Get a load at the stuff the Financial Services Union puts out. They will be all for the freezing of mens bank accounts. A recent gold nugget they put out was pushing for special workplace policy and leave days for women’s menstruation and menopause struggles. It was not a parody it was serious. A union shamelessly for women but get the member fees off of the blokes as well.
We are still hoping to find a good case to see if we can challenge this. Hopefully when my blog is published in a few other places, some more stories will emerge.
Thanks Bettina for bringing this to light (as always). As someone with 20+ years banking experience and my experience with family law matters, this really hit home. As you have highlighted previously, weaponised AVOs are promoted by some advocacy groups as a lever to pull in FL matters. I’ve supported many men that have gone down the path of “just accept the AVO without admission of guilt rather than go through the lengthy process of fighting it” to their own detriment. Relationship breakups are rarely smooth in my experience and financial matters are often the breaking point. I wonder if an estranged partner that drains the joint account to purchase handbags, $1,200 of designer scented candles (true) and then drags the family law process out as long as possible because they use economic resources of their family would constitute cohesive control under that malformed legislation? The virtue signalling behaviour of the banks is incredibly dangerous and I hope that someone can challenge the legality of their involvement in this. I think the banks would gain more from protecting the security of their customers from scammers and reinvesting their profits to reduce the costs to their customers.
AVOs are used as a weapons in FL matters but the ease with which they are granted is really scandalous and has affected the publics faith in the justice system. The blame for this rests with the Magistrates in the courts including the family court.
A friend of mine in a divorce battle was astounded when the FL magistrate turned to his wife and actually offered her a violence order against him, he was not given the same consideration and there was no reason for it as his wife, to her credit, insisted.
I suggested he should complain loudly, starting with the chief magistrate but he was too intimidated and nothing was done.
Here we see a magistrate acting as a salesman for domestic violence orders, what is going on? are they thinking of their mates the lawyers , send them a bit of business there might be a "drink" in it.
In Canada about 2 decades ago they proposed a law that "Shout at your spouse and loose your house."
Lately there has been a huge push that if for example the police arrested a woman and charged her with Domestic Violence, it was blamed on "Misattribution". The denial that women can be instigators and perpetrators is so strong, it make me suspicious that the advocates don't want anyone examining their own behaviour too closely.
OMG. Of all the strategies that have shocked me in the last few years, this is the worst thing I have read. I shuddered at the Canadian story and knew it was the beginning of this type of horrific action. But this......
I had a brother-in-law who was a dairy farmer from a boy. It was not until they were in their 60s that he and his wife retired to a town house to take it easy. Being bored, she spent her days tipping the life savings into a poker machine. Horrific financial abuse.
It is wrong in principle for a bank to be involved with the family affairs of their customers , if an account should be closed because of so called financial abuse then it should require a clear court order. But the banks are acting as quasi courts , jumping the gun on any decision which should only be made in a court hearing.
The banks need to see their boundaries and that means their responsibility stops at the monetary needs of customers.
Feminist influence in banks is strong with a majority of staff now women, and consider the now 50 years of feminists indoctrination within the education systems, it is fair to say that ALL women in banks today have been brainwashed to some degree by feminist's anti man teaching.
This is how these things continue, the women bankers think anything is justified if a woman is treated unfairly , by a man.
The issue of corporations involving themselves in the family affairs of customers or their staff members was raised some years ago in WA , a mining state . Mining companies like Rio Tinto took it upon themselves to work closely with the state govt. when staff members were involved in domestic
violence matters ,
This is improper for a company, whose responsibility to staff ends when they stop work and leave the work premises.
The CEO of Rio Tinto was at the time a woman { no surprise} , but this is the thin end of the wedge and clear boundaries are needed between what a company can or can't do when the personal issues of customers or staff are involved.
I cited this important piece in comment I made on a recent spectator article, "Who will speak up for young men?", responding to a comment that the erasure of boys from education "must change".
The only change we'll see is more man bashing in government ads, more "teaching boys to respect women", more whipping up of public condemnations of men whenever there's an offence to exploit, be it real (a graphic crime, eg. Rosie Batty) or contrived (eg. Brittany Higgins).
Feminism is a very well oiled and funded machine, entrenched in our institutions and government, and their cushy jobs depend on providing more of the same, each year. In the last couple of years we had Higgins and "sexual assault in the workplace", "parliamentary culture", "coercive control".
This year we've got banks acting on "financial abuse" by unilaterally suspending the accounts of any man *accused* of financial abuse by a woman.
It is becoming serious, not just annoying due to the unfairness. On a more trivial scale, watch the MASTERMIND quiz show. A pattern is clear of systematically favouring the female candidates. I am not saying men are smarter than women. I an saying the questions are usually easier for the female contestants. The "random" general knowledge questions are hard ro fudge but it is still happening, Where it really shows up is in the special knowledge questions. Very often one of the females gets mickey muse questions and tops the scores half wat at about 15. Then in the general knowledge she has already a start of about 5 points often. Don't take my word for it. Have a look. It won't be long and young men will start to just give up on society where they cannot get fair treatment, and even in marriage can be dumped with no assets or access to their children.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that occurs. Google Wimbledon tennis or any grand slam. Always lands on the women’s tab as default. Not even the wife watches the women’s tennis. Btw objectively I would think men are generally smarter if one was inclined to do such testing. 😉
well I wouldn't knw if one of the sexes is smarter than the other on average, but it is pathetic that when a situation arises that might demonstrate a difference, it is subverted. as for female tennis players, football players etc payments. why wouldt the payments be based on the gate income for the matches? after all it IS really show business.
I know. We are either in a capitalist society or communist. Sure, throw some extra to the girls to take into account physical limitation’s, and as a father of girls, if they can make ok living in pros sports great. but in the long run something going to give - some sports won’t make enough to pay everyone at the same level. Then I expect Governments, federal or state will chip in (bail out)(womens ministers). No male player is going out on a limb calling it out - particularly when they may already be on 10x the average worker eg football. Individual sports will be ok as their is only limited numbers in both sexes that make the money. Most just get by.
"Google Wimbledon tennis". I did it, and this time I got mostly men's pictures. I do know what you mean though - in general women's news dominates.
However, I use Bing as my default engine (because google as a company makes me puke), and "wimbledon tennis" made it look like a women's tournament, with snarling, athletic women dominating, with the public clinging to their daily results.
Apart from men/women, the google result was much superior to Bing.
I use brave as a browser. Though still google while brave develops their search engine. We can go deeper, and say you cannot find results in google that are considered “alternative”, conspiracy or whatever. It is quite alarming. For example research negative to covid, many other topics the Gov /MSM don’t like.
As a software developer I'm always interested in these discussions, and have tried many browsers and search engines over the years. My setting of Bing as the default balances several factors, but is always subject to review - and the recent "Wimbledon" search was a black mark.
When I've tried alternatives to the big two (google and bing) in the past, I've quickly given up because localisation has been weak, being centred on the US, but checking Brave I see that it's done a good job there.
Yes, getting around "shadow bans" on information can be tricky, and, in my observation, is getting harder and harder with Bing.
DuckDuckGo was first suggested to me about 10 years ago, and I've tried it several times but each time it's been poor for "localisation" and seems to be built for the US. When I search "Thai restaurant" I want to find the ones near me, not in New York.
Some people may like this because it means DuckDuckGo isn't collecting user info (as it promises) but for me practicality wins.
For normal use I recommend google or Bing because they've put so much $$$ into great search and a dynamic user-interface. Google is slightly superior, but Bing is good enough for me.
The problem with both of these is that their results have a left/woke/feminist slant which is not admitted and not quantified. I was quite surprised by Bing turning Wimbledon into a women's tournament! They also collect huge amounts of data about you, which again is unknown and unquantified.
Sometimes I've been able to find information with DuckDuckGo that I couldn't get from google or Bing. I'll also try Brave in the future.
@Charlie - that's very interesting about DuckDuckGo and "disinformation"! I'm seeing the usual suspects among friends and relatives talking more about "disinformation". It's the next wave, and terrifies me.
DuckDuckGo had been a long time favourite. Mid last year they vowed to cut down on “disinformation”?!. So Many of us moved to Brave. Firefox is another option.
I sometimes enjoy the ABC's "Hard Quiz". In one episode I noticed that a young woman's "specialist" knowledge questions were much easier than the man who stood out as a likely winner, and when the two faced off in the "hard" specialist knowledge round she got through with apparentely easier questions.
I felt that on this occasion the bias was clear, but I suspect that it's common. (I try to switch off from these issues for a couple of hours at night!)
While the show can be entertaining I find that Tom Gleason's smarmy humor has a left/feminist slant which irritates me too much to watch it regularly.
I distinctly recall him comenting once "Maybe it's because men are shits". Grin and wink.
Whatever it takes to switch off at the end of the day!
The "Hard Quiz" format is entertaining and stimulating, and Tom Gleason's humor is very sharp.
However, having seen the favouritism to a female contestant once, it will be hard to "unsee" it in the future.
Another factor I've seen is that when female contestants are introduced they can be more boastful of their success in a particular field, with Gleason grinning along with how they stuck it to the men.
The discrimination against men is everywhere in the media. It is also being weaponised in families where the husband (assuming a male) is lied about and accused of violence if he even protests, so that the children are turned against him.
But it is no surprise that the MSM is biased against men and particularly straight white men over say 35, and if these unfortunate souls are also "working class' well forget any notion of fair and equal treatment.
This is a paradox because the big corporate media barons ie. Murdoch , Conrad Black , etc are themsleves old white men , the likes of who also control much of the corporate world as well as high government positions.
So why do they willingly discriminate against their own gender and age group? This was a question posed by Bettina years ago in her Weekend Australian articles .
This is a class issue and the feminist movement has always been as much to do with class inequality as gender inequality, and poor working class men have been an easy target.
When Orwell published "1984" in 1949 nobody could have imagined the degree of centralized control government, industry, and finance would acquire in the next 50 years. The last 20 years have seen even greater consolidation of these powers. The government speaks; big tech and finance leap into action. When the White House asked a Meta to remove an account, an administrator responded in less than a minute, "Yep, on it." We have little tyrants eager to please the big ones. Sadly, as Bettina says, many men seem oblivious to ways in which these forces work against us, punishing those whose crime is speaking freely.
Bettina's article does refer to elder abuse with respect to that group having significant risks when their own financial abilities are on the decline and needing some form of guardianship over them.
Last weeks National Press Club featured the Commissioner for Ageing, Dr Ann Patterson. She correctly put forward that those elders who were planning their financial affairs beyond their current abilities should consider Powers of Attorney, but of course those risks were also mentioned by her, along with an example of a male's inappropriate dealing of parental funds. During the speech and her later response to questions you may have been forgiven that ageing females were the only group at risk. The Commissioner stated that women were the greatest risk of deprivation and homelessness through elder abuse although the ABS statistics would suggest otherwise. Also falling through the "statistical cracks" is the under reporting of male homelessness, those of whom find the next stop from the Family Court being couch surfing or other "temporary" accomodation. As Dr Patterson is the retiring Commissioner it will be interesting to hear who is the new woman to take up the cudgels and whether or not is also a signatory/sympathetic to the proposed banking powers.
What wimps are those bank managers. Rather than sticking to banking, they have now chosen to have an opinion, which does not even seem to be theirs, but that of the...............?government, ?media ?activists. Just whose opinion rates higher than theirs. Do they think so less of themselves that they feel they have to be lemmings? What the population needs to do is withdraw their funds from those woke banks and stick it under the floorboards -the money that is, not the bank managers....although??
You forget bank managers are misandrist female feminists
Appointed by quota
I kid you not, i was walking my dogs and the conversation i had with a recently appointed bank manager, she was laughing she got the job despite not being able to add up and multiply !
My son with a maths degree would probably be overlooked
Does anyone have experience with credit unions in this regard? One reason I moved my money from a big bank to a CU was to avoid their meddling in my personal affairs and politics.
Gretchen, APRA regulates Credit Unions, along with Banks and other financial institutions. Many CU's are also aligned via employment etc: the U in it will give some insight. Many CU's provide a very good alternative to general banking and ostensibly exist to serve their members. You may wish to consider your original motive for moving your money from banks to CU's if it was solely for those reasons you stated.
APRA is a joke; had to resort to it several times and all times it was "mumble mumble.. they didn't mumble discharge their responsibilities properly... mumble.. but they didn't mean too (complaint #3,0216,914 against same bank for same breach)
The reality is the vast majority of bank managers (generally older staff over 40 yo) do not believe in woke politics and do not want to be involved in de facto policing and many have left the industry. The biggest concern for me is that they are being replaced by younger staff who have been indoctrinated into wokeism and even show some altruistic enthusiasm towards these policies. The same compliance rules apply via code of conduct and legislation to all financial institutions and are overseen by regulators who have doubled in staff since the royal commission in 2018. They are very strict and insist banks follow community expectations (ie woke) and regularly threaten the institutions banking license which makes executives very nervous and leads to policies such as Bettina refers to (not defending them). The interpretation of these policies was far more practical from the older generation than the current one. Many people don’t realise that essentially the whole boards of CBA and Westpac were removed a few years ago due to not monitoring suspicious (not proven) transactions for terrorist and drug activities and now the feminist movement has moved in on the action. Government would rather turn bank staff into de facto police rather than raise taxes (and lose elections) to adequately fund the federal police to do this. To my mind bankers should manage money and provide opportunity not act as unqualified police. Scary times we live in.
Get a load at the stuff the Financial Services Union puts out. They will be all for the freezing of mens bank accounts. A recent gold nugget they put out was pushing for special workplace policy and leave days for women’s menstruation and menopause struggles. It was not a parody it was serious. A union shamelessly for women but get the member fees off of the blokes as well.
"Big companies are tipping extra cash into female staff members’ superannuation accounts, in a bid to address their lacklustre retirement savings. "
https://www.news.com.au/finance/superannuation/radical-proposal-to-force-bosses-to-fork-out-extra-super-for-women/news-story/0174c968cf2cf1901c62eaaf9c282230
We are still hoping to find a good case to see if we can challenge this. Hopefully when my blog is published in a few other places, some more stories will emerge.
Thanks Bettina for bringing this to light (as always). As someone with 20+ years banking experience and my experience with family law matters, this really hit home. As you have highlighted previously, weaponised AVOs are promoted by some advocacy groups as a lever to pull in FL matters. I’ve supported many men that have gone down the path of “just accept the AVO without admission of guilt rather than go through the lengthy process of fighting it” to their own detriment. Relationship breakups are rarely smooth in my experience and financial matters are often the breaking point. I wonder if an estranged partner that drains the joint account to purchase handbags, $1,200 of designer scented candles (true) and then drags the family law process out as long as possible because they use economic resources of their family would constitute cohesive control under that malformed legislation? The virtue signalling behaviour of the banks is incredibly dangerous and I hope that someone can challenge the legality of their involvement in this. I think the banks would gain more from protecting the security of their customers from scammers and reinvesting their profits to reduce the costs to their customers.
AVOs are used as a weapons in FL matters but the ease with which they are granted is really scandalous and has affected the publics faith in the justice system. The blame for this rests with the Magistrates in the courts including the family court.
A friend of mine in a divorce battle was astounded when the FL magistrate turned to his wife and actually offered her a violence order against him, he was not given the same consideration and there was no reason for it as his wife, to her credit, insisted.
I suggested he should complain loudly, starting with the chief magistrate but he was too intimidated and nothing was done.
Here we see a magistrate acting as a salesman for domestic violence orders, what is going on? are they thinking of their mates the lawyers , send them a bit of business there might be a "drink" in it.
Just wait until they finish recreating the economic conditions that existed in both France and Russia that sparked their revolutions.
Madame Guillotine will be a harsh mistress.
In Canada about 2 decades ago they proposed a law that "Shout at your spouse and loose your house."
Lately there has been a huge push that if for example the police arrested a woman and charged her with Domestic Violence, it was blamed on "Misattribution". The denial that women can be instigators and perpetrators is so strong, it make me suspicious that the advocates don't want anyone examining their own behaviour too closely.
OMG. Of all the strategies that have shocked me in the last few years, this is the worst thing I have read. I shuddered at the Canadian story and knew it was the beginning of this type of horrific action. But this......
I had a brother-in-law who was a dairy farmer from a boy. It was not until they were in their 60s that he and his wife retired to a town house to take it easy. Being bored, she spent her days tipping the life savings into a poker machine. Horrific financial abuse.
It is wrong in principle for a bank to be involved with the family affairs of their customers , if an account should be closed because of so called financial abuse then it should require a clear court order. But the banks are acting as quasi courts , jumping the gun on any decision which should only be made in a court hearing.
The banks need to see their boundaries and that means their responsibility stops at the monetary needs of customers.
Feminist influence in banks is strong with a majority of staff now women, and consider the now 50 years of feminists indoctrination within the education systems, it is fair to say that ALL women in banks today have been brainwashed to some degree by feminist's anti man teaching.
This is how these things continue, the women bankers think anything is justified if a woman is treated unfairly , by a man.
The issue of corporations involving themselves in the family affairs of customers or their staff members was raised some years ago in WA , a mining state . Mining companies like Rio Tinto took it upon themselves to work closely with the state govt. when staff members were involved in domestic
violence matters ,
This is improper for a company, whose responsibility to staff ends when they stop work and leave the work premises.
The CEO of Rio Tinto was at the time a woman { no surprise} , but this is the thin end of the wedge and clear boundaries are needed between what a company can or can't do when the personal issues of customers or staff are involved.
I cited this important piece in comment I made on a recent spectator article, "Who will speak up for young men?", responding to a comment that the erasure of boys from education "must change".
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/who-will-speak-up-for-young-men/
----------------------
The only change we'll see is more man bashing in government ads, more "teaching boys to respect women", more whipping up of public condemnations of men whenever there's an offence to exploit, be it real (a graphic crime, eg. Rosie Batty) or contrived (eg. Brittany Higgins).
Feminism is a very well oiled and funded machine, entrenched in our institutions and government, and their cushy jobs depend on providing more of the same, each year. In the last couple of years we had Higgins and "sexual assault in the workplace", "parliamentary culture", "coercive control".
This year we've got banks acting on "financial abuse" by unilaterally suspending the accounts of any man *accused* of financial abuse by a woman.
See https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/weaponising-banks-against-men/comments
thanks for doing that, Stephen. Very kind!
It is becoming serious, not just annoying due to the unfairness. On a more trivial scale, watch the MASTERMIND quiz show. A pattern is clear of systematically favouring the female candidates. I am not saying men are smarter than women. I an saying the questions are usually easier for the female contestants. The "random" general knowledge questions are hard ro fudge but it is still happening, Where it really shows up is in the special knowledge questions. Very often one of the females gets mickey muse questions and tops the scores half wat at about 15. Then in the general knowledge she has already a start of about 5 points often. Don't take my word for it. Have a look. It won't be long and young men will start to just give up on society where they cannot get fair treatment, and even in marriage can be dumped with no assets or access to their children.
I wouldn’t be surprised if that occurs. Google Wimbledon tennis or any grand slam. Always lands on the women’s tab as default. Not even the wife watches the women’s tennis. Btw objectively I would think men are generally smarter if one was inclined to do such testing. 😉
well I wouldn't knw if one of the sexes is smarter than the other on average, but it is pathetic that when a situation arises that might demonstrate a difference, it is subverted. as for female tennis players, football players etc payments. why wouldt the payments be based on the gate income for the matches? after all it IS really show business.
I know. We are either in a capitalist society or communist. Sure, throw some extra to the girls to take into account physical limitation’s, and as a father of girls, if they can make ok living in pros sports great. but in the long run something going to give - some sports won’t make enough to pay everyone at the same level. Then I expect Governments, federal or state will chip in (bail out)(womens ministers). No male player is going out on a limb calling it out - particularly when they may already be on 10x the average worker eg football. Individual sports will be ok as their is only limited numbers in both sexes that make the money. Most just get by.
"Google Wimbledon tennis". I did it, and this time I got mostly men's pictures. I do know what you mean though - in general women's news dominates.
However, I use Bing as my default engine (because google as a company makes me puke), and "wimbledon tennis" made it look like a women's tournament, with snarling, athletic women dominating, with the public clinging to their daily results.
Apart from men/women, the google result was much superior to Bing.
I use brave as a browser. Though still google while brave develops their search engine. We can go deeper, and say you cannot find results in google that are considered “alternative”, conspiracy or whatever. It is quite alarming. For example research negative to covid, many other topics the Gov /MSM don’t like.
Thanks for the tip on Brave.
As a software developer I'm always interested in these discussions, and have tried many browsers and search engines over the years. My setting of Bing as the default balances several factors, but is always subject to review - and the recent "Wimbledon" search was a black mark.
When I've tried alternatives to the big two (google and bing) in the past, I've quickly given up because localisation has been weak, being centred on the US, but checking Brave I see that it's done a good job there.
Yes, getting around "shadow bans" on information can be tricky, and, in my observation, is getting harder and harder with Bing.
I've been told to use DuckDuckGo but haven't really tried it very often. Have other people any experience of this?
DuckDuckGo was first suggested to me about 10 years ago, and I've tried it several times but each time it's been poor for "localisation" and seems to be built for the US. When I search "Thai restaurant" I want to find the ones near me, not in New York.
Some people may like this because it means DuckDuckGo isn't collecting user info (as it promises) but for me practicality wins.
For normal use I recommend google or Bing because they've put so much $$$ into great search and a dynamic user-interface. Google is slightly superior, but Bing is good enough for me.
The problem with both of these is that their results have a left/woke/feminist slant which is not admitted and not quantified. I was quite surprised by Bing turning Wimbledon into a women's tournament! They also collect huge amounts of data about you, which again is unknown and unquantified.
Sometimes I've been able to find information with DuckDuckGo that I couldn't get from google or Bing. I'll also try Brave in the future.
@Charlie - that's very interesting about DuckDuckGo and "disinformation"! I'm seeing the usual suspects among friends and relatives talking more about "disinformation". It's the next wave, and terrifies me.
DuckDuckGo had been a long time favourite. Mid last year they vowed to cut down on “disinformation”?!. So Many of us moved to Brave. Firefox is another option.
Just flick through the channels on your TV and compare how many female presenters there are compared to males at any given time.
I sometimes enjoy the ABC's "Hard Quiz". In one episode I noticed that a young woman's "specialist" knowledge questions were much easier than the man who stood out as a likely winner, and when the two faced off in the "hard" specialist knowledge round she got through with apparentely easier questions.
I felt that on this occasion the bias was clear, but I suspect that it's common. (I try to switch off from these issues for a couple of hours at night!)
While the show can be entertaining I find that Tom Gleason's smarmy humor has a left/feminist slant which irritates me too much to watch it regularly.
I distinctly recall him comenting once "Maybe it's because men are shits". Grin and wink.
Admitting you enjoy ABC 😉 the ABC kids is great though. Bluey have saved them.
Whatever it takes to switch off at the end of the day!
The "Hard Quiz" format is entertaining and stimulating, and Tom Gleason's humor is very sharp.
However, having seen the favouritism to a female contestant once, it will be hard to "unsee" it in the future.
Another factor I've seen is that when female contestants are introduced they can be more boastful of their success in a particular field, with Gleason grinning along with how they stuck it to the men.
The discrimination against men is everywhere in the media. It is also being weaponised in families where the husband (assuming a male) is lied about and accused of violence if he even protests, so that the children are turned against him.
But it is no surprise that the MSM is biased against men and particularly straight white men over say 35, and if these unfortunate souls are also "working class' well forget any notion of fair and equal treatment.
This is a paradox because the big corporate media barons ie. Murdoch , Conrad Black , etc are themsleves old white men , the likes of who also control much of the corporate world as well as high government positions.
So why do they willingly discriminate against their own gender and age group? This was a question posed by Bettina years ago in her Weekend Australian articles .
This is a class issue and the feminist movement has always been as much to do with class inequality as gender inequality, and poor working class men have been an easy target.
Wow. That is interesting. I never watch the show but will take a look.
When Orwell published "1984" in 1949 nobody could have imagined the degree of centralized control government, industry, and finance would acquire in the next 50 years. The last 20 years have seen even greater consolidation of these powers. The government speaks; big tech and finance leap into action. When the White House asked a Meta to remove an account, an administrator responded in less than a minute, "Yep, on it." We have little tyrants eager to please the big ones. Sadly, as Bettina says, many men seem oblivious to ways in which these forces work against us, punishing those whose crime is speaking freely.
Misandrist feminists operate under mens radar,
Thanks for Bettina for exposing feminists dishonest agenda
But what are we to do, they get away with destroying our sons
You are doing great work, keep it up.
Bettina's article does refer to elder abuse with respect to that group having significant risks when their own financial abilities are on the decline and needing some form of guardianship over them.
Last weeks National Press Club featured the Commissioner for Ageing, Dr Ann Patterson. She correctly put forward that those elders who were planning their financial affairs beyond their current abilities should consider Powers of Attorney, but of course those risks were also mentioned by her, along with an example of a male's inappropriate dealing of parental funds. During the speech and her later response to questions you may have been forgiven that ageing females were the only group at risk. The Commissioner stated that women were the greatest risk of deprivation and homelessness through elder abuse although the ABS statistics would suggest otherwise. Also falling through the "statistical cracks" is the under reporting of male homelessness, those of whom find the next stop from the Family Court being couch surfing or other "temporary" accomodation. As Dr Patterson is the retiring Commissioner it will be interesting to hear who is the new woman to take up the cudgels and whether or not is also a signatory/sympathetic to the proposed banking powers.
Notice that the new Sex Discrimination Commissioner has "a wealth of experience advocating for women" - and no interest in men, naturally.
But if those same men decide to identify as women she’ll celebrate how proud they are and welcome them to the most marginalised group™️ status.
What wimps are those bank managers. Rather than sticking to banking, they have now chosen to have an opinion, which does not even seem to be theirs, but that of the...............?government, ?media ?activists. Just whose opinion rates higher than theirs. Do they think so less of themselves that they feel they have to be lemmings? What the population needs to do is withdraw their funds from those woke banks and stick it under the floorboards -the money that is, not the bank managers....although??
You forget bank managers are misandrist female feminists
Appointed by quota
I kid you not, i was walking my dogs and the conversation i had with a recently appointed bank manager, she was laughing she got the job despite not being able to add up and multiply !
My son with a maths degree would probably be overlooked
I meant to have a look at the sex ratio for bank managers. I imagine there is now a huge imbalance in favour of women.
Does anyone have experience with credit unions in this regard? One reason I moved my money from a big bank to a CU was to avoid their meddling in my personal affairs and politics.
Gretchen, APRA regulates Credit Unions, along with Banks and other financial institutions. Many CU's are also aligned via employment etc: the U in it will give some insight. Many CU's provide a very good alternative to general banking and ostensibly exist to serve their members. You may wish to consider your original motive for moving your money from banks to CU's if it was solely for those reasons you stated.
APRA is a joke; had to resort to it several times and all times it was "mumble mumble.. they didn't mumble discharge their responsibilities properly... mumble.. but they didn't mean too (complaint #3,0216,914 against same bank for same breach)
The reality is the vast majority of bank managers (generally older staff over 40 yo) do not believe in woke politics and do not want to be involved in de facto policing and many have left the industry. The biggest concern for me is that they are being replaced by younger staff who have been indoctrinated into wokeism and even show some altruistic enthusiasm towards these policies. The same compliance rules apply via code of conduct and legislation to all financial institutions and are overseen by regulators who have doubled in staff since the royal commission in 2018. They are very strict and insist banks follow community expectations (ie woke) and regularly threaten the institutions banking license which makes executives very nervous and leads to policies such as Bettina refers to (not defending them). The interpretation of these policies was far more practical from the older generation than the current one. Many people don’t realise that essentially the whole boards of CBA and Westpac were removed a few years ago due to not monitoring suspicious (not proven) transactions for terrorist and drug activities and now the feminist movement has moved in on the action. Government would rather turn bank staff into de facto police rather than raise taxes (and lose elections) to adequately fund the federal police to do this. To my mind bankers should manage money and provide opportunity not act as unqualified police. Scary times we live in.
"altruistic enthusiasm"? Don't you mean "mysandristic duluthian enthusiasm"?
Why don’t they just stick to counting our money badly.