Australia has become a country where we’re totally over governed by a handful of extremists and there is very little we can do about it as our country is governed by the Deep State and our population has lost control! It’s a lawyer’s paradise, money for jam and our Judiciary is corrupt! Think I am wrong? Go to
YouTube/whentheftislegal Australia’s Dirty little secret
"Attorney-General Dreyfus, who has shown great enthusiasm for tilting the scales of justice against men – the Family Law Bill being a case in point". Isn't he a male? Does he not realise that these policies can affect him too, as well as his married (with children) male mates? How short-sighted and brainwashed are some of these male politicians?
Dreyfus is a good example of what comes from academia these days, assuming he is a lawyer , no doubt brainwashed in feminist ideology while at university . He sees himself as above the ordinary men ,he is “educated” the Attorney General, as Bettina described him the “white knight” .
These men are so enthralled by their own ego they see no danger in throwing fellow men under the bus, but it does backfire . Remember Christian Porter, he was once WA ‘s Attorney General and responsible for draconian “anti male” laws in regards to DV and sexual assault, he thought he was “safe “ from any feminist attack ,with a track record like that , but he fell on his sword. Accused of historic sexual assault he was forced out of federal parliament by the feminists , who have no loyalty .
Now Dreyfus has today claimed that “ one in five women have experienced sexual violence” this is vague to say the least and Dreyfus should be asked to give a full explanation of what he means. What is “sexual violence “ anyway , is it the same as “violent sex” ? That’s not a crime ,if both participants agree to it.
Some years ago I [47 YO male] worked as a specialist consultant assigned to an early intervention program for children with developmental issues. My two female colleagues in the program knew that some of the matrons in the organisation didn't want a man working in their field, i.e. children were women's business not men's. Thus my two colleagues made a point of always keeping me in their sight so no false accusations could be made. Never-the-less I was suddenly accused by several women social workers of various issues: being rough, being ignorant of good practice, upsetting the parents who were said to 'hate me', and so on. I was defamed at the highest level in the state government department which employed me as specialist in autism and behaviour. One of the women conspirators repeated the defamatory comments to a meeting of parents with whose children I was working. The regional manager ordered me removed from the early education program without any investigation. I responded by using public service procedures to request clarification of the 'charges'. To my delight the senior public servant who defamed me in the department wrote in detail to my manager what she had stated in an executive meeting. My lawyer was equally delighted to have her defamation in a signed document, and I threatened legal action. In the meantime the parents wrote to the relevant Minister complaining that they needed and wanted my expertise. The Minister queried why I was dismissed. Minsterial attention clearly focused the attention of the regional manager. An in-house investigation occurred and I was exonerated. I have the written retraction/apology from one of the women in my drawer still. Another of the conspirators was formally reprimanded and later dismissed. The third woman who started the defamation, but did not speak against me publicly, suffered no direct consequence, but her role was known and she was never trusted after that. Needless to say I have never trusted women, especially social workers since.
Have you any more thoughts about what makes certain women particularly destructive in the workplace? Ive seen it myself, and although I can posit several factors, I dont have a coherent theory on this. Some of the factors include:
* Women's socialisation in groups vs men's socialisation as individuals - women are far more influenced by a group, and strive to be in harmony with the group. They fear far more ostracisation by the group, and will avoid it at all costs. They tend to form cliques which communicate between themselves and not outsiders. This makes groups of women more easily controlled by influential individuals.
* With women, you have to negotiate the niceties of group dynamics and politics and etiquette before you can do anything at all, otherwise you will make instant enemies. Is everyone happy? Does anyone have a problem with anyone else? Do I dare to begin?
* Women's own-group preference. Even without feminism, women have a definite tendency to support and defend other women, regardless of the context or fairness. This makes groups of women tend to conspire against other individuals or groups as a team.
* Feminism. In addition to own-group prejudice, women have been educated for many decades now that they are oppressed under the thumb of patriarchy. If any male should behave in a way that triggers their imagination or memory of those feminist tropes, there is no hope for him.
* Queen-bee syndrome. Women's groups are often dominated by particularly nasty, ambitious, or psychopathic individuals. I guess somthing like this goes for men too - a lot of people who climb the ladder most effectively are psychopaths. But male psychopaths in the workplace tend to act as individuals, whereas a woman can orchestrate a small army.
* Some men can be horrible bullies if they have power, but male groups of equal standing tend to limit this and have a tendency to balance and democracy because they are individuals first and members second. Men will be told to "pull their head in", or a mutiny may take place. In politics male dynamics can be very unstable because everyone man is out for themselves. So in a few situations, women may be better. But in situations where men are striving for the same goal, they can form very effective teams.
* Men have no recourse against destructive women. To a good first approximation, women in workplaces have no limits upon their behaviour. Women can conspire, thwart, ridicule, ignore, etc, without restriction. There is very little a male co-worker or superior can do about it, without a very good documentation trail. Even then, if action is taken against a woman, it's like playing russian roulette, and depends how well the woman is connected, and the attitudes and prejudices of every person who will become involved. Like as not, the male will be identified as the problem. Women tend to work in workplaces where there are lots of women at all levels (education, health, HR). So women call the shots in those places.
I think you've summed up the behaviour of women in the workplace very well. There are always exceptions to the rule, but they don't make your generalisations any less valid.
I think the feminists commenced with the LGBTIQ people. Many of the people demonstrating for the rights of these people were parents of such or do gooders. Parents spent a lot of time lobbying and presenting facts to Parliamentarians. Justice just isn't important now, and neither is "truthful testimony".
That's a great story. Thank goodness you had her comments on the record. I am so pleased you fought back - successfully. That's an important lesson for everyone!
I have just read another article by you: "Kangaroo Court Casualties". In it you wrote:
"There’s American data suggesting the same is happening there – the black, Asian, or Hispanic male who doesn’t quite fit in the mainstream culture is easily targeted by campus accusations."
I did not mention in my long first post that I was diagnosed as extremely Autistic several years after the false accusations were made about me. [My brother is also autistic.] I had no idea I was autistic until some trusted colleagues - specialist disability and psych. nurses and a clinical psychologist - who worked with me in the disability field told me. My brother and I benefited from having very strict parents and attending an equally strict and structured private school. I worked with extremely difficult and often very dangerous clients with great success, though I could never explain why I always seemed to understand their behaviour and then successfully modify it. Eventually I sought a formal diagnosis in part so I could understand myself, but also for protection from vindictive fellow professionals. I assumed that the formal diagnosis would prevent further harassment by the leftist social 'set' in the department. It did not. It seems that they could tolerate me - to a degree - as a 'normal' professional or as a dependent and needy autistic client but could not tolerate me both as an autistic and a very skilled professional. So, I quit. Now I am fully retired. I have no involvement in the disability [autism] field which is 'owned' by female therapists, social workers and so on.
During the period of which I wrote a senior [lesbian] social worker had an endless repertoire of dumb/stupid male jokes which she spouted at every opportunity to the enjoyment and entertainment of her fellow social workers in the office. Similar jokes about dumb/stupid females would have seen her complaining. What intrigued me was how she and her fellow 'feminists' used and manipulated other women in the office who were not members of the feminist clique.
The social work world and how politically and career driven were its members was a shock to me, trained in education as I was.
Women are known for their bitchiness, usually when it comes to fellow females. Seems they have now jumped the boundaries to include males. Some of the most stressful episodes of my career have been at the hands of nasty, vindictive females.
I do not know for certain but an ex school teacher told me , teachers and public servants can’t sue their employer or members of the public ,at least not in all cases. I do not know what legal advice the teacher had ,obviously ,but I suppose it was to forget it because you can’t win.
Had the police charged the woman and girl with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and got a conviction then the teacher would have had a claim as a victim of crime ,but they didn’t. The excuse is that they don’t want to discourage other women from reporting sexual assault cases, even if they are false, it doesn’t matter if a man’s life is ruined as long as women are “protected”
There are many cases like this , legal costs are far too high people can be bankrupted paying lawyers , there needs to be a complete reform of the justice system , that would take a great deal of political courage , Pauline Hanson was on the ball when she instigated the Family court senate enquiry a few years ago, this could have a been the start of big changes for the better but it has been stalled , deliberately I think.
Kate Jenkins says that sexual harassment and discrimination are “ unlawful” but who says so and why should they be ?
Discrimination is a valid process ,a right in a democracy , people should be free to discriminate in any way even in regards to who they associate with and in the case of employers ,who the employ.
And sexual harassment these days could be as trivial as a man looking at a provocatively dressed woman or making a comment about her appearance.
It surprised me to hear on news abc last night 30/1/24 that someone had successfully sued Channel 9 for making derogatory statements about them. She said they had used her big bust and stomach (I think) to make fun of her. When I saw the photo of her I couldn’t believe it. Her big bust was not evident, nor did I see the stomach; but all I saw was a young female with big black tats on both arms - shoulder to wrist- disfiguring her. That person has successfully won previous cases as a “woman’s rights activist”….??
Just saying …on the same news I saw people interviewed re “un affordable housing” I observed all of these people with large tats (whole legs or arms) Maybe these people do not know that people of previous generations knew that they had to live on a certain amount & save to own property?—-it is not a God given right to own one’s own house!
Do you mean the firm Slater and Gordon? They operate in all states it seems ,big business.
No surprise that this firm supports the ALP ,lawyers have had a bonanza from the feminist anti-men laws and they don’t want to kill the golden goose.
It all started in 1972 with the then PM Gough Whitlam (ALP of course )who was also a lawyer ,he started the Family Court and since then many more lawyers have entered parliament, state and federal.
In a perfect world lawyers would be prohibited from entering parliament because they are officers of the court, part of the judiciary , a violation of the Westminster principle of “division of powers”.
An increasingly larger percentage of politicians trained as lawyers, as it is seen a the path for persons wanting to have a political career (as opposed to those who enter politics naively thinking they can make a difference)
And the ALP is the party for lawyers or at least left leaning lawyers, the Liberals attract the more right wing corporate type, but it’s the workers (men and women) who miss out on dedicated political representation . More people are seeing this and voting for the smaller parties.
You might be interested in the results of the recent Tasmanian state election. The Parliament was restored from 25 to 35 members, as it had been before the Labor and Liberal parties conspired to reduce the size of the Parliament in an attempt to eliminate the Tasmanian Greens. Out of the 10 new seats up for grabs, the Labor and Liberal parties between them won just one seat. The cross-bench now has more seats than the opposition Labor Party (11 vs 10) and the Liberals have been forced to govern with just 14 MPs. The ALP representative during the election coverage didn't care that the party's vote had gone nowhere, so long as the majority of MPs in the new Parliament were women. I was delighted to see that the final result is 18 men to 17 women.
Even better, one of the new cross-benchers, David O'Byrne, was expelled from the ALP based on a trumped-up sexual harassment claim clearly designed to thwart his leadership ambitions. He is more popular now than he was before the scandal.
A local Psephologist, Dr Kevin Bonham, noticed in previous elections that a significant proportion of (presumably) female voters tend to preference female-only candidates. As such, male voters should respond by preferencing male candidates wherever possible.
Right , all Australians miss out on the political representation they pay for, just try to get your MP to take up an unpopular cause , like mens rights. The point I was making was that the traditional LABOR party was the working peoples voice, the poor, uneducated , but now it is a party of left wing elites , who are often better educated with high paying jobs ,they don’t care about the workers.
If people are to have better political representation a new system should be introduced, maybe based on the European models, citizens initiated referendums etc.
One year of Albo’s government-for-women has gone even worse than I expected. I shudder to think how much more damage they’ll do.
It’s always the same formula....
Cook up a study which shows “alarming” female victimhood in some area. Ignore the male victims who meet the same convoluted definition. Then attribute the problem to gender inequality. Enact legislation and allocate spending to “stop it at the start”. Claim to be making a better society. Who can be against making a better society?
Right but you don’t hear any protest from the opposition, Peter Dutton is just as much under the feminist thumb as Albo , afraid of losing the female vote at the next election .
Not 100% agreement. Yes, the libs are almost as bad as Labor, but not quite - and the difference is enough make them "less bad" as an alternative.
We see in the article that even ScoMo didn't accept every recommendation ("demand") from the report, whereas Labor has, and with the power of government.
Thanks for the response! It's an important matter.
Great piece on the misandrist virus and its high priestesses.
As always these misandrist women greatly overestimate their intelligence, and never seem to think through the consequences of their deranged junk philosophies.
The main one being that their poison, far from helping women, will more likely harm them.
For example, organisations not infected with the misandrist virus will become far more reluctant to hire women who are perceived as too high a risk. It may not be fair, but it's inevitable. In fact, I can assure you that this is already happening and will only intensify.
Also, organisations that are infected with the virus will inevitably become weaker. Why? Because talented men (and women) always have choices - and will leave places that don't value their talent. Once the talent starts walking out, the organisation itself weakens. Weaker organisations tend to lay people off - especially women. Again, this is happening right now and has been for some time.
Bottom line : if an organisation decides to value misandry over meritocracy, it must understand that unintended consequences will flow that may prove to be highly damaging to any workplace and in my view, will impact on women the most.
I experienced the following at work, some years ago. I was in a meeting with other senior managers and our boss. They were all women, I not. During the small talk, the conversation swung to physical (pre-bedroom) aspects of the bosses and her husband's behaviour. The two other women chimed in enthusiastically. As I was sitting there, I wondered what would be the outcome if the sexes had been reversed. One woman, three men? It did pass my mind to make a formal complaint, but I quite liked my fellow managers, although our boss was Ms Control and quite unpleasant to work with as a consequence. She also didn't like her wrong-headed 'I'm an ex [big 6] consultant' ideas contradicted...even when they broke accounting standards. I didn't complain as I didn't want to put my two colleagues through that process as their and my work lives would have been so severely affected that I would probably have to leave.
Maybe Dreyfus should be self employed! No chance of that- he'd have a huge super paid by tax payers. Until Michaelia Cash actually votes against one of these suggestions, she's just a bleating voice. Janet Albrechtsen hits the nail on the head, she should have called it "go away to France" subsidized by the government. Gone is the productive country when we have more people being paid to not work "on their perceived or dreamed up fear" & the rest of them on committees deciding how women deserve to be the best paid with the least amount of work. When the world is only females parenting the few babies born to these same sex couples, the academics will then set about to undo what they are now legislating to implement. Meanwhile the males will be cycling around the world, or surfing every day. Self employed for sure. Huge thank you to Bettina!
Government note: Although this sort of misandry will probably not attract a huge number of extra votes of women, but it will certainly result in the loss pf a huge number of men's votes. Do the maths.
Australia has become a country where we’re totally over governed by a handful of extremists and there is very little we can do about it as our country is governed by the Deep State and our population has lost control! It’s a lawyer’s paradise, money for jam and our Judiciary is corrupt! Think I am wrong? Go to
YouTube/whentheftislegal Australia’s Dirty little secret
I would like to read the Hansards debates. Could you please send them to me.
Perhaps it is time for Aussie men to stop maintaining their societies infrastructure and begin immigrating out of Australia to other nations.
"Attorney-General Dreyfus, who has shown great enthusiasm for tilting the scales of justice against men – the Family Law Bill being a case in point". Isn't he a male? Does he not realise that these policies can affect him too, as well as his married (with children) male mates? How short-sighted and brainwashed are some of these male politicians?
Dreyfus is a good example of what comes from academia these days, assuming he is a lawyer , no doubt brainwashed in feminist ideology while at university . He sees himself as above the ordinary men ,he is “educated” the Attorney General, as Bettina described him the “white knight” .
These men are so enthralled by their own ego they see no danger in throwing fellow men under the bus, but it does backfire . Remember Christian Porter, he was once WA ‘s Attorney General and responsible for draconian “anti male” laws in regards to DV and sexual assault, he thought he was “safe “ from any feminist attack ,with a track record like that , but he fell on his sword. Accused of historic sexual assault he was forced out of federal parliament by the feminists , who have no loyalty .
Now Dreyfus has today claimed that “ one in five women have experienced sexual violence” this is vague to say the least and Dreyfus should be asked to give a full explanation of what he means. What is “sexual violence “ anyway , is it the same as “violent sex” ? That’s not a crime ,if both participants agree to it.
"one in five women have experienced sexual violence"
To get this kind of outcome one needs to apply standards which, if applied to boys and men, would provide similar results.
"Road to Heterophobia" and "Heterophobia" by Professor Daphne Patai are interesting reading and the scariest part is when will all this ever end?
Some years ago I [47 YO male] worked as a specialist consultant assigned to an early intervention program for children with developmental issues. My two female colleagues in the program knew that some of the matrons in the organisation didn't want a man working in their field, i.e. children were women's business not men's. Thus my two colleagues made a point of always keeping me in their sight so no false accusations could be made. Never-the-less I was suddenly accused by several women social workers of various issues: being rough, being ignorant of good practice, upsetting the parents who were said to 'hate me', and so on. I was defamed at the highest level in the state government department which employed me as specialist in autism and behaviour. One of the women conspirators repeated the defamatory comments to a meeting of parents with whose children I was working. The regional manager ordered me removed from the early education program without any investigation. I responded by using public service procedures to request clarification of the 'charges'. To my delight the senior public servant who defamed me in the department wrote in detail to my manager what she had stated in an executive meeting. My lawyer was equally delighted to have her defamation in a signed document, and I threatened legal action. In the meantime the parents wrote to the relevant Minister complaining that they needed and wanted my expertise. The Minister queried why I was dismissed. Minsterial attention clearly focused the attention of the regional manager. An in-house investigation occurred and I was exonerated. I have the written retraction/apology from one of the women in my drawer still. Another of the conspirators was formally reprimanded and later dismissed. The third woman who started the defamation, but did not speak against me publicly, suffered no direct consequence, but her role was known and she was never trusted after that. Needless to say I have never trusted women, especially social workers since.
Have you any more thoughts about what makes certain women particularly destructive in the workplace? Ive seen it myself, and although I can posit several factors, I dont have a coherent theory on this. Some of the factors include:
* Women's socialisation in groups vs men's socialisation as individuals - women are far more influenced by a group, and strive to be in harmony with the group. They fear far more ostracisation by the group, and will avoid it at all costs. They tend to form cliques which communicate between themselves and not outsiders. This makes groups of women more easily controlled by influential individuals.
* With women, you have to negotiate the niceties of group dynamics and politics and etiquette before you can do anything at all, otherwise you will make instant enemies. Is everyone happy? Does anyone have a problem with anyone else? Do I dare to begin?
* Women's own-group preference. Even without feminism, women have a definite tendency to support and defend other women, regardless of the context or fairness. This makes groups of women tend to conspire against other individuals or groups as a team.
* Feminism. In addition to own-group prejudice, women have been educated for many decades now that they are oppressed under the thumb of patriarchy. If any male should behave in a way that triggers their imagination or memory of those feminist tropes, there is no hope for him.
* Queen-bee syndrome. Women's groups are often dominated by particularly nasty, ambitious, or psychopathic individuals. I guess somthing like this goes for men too - a lot of people who climb the ladder most effectively are psychopaths. But male psychopaths in the workplace tend to act as individuals, whereas a woman can orchestrate a small army.
* Some men can be horrible bullies if they have power, but male groups of equal standing tend to limit this and have a tendency to balance and democracy because they are individuals first and members second. Men will be told to "pull their head in", or a mutiny may take place. In politics male dynamics can be very unstable because everyone man is out for themselves. So in a few situations, women may be better. But in situations where men are striving for the same goal, they can form very effective teams.
* Men have no recourse against destructive women. To a good first approximation, women in workplaces have no limits upon their behaviour. Women can conspire, thwart, ridicule, ignore, etc, without restriction. There is very little a male co-worker or superior can do about it, without a very good documentation trail. Even then, if action is taken against a woman, it's like playing russian roulette, and depends how well the woman is connected, and the attitudes and prejudices of every person who will become involved. Like as not, the male will be identified as the problem. Women tend to work in workplaces where there are lots of women at all levels (education, health, HR). So women call the shots in those places.
I think you've summed up the behaviour of women in the workplace very well. There are always exceptions to the rule, but they don't make your generalisations any less valid.
I think the feminists commenced with the LGBTIQ people. Many of the people demonstrating for the rights of these people were parents of such or do gooders. Parents spent a lot of time lobbying and presenting facts to Parliamentarians. Justice just isn't important now, and neither is "truthful testimony".
That's a great story. Thank goodness you had her comments on the record. I am so pleased you fought back - successfully. That's an important lesson for everyone!
I have just read another article by you: "Kangaroo Court Casualties". In it you wrote:
"There’s American data suggesting the same is happening there – the black, Asian, or Hispanic male who doesn’t quite fit in the mainstream culture is easily targeted by campus accusations."
I did not mention in my long first post that I was diagnosed as extremely Autistic several years after the false accusations were made about me. [My brother is also autistic.] I had no idea I was autistic until some trusted colleagues - specialist disability and psych. nurses and a clinical psychologist - who worked with me in the disability field told me. My brother and I benefited from having very strict parents and attending an equally strict and structured private school. I worked with extremely difficult and often very dangerous clients with great success, though I could never explain why I always seemed to understand their behaviour and then successfully modify it. Eventually I sought a formal diagnosis in part so I could understand myself, but also for protection from vindictive fellow professionals. I assumed that the formal diagnosis would prevent further harassment by the leftist social 'set' in the department. It did not. It seems that they could tolerate me - to a degree - as a 'normal' professional or as a dependent and needy autistic client but could not tolerate me both as an autistic and a very skilled professional. So, I quit. Now I am fully retired. I have no involvement in the disability [autism] field which is 'owned' by female therapists, social workers and so on.
Social workers and child safety officers, they think they can change the world & they start with getting rid of males
During the period of which I wrote a senior [lesbian] social worker had an endless repertoire of dumb/stupid male jokes which she spouted at every opportunity to the enjoyment and entertainment of her fellow social workers in the office. Similar jokes about dumb/stupid females would have seen her complaining. What intrigued me was how she and her fellow 'feminists' used and manipulated other women in the office who were not members of the feminist clique.
The social work world and how politically and career driven were its members was a shock to me, trained in education as I was.
Women are known for their bitchiness, usually when it comes to fellow females. Seems they have now jumped the boundaries to include males. Some of the most stressful episodes of my career have been at the hands of nasty, vindictive females.
>Seems they have now jumped the boundaries to include males.
And men don't have the tools to deal with it.
We all supposed to be here helping one another,we seem to have forgotten that.
There is a book "The Losers" by David Eddings about social workers and how they pigeon hole people.
Hi, Ken
Sad story.
Do you know how the man was prevented from taking civil action over the false allegations?
Was it the 11 year old girl’s age?
I do not know for certain but an ex school teacher told me , teachers and public servants can’t sue their employer or members of the public ,at least not in all cases. I do not know what legal advice the teacher had ,obviously ,but I suppose it was to forget it because you can’t win.
Had the police charged the woman and girl with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and got a conviction then the teacher would have had a claim as a victim of crime ,but they didn’t. The excuse is that they don’t want to discourage other women from reporting sexual assault cases, even if they are false, it doesn’t matter if a man’s life is ruined as long as women are “protected”
There are many cases like this , legal costs are far too high people can be bankrupted paying lawyers , there needs to be a complete reform of the justice system , that would take a great deal of political courage , Pauline Hanson was on the ball when she instigated the Family court senate enquiry a few years ago, this could have a been the start of big changes for the better but it has been stalled , deliberately I think.
In news to hand, it turns out that male & female dung beetles can work together on a task: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/17/male-and-female-dung-beetles-coordinate-to-roll-balls-researchers-find
Sad that humans are losing that ability.
Kate Jenkins says that sexual harassment and discrimination are “ unlawful” but who says so and why should they be ?
Discrimination is a valid process ,a right in a democracy , people should be free to discriminate in any way even in regards to who they associate with and in the case of employers ,who the employ.
And sexual harassment these days could be as trivial as a man looking at a provocatively dressed woman or making a comment about her appearance.
It surprised me to hear on news abc last night 30/1/24 that someone had successfully sued Channel 9 for making derogatory statements about them. She said they had used her big bust and stomach (I think) to make fun of her. When I saw the photo of her I couldn’t believe it. Her big bust was not evident, nor did I see the stomach; but all I saw was a young female with big black tats on both arms - shoulder to wrist- disfiguring her. That person has successfully won previous cases as a “woman’s rights activist”….??
Just saying …on the same news I saw people interviewed re “un affordable housing” I observed all of these people with large tats (whole legs or arms) Maybe these people do not know that people of previous generations knew that they had to live on a certain amount & save to own property?—-it is not a God given right to own one’s own house!
Tattoos have become an epidemic they should be banned ,at least until people show they are mature enough to use them in moderation.
It is sad to see young people covered in ugly ,vulgar tattoos which can never be removed, you would wonder what is wrong with society .
Its no coincidence Slator and Gorden are one of the biggest ALP donors... they're getting their money's worth.
Do you mean the firm Slater and Gordon? They operate in all states it seems ,big business.
No surprise that this firm supports the ALP ,lawyers have had a bonanza from the feminist anti-men laws and they don’t want to kill the golden goose.
It all started in 1972 with the then PM Gough Whitlam (ALP of course )who was also a lawyer ,he started the Family Court and since then many more lawyers have entered parliament, state and federal.
In a perfect world lawyers would be prohibited from entering parliament because they are officers of the court, part of the judiciary , a violation of the Westminster principle of “division of powers”.
An increasingly larger percentage of politicians trained as lawyers, as it is seen a the path for persons wanting to have a political career (as opposed to those who enter politics naively thinking they can make a difference)
And the ALP is the party for lawyers or at least left leaning lawyers, the Liberals attract the more right wing corporate type, but it’s the workers (men and women) who miss out on dedicated political representation . More people are seeing this and voting for the smaller parties.
You might be interested in the results of the recent Tasmanian state election. The Parliament was restored from 25 to 35 members, as it had been before the Labor and Liberal parties conspired to reduce the size of the Parliament in an attempt to eliminate the Tasmanian Greens. Out of the 10 new seats up for grabs, the Labor and Liberal parties between them won just one seat. The cross-bench now has more seats than the opposition Labor Party (11 vs 10) and the Liberals have been forced to govern with just 14 MPs. The ALP representative during the election coverage didn't care that the party's vote had gone nowhere, so long as the majority of MPs in the new Parliament were women. I was delighted to see that the final result is 18 men to 17 women.
Even better, one of the new cross-benchers, David O'Byrne, was expelled from the ALP based on a trumped-up sexual harassment claim clearly designed to thwart his leadership ambitions. He is more popular now than he was before the scandal.
A local Psephologist, Dr Kevin Bonham, noticed in previous elections that a significant proportion of (presumably) female voters tend to preference female-only candidates. As such, male voters should respond by preferencing male candidates wherever possible.
Strongly disagree. It is all Australians who miss out on on fair representation at local, state and federal levels due to self-serving politicians
Right , all Australians miss out on the political representation they pay for, just try to get your MP to take up an unpopular cause , like mens rights. The point I was making was that the traditional LABOR party was the working peoples voice, the poor, uneducated , but now it is a party of left wing elites , who are often better educated with high paying jobs ,they don’t care about the workers.
If people are to have better political representation a new system should be introduced, maybe based on the European models, citizens initiated referendums etc.
Lawyers spend their whole career lying & then become politicians or judges.
One year of Albo’s government-for-women has gone even worse than I expected. I shudder to think how much more damage they’ll do.
It’s always the same formula....
Cook up a study which shows “alarming” female victimhood in some area. Ignore the male victims who meet the same convoluted definition. Then attribute the problem to gender inequality. Enact legislation and allocate spending to “stop it at the start”. Claim to be making a better society. Who can be against making a better society?
Right but you don’t hear any protest from the opposition, Peter Dutton is just as much under the feminist thumb as Albo , afraid of losing the female vote at the next election .
Not 100% agreement. Yes, the libs are almost as bad as Labor, but not quite - and the difference is enough make them "less bad" as an alternative.
We see in the article that even ScoMo didn't accept every recommendation ("demand") from the report, whereas Labor has, and with the power of government.
Thanks for the response! It's an important matter.
Great piece on the misandrist virus and its high priestesses.
As always these misandrist women greatly overestimate their intelligence, and never seem to think through the consequences of their deranged junk philosophies.
The main one being that their poison, far from helping women, will more likely harm them.
For example, organisations not infected with the misandrist virus will become far more reluctant to hire women who are perceived as too high a risk. It may not be fair, but it's inevitable. In fact, I can assure you that this is already happening and will only intensify.
Also, organisations that are infected with the virus will inevitably become weaker. Why? Because talented men (and women) always have choices - and will leave places that don't value their talent. Once the talent starts walking out, the organisation itself weakens. Weaker organisations tend to lay people off - especially women. Again, this is happening right now and has been for some time.
Bottom line : if an organisation decides to value misandry over meritocracy, it must understand that unintended consequences will flow that may prove to be highly damaging to any workplace and in my view, will impact on women the most.
I experienced the following at work, some years ago. I was in a meeting with other senior managers and our boss. They were all women, I not. During the small talk, the conversation swung to physical (pre-bedroom) aspects of the bosses and her husband's behaviour. The two other women chimed in enthusiastically. As I was sitting there, I wondered what would be the outcome if the sexes had been reversed. One woman, three men? It did pass my mind to make a formal complaint, but I quite liked my fellow managers, although our boss was Ms Control and quite unpleasant to work with as a consequence. She also didn't like her wrong-headed 'I'm an ex [big 6] consultant' ideas contradicted...even when they broke accounting standards. I didn't complain as I didn't want to put my two colleagues through that process as their and my work lives would have been so severely affected that I would probably have to leave.
As usual I agree with everything you say but it is so depressing I almost wish I hadn't read it.
Maybe Dreyfus should be self employed! No chance of that- he'd have a huge super paid by tax payers. Until Michaelia Cash actually votes against one of these suggestions, she's just a bleating voice. Janet Albrechtsen hits the nail on the head, she should have called it "go away to France" subsidized by the government. Gone is the productive country when we have more people being paid to not work "on their perceived or dreamed up fear" & the rest of them on committees deciding how women deserve to be the best paid with the least amount of work. When the world is only females parenting the few babies born to these same sex couples, the academics will then set about to undo what they are now legislating to implement. Meanwhile the males will be cycling around the world, or surfing every day. Self employed for sure. Huge thank you to Bettina!
Government note: Although this sort of misandry will probably not attract a huge number of extra votes of women, but it will certainly result in the loss pf a huge number of men's votes. Do the maths.
I like to think huge numbers of women would be really annoyed by this too!
We are!
Same here
Yes Bettina that thought crossed my mind but if so most of them are being very quiet about it :-)