Category Archives: Culture

Reconciliation Australia’s Two-Faced Activism

Joe Stella, Quadrant, 27 May 2024

Every year, Reconciliation Australia Limited (RAL) marks the period between the anniversaries of the 1967 referendum (May 217) and the Mabo judgment (June 3) as National Reconciliation Week. Last year, the theme was “Be a Voice for generations”, a reference to the looming referendum. This year’s theme, “Now more than ever”, reflects the organisation’s unprocessed shock and denial at the result. According to RAL, “as a nation we stumbled” but “the fight” must continue.

Really? RAL has now been operating for 23 years, more than twice as long as the statutory Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation that preceded it. As I have argued in a new paper for Close the Gap Research, “surely so emphatic a defeat of what advocates called ‘an act of reconciliation’ demands an objective assessment of the continued viability of that process.”

That assessment must begin with a difficult and still largely unexplored question: Is reconciliation what Aborigines actually want? In an address delivered during the last Reconciliation Week, ‘Yes’ campaigner Megan Davis cast serious doubt on this. During consultations in the lead-up to the 2017 Uluru Statement, she told a Townsville audience, “our old people kept saying, unsolicited and organically, that reconciliation was the wrong process, that reconciliation was the wrong word.”

We do not know how many of these “old people” there were, much less whether they represent a significant body of opinion among Aborigines. However, Davis’ comments are helpful because they at least acknowledge the diprotodon in the room. Reconciliation has always been promoted as a means to cement national unity. As such, it is inimical to a radical Aboriginal rights agenda centred on the indicia of a separate race-based nationhood: sovereignty, self-determination, international recognition, treaties, embassies and so on.

The Uluru Statement endorses the Aboriginal nationalist program first developed by the National Aboriginal Conference between 1979 and 1981. This includes Aboriginal sovereignty, a treaty (makarrata), reparations and recognition of customary law. The Voice to Parliament, the brainchild of non-Aboriginal academic Shireen Morris, was a novel addition. As later accounts of the convention that produced the Uluru Statement demonstrate, a treaty was the top priority for many delegates. They needed to be persuaded that the Voice was a necessary preliminary measure. This tension is reflected in the final text of the Statement, which characterises a treaty as “the culmination of our agenda”.

Read the rest here . . .

Weak stomachs should avoid unpleasant work

Yesterday, the government funded ABC reported the reaction of unnamed people in Victoria’s justice department to a police presentation on Victoria’s gangs. The report was headed:

Victoria Police presentation on youth crime criticised for ‘racist’ focus on ‘African gangs’

‘The presentation,’ the ABC reporters wrote, ‘followed a three-day conference on gangs which had attracted law enforcement officers from America, England, Italy and New Zealand. Dozens of public servants from the Department of Justice and some from the premier’s department had been invited to take part.’

The unnamed people are ostensibly professionals in the area of juvenile violence. Sadly, their reaction, fulsomely described by the indignant female reporters, showed they were not suited to making dispassionate judgments on the (very) serious subject of youth and gang violence.

Here is a selection of the complaints made by the so-called professionals:

The presentation was ‘racist’ and focused on ‘African gangs’ …

‘The language, tone, and imagery … was very racist …

‘Attendees complained they should have been warned beforehand they would see “someone get stabbed to death”.’

Some staff were “disturbed”, “upset” and “extremely affected”.

The graphic content was “gratuitous”.

One attendee wondered about the “Unclear purpose of showing [this] video.”

The accusation of racism arose because of the graphic footage of African and South Sudanese gangs in action.

My advice to the unnamed fragile staff in Victoria’s justice department is that if they haven’t the stomach to face the reality of gang violence and the reality of the specific groups involved, they should get out of the department and find work more conducive to their precarious emotional makeup – and stop taking up wasted space.

Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s ‘Hate Speech’

54 million views and counting . . .

Conservative commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek from the Netherlands, who was one of the speakers featured at CPAC Hungary 2024, recently had one of her videos taken down by YouTube for ‘hate speech’. She posted a screenshot of the notification email to her X page.

The video in question was her speech at CPAC Hungary, titled ‘The Great Replacement is not a theory — it’s a reality’. Thankfully, as she pointed out in her tweet, the video is still up on X, and is performing very well there—it has racked up 54 million views and 102,000 likes.

In her speech, Vlaardingerbroek talks about the crime wave hitting Europe in recent times, and names mass migration as one of its primary causes. She told the audience:

‘Our new reality in Europe consists of frequent rapes, stabbings, killings, murders, shootings, and even beheadings. But let me be clear about one thing: This did not use to happen before. This is a newly imported problem.’

Replacement theory, included in her video title, is the theory that proposes that the ruling elites are actively trying to replace white, Christian populations with immigrants from different cultures in Western countries. On this subject, Vlaardingerbroek stated that this is a phenomenon that ‘everyone who has eyes can see’. She backed this statement up by citing statistics, claiming that 56 per cent of the Dutch capital city of Amsterdam’s population are migrants; while other major cities, such as The Hague and Rotterdam, are almost 60 per cent migrants.

Read the rest and see the speech here . . .

65,000 years? An extraordinary claim without justification

Think about it. The claim that Aboriginal culture is 65,000 years old, and the world’s oldest continuing culture is extraordinary – given what is known about ancient peoples.

How do we know it was the same culture and the same people over 65,000 years? The earliest written records (Sumerian and Egyptian) go back no more than 3,400 years, and the first coherent records (Sumerian and Egyptian) are no more than 2,600 years old.

Of course, fossil traces of human existence go back thousands of years, but bits of bone say nothing specifically cultural. One can accept fossil traces of human existence have been found on the Australian continent, but that does not mean it was irrefutably the same people or exactly the same culture.

It does not assault reason to say Aboriginal culture, as found by the settlers in January 1788, may not have been more than a few thousand years old.

Who will save boys from feminist abuse?

In the last few weeks, we have been treated to a festival of man-hatred led, of course, by the Labor and Greens Parties – and their affiliates in the media. Labor’s Minister for Quotas and Man-hatred, meangirl Katy Gallagher, was again in the thick of it. The festival followed a period during which there was (allegedly) an unusually high rate of females murdered by their partners.

Two points yet again came to mind.

First, there was no mention of how many males were murdered during the same period. Fact is that males, due to the gene pool nature has dealt them, are more likely than females to resolve conflicts with violence – violence that in extreme cases ends in murder.

Females have a very different way of dealing with conflict where their mouth plays a big role. Their mouth can be just as deadly as a punch in the face for what it can unleash. Again, this is fact.

In a recent post (The True Statistics of Male and Female Murders) I quoted figures from The Australian Bureau of Statistics that showed about two-thirds of all murder victims are male, most often by a male. These figures contradict the feminist claim that men naturally focus their violence on women.

The second point is about the motivations that bring men to kill their women. There’s no talk about what brought a particular man to that point. No, it’s misogyny, say the feminists. Men just kill women because that’s what men do. There’s no other reason. To deal with this feminist fact, the government must pump millions more into no end of self-appointed feminist bodies to deal with the ghastliness of maleness.

In the most shocking case where a man ambushed his wife and children during peak hour traffic, threw a can of petrol into their car, and set them alight, I wondered – and still wonder – what set of circumstances brought that man to such an appalling act.

In another perceptive article, Janice Fiamengo offers a scenario that must play a role in men’s desperate actions.

*****

When Feminism is Child Abuse

Feminist mothers’ (and some fathers’) words to their sons reveal insidious anti-male prejudice

JANICE FIAMENGO MAY 01, 2024

Women's Leadership | Raising a Feminist Son — Tabby Biddle

In a recent video clip, a mother tells of how she stopped her five-year-old daughter from apologizing. The daughter’s apologies, which tended to be made when she was told “No,” were a red flag, the mom noted, for her daughter’s excessive concern for others. The mother wants her daughter to be comfortable advocating for herself. She wants her to “take up space,” and, above all, not to be sorry for wanting things.

This sort of advice seems typical of modern moms and daughters. It’s all the rage now to raise girls to be assertive and not to apologize.  

What does a feminist mother tell her son? Nothing similar.

Whether in the classroom, in mainstream magazine articles, or in statements by politicians, boys learn that they should apologize. Their “taking up space” is a problem that may make girls uncomfortable. They need to be aware of girls’ discomfort and vulnerability, and they should be willing to put girls’ needs first.

The anti-male message is pervasive even, or especially, in articles by mothers of sons, as I discovered when I scoured the internet for feminist parenting advice. In these remarkable articles, mothers and some fathers openly admit to undermining and guilt-tripping their boys. They demonstrate the radical extent of feminism’s assault on the male psyche. What follows is a small, representative sample.

In 2016, the On Parenting section of The Washington Post published an alarming essay by Jody Allard, a feminist journalist. Allard’s article discussed the failure of her teenaged boys, ages 16 and 18, to be feminist allies. The sons, laments Allard, “refuse to acknowledge their own culpability” in misogyny. Here is a classic feminist Kafka trap: If the boys won’t admit they’re to blame, then they’re to blame for not admitting they’re to blame. In the revealingly-titled “My teen boys are blind to rape culture,” Allard’s anger at her sons’ disinclination to acknowledge the pervasiveness of rape is palpable in every line. “They aren’t willing to sacrifice their own comfort for my sake, or for anyone else,” she seethes. But one could more convincingly argue that it’s Allard who isn’t willing to sacrifice her comfort for the sake of her boys. Why does she insist that her children believe what she believes and see what she sees, even if they actually can’t see it or believe it? She explains that “in this broken system, anyone who isn’t with us is against us. Particularly, and especially, men. Even my own sons—even yours.”

It is a horrifying article in which the sons’ expressions of skepticism about rape culture make them indistinguishable, in their mother’s mind, from the ghoulish internet misogynists she conjures. “Not all men, they remind me, and my guts wrench as my own sons mimic the vitriol of a thousand online trolls,” she tells readers melodramatically. Notice how she redefines a simple factual statement as vitriol. That her sons might be expressing a natural resistance to unfair self-castigation seems never to occur to her.

It’s difficult to fathom the psychological discomfort of being one of those sons, growing up in an atmosphere heavy with moral disapproval, and responding to the mother’s impossible-to-appease rage. It may be no coincidence that just six months earlier, this same woman had written about the suicidal depression of one of her sons, stating that “My son’s depression doesn’t belong to me. I didn’t create it and I am not responsible for it.” Perhaps not, but the damning anger can’t help.

Unfortunately, Jody Allard’s feminist convictions are not at all unusual.

How to raise a feminist

Some mothers begin their proselytizing of sons at an even earlier age. An article by feminist mother Lane Brown in the Christian Science Monitor, “NYC Candid Catcall Video: How Can We Make Our Sons Stop,” tells in toe-curling detail how a mother who watched a video about catcalling decided she would need to start lecturing her son, not yet two years old, about the objectification of women so that when he attends pre-school, for example, he will not go there with the thought “that girls are there to be looked at, or just to play the wife in a game of house.” Addressing her little boy in imagination, she outlines her standard of rectitude: “My hope of hope, before you even are able to form a sentence, is that you will never form a sentence that makes someone feel ashamed or embarrassed.” She realizes that she will have to repeat her injunctions again and again. One can only imagine the confusion, shame, and dread such lectures are likely to produce in a little boy trying to figure out his place in the world.

Read the rest here . . .

ACADEMIA ROTTEN WITH FEMINIST UNREASON

Fighting academia’s feminist tentacles

– Perth exercise scientist leads the charge.

BETTINA ARNDT, 14 FEB 2024

As the toxic sludge of feminist claptrap seeps through the academic world, there are many principled researchers grinding their teeth at this blatant ideology and poor scholarship. Most don’t dare put their head above the parapet. But now there’s a lone warrior calling it out, well aware he is likely to implode his academic career in the process.

James Nuzzo (pronounced ‘NEW zo’) is a Perth-based exercise scientist who grew up in rural Pennsylvania keen on sports and weight-lifting. A high school anatomy and physiology course inspired him ultimately to pursue a PhD on the neuroscience of strength training at the University of NSW, followed by several successful years researching the physiology of muscle strength and fatigue. He’s currently affiliated with Edith Cowan University, busily churning out academic articles on topics like exercise neurophysiology, physical fitness testing, the history of exercise research and strength training equipment, and sex differences in exercise preferences and performance.

Men’s health has also been one of his key interests and he wasn’t happy to see his discipline infiltrated by gender ideologues whining about women missing out while totally ignoring the health outcomes of boys and men.

He came across one article which took this bias to a whole new level. A bunch of mainly female exercise physiology students from UNSW cooked up the dubious argument that “gender-based violence is a blind spot for sports and exercise medical professionals.” That was the title of their journal article  published in Sports Medicine, an article which could be used as a primer for feminist tunnel-vision.  

The ideologues started off with a position statement from the peak American sports medicine body alerting healthcare providers to the health impacts of sexual violence. But then they did a neat pivot, without any explanation, to devote their entire article to regurgitating all the usual dogma about gender-based intimate partner violence (IPV). All the familiar cherry-picked data is there showing women as the only victims – the only mention of men referred to their “socially determined privilege,” an alleged cause of violence against women. No mention of young male victims of abuse by coaches or fellow athletes, of which there have been plenty, nor of lesbian perpetrators of abuse (lesbians top the chart of rates of IPV). And not one word about the decades of research showing men and women are victims of IPV at roughly equal rates.

Nuzzo set out to put them straight, seeking to get the true facts published in a letter in Sports Medicine. And he succeeded, but only after nearly a year of back and forth with the journal. It helped that he combined forces with Deborah Powney, the University of Central Lancashire psychologist doing work on male victims of coercive control, and John Barry, from the Centre for Male Psychology in London.

It was revealing that Sports Medicine took the unusual step of submitting the letter to peer review but, amazingly the three reviewers all concurred with the critique by Nuzzo and his co-authors. Next, the original authors were given a chance to respond – but after months, they declined that option. So ultimately the letter was published – one small victory for proper scientific inquiry.  

Their published comment proved it was the UNSW academics who had the blind spot, by providing a summary of some of the best research showing equal gender rates of IPV victimization, which also applied in sports environments.

Read the rest here . . .

O MY DARLING CLEMENTINE – A PHONEY SUCKING ON THE GOVERNMENT’S WILLING TEAT

Hateful Clementine Ford

Australia’s most ferocious feminist is now targeting Jewish women.

BETTINA ARNDT 1 JAN 2024

In a brilliant column recently published in The Australian, Henry Ergas summed up 2023 as “the year of living angrily.” Describing the successive waves of outrage and hatred dominating the year’s public discourse, he made the point that the Greeks believed rage differed fundamentally from ordinary anger: “anger had a defined focus; rage, a sign of fury at the world, was labile, readily shifting from one object to another.”

“Characteristic of personal immaturity, it was by its nature opportunistic, rushing to the target of the moment, like a child rushing to a new toy,” he explained.

One of Australia’s greatest haters has a new toy. For nearly two decades, feminist Clementine Ford has been spewing out her hatred of men. Now she has revealed herself to be also a zealous anti-Zionist who is stirring up her quarter of a million followers to attack Jewish women on social media.  

She started her man-hating campaign in media appearances back in 2007 but attracted widespread public attention in 2015 due to this infamous tweet:

From then on, she was regularly promoting outrage with her anti-male views.  In 2017, she signed a fan’s book with the words, “Have you killed any men today? And if not, why not?”

In 2020, complaints were made about a funding grant she was receiving from the Melbourne City Council after she posted the following tweet:

The Melbourne City Council continued to fund her.

During a public address made when her only child was a newborn, she introduced the following comment with loud gagging noises: “Euch. I have a male baby and it’s just, all the time: Feed me! Pay attention to me! Engage me!” she said, before gagging again. “Euch. So boring.”

Read the rest here . . .

DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION – BLOWING OFF MEN

Who Will Rid Us of DEI?

Despite recent enthusiasm, the era of DEI is well-entrenched and will not easily be dismantled

JANICE FIAMENGO, 28 JAN 2024

Virtual event explores unearned privilege

I was a diversity hire. My department hired diversity hires.  

DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) was all the rage in university humanities and social sciences departments when I was a graduate student in the 1990s: everything was about gender, race, class, and empire; oppressor and oppressed; white privilege, the male gaze. Over time, the category of class was edged out as gender and sexual identity muscled in.    

On the job market in 1999, I was shortlisted at two universities, both shortlists of all-female candidates. Job advertisements “strongly encouraged” applications from women and visible minorities.

Over the next four years, the department that had hired me hired into four more positions, all heavily influenced by sex and skin color.

“Is it true that there are people in this department who are against equity?” one of the diversity hires asked, scandalized, at a small welcoming party. The clear implication was that anyone who believed in merit-based hiring must be a bigot.

This was already the unchallenged academic mindset.

Our department practiced what was then called equity hiring (a Canadian euphemism for affirmative action). I was told that equity hiring meant that whenever two or more job candidates were equally qualified, the candidate should be chosen whose hiring would make the department more diverse.

The idea is nonsense: no two candidates are ever truly equal.

Once the decision is made to prioritize diversity, that quickly becomes the only urgent criterion. White men’s applications—hundreds of them—simply went into the reject pile; most were barely even read.

Read the rest here . . .