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.”
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:
- The state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness: diversity of opinion
- Variety; multiformity
- The inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, colour, religion, socio-economic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.
- 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.
Does 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 & answers:
“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.”
Let’s consider the definition of ‘engage‘ (as in ‘engage with men’), which is to:
- To occupy the attention or efforts of (men)
- To secure for aid, employment, use, etc
- To attract and hold fast
- To attract or please
- To bind as by pledge, promise, contract or oath; make liable
- To betroth
- To bring troops into conflict
This sounds rather like drafting men into servitude, so perhaps ‘engage’ might not be 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 (also 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 people dare mention issues that might be perceived to detrimentally affect them, is to tell men (and their female supporters) to STFU and stop being whiny man-babies or ‘‘pick-me’s’. This latter term is a derogatory label that feminists apply to women who are sympathetic towards men’s rights issues.
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 not care less about helping men, excepting a few situations where benefits to men were collateral spin-offs from the primary goal of enhancing the relative position of women (e.g. paternity leave for men).
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“.
Here are some of the tweets that emerged from the floor of the debate:
Was there some way in which DCA might have redeemed this otherwise farcical event? Aside from having a diverse and representative discussion panel? Perhaps one thing. Readers might have read elsewhere in this blog about the film The Red Pill, and the problems experienced regarding finding screening venues.
Why couldn’t the Diversity Council have organised a screening of The Red Pill as an adjunct to the debate? 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.
(Postscript: It’s now 11 January 2023 and the Diversity Council has blocked me from their Twitter feed. I must be too diverse for their tastes)