Diversa-fraud

The sham that is our modern political systems never ceases to amaze or know any bound.

Recently the Centre for Independent Studies hosted a panel on Women in Politics.  It was a discussion with four very bright, very capable and very talented women.  As the title suggested, the discussion was about how to get more women into politics and parliaments.  Not surprisingly the discussion veered into the differences between the major parties in their approach.

Although the conversation slightly touched on it near the end, there was no real or substantive discussion of WHY there is a movement to get additional women into parliaments.  98% of the discussion was on HOW to get women in parliament, but not WHY.

You’d think this was an important consideration, but it’s not as if HOW takes precedence over WHY in many aspects of political life.  Some of TAFKAS’ favourites include how (not why) to nationalise Australia’s fixed telecommunication network and how (not why) to spend an additional $12 billion of Gonski education money.  Oh and how to build over priced submarines in South Australia.

But back to women in politics and parliament.  There may be many reasons why Australian might benefit from more women in parliament.  Might benefit.  Although they are never articulated, there are 2 reasons that come to TAFKAS’ mind – optics and cognitive diversity.

Whilst TAFKAS thinks optics is a poor reason, it can be argued that humans are more likely to trust people who look like them and have similar life experiences to them.  On the other hand, cognitive diversity; diversity of experience, perspective and understanding, can lead to better problem solving and decision making.

At a time when our political system is suffering from a significant trust deficit and an inability to solve problems and make decisions, one might think that both these things would be good.  Unfortunately though, the way our political parties seek to achieve diversity actually further erodes trust and further reduces cognitive diversity.

Citizens don’t trust a system where preference is given to people because of their chromosomal combinations.  Similarly cognitive diversity is not determined by chromosomal combinations.  A law graduate with no professional experience outside a ministerial or electorate office will not offer any particularly different perspective if they have an XY chromosome combination or XX.

If the political class really wants, real diversity and not just a slightly different means to select from the same ex-staffer pool, then there is solution that would be much more effective than quotas and the other nonsense programs proposed.  It is called sortition.

Populating parliaments with a random selection of citizens from across Australia would deliver better trust in our representatives and greater cognitive diversity.

The only problem with implementing sortition, for the political elite at least, is that there would be fewer professional political, ex-staffer, lawyer, hack, insiders in Parliament.  Male or female.

But sortation is also unlikely to be implemented because the power to implement it rests with those who would be the biggest losers.

Let’s get real.  The current debate about women in politics is not about diversity.  It’s about power and branding for the insider class.  It’s about winning and not losing.  It’s about the insiders and not the outsiders.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Diversa-fraud

  1. stackja

    Amanda Stoker talks the good talk.

  2. Populating parliaments with a random selection of citizens from across Australia would deliver better trust in our representatives and greater cognitive diversity.

    The Senate voting system comes close to achieving that.

    But seriously you’re absolutely correct. The way we’re going our Parliaments will end up comprising the most demographically diverse ever assemblies of affluent urban middle class arts/law graduates who have never had a serious job outside the public service/ grievance mongering/do gooder/political/media/lobbying bubble.

  3. Pyrmonter

    @ Stackja

    Last I checked, Amanda Stoker had joined Senator Paterson’s anti-anti-clericalism campaign. Remember: the opposite of left-wing intolerance is NOT right-wing intolerance.

  4. John Constantine

    ex labor hack kate lundy is on the board of electro optic systems, and their abc announce that her company has just sold killer robots to the Saudis to be used to murder babies in Yemen.

    Having a wymynsys on the board of a killer robot company is meant to make it bulletproof.

    [ imagine if Abbott did it.]

    Comrades.

  5. 1735099

    And who would be responsible for the conduct of the sortition process, the insiders or the outsiders?

  6. Boambee John

    Numbers at 1720

    Dare I suggest a birthday ballot, but extended beyond day and month to day, month, year and hour/minute of day?

  7. On the other hand, cognitive diversity; diversity of experience, perspective and understanding, can lead to better problem solving and decision making.

    True, but it can also lead to worse problems and bad decision making.
    Experiences, perspectives and understanding are not always in a manner we want or need. (I stated that badly, so here’s an example)…

    Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has experiences, perspectives and understanding that are about as diverse as can be from ours. She’s black, is a muzzie, a woman and she married her brother ffs. How diverse can you get?
    How would we like another couple of dozen Ilhan Omars making decisions for us eh?

    Stop with this “diversity is good” schtick, just stop. It’s a Post Modern brain washing tool.

    NOW HEAR THIS:
    Our society is based on the ethos of the supremacy of the individual over the group. Each individual brings with himself unique experiences, thought processes, likes, loves, dislikes, wants and needs.
    THE DIVERSITY IS FUCKING BUILT IN
    if we believe in the supremacy of the individual.

    There is no upside to elevating a disabled black lesbian into an engineering position because she’s a disabled black lesbian with diverse experiences.
    We’ve done this very thing in politics, bureaucracy, academia and business by elevating women and PoC’s. How’s that working out?

    So stop it with this diversity shit. Just stop.

  8. Cynic of Ayr

    Well, to be honest and practical, I don’t see many women in Parliament being all that much of an asset.
    Exhibit the dud Premiers – Kirner, Lawrence, Bligh, Palaszczuk. All economic disasters. Sure, there were plenty of male economic disasters too, but being female did not protect those mentioned from stupidity.
    IF, there is a woman who has a better chance of being a good member of Parliament, then a man in the same job, then fine. BUT, too many times now an inferior member has resulted from the selection of a woman, because she was a woman, not because she was better.
    The Labor Party is going down this track. Selection is by gender, not by ability.
    The really, really hilarious thing about this drive for female members by quota is, invariably, the agitators are screaming, “We want equality! We want fairness! We want the same opportunities!”
    then, in the next breath, “We want to be treated differently, and be more than equal. We want it to be unfair to men. We want more opportunities than men. Because we are women!
    The hypocrisy is astounding, but the Feminist Movement isn’t renowned for logic.
    There just aren’t enough Margaret Thatchers and Lizzie Windsors to make it worthwhile.
    IF, there was a ratio of 50:50 between men and women of astounding political talent and success, then there might be a case for 50:50. But there is not such a ratio.
    Exhibit Merkel. Astounding success! Then, she went completely off the logical rails, onto the touchy-feely rails, and it all went to hell. Being female did not prevent this from happening. In fact, I suggest it was the cause.

  9. Rusty of Qld

    Baa Humbug,
    Spot on mate. Stop all this diversity bullshit let the best candidate, applicant get the job. FFS!!!!

  10. Nob

    97% of workplace deaths are male.
    Shocking inequality that must be addressed.

  11. egg_

    there was no real or substantive discussion of WHY there is a movement to get additional women into parliaments. 98% of the discussion was on HOW to get women in parliament, but not WHY.

    If we’re talking career politicians, who would employ staff who have a high rate of absenteeism and a lack of commitment to long hours – i.e. women?
    Why are men better rewarded – teh “gender pay gap”*?
    Would a Martian visitor not comprehend such logic?

    *Is this the issue these tards are fighting in the name of Equalidee?
    Give it up.

  12. Fred

    Why don’t feminists get behind Pauline Hanson?

    Last time I checked, she was a woman, and she is the leader of a party!

  13. egg_

    Why don’t feminists get behind Pauline Hanson?

    Touche – why don’t they string Adam Hills to the rafters after his hate speech against Hanson?

    Australia would send a better message to the world if we just hung Pauline Hanson from the Sydney Harbour Bridge

  14. egg_

    We’ve done this very thing in politics, bureaucracy, academia and business by elevating women and PoC’s. How’s that working out?

    A parliament full of SHYs?
    They’d have to put on extensions.

  15. Pyrmonter

    Floating an argument (not sure I accept it, but it’s worth airing …)

    A third reason is not cognitive diversity, but the diversity about which the more strident upper middle class feminists have long complained: women have tended to be excluded from the male patronage networks. Women can thus be expected to be less beholden to the mates in the union; less beholden to the (male) lobbyists who manipulate the Liberal factions; less keyed in to the (male) hierarchies of the churches that foster political influence; less beholden to the mates (or chaps) at the Club – whether Marrickville Labor or the Aussie.

    It’s a mite nihilistic, but, each of the problems about which TAFKAS complains has come to us from decisions made by men. Will the women do worse?

  16. MatrixTransform

    97% of workplace deaths are male.
    Shocking inequality that must be addressed.

    yeah, just don’t call a ManHole … a Manhole

    Problem solved right?

  17. C.L.

    … the discussion was about how to get more women into politics and parliaments.

    Why would you want to do that?

  18. Kneel

    “Why would you want to do that?”

    Because once that is on the books, it’s trivial to add “gender diversity isn’t just men v women, you know!”, then “we should have better Aboriginal representation in parliament” and so on, ad infinitum until we reach…. ta da! Perfection! Which is when “old white guys” – who, as everyone knows, are responsible for all the ills of the world – are completely excluded. Of course, the “old white guys” will have to be the one’s that pick up the pieces and try and put a functioning society together again, so good thing they’re not all worn out from all that public service, what?

  19. DD

    Sweden has many women in politics and parliament. Why would any country wish to follow the Swedish experience?

  20. John Stankevicius

    You have no idea what the police under 50 is like. It’s embarrassing when you come those who are 70 plus. The females are the worst . The public are fed the unemployed are the reason for our high taxes. As Jonny Rotten did I the 70s start from the top all the way down. The game is for a good looking female with a good bod who is all lip, to stand for a seat. The young female has never had a real job and stands because the retirement benefits will keep them financially secure for the rest of their lives. They retire to spend time with their family. The feminist industry keeps cycling these females out at speaking engagements and even worse boards of high profile organisations – what r u thinking? So for the rest of the unproductive lives owe are paying them a $100k dole cheque per annum. Then there is the public service. No one can afford the redundancy these people get – it’s winning the lottery. Take a package and then wait two years and get “re employed” at a higher rate. Privare industry salaries are going backward but taxes are increasing . Welcome to the plantation slave.

  21. 2dogs

    And who would be responsible for the conduct of the sortition process, the insiders or the outsiders?

    AEC? Why do you see this as a problem?

  22. Splatacrobat

    It’s never been about equality, it’s all about power. That’s why feminists target boards and leadership positions.

    When I talk to people I am distinguishing between arbitrary power and competence because I’m talking to people about responsibilities instead of rights. Like when young men mature and become men it isn’t power that accrues to them, it’s competence. The problem with the current culture today is that we fail to make the distinction between power and competence.

    Power is just that I can hurt you, and therefore I dominate. Competence is that I have status because I’m offering something to myself and others something of value.

    Power is the tactic used by the incompetent to gain status. Competence is the tool used by the morally oriented to accrue authority and do good things in the world. Well that is a noble call. The only way out of the tragedy of existence is to follow the noble call.
    – Jordan B Peterson.

  23. Splatacrobat

    You cannot multiple equality by dividing it with diversity. Diversity creates silos of division not unity.

    What’s that saying “a rising tide floats all boats”? Tides don’t discriminate, so why should companies or parliaments play favourites with certain people and leave others tethered to a short anchor?

  24. Hasbeen

    Surely the sight of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talking through her hat should be enough to warn of the foolishness of expecting sense out of most ladies./

  25. Nob

    ****, Completion Engineer, BP

    Question 1: Why is Diversity & Inclusion important to you/your company?

    It has been proven that diverse and inclusive teams result in great business outcomes. Within BP, we’ve had a number of scenarios that have had group thinking at the core where people have not had the courage to speak-up or challenge the status quo. Having a culture that truly supports diversity and inclusion drives creativity and ensures that people bring their true selves to work and feel empowered to speak up and contribute. We see building a diverse and inclusive organisation as foundational to achieving a competitive advantage.

    Question 2: Why did you decide to participate in the Diversity Session at this particular conference?

    This is a great opportunity to network and learn from our industry peers. We hope to come away with best practices from others to help instruct our forward strategy. We also hope to find opportunities to work collaboratively on an industry level.

    Question 3: What do you hope professionals will learn from this session?

    During our session, we plan to discuss BP North Sea Wells’ journey and forward vision relating to building a diverse and inclusive work place. We hope professionals can see parallels to their own organisation and can learn from our journey to instruct their own diversity initiatives.

    Q&A with speaker Thom Dennis, Founder, Serenity in Leadership

    Thom Dennis, Founder, Serenity in Leadership

    Question 1: Why is Diversity & Inclusion important to you/your company?

    Diversity and inclusion should underpin agenda – whether economic, social or political – and not just become visible when decision-makers need press coverage. These concepts celebrate the fundamental equality that exists between individuals – an equality that is easily forgotten as we grow up conditioned to elevate ourselves with possessions and accolades. Bringing humanity back to personal contentment and alignment with one’s fellow man does much to address conflict. Diversity and inclusion also enable creativity to emerge through widened insight and experience. By limiting hiring and advancement to the stale, male and pale paradigm, business limits its vision and progress.

    Question 2: Why did you decide to participate in the Diversity Session at this particular conference?

    Serenity in Leadership and its people have been working in the Oil & Gas Industry since 2005. We help companies improve their cultures so that people thrive in a safe, respectful and highly productive environment. This conference is an opportunity for us to share our learning and ideas for the future of effective leadership.

    Question 3: What do you hope professionals will learn from this session?

    This talk will outline the manifestations of #MeToo specific to the Oil and Gas industry. ‘It doesn’t happen here’ or ‘we’re dealing with it internally’ are no longer good enough: a proactive strategy integrated into the safety culture is the only thing capable of dismantling unconscious negative behaviours in the workplace.
    Attendees will be shown why and how they should protect the mental welfare of their colleagues with equal attention compared to their physical wellbeing. By applying our recommendations, the industry can reap the commercial benefits of a reinvigorated and secure workforce.

    I challenge any woman to read the above waffle and feel remotely empowered.

  26. Nob

    At the moment the oppression is directed at “companies with over 250 employees”.

    As with every one of these bullshit make-work feel-good initiatives, the axe will eventually fall on the small entrepreneurial companies that really do make a difference.

    You simply won’t be able to get a contract with the Diversity Party apparatchiks without producing a Diversity Report showing what you have done for Diversity in 2018 and what you plan to do to improve it in 2019.

    And eventually you’ll be disqualified in favour of corporate bureaucracies who know how to play the game.

    But you will not be replaced, because big corps just can’t do the innovation .

    Real diversity, which comes from the bottom up and energises society, will be crushed by corporate diversity from the top down. Stagflation.

    A stiletto heel stamping on a human face, forever.

  27. Mark M

    Watching Mathias Cormann being grilled about ‘hello world’ free flights, Cormanns constant complaints about the travel and time spent away from family, further evidence of restricting time spent in parliament to 8 years maximum.
    Then they all can get back to their family in the real world and spend the rest of their lives living the consequences of their actions, like the rest of us.

  28. Entropy

    It has been proven that diverse and inclusive teams result in great business outcomes. Within BP, we’ve had a number of scenarios that have had group thinking at the core where people have not had the courage to speak-up or challenge the status quo.

    I appreciate the irony of that statement. I really do.

  29. PB

    We need less women in politics, not more. Any good they have done is more than cancelled out by the trouble they have caused.

  30. Texas Jack

    Very bright? Very talented? Very capable? You sure?

  31. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Apparently all white males think the same, who knew!!

    Diversity is a fraud, good decisions are not made by committee. It’s communist crap, taking advantage of the low birth rate they have bequeathed us.

  32. Geff

    These show-pony tosser will never matter unless they suddenly become competent which they won’t because they can’t think. Turn off the ABC reporting of the ‘narrative’, ignore the think tanks, let their books yellow on the newsagent shelves, let the various APS and Parliamentary love-in sessions in the Southern Highlands spiral into an obvlivion of hung-over sexual remorse and fanatical parsing of personality test results, and the other weighty matters that pre-occupy our betters. Economic growth will (probably) start up again in earnest.

  33. Bela Bartok

    At a time when our political system is suffering from a significant trust deficit and an inability to solve problems and make decisions,

    Was watching a movie last night about the King of Norway deciding NOT to agree to a surrender to the Nazis in WWII, and his parliament had to decide whether to surrender or not as well. Fabulous movie – if you like snow.
    I couldn’t help wondering what our current failure of a political class would do to us and the country if faced with a similar decision? I can imagine Phelps hugging Banks hugging Plibbers and the Wong chap because they were all so pleased with their decision to save their skins.
    Bets on how quickly they’d all roll over so long as they and their comrade maaates were looked after?
    What a sad, pathetic bunch of no-talent hacks, spivs and profiteers

  34. MACK

    Most advances in peoples’ standard of living have been due to better science and technology – everything from steam trains to washing machines and aeroplanes to antibiotics. Major advances were made during the 20th century by an economic system of properly regulated free enterprise. So what we actually need are people who have qualifications and experience in science, technology, and economics. The primary reason that some countries are poor is corruption so we need an effective and fiercely independent judicial system. All the rest is secondary.

  35. RacerX

    “their chromosomal combinations”

    Your scaring the children now TAFKAS …

  36. Pyrmonter

    @ Bela B

    The King’s Choice. A film that didn’t get the attention it deserved – presumably because the plot is, in the views of most moderns, a hearkening to ideas of noble sacrifice.

    However, none of that indicates why a female nomenklatura will be worse than our current, predominantly blokey one.

  37. Bela Bartok

    Pyrmonter
    #2939759, posted on February 21, 2019 at 9:51 am
    @ Bela

    However, none of that indicates why a female nomenklatura will be worse than our current, predominantly blokey one.

    You are quite right – I was making the point that current politicians (regardless of country/party or sex) are not worth spit.
    More wymminses won’t make the quality better – in fact it’d make it worse, with more ‘feelz’ and emotes.
    I think of a man and take away reason and responsibility
    Suffrage was a mistake.

  38. Lilliana

    MACK #2939730 pretty well sums up the situation except that culture plays a major role in advancement. It is western culture that has allowed science etc to flourish. Look at places like Somalia – when it was westernising it was making progress since it reverted to tribalism all progress was wiped out.

    As for the whole diversity crap. I and lots of women have the same views as voiced in many of the comments above but we are just drowned out by the shouty witches whose version of equality is special treatment. I see a woman in management role and wonder if she is a diversity hire. In my department we are full steam ahead with the 50% BS but all the new hires are in ‘soft’ areas like HR, PR etc. none in the more technical areas. The whole thing is a joke.

    It’s only going to get worse as social media mob attacks intensify and corporations are infiltrated by SJWs.
    I despair for this country and the entire western world.

  39. Andrew Deakin

    The panel discussion may have been a bit outdated.

    The Q&A that concluded the CIS Women in Politics panel included a comment from one audience member querying why the panel members had not discussed binary gender theories. The commentator noted that in Victoria the state education system was teaching children that binary gender assumptions were outdated, and that we are only a generation away from graduating a cohort of people who would appreciate the importance of non-binary gender diversity. In this context, said the commentator, discussion about how to get more women into politics was perhaps already behind the times, and we should expect within a few years to see people in politics who were beyond the antiquated binary gender model. In which case, the use of quotas and related mechanisms to promote more women in politics should be broadened to include those that do not conform to binary gender models.

    The Victorian government’s gender studies program for schools is obviously well on track.

    Strangely, the members of the panel seemed a bit flummoxed by this comment bringing them up to date, and did not respond to the issue directly.

    Nevertheless, those of us living in Victoria are obviously in the vanguard of gender advancement, thanks to what I understand some in the ‘gay community’ refer to as ‘Daddy Dan.’

  40. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Texas Jack at 7:29 am:

    “Recently the Centre for Independent Studies hosted a panel on Women in Politics. It was a discussion with four very bright, very capable and very talented women.”

    Very bright? Very talented? Very capable? You sure?

    Like the wymminses who ran the Democrats as the pre-school mothers club executive, taking turns as leader and watching their backs in a party room of 5 or 6 (too funny!), one of ’em selling out to John Howard (over GST?) and another heading off to bonk Biggles and join his gang, until they dumped her?

    Or like Jackie Kelly and Kate Ellis, propelled into ministerial portfolios because they were supposedly attractive, found to be useless then giving up because the work is all too hard – the latest being Ellis, slouching off with her awful posture (in tears of course) at the next election. Did you ever watch this teenager on her feet in Parliament? Appalling!

    The other group of course is the otherwise unemployable dumb cows who are gifted easy roles leading the local councils governing Canberra and Darwin and surrounds. They, too, have a predisposition to tears and nervous breakdowns and resigning early, exhausted.

    The Centre for Independent Studies wouldn’t have pulled any “bright … talented … capable” into the discussion from the private sector because there aren’t any – alright then, maybe 5 or 6, or 4. I think the banking enquiry just shoveled a few of the alleged best right out of their jobs!

    They assured us ever so earnestly that they would be much better at it than the blokes. They were not.

  41. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Texas Jack at 7:29 am:

    “Recently the Centre for Independent Studies hosted a panel on Women in Politics. It was a discussion with four very bright, very capable and very talented women.”

    Very bright? Very talented? Very capable? You sure?

    Like the wymminses who ran the Democrats as the pre-school mothers club executive, taking turns as leader and watching their backs in a party room of 5 or 6 (too funny!), one of ’em selling out to John Howard (over GST?) and another heading off to couple with Biggles and join his gang, until they dumped her?

    Or like Jackie Kelly and Kate Ellis, propelled into ministerial portfolios because they were supposedly attractive, found to be useless then giving up because the work is all too hard – the latest being Ellis, slouching off with her awful posture (in tears of course) at the next election. Did you ever watch this teenager on her feet in Parliament? Appalling!

    The other group of course is the otherwise unemployable dumb cows who are gifted easy roles leading the local councils governing Canberra and Darwin and surrounds. They, too, have a predisposition to tears and nervous breakdowns and resigning early, exhausted.

    The Centre for Independent Studies wouldn’t have pulled any “bright … talented … capable” into the discussion from the private sector because there aren’t any – alright then, maybe 5 or 6, or 4. I think the banking enquiry just shoveled a few of the alleged best right out of their jobs!

    They assured us ever so earnestly that they would be much better at it than the blokes. They were not.

  42. Kneel

    “Surely the sight of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talking through her hat…”

    Please spell her name correctly. It’s “Occasional-Cortex”, OK?

Comments are closed.