 2016) Australia

Swedish women get hotline to report mansplaining (16 November 2016) Feminists hard at work addressing the big issues. All men magically know whether each individual woman knows more about a given topic than they do. Well all men except the misogynists it seems. NB: Women never guilty of behaving in a patronising manner.

Statistics from the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line and Bully OnLine reveal that at least 50% of over 6000 cases involve a female serial bully. The top four sectors for cases are teaching, nursing, social services, and the voluntary / not-for-profit sector, in which there is a higher percentage of female managers. Serial bullies, male or female, can be recognised by their behaviour profile.

Sexual harassment in politics, by Karen Middleton (15 October 2016) Australia. The article contains details of a string of incidents of gross conduct by men in the political sphere. Karen asserts “that attitude and that kind of predatory behaviour is extremely – extremely – common” (para 9), and then in the final paragraph:

“The men I’ve described are ordinary men. That’s the problem – that it is and has been ordinary to behave this way. Women don’t talk about it for lots of reasons. They fear it would damage their careers, their social lives, their relationships. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen …”

No, ordinary men do not behave in this manner, and such conduct is not part of the ordinary course of events in Australian workplaces. It is certainly not “extremely common“. In fact the author admits “it was only a handful of our elected representatives who did these things“.

Karen omitted any/all incidents of female perpetration of abuse. And yet men are also victims, albeit it to a lesser extent, though they also “don’t talk about it for lots of reasons“. Whilst journalists fail in their duty to report the other part of the workplace harassment problem … “But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen”.

Watch your language: The gender bias in job adverts (7 October 2016) To avoid frightening away special snowflakes one shall not use terms like ‘leader’ or ‘competitive’ in job advertisements. Seriously

Why are women stil being judged by appearance? (2 October 2016) Unintended harassment via acts of benevolent sexism (eye roll)

Feminist guru paid $2 million to weed out public service gender bias (17 September 2016) Surely a study that only considers discrimination against women is itself evidence of systemic gender bias? This together with the fact that 66% staff are female (a point I see that has now been raised by Andrew Bolt).

“Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s department is paying a feminist “change agent” almost $200,000 to conduct a three-month “cultural audit” to find and weed out any unconscious bias against women”

The Unexpected Effects of a Sexual Harassment Educational Program (2 September 2016)

This person has the perfect solution for women in the workplace (2 September 2016) Because only women have to walk on eggshells due to the entitlement and/or fragile egos of their co-workers. Feminist erasure – This blogger failed to upload my comment in relation to her post.

Half of women in UK have been sexually harassed at work, study finds (10 August 2016) No men were surveyed so results give the impression that this problem only affects women. Now why would they do that? See also ‘Report Claiming Half Of Women Harassed At Work Involved Hardline Feminist Group

How men and women can help reduce gender bias in the workplace, by Emma L Johnston (15 July 2016) This piece in The Conversation oozes gynocentric condescension …

“I am a professor and a newly minted pro vice chancellor and I have spent my entire research and working life with male bosses or supervisors. I have never reported to a woman.”

So presumably men have mentored the author throughout her career, and been instrumental in her elevation to the top job. Despite this she implies that the disproportionate number of men in senior positions is sinister, given their inherent propensity to exercise power to the benefit of men. Greater gender equity is only achievable through listening to women’s voices. Men should be grateful for sound guidance that women shall provide … and for any incidental rewards that may come their way. Oh wait, I get it, those men, the first lot, they were different.

(As a footnote: I sent three tweets in response to this article (see Twitter stream 15 July 2016) and was immediately blocked by the author. What a curiously inept response for someone so obviously well-credentialled to attempt to defend her position.

Middle-aged women bosses more at risk of sexual harassment, finds study (30 June 2016) I can’t locate the results of the Australian Journal of Public Administration study cited in the article anywhere online … if anyone reading this can provide a link, then pls let me know. Thanks in advance.

Research: Vague Feedback Is Holding Women Back (29 April 2016) with related Reddit discussion thread here.

Sexual harassment rife in service industry because ‘customer is always right’ (8 March 2016) Article ignores harassment of male hospitality workers

Flexible work a career killer for men: report (3 February 2016) Australia

Men must be on board to help eradicate workplace gender bias (18 December 2015) Ireland. Because workplace gender bias only consists of (according to feminist journalists) men discriminating against women.

Female firefighter hits out at secret report, feels ‘used’ by Jane Garrett (16 December 2015) Jane Garrett is the Victorian State Emergency Services Minister. A feminist politician “pushing an anti-male agenda“? Oh, surely not.

Julia Gillard was right. Sexism is rampant in Australia (9 December 2015) The article is predictable one-sided feminist tosh – more interesting were the number of anti-feminist and anti-Gillard reader’s comments

Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work (1 October 2015) UK

These men’s rights activists are using a 1950s law to shut down women in tech (2 September 2015) and related reddit discussion thread

#ThankYouEllenPao? Only if You Like Bullying, Vexatious Opportunists (30 March 2015)

Why the U.S. Economy Is Biased Against Men, by Marty Nemko (18 April 2012)

Elsewhere in this blog you might also be interested in reading:

Recruitment bias favours hiring female staff

Fudging the figures to support the feminist narrative

Profound gender bias at the Australian Human Rights Commission (Part 1)

I thought women were meant to be more empathetic?

Companies with women at the helm perform better (so they say)