Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Australian government effort to nip toxic masculinity in the bud.

I cannot even imagine how they might do that. Talk is cheap and kids are already preached at from dawn to dusk. To change behaviour you have to change the needs that drive it and that will rarely be possible.

Andrew Tate is a symptom, not a cause. Disrespect for women comes naturally to meny men and feminist preaching will only magnify that. Being constantly told that women are so much more admirable and worthy than men will usually provoke defiance and an attitude opposite to that desired.

The one faint hope of change would be to replace the currently pervasive valorization of women with a much more balanced message but that is not going to happen. The idea that men too have problems seems to stick in the throats of feminists

Even a heavy legal assault on domestic violence would achieve little. Bashing women is clearly something impulsive and done out of anger -- and laws are unlikely to restrain that.

The only preaching that might help would be to stop mindless praise of women and demonization of men and replace it with lessons about the needs that the respective sexes have. At its simplest, both sexes could be told that men have needs for adventure and women have a need for security. Men often say that they don't understand women at all but explanations of what drives female behaviour are posible and could be widely deployed.

I long ago wrote an explanation of female behaviour -- unlikely though that may seem. I have four women calling on me regularly these days despite my frail old age so maybe I do know something. My explanation below:


To end violence against women and children, the federal government aims to reshape young male attitudes toward healthy, respectful relationships as “extremist influencers” like Andrew Tate influence minds.

The initiative, known as the “Healthy Masculinities Project,” is poised to launch next year as a three-year trial, supported by $3.5 million in funding.

This innovative project will tackle the insidious impact of social media messaging targeting young men and boys, with the primary aim of eradicating gender stereotypes perpetuated online and promoting a culture of respect and supportive relationships among peers.

The project will engage the target school-age male audience through face-to-face interactions at sporting clubs, community organisations, and on social media.

Recent research has revealed 25 per cent of teenage boys in Australia look up to social media personalities who propagate harmful gender stereotypes and endorse violence against women.

The government has channelled funding through the First Action Plan Priorities Fund, an $11.9 million fund which is part of the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-32.

Minister for Social Services Amanda Rishworth said there is a need for young men to develop supportive relationships with their male peers and marked the project as a critical first step towards fostering healthy male attitudes.

Ms Rishworth cited the links between harmful forms of masculinity and the perpetration of violence against women.

“Research shows there are strong links between harmful forms of masculinity and the perpetration of violence against women,” she said.

“Educating boys about healthy masculinity and providing them with positive role models are important steps to ending cycles of violence.”

The grant round for this trial will open its doors in early 2024 and will offer an opportunity for organisations equipped with specialist expertise to sign on.

Ms Rishworth emphasised the necessity of addressing violent behaviour at its roots.

Andrew Tate is a controversial kickboxer and reality TV star turned content creator who has amassed billions of views among tens of millions of followers despite being de-platformed by most social media platforms.

He has been known to preach troubling views regarding women, including that rape victims “must bear some responsibility” for their attacks; or that women should be choked by their male partners and stopped from going out.

But Mr Tate, who often flaunts his lavish life, is seen by many young men as an authority on what it is to be successful.

In August, he was released from house arrest in Romania and placed under judicial control, a lighter restrictive measure, while he awaits trial on charges of human trafficking.

As National Director of White Ribbon Australia, Allan Ball, previously explained to news.com.au, “the use of gaming, extreme bravado and music [in the videos of Tate] overlays his deplorable actions with a filter of normalcy”.

“Impressionable young minds are drawn in by money, power and unwavering confidence to become part of a tribe,” he said.

Mr Tate created the Real World Portal in recent months, after closing his subscription-based “Hustler’s University”, an online academy for his fans, promising to assist them in making big money while helping his videos on social media go viral.

Real World, which bills itself as an anti-university, promises members will make over $10k a month online.

A joint statement from Dr Stephanie Wescott and Professor Steven Roberts, two leading experts in the education field from Monash University, broadly welcomed the government’s initiative while highlighting the hazardous influence of misogynistic influencers like Mr Tate on impressionable boys and young men.

The pair are currently conducting research on the impact of Mr Tate’s content on boys in Australian schools, and have already revealed its far-reaching consequences on girls and women in classrooms across the country.

The research further highlighted that boys consuming Mr Tate’s content were more likely to harbour unhealthy views on relationships — an alarming finding given the high rates of family violence in Australia.

Dr Wescott and Prof Roberts raised a critical concern about the potential pitfalls of implementing short-term, “quick-fix” programs and interventions that might lack the capacity for sustained engagement with young men.

They cited mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of such approaches and emphasised the absence of a uniform strategy for evaluating their impact.

The experts recommended long-term, direct, and targeted initiatives that challenge detrimental social norms affecting boys’ mental health and emotions while adopting a “gender-transformative” approach based on best practices.

“We also challenge the assumption that boys need only to hear from other men about how to develop positive masculinity, and note that the inclusion of only male role models in healthy masculinity programs are not backed by robust evidence,” they wrote.

They argued boys benefit from interacting with individuals of diverse gender identities at all life stages.

The experts warned that featuring only male role models may reinforce negative aspects of healthy masculinity programs.

“The reasons boys and young men find extremist influencers like Andrew Tate appealing are complex and multifaceted, and so must be the approaches we use to address them,” they said.

The pair urged the federal government and the Minister for Social Services to consult widely with experts in the field and lean on established research.


I'm American and I am so obsessed with Australian Weet-Bix I get it shipped to me: 'Why did no one tell me about it? It's like crack'

I am also a Weetbix tragic -- JR

image from https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/10/30/23/77194439-0-image-a-9_1698707448145.jpg

An American man has revealed that he's so 'obsessed' with a classic Australian breakfast food that he gets cartons shipped to him in the US.

The 24-year-old could no longer stand how much sugar was in American cereal and decided to try Weet-Bix on a whim - a decision that changed his life forever.

He shared that he has six bars of the whole-grain wheat cereal dissolved in milk and strawberry protein powder every morning, sometimes switching it up with the addition of Biscoff biscuits crumbled in.

'As an American, why did no one ever tell me about Weet-Bix?' he asked online. 'This sh*t is like crack and I love it. All American cereal is sugar, sugar, sugar, and Weet-Bix takes on whatever flavour I want and it gets mushy so easy.'

He added, 'Thank you for my new favourite breakfast. I've had Weet-Bix a few different ways but can't wait to try all the ways Australians eat it.'

Other foreigners have been similarly taken aback when tasting Australian food for the first time.

DJ duo Xavier Di Petta and Nick Iavarone, popularly known together as 'Party Shirt', recently took their first trip to a Bunnings Warehouse sausage sizzle while on tour Down Under.

The Australian staple snack typically consists of a sausage between a bun or white bread, with fried onion and sauce drizzled on top.'

Nick doused his sausage in tomato sauce and mustard and took a generous bite for his first impression.

The musician spent a few seconds processing before blurting out: 'F**k yeah!'

American travellers were also wowed by Australia's iconic coffee.

Australian Olympic water polo player Tilly Kearns said that she'd told her American boyfriend Justin Dedich that Australian coffee was 'much better' than what's served in the US, but he 'didn't believe her'.

After touching down in Sydney for a week, the US-based athlete decided to take Justin to try a cappuccino.

In a video, Justin stirs the velvety coffee before smelling it and taking a sip and giving his verdict. 'It's good s*** Matilda, it's good s***,' he said.


‘Pure hate’: Jewish academics quit National Tertiary Education Union

A growing number of Jewish academics are quitting Australia’s major tertiary education union in protest at the union’s anti-Israel stance, while dozens of others have demanded the union withdraw what they describe as anti-Semitic statements.

In a resignation letter to the National Tertiary Education Union, one member wrote: ‘This decision by the union is unacceptable and shameful. It is a pure hate against Israelis and Jews. I am immediately withdrawing my membership from this anti-­Semitic union.”

In a separate letter to the union sent on Tuesday, 18 Jewish academics from all of Australia’s major universities told the NTEU that it will “lose any moral authority” to speak on human rights if it does not address the crimes of Hamas.

The signatories, one of whom was lawyer and Canberra University professor Kim Rubenstein, pointed out that some individuals they had contacted to sign the letter explained they had already resigned their longstanding memberships of the NTEU “due to feeling disenfranchised by the NTEU’s position over the years on Israel and Palestine”.

Professor Rubenstein told The Australian she had not yet resigned from the union because it did valuable work in its core function, “but that’s an option for me going forward if I feel this is something that’s not resolvable”.

Last week, Sydney University academic Fiona Gill, a senior lecturer in social sciences, quit as branch secretary of the union because of its “refusal to publicly condemn war crimes”, understood to be a reference to the Hamas ­attack of 7 October.

“The seeping of external political factionalism and arguments into the branch has resulted in an increasingly dysfunctional, divided and conflictual environment which is detrimental to the achievement of the base goals of our union,” Dr Gill wrote in her resignation letter.

Dr Gill’s resignation came as the union’s Sydney University branch president Nick Riemer promoted anti-Israel material on X and condemned “our gutless political ‘leaders’ cowering behind Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’”.

Dr Riemer, a linguistics academic, is a leading member of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to isolate Israel who has been active in recent pro-Palestinian protests in Sydney.

The signatories to Tuesday’s letter expressed dismay that the union leadership was advocating members attend protests that were “likely to agree with only one group of members’ perceptions and views (especially with chants of ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea’ – ie, the destruction of Israel”.

They asked that any further statements by the union should unequivocally condemn the massacre of civilians within Israel by Hamas. The signatories expressed their desire to meet NTEU national president Alison Barnes and ACT secretary Lachlan Clohesy via Zoom to discuss the issue, but Mr Clohesy wrote back saying Dr Barnes was at an overseas conference “and will not be available until 9 November 2023 – at that point, I will be able to discuss your letter with Alison”. Mr Clohesy did not respond to questions from The Australian about why Dr Barnes was unavailable for two weeks to discuss the issue.

A spokesman for the NTEU referred The Australian to the union’s official statement but declined to answer questions, including how many members had resigned over the union’s stance.

The Australian understands that at least four members of the Victoria University branch of the NTEU alone resigned from the union after it passed a motion expressing “unwavering solidarity with Palestine and … an immediate end to occupation and apartheid”. The same motion was passed by the RMIT and La Trobe NTEU branches. The union had also urged members to attend a Rally for Palestine event.

One Jewish academic wrote to the union submitting his resignation, saying: “A targeted murder of over 1000 civilians, the beheading of babies, the killing of babies, children, women, men and older people is terrorism, it is not fighting for freedom.”


Do Covid vaccines meet the definition of gene therapy?

It seems like a lifetime ago that an enjoyable night in consisted of the couch, popcorn, and a feel-good movie. Not anymore. With the hotbed of post-pandemic questions filtering through Australia’s Parliament, I’ve discovered riveting viewing can be found in an evening of ‘Senate-estimates-live’ if you get the right participants. Nothing quite matches the drama and real-time manoeuvering between our elected representatives and the bureaucrats. The only comparable analogy is that of a high-level game of chess … with higher stakes.

We had such a night recently. The scheduled appearance of AHPRA, the TGA, and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), joined by Senators Rennick and Roberts promised to be popcorn-worthy viewing. And it was.

Five minutes before the closing of the session at 11 pm, the final question was handed to Senator Rennick. I was wakened from my somnolence as the Senator asked, ‘Have we got the Gene Technology Regulator here?’

The following conversation may well be the biggest bombshell drop in the Covid vaccine drama so far.

In the absence of the pending HANSARD transcript (ref. 27445), the conversation goes like this:

Senator Rennick: ‘I have a Pfizer document here from their own website. It says, “Gene therapies are delicate, intentional processes encapsulating the desired gene. Manufacturing gene therapies is challenging and it requires certain steps including transfection.” That is on Pfizer’s own website.

‘Then I had also from the website of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy “because the vaccine (it’s referring to the Covid mRNA vaccine) introduces new genetic material into cells for a short period of time to induce antibodies, it is a gene therapy” as defined by the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy.

‘And then the TGA [in] its own Pfizer nonclinical report page 19 says the proposed commercial scale manufacturing process includes use of linearized plasmid DNA template for mRNA production. So, we’ve now got Pfizer themselves who admit that the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy admits the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy, and we’ve got the TGA themselves admit the DNA was used in the manufacturing process. Why wasn’t the actual mRNA vaccine tested for genotoxicity and why didn’t the (OGTR) look at it in terms of Gene Technology?’

Dr Raj Bula (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator):

‘Thank you for your question, Senator. I think the first part about the genotoxicity that question has been asked before. Because the Therapeutic Goods Administration was the approving authority for the vaccine products, that is a question for TGA on GMO toxicity.

‘In relation to your question around manufacturing, I think it’s useful to put a bit of context around that in that the committee is aware the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were fully formulated and imported into Australia, which meant that there was actually no manufacture of the mRNA or the vaccine product itself here in Australia. If indeed the mRNA was being manufactured here, and it’s correct, that gene technology was used in the modification of the mRNA then under the Gene Technology Act an approval would have been required for that manufacturing step.’

Senator Rennick: ‘That contradicts what you’ve said previously. You’ve said previously gene therapy and gene technology wasn’t used. Now you’re saying because it was produced in another country, that you’re not responsible for checking the gene therapy.’

Dr Bhula: ‘So, the Gene Technology Act, it doesn’t reach into manufacturing in other countries.’

Senator Rennick: ‘But it still involves transfection here. It transfects cells of Australian citizens.’

Dr Bhula: ‘I disagree with that.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Well, that’s what Pfizer say. Even they admit transfection, is a part of gene therapy.’

Dr Bhula: ‘No senator.’

Senator Rennick: ‘So you’re disagreeing with Pfizer, the people who actually made the vaccine that transfection isn’t a part of gene therapy.’

Chair: ‘I think she’s disagreeing with you at the moment.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Well, it’s not my words. I’ll just read out what Pfizer said.’

Gallagher: ‘Welcome to my world.’

Dr Bhula: ‘I think it comes down to a definition of what is a gene therapy.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Yep, that’s right. And I’m relying on the manufacturer.’

This little exchange at the eleventh hour of Senate estimates had me wide-eyed and jaw dropped.

In my view, the OGTR has undermined their answers to Senator Rennick in Feb 2023 (as follows):

Senator Rennick: ‘Under section 30C of the Therapeutic Goods Act, the secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health must seek advice from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator on the safety and efficiency of any product that uses GMO as defined by the Gene Technology Act. Do you have evidence of where the secretary has written to you asking for advice on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines?’

Dr Bhula: ‘Thank you for your question, Senator. Where the particular vaccine involves a GMO, there’s a reciprocal arrangement, if you like, for OGTR to seek advice from the TGA in terms of a risk assessment around that GM vaccine and vice versa. The TGA may also request advice from the OGTR.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Do you have documentation of that?’

Dr Bhula: ‘For GM vaccines, yes.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Where they’ve written to you for the Pfizer one?’

Dr Bhula: ‘No, because the mRNA vaccines are not required to be regulated through the OGTR.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Did they write to you and actually ask you that question?’

Dr Bhula: ‘No, because they’re not required to be regulated through the OGTR.’

Senator Rennick: ‘But how would they know, because you’re the expert? And, by the way, gene technology involves both replication and transcription.’

Dr Bhula: ‘Yes.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Which is what the mRNA vaccine does.’

Dr Bhula: ‘But the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not involve any step of genetic modification…’

Senator Rennick: ‘They produce proteins.’

Dr Bhula: ‘Or a GMO…’

Chair: ‘Senator Rennick, would you allow Dr Bhula to finish her answers?’

Dr Bhula: ‘Which meant that that didn’t require regulatory oversight by the OGTR.’

Senator Rennick: ‘Well, I dispute that. Look up gene technology. But, anyway, thank you.’

In February 2023, the OGTR asserted that there was no documentation between the TGA and the OGTR regarding the mRNA vaccines. They say the mRNA vaccines were not required to be regulated through the OGTR because they did not involve a GMO or any step of genetic modification.

However, in October 2023, the OGTR says they don’t have oversight because the Gene Technology Act doesn’t reach into manufacturing in other countries and the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were fully formulated outside of Australia.

Please bear with me while I explain the significance of this moment.

Senator Rennick has tabled several documents from Pfizer, the TGA, and the American Society of Cell and Gene Therapy confirming that Covid-19 mRNA injections are indeed gene therapy products involving genetic modification during manufacture.

Importantly the OGTR concedes that if what Senator Rennick is saying is true, then the mRNA injections are GM products and should be regulated by the OGTR if they were manufactured in Australia, but they do not have oversight because the Covid-19 mRNA injections were manufactured overseas.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

The Gene Technology Act 2000 requires that such gene technology products fall under the regulation of the OGTR as soon as they hit Australian shores, with GMO ‘dealings’ including manufacture, import, transport, and disposal. The OGTR’s response to Senator Rennick last week that the mRNA products were not regulated by them because they were manufactured outside of Australia appears to contradict what is written in the Gene Technology Act.

There’s something else. Let’s look at the concept of ‘manufacture’. Both the mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna) and viral vector (AZ) Covid-19 injections are pro-drugs, meaning they tell the body to ‘manufacture’ the final product. In this case, this final product is the spike protein. This means the final manufacturing step does indeed happen on Australian soil, in the bodies of injected Australians.

An (anonymous) Australian professor of science and medicine explains it this way:

‘…the concept of “manufacture” here is an interesting one as with the mRNA and also the adenoviral vector vaccines the final act of “manufacture” occurs in the body into which these products are injected.

‘This is because they are designed to induce the manufacture of spike protein production in vivo [in the human body] (the manufacture) as their final step. Without this final manufacturing step, they don’t work.

‘So, in effect when the products are injected into a human body in Australia, then the final act of genetic manufacture does indeed occur in Australia.

‘What the OGTR are proposing is thereby a nonsense. If they are redefining the Act in this way then it means we can create all manner of new genetic organisms and providing we do this in vivo (in living organisms) then it is now outside the purview of the OGTR – how wonderful – the virology community will be ecstatic that they can now do these things in vivo without going to the OGTR.’

‘So what?’ you may say.

Well this, dear reader, brings us to seriousness of the issue. A legal case filed in Australia’s Federal Court claims the Pfizer and Moderna products always met Australian legal definitions for being deemed genetically modified organisms and should therefore have obtained GMO licenses from the OGTR. They did not.

What, you may ask, is the penalty for dealing in GMOs without a license? You can read more about that here.

Even more serious is what this potentially means for the millions of Australians who were assured the mRNA vaccines were not gene therapy, making fully informed consent null and void. Not to mention their health in this ‘world’s largest experiment’.

One thing is certain, this isn’t the last we have heard about the OGTR.


Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs


No comments: