Sunday, March 06, 2022

Nadia Bokody: Why married women stop having sex

As a Lesbian. Ms Bokody is not in the best position to talk about this and her comments are simplistic. She says that bearing a big load of housework suppresses the desire for sex in women.

It is true that libido drops off for both men and women in the course of a long relationship but I not aware that the effect is stronger for women. From many discussions I have had with women, I get the impression that women stay interested for longer.

And I think it is fair to say that all relationships are
sui generis. They all involve an explicit or implicit "deal" between the partners. If the wife is satisfied with the relationship that is all that matters. To outsiders a particular set of arrangements may seem unfair but the outsiders are unlikely to know all details of how a couple relate to one-another. If the wife sees the arrangements as unfair there is a problem. But it is for the woman concerned to say that something is unsatisfactory, not outsiders.

Often the role of the male may not be immediately obvious. That the man is on standby to "fix" household devices when they go wrong may not always be immediately visible.

At the risk of lapsing into triviality, the classic situation where a jar with a tightly-fitting lid is handed to the man to open is very well known. And the service provide by the man does not have to be that trivial. In my own case I recently had to deal with two household devices that had ceased to function. My girlfriend identified the problems and promptly handed the devices to me. It took me quite a lot of thinking and fiddling to dismantle the two devices, remove the problem and then mantle them again. The mantling can be the hardest part.

And all the while my girlfriend concentrated on food preparation and cleaning. So was that unfair? Judging by the affection that she later lavished on me, she clearly did not think so. But our relationship is of course
sui generis. What works for us may not work for all. All couples have their own explicit or implicit arrangements and understandings. It is not for outsiders to judge them. Matthew 7:1-3.

Every time I think I’ve written the last column I’m going to write about this, the bar for the men who partner with them sinks to an abysmal new low.

Take the TikTok trend captioned, “Things that turn me on as a mum”, in which montages of men performing painfully simple tasks like folding clothes, cooking dinner, and putting nappies on their own babies are synched to a sexy soundtrack and juxtaposed with footage of their eager-eyed wives watching on, barely able to contain their arousal.

The comments sections of these videos are almost as disturbing as the clips themselves – an orgy of women positively charged with erotic excitement collectively exclaim, “#DaddyGoals!” and “Where can I find myself a hubby like that?!!”, punctuating their enthusiasm with heart eye emojis.

You could be forgiven for thinking this was satire – that it mimics the same kind of hyperbolic praise you’d expect a child to receive from a parent after completing their homework – but poking fun of men’s limited participation in housework has become a depressing kind of signature for women on the internet in 2022.

Of course, we aren’t taught to be nonchalant about men’s scant contributions to domestic labour.

We’re conditioned to believe the mere act of being chosen by a man is in and of itself the highest form of acknowledgment of our existence. That, securing a man for marriage is so covetable, it nullifies any self-sacrifice or degradation a woman may have to endure as part of being able to call herself a wife.

Sure, your husband almost never puts the toilet seat down and still thinks it’s cute to leave a halo of his soiled undies on the floor around the laundry basket, however – YOU HAVE A HUSBAND! So what if you have to mother him every so often?

It’s not like he doesn’t care. He’d truly LOVE to help you out with the groceries. But he’s just a man … How is he supposed to know what brand of milk to get, or navigate the complex task of determining the appropriate Tupperware container to stow the couscous away in when he gets home with everything??

I mean, like, he COULD clean the bathroom, but he’s just not as well versed as you are on the sophisticated mechanics of swirling a brush around a toilet bowl and wiping Windex across reflective surfaces. You know you’ll just have to redo it anyway.

Never send a man to do a woman’s job! Amirite, ladies??!

This infantilisation of men isn’t by accident, and it’s certainly not because women get off on mothering their grown adult spouses. It’s the result of wilful, learned behaviour – something some psychologists are now referring to as “weaponised incompetence”.

Originally coined “strategic incompetence” in a 2007 Wall Street Journal article, weaponised incompetence is the act of feigning an inability to understand or complete a task (though it can also include doing the task but deliberately carrying it out poorly), so as never to be asked to do it again.

And it’s so prevalent, the most recent Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (Hilda) survey found that, on average, women do 21 hours additional unpaid labour each week than men.

This was true even when the woman was the breadwinner in the couple, so the old “but he works really hard to bring home the bacon” trope isn’t actually accurate. (This is not even to mention the emotionally, mentally, and physically intensive labour stay-at-home mums carry out in the home that’s still ignorantly deemed “not actual work”.)

The survey, which was conducted in 2019, revealed this gendered gap is most pronounced in heterosexual couples with dependent children, and that the biggest form of unpaid work was housework, closely followed by child-rearing.


I can't resist the temptation to add another anecdote about the male role:

Many years ago, I was sharing an apartment with two lively ladies. They concluded that there was something wrong with the deadlock on their front door and decided to fix it themselves. They took it off the door and opened it up. It promptly went SPROINNGG, as devices using springs tend to do, and scattered its parts around. They just sat there in dismay looking at the disaster.

They did not even look at me. They assumed that as an academic I would be useless at practical things. So I gathered up the parts, mantled the lock correctly and handed it back to them for attachment to the door. They did so very quietly. I later married one of the ladies concerned so I think it can be assumed that my standby services were appreciated. They were not to know that locks have been a minor hobby of mine since childhood. I still fix them.

Years later, when I fixed the lock on another lady's door, she commented: "I didn't think you could do that". She and I ended up having a four-year relationship. She was pretty too.


Tudge affair exposes dangers of when #MeToo goes too far

Australia lost the services of a very competent government minister because of the unfair claims of a disappointed woman

Alan Tudge’s decision not to seek reinstatement in cabinet as Education Minister must surely represent the high-water mark of a posse of women behaving badly, and of cowardly leaders not merely hoisting, but avidly waving, the white flag at them.

That this small gang is as unrepresentative of women as they are loud is no comfort. There comes a time when they need to be called out.

A few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister delivered an apology in parliament for the poor ­culture that women face in parliament, Rachelle Miller said she felt vindicated. For too long, Tudge’s former staffer, and lover, has been able to control the narrative of this imbroglio. Not anymore. In light of the Thom report, it is clear that the only vindicated party is Tudge.

We now know, according to Vivienne Thom’s report and multiple submissions and source documents seen by The Weekend Australian, including emails, texts and witness accounts, Miller was not a wronged woman, nor the victim of bullying or harassment or discrimination by Tudge.

In fact, if there was discrimination, it may have arguably worked in Miller’s favour when Tudge and his chief of staff tried to secure her a promotion.

Most importantly, too, Thom found no evidence to substantiate Miller’s most wicked allegations, that Tudge was emotionally or physically abusive towards her during their consensual relationship between June and October 2017.

As is her right, Miller chose not to participate in the Thom Inquiry, just as she chose not to co-operate with an earlier investigation into her bullying allegations by the Department of Finance that also found no evidence to support her claims.

However their private entanglement started, it is clear that after it ended in October 2017 Miller wanted something more. The three or four occasions when they fooled around appeared to cause her great frustration, with Tudge refusing to have sexual intercourse with her.

It is also clear that Miller’s public allegations against Tudge followed his refusal to start a serious relationship with her. In other words, this looks to be a case of hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

The story of mismatched affections is as old as the hills, a sad one, to be sure, but not yet illegal. The Thom inquiry was told that then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was aware of the intimate interactions between Tudge and Miller in 2017 and did not consider these interactions constituted a breach of the Ministerial Standards that existed at the time.

Turnbull’s bonk ban came into effect after this liaison ended.

Yet, scared silly by the monstrous but small legion of female activists who have convinced Morrison that he has a “woman problem”, the Prime Minister has shown no support for Tudge.

A strategic leak, surely from the PM’s office, meant there was speculation that Morrison planned to sack Tudge on the manifestly spurious ground that the then human services minister had sought a promotion for Miller without disclosing his relationship with her.

Though Morrison’s office denied that was the case, the damage was done. Morrison’s lack of support for one of his best ministers has been remarked on privately by those closest to him.

Tudge was effectively given his marching orders via a newspaper report, despite lengthy evidence given to Thom about the background to trying to secure a promotion for Miller. Miller had apparently requested a promotion from Tudge’s chief of staff, Andrew Asten more than once. Both Tudge and Asten finally considered a promotion appropriate given Miller’s experience, her increased workload, the scope of her job, and the fact that Tudge’s portfolio of human services had moved into cabinet.

With promotions requiring sign off by the Prime Minister’s ­office, Asten wrote to Malcolm Turnbull’s chief of staff Drew Clarke requesting a change in allocation to cater for a senior adviser position in Tudge’s office. Sally Cray, Turnbull’s principal private secretary, wrote back to Asten declining the promotion for Miller.

Thom was informed that Tudge’s office had sought promotions for “every single one of my long-term media advisers”.

Tudge and Miller had shared one night of intimacy prior to his office seeking a promotion for her. Had a promotion not been sought, it is entirely possible Miller might have claimed she was discriminated against because of one night of fooling around with the boss.

Section 2.23 of the Ministerial Standards states that “ministers’ close relatives and partners” must not be appointed to positions in their ministerial or electorate offices, or in the offices of other members of the executive government, without the prime minister’s express approval.

Tudge maintains that at some point Turnbull’s office knew about his relationship with Miller, and also knew about his efforts to secure a promotion for Miller. And still, Tudge remained in Turnbull’s cabinet.

In any case, was Miller his “partner” – the criteria for the ministerial standard? To repeat the unseemly details, they had some form of sexual contact, but not sexual intercourse, three or four times. Miller appears to have yearned for more, as detailed in texts and emails sent to Tudge by the woman in her 40s over a four-year period after the liaison ended.

But, as the Thom inquiry was told, there was nothing about their interactions that amounted to a “relationship” in the normal sense of that word, let alone her assuming the role of his partner.

None of this is an excuse for poor decisions by Tudge and Miller, both adults. But what stinks even more is the puritanical witch-hunt that now routinely punishes a person over and over again.

This is becoming a familiar story: unjust processes kicking in to suit the politics of the day. The same conduct that did not attract punishment a few years earlier is used to impose punishment because it suits a new set of optics. It happens in the sporting world, in corporate Australia, and now this unfair practice was set to be employed by the Prime Minister.

It usually involves bleating about “community expectations” changing between date x and y. That makes sense if we’re talking about the passage of many years. Social mores change. But when barely a few years have passed, it becomes a nifty phrase, open to exploitation by two groups of people – the vengeful who want to see people retried for past actions, and the cowards who cave in to those seeking retrospective punishment.

The sham is easily exposed by asking how are these community standards measured? By surveys? If so, let’s see them. Or is the ­so-called pulse of the nation taken from a cosy conversation around a dinner table with like-minded people?

The outcome of the ruse on this occasion is that, with a single strategic leak, predictably denied by his office, the Prime Minister has thrown his colleague and a cabinet minister under the bus for no reason other than to appease an unrepresentative bunch of activists pushing allegations of harassment and bullying which according to the Thom Report are supported by no evidence.

By deciding not to put himself forward for reinstatement into cabinet, Tudge saved Morrison from the grief of publicly sacking a very good minister. Tudge also saved the PM from having to reveal an irony noted privately within Liberal circles, including by those close to Morrison.

Given that Turnbull made no moves against Tudge, or leaked any intention to get rid of his cabinet minister, the sneaky move to leak Tudge’s likely dismissal, based on the flimsiest of evidence, renders Morrison less loyal than Turnbull. That’s quite a head-turning event.

For the sake of a few votes, Morrison made it known he was willing to snivel in the face of a bunch of graceless women. The irony is that because most women are smart enough to see exactly what has happened here, his cowardice may well lose him more votes than it wins him.

The larger point goes beyond whether Tudge is in cabinet or not. It concerns the way we conduct politics in this country.

Lynch mobs come and lynch mobs go – from the women of Salem to the Ku Klux Klan to McCarthyism – but until political leaders are prepared to stand up to this behaviour, it will get worse.

Standing up to the mob in this case is particularly hard because the mob does have legitimate complai­nts. Women have clearly suffered unfair treatment in parliament and its surrounds.

It cannot be doubted Parliament House has sheltered more sexual predators than it should have and there was some abominable behaviour.

But as the Tudge imbroglio demonstrates, we must not believe every allegation made about every man just because a woman makes it. Some women do lie. Some women have ulterior motives, including revenge, disappointment, frustration, for making allegations against a man. Yet today’s female activists appear hell bent on using such thin pretexts as the Tudge/Miller matter as justification for overthrowing the presumption of innocence, the rules against double jeopardy and retrospective punishment, legal professional privilege, and contractual confidentiality in a mad rush to send ­alleged male offenders to the ­gallows.

Similarly, these women, and even the PM, may not think Brittany Higgins’ alleged attacker deserves a fair trial, but that way madness lies. The PM seems to be frightened of women who think they should be free to roam the landscape pointing the bone at alleged offenders without benefit of trial or other traditional niceties.

There is another group of women who have been forgotten by the Prime Minister – women who prefer a civilised and just society over one where women have the right of instant, trial-free punishment of men they don’t like.

PM take note. Courage should not have been beyond you.


Climate catastrophists see opportunity in disaster

While homes in Brisbane, Lismore and Windsor were swamped by floodwaters, again, and at least 15 people were losing their lives, and volunteers were taking risks to rescue others, climate keyboard warriors saw an opportunity to make political hay while the sun was not shining. “If not us, who?” tweeted so-called Voices of independent candidate Zoe Daniel above a reference to the latest climate report. “If not now, when?”

Thankfully, other Australians had a far more useful response to those two questions. They said “me” and “now” as they filled sandbags, crewed boats and delivered food to help others in need.

From surfing legend and great white wrangler Mick Fanning’s jet ski run for the local pharmacist, to two police officers diving under water into a Lismore house to rescue a 93-year-old woman floating on a mattress in an air pocket against the ceiling, the stories of help and heroism were great and small. But some climate crusaders sensed only an opportunity.

As they have done with bushfires, heatwaves, droughts, snowstorms (and lack of snowstorms) climate activists use wild weather to foster fear and further their political causes. Where some see natural peril and human tragedy, and act to help, others see dramatic images and political opportunity, then jump on social media.

Another so-called Voices of independent, Allegra Spender, posted pictures of the flood trauma with familiar slogans. She said a vote for her would “tackle climate change” and protect the environ­ment.

Presumably when people argue we should “follow the science” they mean we should stick to the facts and logic. Yet such an approach would see these climate catastrophists exposed as false prophets pushing false promises – they can no more alter the climate, let alone prevent natural disasters, than Superman can spin the planet backwards on its axis.

By science people tend to mean the increasingly alarmist papers published by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is much science behind these papers but also plenty of public relations in the way they are presented, with a rolling release of reports making the same points, which is why climate news sounds like deja vu.

We hear plenty about “tipping points” and last chances but seldom a word of scepticism, questioning of IPCC statements or references to the benefits of global warming; we get only doom and gloom. NASA findings on the carbon dioxide-induced greening of the planet or research about reduced mortality from milder northern hemisphere winters are not the kind of science the advocates follow.

Let us accept the general thrust of what the bulk of the climate scientists argue: that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming, that most warming is attributable to human-induced emissions and that we will see an increase in the regularity and intensity of weather events. Science also says much of this is baked into the atmosphere, even if we reduce emissions in the medium term, and that a global cut to net zero is necessary to reverse the trend.

There are debates to be had about weather records, interpretation of data, scientific modelling and forecasts. But the first thing to say about the climate activists’ response to natural disasters is that they are not new; floods, droughts, fires, heatwaves and storms have always been with us and always will be, especially in this land of droughts and flooding rains.

The pretence that climate policies can relieve us of these natural traumas is a ridiculously emotive and deceptive ploy. Do the activists really think they can deliver some Truman Show world where we dial up the weather we desire?

They are always desperate to use the word unprecedented so they can pretend global warming is visiting a wrath upon us that our forebears never knew. Every heatwave, cold snap, drought, flood or fire has to be worse than ever to suit their narrative.

In these pages I have demonstrated why this is untrue when it comes to the horrific bushfires in the summer of 2019-20. They were widespread, rampaging and deadly, but this country has had fires cover wider areas, kill more people and start earlier in the season. Firestorms are fearsome but, tragically, Australia will always suffer from them from time to time – always has.

Which is why grand plans to change the climate are unfortunate distractions from the protections that will work here and now, no matter what happens to the climate. We need to control fuel loads near settlements and ensure houses and properties are sufficiently protected in how they are built, where they are built and how much cleared area they are allowed or must have around them.

Despite repeated inquiries making recommendations about this, we have made little progress, and our complacency will lead to more damage from future fires. Instead of these difficult reforms, governments find it easier to buy firefighting aircraft that are useful for some fires but hopeless against the worst.

It is a similar story with floods. At Lismore this week’s flooding was the worst on record, more than 14m. But given there have been many floods over 12m, even in the 19th century, there will be other factors involved beyond climate, such as landclearing and urban build-up. Again, the practical solution to repeated inundations is not some fanciful plan to change the global climate but to adapt to a reality that has always existed and always will. If Lismore is the most regularly flooded town in the country, might we not rethink rebuilding in the same way at the same locations?

If we keep doing the same things we have been doing on fires, floods and droughts, and pretend our climate change policies will fix it, we are doomed to repetitive trauma. Dams can reduce flooding and droughtproof communities yet we seem to bust every dam proposed.

Even the entirely logical plan to extend the height of Sydney’s Warragamba Dam to mitigate the sort of flooding we have seen for two summers in a row has been held up by all the usual environmental objections. This is not rational or practical behaviour; science tells us floods will come and dams can manage them.

Instead of building dams, clearing bush around houses and ensuring buildings on flood plains can endure floods, activists pretend subsidising electric cars and mandating energy-saving light bulbs will tame our natural disasters, and too many politicians play along. Sometimes this country’s political system seems like a press release in search of governance.

Apart from the tackiness of spruiking for votes on the back of natural disasters, this is the first big lie of the climate alarmists: that their policies are the best way to eliminate or minimise the damage from natural disasters.

The second lie is even more preposterous because it goes to their propensity to deliver. Even if we accepted that controlling global climate was a reasonable and plausible goal, how, precisely, could an independent politician achieve this outcome?

To what degree, for instance, has Zali Steggall been able to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming. She has done as much on that cause as she has on world peace.

The Greens, Labor and the so-called Voices of independents fallaciously accuse the government of inaction on climate. Reducing emissions by 20 per cent already (up-ending our energy system to do it) and committing to net-zero emissions by 2050 is more than most nations do, and too much for many informed people, so it is a bit cute to dismiss it as inaction.

But let us say, for argument’s sake, that a few of the so-called Voices of independents and the Greens win the balance of power and install a Labor government that is dependent on them for survival. This is their dream scenario, where they could dictate climate policy.

So, we could pretend they get our country to net-zero emissions by 2030 (lord knows how, perhaps by closing all industries and building a dozen nuclear reactors). We could go even further and have them shut down our coal exports.

Would this, could this, change the climate? Between 2019 and 2021 China increased its emissions by 600 million tonnes and India by 200 million. In total, that amounts to double Australia’s annual emissions. In other words, if Australia’s 1.1 per cent of global emissions disappeared overnight, they would be replaced within a year by the global growth.

And no less coal would be burned, our exports would merely be replaced by other nations, as would the produce of our closed factories and farms, adding emissions elsewhere.

The scientific, economic and practical reality is that our self-harm would not reduce global emissions, therefore not improve the climate. That is what would happen in the extreme, impossible expression of the climate catastrophists loony plans.

So imagine the futility of whatever policy morsels they might cajole out of government. The pretence that any politicians, let alone so-called independents, can change the climate is misleading, ignorant and juvenile.

The eventual elimination of greenhouse gas emissions, so long as it is in concert with the rest of the world, makes sense. The way to do it in Australia, while protecting our economy, environment and sovereignty, might be through nuclear power (as France and Germany are suddenly rediscovering) and through abatement schemes involving revegetation, soil carbon and the like.

Climate change, like most other complex policy areas, needs to be tackled with factual, realistic and proportionate progress. Emotive, jingoistic and frankly silly claims about delivering us from Armageddon to Nirvana are not worthy of adult discussion, and certainly have no right to claim science as their defence.


Grace Tame seems to have let go of her anger

At her betrothal. An interview below:

As our cover star for Stellar’s sixth annual International Women’s Day issue, what does International Women’s Day mean to you?

As an advocate of the child sexual abuse survivor community, the significance of International Women’s Day is multilayered. By default, of course, I’m an advocate for women. But what I am is an advocate for survivors of child sexual abuse.

There are a lot of male survivors of child sexual abuse, and male survivors are among my best friends. I’ve never once said, “I hate men.” And yet yesterday I read this thing from this man who said, “Oh, from here where I’m sitting, you’re just a man hater.”

I’ve never, never, never had the words “I hate men” come out of my mouth, so I find it really, really hard being in the space. I do my darnedest to be the best advocate I can possibly be of the survivor community, which very much includes boys.

So while we must always equally acknowledge, protect and advocate for our boys, and men who are fellow survivors of child sexual abuse, all of these things can be done while recognising that there are added layers of compounding disadvantage built into the experience of being a female, which must be addressed.

It goes without saying that our own nation also has its own entrenched, systemic inequalities that can’t be ignored. First Nations women, women of colour, women with disabilities, migrant women and other minorities as a result face even greater barriers to justice. But I have never called myself a feminist.

Not because I’m not. But it just never occurred to me to call myself a feminist because I just assumed that everyone wants equality. International Women’s Day to me means another opportunity to continue the conversation of equality that is inclusive of everyone, regardless of gender.

Today, you are announcing your new role as a L’Oréal Paris Woman of Worth, which marks your first beauty brand partnership. Why did you decide working with L’Oréal Paris was the right fit for you and how do you navigate the line between advocate and brand ambassador?

What really drew me to this particular partnership is the depth to it. That it’s not this “commercial, product” thing. It’s changing the way that we do marketing. Before it was about selling products and now it’s about selling progress.

My number-one value is integrity, and it’s about the cause. It’s about [asking], “Is this going to benefit what we’re trying to achieve with The Grace Tame Foundation and the survivor community in eradicating abuse culture in all of its forms?”

This is a campaign that’s aimed at stopping harassment. [Tame will be the face of the brand’s global Stand Up Against Street Harassment campaign in Australia in April.] And so it was a no-brainer for us.

Max [Heerey, Tame’s fiancé] and I, we’re a team of two, and we had a really rigid set of criteria. We’ve been approached by a lot of companies. We thought long and hard about it, and we were really impressed by the direction that L’Oréal Paris are going in with this campaign. And I’ll be frank with you: we think it needs some work, but we’ve been impressed with where it is [at]. We see that it has so much potential.

So many women who have bottled up their frustration for so long finally feel like they have permission to be angry. Are you aware of this impact you’ve had? How do you feel about being the catalyst for this change?

I’m very humbled and honoured to hear that, but I would say I’m not comfortable in being [called] “the” catalyst. This is a longstanding conversation and there are survivor advocates and sector experts who’ve been progressing and pushing this conversation forever and yelling into a void.

I just happened to get up on that stage and people were ready to listen. It’s one thing to have a message, it’s another thing for people to be receptive to it. I didn’t just come along without a team behind me who were pushing me.

Whether it was my mum or Nina Funnell [journalist Funnell created and managed the #LetHerSpeak campaign, and funded Grace Tame’s legal work and the legal work of the other 16 survivors featured in the campaign], I wouldn’t be here if Nina didn’t believe in me and start #LetHerSpeak and give the other brave survivors hope and a platform.

There’s an army behind me, there’s an army in front of me, there’s an army on either side of me.

Where have I heard that before? "Vor uns liegt Deutschland, in uns marschiert Deutschland und hinter uns kommt Deutschland!" An undoubted Fascist awareness. She has her Reich now.

It wouldn’t be fair of me to go “Yes, I am the catalyst.” I’m just a domino, that’s how I think of myself in the scheme of things.

You got engaged to Max, now your manager, in January. Where do wedding plans lie amid everything else that you’ve got going on?

We’re looking to get married in February next year, something low-key, maybe on a beach somewhere. Max and I are very chilled people. Believe it or not, we like minimal fuss. We are your parmie and pub type of humans. Maybe we might just run away somewhere and then have a party afterwards.




No comments: