Australian psychologists are down on "Traditional Masculinity" too

The most substantial piece of evidence from Australia for the criticisms is the "Man Box" study mentioned below.  It is a colourfully presented "report", not a refereed academic journal article.  And that shows.  It is not as bad as some such reports in that some care was taken with the sampling and conventional statistical significance was observed but it is basically crap.  Let me say in detail why:

For a start, no factor analysis of the questions asked is offered.  So is there in fact such a thing as a "man box"?  We do not know.  A strong first eigenvector would have reassured us but we are not told of one.  I once did a survey of allegedly female attitudes (The BSRI) which found the attitudes concerned not to be characteristic of Australian females.  They were not sex-polarized at all. So are we sure that the man box attitudes are in fact characteristic of Australian male attitudes?  We cannot assume it. Were there similar attitudes among women?

And including the man box questions within a larger survey was not done.  Doing so might have revealed that the questions had a larger identity.  For instance, many of the questions seem to me to be rather like assertiveness questions, and assertiveness is usually praised.  There certainly should have been some attempt to distinguish the "bad" man box questions from assertiveness.   Could some man box attitudes be good?

And the selection of man box attitudes was also tendentious.  Traditional male attitudes do for instance include courtesy towards women.  To this day I hold car doors open for women but that is only a trivial thing.  There is also a strong traditional male inhibition against hitting women, for instance.  Feminists are much concerned about domestic violence so should they encourage traditional male attitudes of courtesy and restraint towards women?  Nothing like that was examined in the survey, funnily enough.

And what about the traditional male attitude that self-sacrifice is noble?  What about the times when men have sacrificed themselves to save women -- in an emergency situation such as a sinking ship?  Is that noble or foolish?  Sane women would hope it is noble but there is no mention of such nobility in the man box.  The whole conception of the man box is thoroughly bigoted from the get-go.

But the most deplorable omission in the research is a complete failure to apply any demographic controls.  They apparently had demographic data but did not use it to segment their sample.  One does wonder why.  Were the results of such segmentation too embarrassing?  Were man box attitudes almost exclusively working class for instance?  From my own extensive background in survey research, I suspect it.  I always looked at demographic correlates of the attitudes I examined and social class variables were often significant.

And one social class variable that they would have avoided studying at all costs is the dreaded IQ.  Yet IQ is powerfully correlated with an amazing array of other variables.  In this case it could even explain some male/female differences. Why, for instance, do men on average die earlier than women?  The research below says it is because of their bad male attitudes but there is another explanation. Male IQ is more variable than female IQ.  There are more brilliant males but also more spectacularly dumb males.  And, for various reasons, IQ is significantly correlated with health.  So it is likely that most of the males who die young were simply dumb.  They did more silly and dangerous things, for instance.

All in all the report is just a piece of feminist propaganda designed to fool the general public.  I am guessing that they had no expectation that it might come under the scrutiny of an experienced survey researcher


Traditional masculinity has been labelled “harmful” in a major move by a health body, linked with high rates of suicide and violence.

The American Psychological Association released a report last week, citing more than 40 years of research on the issue of “masculine ideology” — a step praised by Australian experts.

“Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behaviour, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict and negatively influence mental health and physical health,” it said.

Increasingly referred to as “toxic masculinity”, traditional ideals surrounding manhood are usually toughness, aggression, a suppression of emotion, dominance and stoicism.

Queensland University of Technology sociologist Michael Flood said some of the ways boys are raised can have “significant costs” for the community.

Across the country today, an estimated six men will take their own lives — three times the number of women to die by suicide.

“There’s growing recognition that norms of masculinity in many ways are limiting for men themselves,” Dr Flood told news.com.au.

“Going along with traditional masculine beliefs increases the risk of suicide — there have been studies to indicate that. If you think being a man means not asking for help or not showing pain, being a John Wayne character and going it alone, you can’t cope when things are hard.”

Traditional masculinity has a place in a number of scenarios, Dr Flood said, where a number of those qualities can be very useful. “Being tough and stoic are exactly the qualities you need if you’re fighting a fire or something like that, but once it’s over, you need other qualities,” he said.

“Some of those men (without) are poorer at some of the qualities that many people recognise are important in contemporary relationships — communication, emotional expression.”

There’s growing recognition in the fields of men’s mental health, education and the prevention of violence against women and children that “the norms of masculinity” can be harmful.

“Unless we tackle this, we’ll continue to see large numbers of men turning up in hospitals, being assaulted, committing suicide, and suffering in silence and so on,” Dr Flood said.

Criticisms from some segments of the community that the discussion about toxic masculinity is an attack on men are unfounded, he said.

“We need to distinguish between men and masculinity. The attack on the narrow messaging is not an attack on men. This is driven by a concern for men.”

Dr Flood was involved in the groundbreaking Man Box study last year, which found that young Australian men who oversubscribe to traditional notion of masculinity had poorer health and wellbeing outcomes.

“We also found that many of them have poorer relationships with others and were more likely to be involved in violence,” he said.

Of those surveyed — a cohort of 1000 men aged 18 to 30 — 69 per cent felt society expected them to act strong and 56 per cent felt being a man meant never saying no to sex.

Another 36 per cent agreed that society pressures them to shun friendships with gay men and 38 per cent thought boys shouldn’t learn how to cook and clean.

SOURCE 







Australia Day SHOULD be on January 26: Nearly 80 per cent of voters are against changing the date because of Aboriginal sensitivities

Leftist agitators are trying to destroy a patriotic holiday but the people are not having it

An overwhelming majority of Australians continue to reject calls for the country's national day to be moved from January 26, according to new polls.

Polling commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think-tank, showed just 10 per cent of 1,000 people surveyed want to change the date of Australia Day.

Young Australians were even less welcoming to the idea of moving the date from January 26, which many indigenous Australians view as Invasion Day.   

'Only eight per cent of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 say Australia Day should not be celebrated on 26 January,' the IPA's Dr Bella d'Abrera said.

'[It] proves that despite the media and political left narrative, young people are not drawn to the divisive argument of opposing our national day.'

A separate poll of 1,659 people, conducted by conservative lobby group Advance Australia, found 78 per cent of those surveyed were proud to celebrate Australia Day on January 26.

'The results are in - January 26 is not a day for division and protest, but rather a day for all Australians to celebrate,' the group's National Director, Gerard Benedet, said.

Ten days out from Australia Day, the Greens have offered to host citizenship ceremonies on behalf of local councils who refuse to hold events on January 26 out of respect for indigenous people.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison plans to force councils to hold ceremonies on Australia Day and enforce a strict dress code at official events in an attempt to preserve the date.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has declared he will never move the date of Australia Day if he becomes prime minister. Mr Shorten also said he had no desire to be the 'fashion police' telling people what they could wear at citizenship ceremonies.

'I just think we've got to leave the politics alone, catch up with our family and friends, and on Australia Day my wish is for all Australians to realise what a great country we live in,' he told the Nine Network on Wednesday.

The opposition leader refused to buy into the Greens' idea on citizenship ceremonies. 'Some days I'd like to put the Greens with Tony Abbott and a few of the right-wing in the Liberal Party in the same room, tell them to sort it out, and the rest of us can just get on and cook a snag on the barbie,' Mr Shorten said.

'What happens in Australian politics is sometimes the extremes - because they say radical things - grab a headline.  'I'm not going to get distracted by that - the Greens can say or do what they want - Labor is not going to go down that path.

'We're not going to have big political debates about the day of Australia Day.'

Health Minister Greg Hunt is confident the vast majority of people support Australia Day. 'It celebrates what we are as a contemporary nation and this game that's played out every year is simply a diversion and self-serving,' Mr Hunt said.  'Australia Day is about celebrating a nation that is a multi-ethnic success, with all of the challenges of any country.'

Many indigenous people find it offensive the date their ancestors lost their sovereignty to British colonialists is celebrated with a public holiday.

SOURCE 






We’ll do citizenship ceremonies: Greens try to stymie PM

The Greens are attempting to short-circuit Scott Morrison’s protection of Australia Day citizenship celebrations by exploiting what they claim is a legal loophole that would enable their MPs to conduct ceremonies on behalf of protesting councils.

Greens leader Richard Di ­Natale has leapt on advice from the parliamentary library that ­federal MPs can conduct citizenship ceremonies “at any time or place of their choosing” and without the approval of the immigration minister and the Department of Home Affairs.

Senator Di Natale said the Greens’ lower house member, Adam Bandt, and the party’s nine senators would perform citi­zenship ­ceremonies in councils that were banned from holding them under the new regulations.

The Prime Minister announced at the weekend that all 537 councils would be forced to hold citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day or their right to confer citizenship would be revoked.

“Scott Morrison is playing a predictable political game, trying to punish councils for reflecting the will of their constituents and standing up for justice for First ­Nations peoples but the Greens won’t let him,” Senator Di Natale said. “We’re promising today that any council which is stripped of its ability to hold citizenship ceremonies because it refuses to hold them on January 26th can count on a Greens senator or MP in their state to conduct those ceremonies in their place.

“The movement to change the date is an important step along the road to treaty, sovereignty and justice for our First Nations peoples and we hope Labor will join us on that journey.”

A Department of Home Affairs spokesman said last night any ­individual or organisation who ­politicised a citizenship ceremony could have their right to conduct one revoked by Immigration Minister David Coleman. “Citizenship ceremonies are non-commercial, apolitical, bipartisan and secular,” he said.

“They must not be used as ­forums for political, partisan or ­religious expression or for the distribution of material which could be perceived to be of a commercial, political or religious nature.

“Ceremonies conducted by a member of parliament must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code and with the approval of the Department of Home Affairs.”

Advice from the parliamentary library, obtained by The Australian, said citizenship regulations gave power to all federal MPs to conduct citizenship ceremonies without approval from the minister or department.

“However, in practice, assistance from the department will be required — notably, in providing a list of citizenship applicants who are eligible to take the pledge,” the advice said. “The limiting factor in a senator being able to conduct a ceremony may therefore be the ability of the department to provide this information in a timely fashion.

“There is nothing in the citizenship legislation or regulations stating that senators and members must seek authorisation from the minister or department to preside over a citizenship ceremony.”

More than 100 councils did not conduct ceremonies on Australia Day last year, according to the Morrison government and the peak body for councils.

The Coalition government has banned the Victorian councils of Darebin and Yarra from holding citizenship ceremonies because they refused to do so on January 26.

Citizenship ceremonies can also be undertaken by the ­governor-general, ambassadors, high commissioners, state governors, all members of the ACT parliament and the lord mayor of a city.

Australian Local Government Association president David O’Loughlin said councils were “disappointed” and “confused” by the government’s directive.

He said it was “a gross slur” for Mr Morrison to claim some councils were “sneaky” by holding citizenship ceremonies on the evening of January 25 rather than on the 26th.

“They have all had good reasons for many years to not do it on the public holiday … There is no conspiracy, they are simply making sure they are addressing their communities needs in a prudent manner,” Mr O’Loughlin said.

“They are scratching their heads wondering why the federal government announces the Australian of the Year the day before Australia Day. I would have thought Australian of the Year has a direct relevance to Australia Day — it is only one day and one title.

“And yet citizenship ceremonies happen in some councils every month.”

Mr O’Loughlin, Mayor of the Adelaide council of Prospect, said the announcement was made with “zero consultation” with local government.

“We live in a democracy. If a local community wants their council to advocate for something to change, that community would expect its council to do it. If not, they would vote for another mob next time,” he said. “Democracy and free speech are two of the vital parts of Australian society which we celebrate on Australia Day.”

The Weekend Australian revealed Greens MPs would attend “Invasion Day” rallies before Australia Day to raise pressure on Bill Shorten to support changing the date. The Opposition Leader has vowed to keep Australia Day on January 26 if he becomes prime minister. A GetUp spokesman said the group would also support “Invasion Day” rallies.

SOURCE 







Dividends paid early to beat ALP franking changes

The guardians of some of the ­nation’s trillions of dollars in ­equities investments are adjusting their strategies in ­anticipation of a Shorten government, with the $360 million ­Mirrabooka fund yesterday paying a special dividend to shareholders six months early, ahead of Labor’s planned changes to franking credits.

Australia’s biggest companies, including industrial, mining and popular blue-chip stocks such as the four major banks and Telstra, sit on an estimated $45 billion in franking credits that could be ­released to shareholders before a future ALP government rips up the nation’s dividend imputation system.

Mirrabooka, a conservative stockmarket investor based in Melbourne, announced it would pay its traditional end-of-year special dividend now rather than after July 1 to safeguard its ­investors in the face of growing uncertainty around the use of franking credits for retirees and pensioners.

It is believed to be the first public company to reshape its dividend policy ahead of this year’s federal election, which the latest polls suggest Labor will win.

Last year, Bill Shorten unveiled his franking credits policy to claw back nearly $60bn over 10 years by abolishing cash refunds for excess dividend imputation credits.

The early dividend payment comes after a US investment bank predicted the valuation of shares in Australia’s biggest banks could be slashed by as much as 13 per cent if the ALP policy was implemented and cash refunds were ripped from investors.

JPMorgan equity strategist Jason Steed said yesterday there was an increasing likelihood that companies with large franking credit balances would look to accelerate special dividends and off-market buybacks. JPMorgan believes other stocks most likely to take measures to realise franking credits in the near term are Caltex, Harvey Norman, Metcash, Rio Tinto and Woolworths.

Issuing its interim results yesterday to kick off the reporting season for 2019, Mirrabooka chief executive Mark Freeman said because of the uncertainty created by Labor’s dividend imputation policy, the fund believed it should pay special dividends now rather than wait to July when a Shorten government might change the rules.

“The feedback so far is if they (ALP) change the policy, then it will take effect from July 1 this year so if they get that through as policy, then from July 1 you will no longer get a refund cheque — and so if you put out the special dividend this financial year, people will still be able to have that as part of their return and potentially ­(receive) a refundable credit,’’ Mr Freeman said.

He said Mirabooka thought Labor’s policy was “very grossly unfair for investors and trying to shift the playing field in favour of managed funds over self-­managed superannuation”.

“We are feeling the potential pain of people if this rule comes in, and so let’s try to help them out now,’’ Mr Freeman said.

A spokesman for the opposition’s Treasury spokesman, Chris Bowen, declined to comment when asked about the Mirrabooka decision.

Federal Liberal MP Tim Wilson, who chairs the house economic committee’s inquiry into removing franking credits, said Mirrabooka’s decision did not come as a surprise.

“In the economics committee hearings, we’ve heard witness after witness saying they’re ­already restructuring their ­investment strategy so they won’t be hit by Shorten’s retirement tax,” Mr Wilson said.

“Some of the most disturbing evidence we have heard has come from financial advisers admitting they can help their clients around Shorten’s retirement tax, but those without financial advice or literacy won’t know they’re being slugged till it is too late.”

Mr Steed said any negative effects of the policy were most likely to be felt by the higher yielding sectors with franking, such as the banks and Telstra.

“You would certainly be minded as a board to consider whether or not using those franking credits in advance of a potential legislative change would be advantageous to your shareholders or to certain cohorts within your shareholder base,’’ Mr Steed said. “There are many companies that have access to franking that would arguably be … considering similar action.’’

Investment bank Citi warned in a report to its clients last week that potential changes to dividend imputation and the removal of cash refunds from investors was likely to have a significant impact on bank shareholders.

“We estimate that 10-20 per cent of shareholders receive cash refunds from bank dividends,” Citi said.

“Additionally, the value of franking credits continue to make up (about) 28 per cent of our major bank valuations, with any changes to dividend imputation policy likely to impact major bank (and other stocks more broadly) valuations as a consequence. “Depending on the changes implemented, this could impact major bank valuations by up to 13 per cent.”

SOURCE 

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here