Wednesday, October 10, 2018

He’s reading a financial paper; she’s reading a fashion magazine: Why women are angry about Sofitel hotel ad

A correspodent writes:  "Women are complaining that the woman in the ad is reading a fashion magazine. They somehow interpret that as the ad saying that most women read fashion magazines.

But most women who read magazines do read fashion magazines. Look at any woman's magazine pile. Even the complaining women recognise that the magazine she is reading is a fashion magazine. I doubt many man would know it is a fashion magazine. I certainly didn't. So they demonstrate that their own argument is wrong.

That is what I term an innate falsity. Like when Lefties say there is no truth, and expect that silly statement to be accepted as truth.

They are also demonstrating the collective mindedness of women, especially feminist women. They are not individually minded, which is frequently shown by the fact that they collectively feel insults and perceived insults that directed to one of them.

The white male is not like that. He is individualistic. We do not feel insults directed to another white male. Even when all white men are insulted collectively -- which they often are -- individual white males do not feel it. White males tend to be each their own individual more than women are. We can each think for ourselves.

Feminists, though, are herd minded. They all think the same. That is one reason why they cannot be equal with us men.

AT FIRST glance this photo looks innocent enough — a young couple relaxing in a hotel bed, both reading over breakfast in their fluffy white robes.

He’s reading a copy of the Australian Financial Review newspaper and she’s flicking through a Chanel coffee table book.

Laid out on the bed in front of them are a selection of breakfast items. There are pastries and pancakes for him, a healthy fruit platter for her.

Many female readers of Fairfax’s Good Weekend magazine spotted the ad in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on the weekend and slammed its suggestion that women only read light, frivolous material about fashion.

“Yes, newsflash for @SofitelBrisbane — some women are in fact more interested in whether stocks and shares are going up and down than whether hemlines are,” one woman wrote on Twitter.

“Ah yes, those hotel mornings when you wake up, put your hair in a nice chignon and read a coffee-table book about Chanel,” joked one woman. Replied another: “Jesus, is that a Chanel coffee table book? This is … so disheartening.”

“No no, don’t be silly, you are a woman, you only read fashion books and cookbooks,” another said.

One woman commented, “I’m surprised she’s not in skimpy underwear while he’s holding a handful of spanners”, while another said, “Funnily enough I actually prefer reading @FinancialReview in the morning.”

A spokesman for the Sofitel Brisbane apologised for the ad and said it has now been pulled from any future publications.

“There was no intention of portraying a stereotype but we recognise it and apologise for any offence that it has caused,” the spokesman said. “The creative has since been pulled from any future communications activity.”


What I want from men to help end gender wars

Angela Mollard (below) is a generally sensible lady not given to feminist extremes but she has been sucked in by some feminist claims. What she is not loading is that men CANNOT end the gender wars -- because we are not waging them. The war is a one-sided thing being waged on men by feminists. So only they can end it.

But they will not. They seem to need to trace all evils to men and show nil awareness that men can have problems too. Men are not a monolithic blob. They are infinitely different so treating them as all the same is just bigotry and huge ignorance. It is as stupid as racism. Some men will treat women well and some will treat women badly. And most will be somewhere in between

Now that women are a majority of university graduates, it is clear that systematic discrimination against women is at an end. All that is left are human relationships in their infinite variety

DEAR men,

I’m tired.

I suspect you’re tired. Indeed, we’re all tired of the insidious gender warfare that’s spilt into every sphere of society leaving festering pools of anger, uncertainty and resentment. It’s a year this week since The New York Times published sexual harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein, provoking a global reckoning and the emergence of the #MeToo campaign. Ergo it seems as good a time as any to reflect — not simply on what happens in the hallowed halls of Hollywood — but in our living rooms, bedrooms and workplaces.

The Brett Kavanaugh hearing has catapulted the movement from the silver screen to the Supreme Court but I’m less interested in one man’s alleged mistreatment of women in his ascent to power than I am in the everyday interactions and ideologies that guide who we are and how we relate.

Genuine, lasting societal change will be brought about less by grandstanding and more thorough understanding and so let’s try this: here’s what I want from and for men.
The Brett Kavanaugh hearings have once again highlighted the MeToo movement, but it’s how everyday men and women interact that’s important. Picture: AP

Foremost, I want the toxicity to end. Change and progress are painful but we don’t need to be so polarised. When the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke at the UN the line widely reported was her insistence #MeToo becomes #WeToo. But she said something a minute later that was arguably a more powerful call to arms. In trying to achieve peace, prosperity and fairness, New Zealand was pursuing one concept, she explained. “It is simple and it is this. Kindness.” Imagine what we might achieve if kindness — from both women and men — underpinned the way we operated in the world.

Critically, I want men involved in their children’s lives. Whether in intact or reconfigured families, men should be pivotal. The model of the workaholic dad is rightly dying and while many men need to create fuller identities beyond their job title, women need to stop seeing men as walking wallets who are singularly responsible for financially supporting the family. For every man who rather enjoys upholding the patriarchy as if it was a set of dumbbells representing status and money, I’d venture there’s three or four who’d happily hand over half the weight to a willing partner. We all have much to gain from a creative redrawing of our work and domestic spheres. Work offers purpose and a pay packet, home delivers connection. Sharing the responsibility of both is not only more equitable, it extends both partners’ capabilities and understanding of each other. As for women who deny their former husband access to their children simply because they are hurt or angry, shame on you. It happens too often and it’s a cruelty that benefits no one.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke during the General Debate of the 73rd session of the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York last month. Picture: AFP

Further, I want the powerful men and women at the top of our corporations and institutions to drive transformation. Leadership is not just managing people and making money, it’s leaving a legacy. For too long the decisions have been made by men in suits largely supported by a housewife at home. Yet when men like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Reddit’s Alexis Ohanian take paternity leave and encourage their employees to do likewise, they effect profound change. People at the top will change conditions at the bottom so that all can benefit from pay parity, flexible workplaces and healthy superannuation balances.

Equally, I want ordinary men to stop claiming women are mad. Emotions are simply another operating system and when combined with a firm grasp of facts bring a fuller and more nuanced comprehension to every realm of life. Too often women are dismissed as menstrual or menopausal. It’s more than 25 years since Anita Hill was smeared as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” but still such debasing presumptions persist. In return, women need to drop the “all men are bastards” schtick and the blasé view that it’s no big deal if a few innocent men are unfairly convicted or besmirched in the march for equality. We also need to stamp out the growing notion that women are inherently more “good” than men. All those years as Stepford wives didn’t turn us into saintly creatures waiting nobly in line until we’re passed the baton to do a better job. Most of us are as equally defective as the next bloke. Which means we’re equally as capable.

As for domestic violence, it is not just causing death and injury to women but a horrendous stain on the male gender. Good men are appalled but they need to do more. In her next book, the feminist author Caitlin Moran is including an invitation to men to join the fight. As she says there’s a huge void where good men feel it’s all a bit “icky” and that feminists don’t want them involved. Men need to ask themselves, “Okay, if not me, who?”

Finally, men and women have to rediscover what we like about each other. We need to cherish our differences and champion progress and approach all of it with humour, joy and a sense of expectation. Equality is not like landing on the moon. We won’t raise a flag when we’ve arrived. But along the way we’ll, all of us, feel in our bones, when we’re getting it right.


IPCC push to dump coal-fired power not for us, says Morrison

Scott Morrison has rejected a rapid global phase-out of coal-fired power and declared his government will not be bound by a landmark climate study, amid concern its blueprint for curbing temperature rises would see the “lights go out on the east coast of Australia”.

A special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has championed a quick end to coal-fired power across the world and found that unprecedented changes in all aspects of society were needed to meet the lower Paris Agreement target limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

The Morrison government yesterday welcomed the report but stood by coal-fired power generation and defended Australia’s record in meeting its international emissions ­reduction targets.

“If we take coal out of our ­energy system, the lights will go out on the east coast of Australia — it’s as simple as that,” Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said.

The IPCC special report said rising temperatures were already affecting the weather in some ­places and there would be a big difference in the impacts on all ­aspects of the natural world from a 2C increase, compared with a 1.5C rise. Warm-water coral reefs would be more than 99 per cent gone with a rise of 2C, but some might survive at 1.5C.

The special report is set to ­become a central focus of a campaign to encourage countries to increase their ambition under the Paris Agreement, starting in ­Poland in December. At present, Paris Agreement pledges would lead to global temperature ­increases of more than 3C.

The Australian government said the report justified the controversial decision to spend $444 million protecting the Great Barrier Reef.

Environment Minister Melissa Price said the IPCC report was designed to inform policy makers but was not “policy ­prescriptive”.

The Prime Minister ­defended Australia remaining a signatory to the Paris Agreement, arguing it would not have any impact on electricity prices. But he said Australia would not be held to any of the IPCC ­report conclusions.

“We are not held to any of them at all, and nor are we bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund,” Mr Morrison told 2GB radio.

Bill Shorten said there was a need to ensure a greater proportion of renewable energy sources in Australia’s energy mix.

“But we are not saying that there won’t be fossil fuel as part of our energy mix going forward,” the Opposition Leader said.

According to the IPCC report, to meet a target of 1.5C warming compared with the 1851-1900 average, global net human carbon ­dioxide emissions would need to fall about 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050.

Renewables are projected to supply 70 to 85 per cent of electricity in 2050, under the 1.5C target. Nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS) were modelled to increase in most 1.5C pathways. The use of CCS would allow the electricity generation share of gas to be about 8 per cent of global electricity in 2050.

“The use of coal shows a steep reduction in all pathways and would be reduced to close to zero per cent of electricity (in 2050),” the report said.

CSIRO research scientist Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project, said the special report was probably the last reminder that there were no insoluble biophysical or technical impediments to meet the lowest temperature targets in the Paris Agreement.

But Dr Canadell said it would require the “almost immediate ­establishment of a global carbon market, carbon pricing across all sectors of the economy, massive energy efficiency gains, significant consumer changes in diets, actions to reduce peak global population, and the immediate and growing deployment of options for the ­direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including the pervasive need for carbon capture and storage in most cases”.

There would be drastic changes in land use, including reforestation and planting crops for energy to suck carbon dioxide from the ­atmosphere and burying emissions when they were burnt.

A shift in diet towards less meat was described in the summary for policymakers as the need for “healthy consumption patterns”, “responsible consumption” and “sustainable diets”.

The provision of billions of dollars in finance to help developing nations would be crucial.

The IPCC said limiting global warming to 1.5C compared with 2C could “go hand-in-hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society”.

The advantages of meeting a 1.5C target rather than 2C were ­detailed in the report. Global sea level rises would be 10cm lower by 2100, the report said.

The likelihood of the Arctic Ocean being free of sea ice in ­summer would be once a century compared with at least once a ­decade. An IPCC official said that while limiting warming to 1.5C was possible within the laws of chemistry and physics, doing so would ­require unprecedented changes.

Global CCS Institute chief executive Brad Page said the ­report had reinforced the point that a 1.5C increase could not be reached without deployment of all clean technologies, and carbon capture was most definitively one.

“CCS must remain at the forefront of national, regional and international policy discussions and, as the IPCC said today, governments must act on this evidence,” Mr Page said.

Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O’Shanassy said: “The report makes clear that we need to get better at investing in storing carbon in the natural world and deploying technologies that can remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Our governments and industry should urgently investigate how they can better do this with the right incentives.”


High Court to examine the rights of pro-life activists to be present outside abortion clinics

If the killers didn't have guilty consciences scrutiny would not bother them

Abortion clinic staff fear going back to the “dark ages” as anti-abortionists challenge in the High Court the Victorian and Tasmanian laws that banished religious protesters from outside their workplaces

Kathleen Clubb, a mother of thirteen who was the first person to be convicted under those laws, is asking the High Court to consider if the legislation infringes on political free speech.

For decades, self-described "sidewalk counsellors" were a fixture outside centres across the state, until they were finally exiled in 2016 with the introduction of “safe access zone” laws that obliged protesters to stay at least 150 metres away.

After Ms Clubb was arrested by police in 2016 when she was caught approaching a couple outside the East Melbourne Fertility Control Clinic, she reportedly said: “I don’t intend to leave. I believe I have the right to offer my help to women.”

Ms Clubb is challenging her conviction and $5000 fine in a case that will be heard on Tuesday by the full bench of the High Court. They will also consider the case of another anti-abortionist, John Graham Preston, who breached similar Tasmania laws.

The case has alarmed staff at abortion clinics, who say they used to be too afraid of the protesters to leave their office without a security guard.

“I shudder to think what it would be like if we returned to the dark ages and women were forced to walk the gauntlet simply to see their doctor,” said senior associate Katie Robertson from Maurice Blackburn, which is representing the Fertility Control Clinic pro-bono.

Susie Allanson worked at the East Melbourne clinic as a clinical psychologist for more than 25 years and often feared she would be hurt by one of the anti-abortionists, who would arrive by 7.45am each morning.

She was working at the clinic in 2001 when a radical recluse came to the centre armed with a modified high-powered rifle and other weapons, ready to massacre dozens of patients and staff. He murdered security guard Steven Rogers, before being disarmed by the boyfriend of a pregnant woman.

Dr Allanson said the safe access zones had been an overnight success. “Instantly, women were no longer being harassed and intimidated on the public footpath.”

This week’s case is likely to centre on the issue of whether preventing protesters approaching women within the safe zone is a breach of the implied freedom of political communication.

Ms Clubb and her legal team were contacted for comment and declined.

In her submission to the High Court, she argued that abortion was inherently political and that political communication about abortions was most effective at the place at which abortions are provided, where they can reach clinic users and their medical staff.

“Australian history is replete with examples of political communication which were effective because they were conducted in a place where the issue was present and viscerally felt,” it said.

The 1998 Australian waterfront dispute, Eureka Stockade and the Freedom Ride of 1965 are listed examples.

In an interview with NewsCorp in June, Ms Clubb denied distressing women with graphic images of abortions on signs, saying that she only prays and distributes pamphlets.

She said at the time she was fighting for the right to speak on her beliefs, even though they were unpopular. “But the point is, if parliament can ban this kind of protest, what other kind of protests can they ban?” she told NewsCorp. “I am fighting for all Australians.”

But Ms Clubb faces a formidable opposition, with the case attracting not only the attention of the Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula, but governments across the nation, who have made submissions through lawyers in defence of the Victorian and Tasmanian laws.

The Attorney-General will argue that if there is any impact on the implied freedom of political communication, it is insubstantial.

“While it may be accepted that some individuals might be engaging in political communication, in other cases the aim is to deter women from having an abortion, often through imposing guilt and shame,” the submission said.


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

No comments: