Good observation on the “womens problem”. Simply a seed planted by labor over a few years and parroted by a few disgruntled liberal women and cucked liberal leaders. Perhaps some women change sides when they have boys growing up, but that takes a while I think. Unfortunately blokes just have to put their heads down and work. Only hope is if mark latham had a tilt at the PM!
quote.>"Decades after graduating, many of these feminists have successfully infiltrated the higher echelons of the public service where it is now possible to influence the direction of governments and policies. Institutions such as the Australian Law Reform Commission or the attorney generals and justice departments in the various states and territories." <unquote https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5010
Feminists hate conservatives. And most of all they hate conservative women because they consider conservative women to be traitors to the feminist cause.
Conservative parties must cease all pandering to feminists, and purely and truly focus on and encourage individual merit in men and women.
Conservatives need to face and deal with feminism as it is, a movement that babies women, encourages female victimhood, and pressures women to be group minded like a mob of sheep, instead of individually free minded and free willed. Conservatives need to call out contemporary feminists for what they are -- bullies of women.
In every female workplace the worst bullies of good women are the feminists. Good women need to wake up to that and stand up to these bullies.
Women, be your own individual, don't let feminists tell you how to be, how to speak, what your thoughts and opinions need to be, don't let them bully or pressure you in any way. Reject their cult of female victimhood. Be your own woman, strong and kind, with your own merit, and your own freewill.
Morrison was voted in by the men's vote in 2019. He had campaigned in working class areas, drinking with "the boys" at pubs and clubs, followed by the cameras.
There was hope of a better deal for men when he supported the family Law inquiry, but he showed his true colours as a feminist yes man.
There's a big lesson for conservative parties here but I don't think they are seeing it. The Coalitions new ministry is full of women who may or may not be radical feminists, only time will tell.
I read somewhere that if only male voters were counted Trump would have won California. Labor knew what they were doing, but what is really dishonest (I'm a former ALP member) is the smearing, the outright abuse. Perhaps Scott just "turned the other cheek", he needed to fight back hard and where possible go legal. The attacks on conservative women MPs were just as vile.
Prior to the last federal election l wrote to each major political party stating that whilst money was made available to protect women and children, what money was being allocated to men's issues.
I received NO comment from Labor or Liberal.
As a result l notified both parties that my vote would not be allocated to them.
If all men wrote to the major parties with the intent of not voting for them unless they realised men's issues the major parties will take notice.
Collectively we count but individually they ignore us.
I found the statement by Heard's lawyer to be quite indicative of where we were at. He said words to the effect that 'it did not matter if Heard had been abusive, or how many times she had been abusive to Depp, if he had abused her just once then Heard deserved to win'. Luckily the jury did not swallow his twisted idea of what constitutes justice.
It’s a well known truism that the vast majority of women have always given precedence to ‘feelings over facts’. The contemporary woman is no different, regardless of education.
The political left and mainstream media leverage this sentiment for all it's worth, and to great effect.
We only need to look at the significant gender split on highly emoted issues such as climate change, where the narrative has evolved to become completely disproportionate to the facts.
What women don't understand is that they are being weaponised by vested interests. The "Teals' are a case in point with their campaigns being underwritten, both directly and indirectly, by renewable energy investors. These women are representing their respective electorates in parliament by inadvertently promoting a business proposition - which is exactly what Net Zero is all about - on moral and sentimental grounds. (Net Zero is considered a significant element of the emerging ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ within business circles.)
Women have become the unwitting underwriters of their own weaponization, which encapsulates virtually every woke issue that pervades contemporary society. All of these issues, without exception, are cultivated based on feelings, not facts, which is why they are so appealing to women.
If the political right want to get serious about winning back the female vote, they need to stop being party to the surreptitious infantilization of women, which is ultimately what the endless concessions and capitulation to women’s social whims is doing.
We need conviction politicians that have the courage to get real with society and hold the media to account. Voters don’t have to like a politician, but they do respect courage, the truth (backed by empirical evidence), conviction, and above all, relevance to their own lives. When any of this formula is missing, voters simply let feelings take precedence and vote accordingly, especially women.
For virtually every election cycle in the Western World, the bulk of mainstream media has become the unpaid PR department of the left, effectively muting the centre right and conservatives.
The media are no longer reporters of facts based news, having transformed into vociferous articulators of contrived opinion. There was a time when mistruths would end a journalists career, or even lead to the demise of an entire publication.
In our contemporary world, alternative facts have become the daily fodder of media and politicians, alike. The assumed morality and responsibility attached to imparting information has become anathema to both.
It’s time for a new era of conviction politicians to reverse this cultural malaise, a conviction that should be, and once was, the instinctive precedent of the centre right and conservatives.
Politicians learned a long time ago to bribe people with their own money. That is why the rate of income tax/provision of services, is always a major factor in swaying votes.
They have also learned well that to win an election, you appeal to the biggest block most of all. Almost every democracy in the world has a greater female electorate than male electorate. If women can be pandered to, even at the cost of men, that makes sense to the political scientists because the power is with the women.
In countries that do not have mandatory voting, voter interest has been declining for decades because men and women simply don't have a good choice to vote for. Only when a populist party arises—such as in Spain and Hungary—does the voter count suddenly go up. (And then the main parties decry the populist party, as though being popular is somehow damaging to democracy.)
As all parties continue to move to the left, it is inevitable that new parties will arise on the right. That tends to be a problem in itself, because such parties are often quite radical (or they would not have been created). Few countries have managed to create a political party that is family-friendly and yet moderate in social and economic policies; some do exist, such as in Germany and Brazil, but most countries are not constitutionally or culturally set up to accommodate them. Essentialism does not seem as exciting as radicalism.
I must admit I hadn't given this subject much thought; however, I never doubted that our universities humanities department were breeding grounds for left wing views and, of course, dominated by female students. Not sure what the pathway is to correct this. More women in science??
Never a truer word spoken. After this election the question has to be asked - with all this shameful pandering to women as detailed by Bettina and I would add Morrison appointing not only a Minister for Women and an Assistant Minister for Women and then to have each and every law scrutinised through the prism of the so-called "women's cabinet" did this get one single additional woman to vote for the coalition? I can see that I'm not the only one saying this. Here's another thing. Just prior to the previous federal election when I was in the public service I was sent an invitation by my union to march for equal pay for women. This was the same union that I had paid my dues to for many years. I wrote to the union pointing out the dishonesty of this march, considering the union knows for a fact that women in the public service get paid precisely the same as men irrespective of the position. if anyone knows this for a fact it is the union. Unsurprisingly, the union did not deny what I said and tried to make the ridiculous case that some departments get paid differently to other department because they were female-dominated and male-dominated departments - to which I replied this was "bullshit". The departments are departments. It is an absurdity to characterise them in this way. A little later I noticed my union was at it again making a similar misrepresentation in the media that women were paid differently to men, so I worked out from the Australian Public Service Commission website (anyone can do this) that even though 58% of the employees in the public service were women they did about 13% of the work, which roughly translated to men working some hundreds of millions of additional hours each year. By itself, this explains why the idea there should be equal numbers in management positions is clearly preposterous. I finished by saying that if I can do this simple exercise with publicly available information why can't the CPSU? Needless to say, I did not receive a response. I also pointed out that half the union membership who pay their dues happen to be men. Why should men contribute to a union who works day and night against their interests? My point was that it was hypocritical of the union to be carrying on about banks charging fees for no service, when they were doing precisely the same thing for half their membership. Except the unions were actually worse than the banks - they actively lobbied to unfairly cheat the men out of their careers. These were the union members who paid the union's wages.
Hopefuly the "March 2022 budget allocation of $2.1 billion to services for women and girls" is especially for women of the penised variety. I've always considered myself a liberal, but I will NEVER, EVER vote for the left until they get an adult to drive the bus and publicly denounce and renounce the insanity of "transgenderism," which is a psychic epidemic, the most dangerous mass psychosis the world has ever faced. And the women with the luxury problems don't seem to understand that "transgenderism" seeks to ABOLISH you and your SEX (no one cares about gender) – SEX, your S E X, and that of your daughters. And you seem just fine with it. Shame on you.
Good observation on the “womens problem”. Simply a seed planted by labor over a few years and parroted by a few disgruntled liberal women and cucked liberal leaders. Perhaps some women change sides when they have boys growing up, but that takes a while I think. Unfortunately blokes just have to put their heads down and work. Only hope is if mark latham had a tilt at the PM!
quote.>"Decades after graduating, many of these feminists have successfully infiltrated the higher echelons of the public service where it is now possible to influence the direction of governments and policies. Institutions such as the Australian Law Reform Commission or the attorney generals and justice departments in the various states and territories." <unquote https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5010
Feminists hate conservatives. And most of all they hate conservative women because they consider conservative women to be traitors to the feminist cause.
Conservative parties must cease all pandering to feminists, and purely and truly focus on and encourage individual merit in men and women.
Conservatives need to face and deal with feminism as it is, a movement that babies women, encourages female victimhood, and pressures women to be group minded like a mob of sheep, instead of individually free minded and free willed. Conservatives need to call out contemporary feminists for what they are -- bullies of women.
In every female workplace the worst bullies of good women are the feminists. Good women need to wake up to that and stand up to these bullies.
Women, be your own individual, don't let feminists tell you how to be, how to speak, what your thoughts and opinions need to be, don't let them bully or pressure you in any way. Reject their cult of female victimhood. Be your own woman, strong and kind, with your own merit, and your own freewill.
Morrison was voted in by the men's vote in 2019. He had campaigned in working class areas, drinking with "the boys" at pubs and clubs, followed by the cameras.
There was hope of a better deal for men when he supported the family Law inquiry, but he showed his true colours as a feminist yes man.
There's a big lesson for conservative parties here but I don't think they are seeing it. The Coalitions new ministry is full of women who may or may not be radical feminists, only time will tell.
The only hope for men is in the small parties.
I read somewhere that if only male voters were counted Trump would have won California. Labor knew what they were doing, but what is really dishonest (I'm a former ALP member) is the smearing, the outright abuse. Perhaps Scott just "turned the other cheek", he needed to fight back hard and where possible go legal. The attacks on conservative women MPs were just as vile.
Prior to the last federal election l wrote to each major political party stating that whilst money was made available to protect women and children, what money was being allocated to men's issues.
I received NO comment from Labor or Liberal.
As a result l notified both parties that my vote would not be allocated to them.
If all men wrote to the major parties with the intent of not voting for them unless they realised men's issues the major parties will take notice.
Collectively we count but individually they ignore us.
Another great article Bettina. Thank you. your insight is wonderful
I found the statement by Heard's lawyer to be quite indicative of where we were at. He said words to the effect that 'it did not matter if Heard had been abusive, or how many times she had been abusive to Depp, if he had abused her just once then Heard deserved to win'. Luckily the jury did not swallow his twisted idea of what constitutes justice.
It’s a well known truism that the vast majority of women have always given precedence to ‘feelings over facts’. The contemporary woman is no different, regardless of education.
The political left and mainstream media leverage this sentiment for all it's worth, and to great effect.
We only need to look at the significant gender split on highly emoted issues such as climate change, where the narrative has evolved to become completely disproportionate to the facts.
What women don't understand is that they are being weaponised by vested interests. The "Teals' are a case in point with their campaigns being underwritten, both directly and indirectly, by renewable energy investors. These women are representing their respective electorates in parliament by inadvertently promoting a business proposition - which is exactly what Net Zero is all about - on moral and sentimental grounds. (Net Zero is considered a significant element of the emerging ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ within business circles.)
Women have become the unwitting underwriters of their own weaponization, which encapsulates virtually every woke issue that pervades contemporary society. All of these issues, without exception, are cultivated based on feelings, not facts, which is why they are so appealing to women.
If the political right want to get serious about winning back the female vote, they need to stop being party to the surreptitious infantilization of women, which is ultimately what the endless concessions and capitulation to women’s social whims is doing.
We need conviction politicians that have the courage to get real with society and hold the media to account. Voters don’t have to like a politician, but they do respect courage, the truth (backed by empirical evidence), conviction, and above all, relevance to their own lives. When any of this formula is missing, voters simply let feelings take precedence and vote accordingly, especially women.
For virtually every election cycle in the Western World, the bulk of mainstream media has become the unpaid PR department of the left, effectively muting the centre right and conservatives.
The media are no longer reporters of facts based news, having transformed into vociferous articulators of contrived opinion. There was a time when mistruths would end a journalists career, or even lead to the demise of an entire publication.
In our contemporary world, alternative facts have become the daily fodder of media and politicians, alike. The assumed morality and responsibility attached to imparting information has become anathema to both.
It’s time for a new era of conviction politicians to reverse this cultural malaise, a conviction that should be, and once was, the instinctive precedent of the centre right and conservatives.
Nobody as blind as those who don't want to see
Politicians learned a long time ago to bribe people with their own money. That is why the rate of income tax/provision of services, is always a major factor in swaying votes.
They have also learned well that to win an election, you appeal to the biggest block most of all. Almost every democracy in the world has a greater female electorate than male electorate. If women can be pandered to, even at the cost of men, that makes sense to the political scientists because the power is with the women.
In countries that do not have mandatory voting, voter interest has been declining for decades because men and women simply don't have a good choice to vote for. Only when a populist party arises—such as in Spain and Hungary—does the voter count suddenly go up. (And then the main parties decry the populist party, as though being popular is somehow damaging to democracy.)
As all parties continue to move to the left, it is inevitable that new parties will arise on the right. That tends to be a problem in itself, because such parties are often quite radical (or they would not have been created). Few countries have managed to create a political party that is family-friendly and yet moderate in social and economic policies; some do exist, such as in Germany and Brazil, but most countries are not constitutionally or culturally set up to accommodate them. Essentialism does not seem as exciting as radicalism.
Rustyn Thomas
Hear Hear
Hear hear ...
I must admit I hadn't given this subject much thought; however, I never doubted that our universities humanities department were breeding grounds for left wing views and, of course, dominated by female students. Not sure what the pathway is to correct this. More women in science??
Never a truer word spoken. After this election the question has to be asked - with all this shameful pandering to women as detailed by Bettina and I would add Morrison appointing not only a Minister for Women and an Assistant Minister for Women and then to have each and every law scrutinised through the prism of the so-called "women's cabinet" did this get one single additional woman to vote for the coalition? I can see that I'm not the only one saying this. Here's another thing. Just prior to the previous federal election when I was in the public service I was sent an invitation by my union to march for equal pay for women. This was the same union that I had paid my dues to for many years. I wrote to the union pointing out the dishonesty of this march, considering the union knows for a fact that women in the public service get paid precisely the same as men irrespective of the position. if anyone knows this for a fact it is the union. Unsurprisingly, the union did not deny what I said and tried to make the ridiculous case that some departments get paid differently to other department because they were female-dominated and male-dominated departments - to which I replied this was "bullshit". The departments are departments. It is an absurdity to characterise them in this way. A little later I noticed my union was at it again making a similar misrepresentation in the media that women were paid differently to men, so I worked out from the Australian Public Service Commission website (anyone can do this) that even though 58% of the employees in the public service were women they did about 13% of the work, which roughly translated to men working some hundreds of millions of additional hours each year. By itself, this explains why the idea there should be equal numbers in management positions is clearly preposterous. I finished by saying that if I can do this simple exercise with publicly available information why can't the CPSU? Needless to say, I did not receive a response. I also pointed out that half the union membership who pay their dues happen to be men. Why should men contribute to a union who works day and night against their interests? My point was that it was hypocritical of the union to be carrying on about banks charging fees for no service, when they were doing precisely the same thing for half their membership. Except the unions were actually worse than the banks - they actively lobbied to unfairly cheat the men out of their careers. These were the union members who paid the union's wages.
Hopefuly the "March 2022 budget allocation of $2.1 billion to services for women and girls" is especially for women of the penised variety. I've always considered myself a liberal, but I will NEVER, EVER vote for the left until they get an adult to drive the bus and publicly denounce and renounce the insanity of "transgenderism," which is a psychic epidemic, the most dangerous mass psychosis the world has ever faced. And the women with the luxury problems don't seem to understand that "transgenderism" seeks to ABOLISH you and your SEX (no one cares about gender) – SEX, your S E X, and that of your daughters. And you seem just fine with it. Shame on you.