Hey! Fat White Women! Ya Clowns! Stop Marching!
Overtly racist, Anti-Muslim, Right Wing Nationalist-Populist Pauline Hanson yesterday announced in a coded message that she has redressed all the issues for women which underpin feminism. We no longer need feminism! Cancel the next Women’s March!
Five Million Women
The Women’s March on Washington was held on 21st January, 2017. This was an international event with over five million women and men marching world-wide. The Unity Principle of the movement is defined as:
We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. We must create a society in which women – including Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women, Muslim women, lesbian queer and trans women – are free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments.
Women, men and children marched to raise awareness to end violence against women. They marched for reproductive rights, LGBTQIA rights, workers rights, civil rights, disability rights, immigrant rights and environmental justice.
Australian women, men and children also marched in solidarity. This is what they marched in solidarity for:
I Stand for all Aussies – Except Fat White Clown Chicks
Pauline Hanson expressed outright anger yesterday at Australian women marching in solidarity with another five million women worldwide.
Now we all know Hanson insists she is not racist. Despite still saying racist things about them, she now loves Indigenous people, Asians and Muslims. She stands for all Australians.
That is, except fat, white women who chose to march in the biggest women’s march in our history, because human rights are women’s rights.
Hanson described these women as clowns, who needed some sun and exercise. I know many will think that this is just an unplanned rant by Hanson, because she is just an ignorant and angry woman. No, not at all. This is very planned and strategic.
This is simply a strategic tactic to appeal to her main demographic voter base – white men over 40 and to plant herself firmly into the spotlight by saying something divisive about feminism. Being a woman herself, this just legitimises her as a ‘strong woman’ in the eyes of her voter base – white men over 40. A woman standing up to fight against the ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ women who are attempting to share equal space with ‘good’ or ‘strong’ men and have men relinquish some of that power they hold dear, is most certainly a beauty to behold and to vote for.
You Can Tell a Dumb Clown by Its Frown
Dumb clowns are confused. These dumb clowns are stupid. Silly dumb clowns always frown. The saying that we say back to bullies, “it takes one to know one” is quite apt here. Hanson is openly stating that she thinks women are marching against democracy. She thinks they are marching against a process to elect a Government democratically.
Think before you speak might be another one that fits here.
Because dumb clowns are stupid, another one that does fit very well is “educate yourself”.
This is normally used towards people who make claims about feminism. However, they are super dumb, just shaking and crying all over their keyboards angrily hammering out myths and propaganda, rather than actual facts.
Hanson in this rant is the epitome of the clown, she accuses other women to be. A dumb clown at that.
These women were not marching to protest against democracy. Women were marching for an entire gamut of human rights and women’s rights. They were not marching to over-turn a democratic process of electing leaders. Or insisting on authoritarian rule. They were however, sending a message that women’s rights are human rights.
Bumping Up and Down in My Little Red Bandwagon
Bandwagon jumping is when someone pops into an online cause or trend for personal ego trips. Normally, reserved for social justice, these bandwagon jumpers are often louder and drown out the voices of the legitimate minority group that need to be heard. They do it for personal gain, for followers, for ego pumping.
Regardless, they see a trend and they jump right on that bandwagon. Just like Pauline did.
Trending online opposing the women’s march were two groups – Trump supporters and men who oppose the rights of women. Often referred to as MRA’s.
One of the main arguments used against the women’s march was the use of the “Divide and Conquer” strategy. In all fairness, this is Hanson’s primary tactic in obtaining voters for her own personal gain in her pursuit of power. This may explain why this bandwagon was so appealing.
This particular bandwagon had so many jumping on it to pit Muslim women against white women. They did it by trying to delegitimise the many struggles women face. This is done by championing the fact that Muslim women in Muslim Majority countries have it far worse.
That is, pitting the oppressed against the oppressed. Veterans and homeless before refugees! Sound familiar?
Having women question their compassion for all women, to incite them to turn on one another in competition between race, gender status, geography, is a tried and true tactic of those who seek to destroy the feminist movement.
Those in power or who seek to be in power, like Pauline Hanson, do this because facing the enormity of not only the legal discrimination women face, but discrimination by default and the ingrained sexism and misogyny women face daily, is simply too difficult.
For leaders to be sincere about women’s rights issues, would mean that they would need to invest or actually think about solutions. That is far too hard.
Instead, they do things like this to divide and conquer:
I want you to ask yourself- Where is the #WomensMarch to protest the suffering of women in countries under the rule of Islamic Extremists?
— Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺 (@PaulineHansonOz) January 22, 2017
Muslims, Muslims everywhere!
Sorry, didn’t mean to scare the Hanson voters reading this with that headline. My point of that headline is that there are two takes on this: Hanson either purposely did this as a tactic, or she is purposely ignorant, which is not a fitting quality for any leader.
The leader and organiser of the Women’s March is a very famous Muslim-Palestinian – Linda Sarsour. Sarsour is a strong advocate that women of colour should lead the women’s movement.
The other fact that Hanson seems to apply her ignorance to, is that the March was an inter-sectional march. That means that women were marching for all women, regardless of where they come from or if they do or do not fit into a minority sub-group of women. They were marching for Human Rights for all. As women’s rights are human rights.
The HUGE fact that Hanson ignored was that thousands of Muslim Women marched. Yes, even in Saudi Arabia.
No Need to March – I’ve Got This!
Perhaps I am being far too pessimistic. Maybe Hanson thinks that women do not need to march because she has all the answers. Has she redressed all the issues women face? In all fairness, she does claim to have the answers to everything.
The problem is, Pauline Hanson never tells us what those answers are. She just mirrors a problem and agrees with it. She says she will do something about it. That she is standing up for it.
This is the era of ‘Fake News’. We are also asking ‘should the media hold politicians to account or should the politicians hold the media to account’? Therefore, it is the responsibility of the media to put some decency back into their profession and ask Hanson the tough questions.
Ask her questions about her reasons why a women’s march in Australia is a waste of time.
The media can start with similar to these:
Does she think it is appropriate for her followers to burn mosques, interrupt sermons and scare women?
How much does she think her rhetoric impacts on white-on-Muslim women violence in the streets?
If she can tell us her solution for violence against women, longer questioning and scrutiny of sexual assault victims in court and wage inequality, that may be an interesting start.
The media questioned Gladys Berejiklian yesterday about why she was childless. This infers she is not a ‘whole woman’ and is an attack on all women.
They might want to question Hanson if her hyper-masculine, anti-women attitude is a front to protect herself from this type of attack the media inflict on women in politics.
Or is Hanson actually just an anti-woman woman, who gets her jollies from fat shaming other women?
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
143 commentsLogin here Register here
The luvverly poreleen ansun really should explain to her voters that what she really believes in is straight, white, christian, english speaking men, and everything that THEY believe in, and that what she really wants is to be one too.
Shame she’s got tits, or hasn’t she noticed?
“Anti democracy protests?” I thought protests were a symbol of democracy.
Thanks for this, Trish. Yes, Muslim women are women, too. In particular, In particular, thanks for pointing out that women in the Middle East marched ‘alongside’ other women in the US and all around the world, and that the leader and organiser of the march was a Palestinian woman. Take that, and that,Pauline!
Gangey……. She might have been born with tits, but she probably didn’t have much use for them and therefore tries her best to ignore them. Poor poorleen, very confused, suffers from mental constipation and oral diarrhoea.
So the angry white woman speaks out in support of the angry white men who really just want to see her put back into her rightful place.
I assume she would rather see all women as traditional Christian baby factories chained to the kitchen sink.
Some women bother to march in support of their rights, others want to see certain rights denied from certain people.
Pauline only sees fat women; the obesity epidemic is growing all over the world, and men and even children are part of it.
It’s a serious health issue and ought to be dealt with as such…
As for Pauline herself, she might have enjoyed a tad too much sun (without protection), and eaten far too many chips.
Good article Trish. I note that of my friends, including those on Facebook, the majority of Hanson supporters over 40 years of age are women. Maybe only peculiar to me.
I’d like her to say that to Gina Rinehart.
Even the recent slimer Gina is well overweight.
This is a wonderful article about the Women’s March ; ‘To Christy on Facebook, who doesn’t need the Women’s March
In response to the millions of women who marched yesterday, there’s a Facebook rebuttal going around by a woman named Christy. Apparently, there are quite a few women who agree with her….’ https://medium.com/esme-com-resources-and-support-for-single-moms/to-christy-on-facebook-who-doesnt-need-the-women-s-march-beb4948e1e4b#.1cmdty8tw
One Nation = No Notion
Talking of undemocratic : Pauline almost MORE than 3 million MORE people voted for Clinton than Trump.
you suckers, you all get sucked in by the radical extremist leaders of these groups. They have not had an excuse for crazy street marches for a very long time. Tramping through the streets ranting and raving about subjects and rights that have been lied about in the media and ‘The Fire Starters” have blown the wind up your arses and your away…….OH MY you are so done trodden and all the problems of the world are blamed on two people. Oh well I suppose sheep are sheep….but in the case I can only call you mushrooms ….you have been kept in the complete dark and fed a whole lot of bullshit, so now some one comes along and picks you and your stench can be smelt for miles. You are all being led by the nose like good little slaves, and being fed by those conniving journalists. you are all stupid fools for letting yourselves get conned by the Big Money Conglomerates. your idiots don’t realise how much the big boys stand to loose if Pauline and Trump get a real chance to change the shit world you are already living in ..WAKE UP FOOLS…You are living in shit and all those two want to do is fix it back you dont realise you are f*cking yourselves front and back. EVERYTHING YOU ARE PROTESTING ABOUT ALREADY EXISTS YOU TWATS. DON’T YOU WANT TO CHANGE ??????……..SCREW OVER PAULINE AND TRUMP AND YOU WILL BE BACK IN THE SHIT ONLY MUCH MUCH DEEPER. THAT IS BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE CRUCIFIED THEM ON THE CROSS AND ONCE OUT OF THE ROAD ….HA…HA…HA…HA YOUR F*CKED.
Wayne you have absolutely no idea how the usa HAS to vote and be counted…..you are talking bullshit.
Could the moderator please have a look at Rob’s comment?
As the author I’m happy to leave it there. Unless the moderators want to edit swear words or delete it. It’s up to them.
Trish, the swear words are the least of it. It’s downright abusive, hate-mongering vitriol.
Now is your opportunity to argue against such things.
Harquebus, Surely there is no need to argue this one.
Beginning a comment with ‘you suckers’, then rambling through a poorly punctuated, ill-spelled and profanity littered broad splatter-spray, intermingling the spouting of clichés and the spitting of crude insults, further degenerating into CAPSLOCK shouting [!!!???] and rounding off with a maniacal cackle of “HA…HA…HA YOUR F*CKED” is not a particularly credible or convincing approach to conducting discussion/debate with strangers.
It creates the immediate impression of a hatefully aggressive, pointlessly muck-mouthed, poorly educated, illogical, irrational and somewhat disturbed individual.
Just have a look at Rob’s english and there is no need to argue with him. It is poor and reflects his opinion of education. And I have no respect for one who needs to CAPITALISE to emphasise. That merely demonstrates a lack of word power.
I am assuming that Rob is a product of our society and if so, how and who’s to blame?
It’s not aimed at a person but you people in general, meaning anyone who disagrees. Unless I’ve missed racist or other attacks I’ll leave it to the moderators. Considering Trump passed a bill to gag any discussion on abortion today by US funded depts or projects globally, his opinion is clearly at odds with the reality of what will happen for women and minorities under Trump and is already happening after a few days. I say leave it and let others comment on his main argument. Unless of course moderators disagree.
Ok it looks like the moderators disagreed. Onwards and upwards
Good article, Trish.
One thing about Pauline and her pathetic, opportunistic response to the Women’s Marches throughout the World, she can galvanise all left and centre balanced-thinking forces to identify their similarities as opposed to their differences.
How can we fight bad things when theAIMN keeps hiding them?
Oh, I see. You don’t want us to remove comments with excessive profanities, which we remove because we have an obligation to remove or edit (which I won’t go into now).
For your information though, the comments were not permanently removed.
This web site costs a lot of money to run, and if it weren’t for the generosity of many people who donate to the site, and through Google ads, we’d make a bigger loss than we do now. One of our conditions with Google is that the site is not littered with profanities. Sure, they get used often, but I think you’ll find that they get edited out as soon as possible. Take a look – do a search – you won’t find many examples of the ‘f’ word, despite it being used thousands of times.
It really amuses me that the people who spend most of the time complaining about how this site is run, are never those who donate towards it.
And as a reminder:
What Michael says about excessive profanities and Google is very interesting, and I daresay most people wouldn’t have known that – I certainly didn’t. While I’m not a big fan of profanity, that wasn’t what was bothering me most about Rob’s remarks. And his dodgy English didn’t much bother me, either – It certainly didn’t prevent him from getting his message across. It was the message that I really didn’t like. Who thinks it’s OK to be told that ‘your stench can be smelt for miles’ or that you are a fool, or a twat or that ‘you are f*cking yourselves front and back’ because you hold a different view. And all of this vindictive nastiness was directed by a man towards women. Please, we’re all human beings. Let’s not treat each other like this.
I came across the “stink” thing a lot on Pauline Hanson’s page – some so disgusting I refuse to repeat them. Most of us got a bit better at expressing our frustration than “you stink” when we moved out of little school.
Sorry, I don’t usually do this.
Just think this one is relevant here:
Harquebus: I believe that it has been determined by research that psychopaths have not developed the portion of their brains which enables them to empathise. Why it has not developed is not known. In the same way there are almost certainly people who, by faulty genes or prenatal accident have not developed the brain’s full potential – check out foetal alcohol syndrome, for example. In that case the mother has contributed by drinking excessively while pregnant but in many other cases a cause ca
nnot be identified – so please – don’t always look for someone to blame.
In this country, they don’t come much poorer than me. If I could donate, I would. If not for my attempt at self sufficiency, I would be living for days at a time on mash potatoe sandwiches or nothing at all which, I in my recent past, I have had to do so, don’t get up me about donations.
Profanity is easily dealt with and I think that you are just making excuses.
Meanwhile, the Robs of this world carry on uncontested while the system continues to create more of them.
Harquebus, how dare you suggest I am “making excuses”. That is an insult I am utterly appalled by. Have you seen the Terms of Agreement with Google? No, you haven’t.
Not many things make me hot under the collar, but that one did. It tops the list.
Perhaps, Harquebus can make it up to you when the system collapses, with the gold he tells us that he holds…
H, Michael offers us all this platform. Be grateful and accept his decisions. He makes them for a reason.
Harquebus, Why don’t you have a go at telling us what you think of Rob’s comment now that it’s been re-instated? You say, ‘How can we fight bad things when theAIMN keeps hiding them?’ It’s not hidden now, so now you can fight ‘the bad things’. I think a few of us would be very interested to hear from you about Rob’s remarks.
And Harquebus reckons I slur people. He’s not too bad at it himself. Different rules must apply for him.
Any insult you may have felt was not intended and I offer my apologies however, I stand by my comment. Profanity is easily dealt with for **** sake.
Silver not gold and it has taken me a long long time to build my small hoard. Once a month I get a few spare dollars for discretionary spending. Whoopee! So, I buy little silver or a hand or garden tool etc.
You know me better than that. Accepting other’s decisions is not one of my strong points.
I think that Rob has a point in stating that the status quo is ****. A few good wrecking balls through the political establishment might be a good thing.
Pauline is a harmless yapper with no bite and will go the way of Palmer United. Donald Trump is another matter however, he will fail just as all politicians are failing but, he alone will be blamed. It being his watch.
We are on an unsustainable course and it matters not who our politicians are, they will all fail because they share the same ideology, growth.
The other point which I made earlier, Rob is probably the product of our society. We can criticize him or we can hold those to account who created him.
What slur? I expressed an opinion.
Instead of making Harquebus explain Rob’s deluded defence of Trump and Hanson 3 hours ago, time to demand Rob explains why he would hold such deluded views and think he can ram them down our throats.
For the record I welcome moderation. I couldn’t care if they deleted my comment on my own article because I have faith AIMN would react procedurally not personally. There are more things to consider than any individual’s opinion. I find it odd that on a post about Hanson who I 100% believe should be moderated, there is a discussion about free speech. Curbing free speech to prevent harm is a leftist value I certainly approve of.
Yes, profanities are easily dealt with: we edit them out (eventually); block certain words from getting published; or put repeat offenders in moderation.
Harquebus, Thanks for responding to my question. But, as you know, my big problem with Rob’s comment was not that he supports Hanson and Trump, although that’s concerning enough. It’s the sheer vitriol that upsets me. Is it OK for men to treat women the way Rob has treated the women who marched and the women who have supported them? Isn’t this abuse?
Shouldn’t Rob be asked himself? Talking about someone instead of to someone is also arrogant.
On the other hand, Rob might be merely a troll who has conveniently disappeared into obscurity. Twill be interesting to see if Rob can explain his suppport Trump and Hanson and his contempt for the millions of noble women protesters around the world.
Jennifer, if Rob’s remarks had been even only half as vile as they were, I would not have engaged with him. In a case like this one, any kind of engagement just gives the abuser oxygen.
Curbing speech is not a solution. It sends bad thoughts and ideas underground where they fester unseen.
Insulting as Rob’s comment is, I don’t classify it as abuse. If these are his honest opinions then, I am willing to listen and either agree or disagree. He is, to my mind, confirmation that there is a lot more that needs to be done.
If Hanson’s speech was curbed to exclude or set aside any harmful and divisive rhetoric, we would not be having this conversation at all. If speech was curbed in the name of mitigating harm and warding off stigma, the populist nationalist movement would not have even gotten off the ground. I I’m a supporter of discriminate freedom of speech. I have written two articles on this topic. They are both on AIMN.
It is not necessary to give bad thoughts airtime H. That is a fallacy. Make it unacceptable and eventually it leaves the lexicon. Think of some of the derogatory racial terms that no-one would use today.
Rob could have chosen to express his sentiments without the abuse. He chose not to. There are plenty of places to spew venom. Here isn’t one of them.
Harquebus, You say, ‘Insulting as Rob’s comment is, I don’t classify it as abuse.’ Rob’s opinions about Trump and Hanson etc. are not the problem here (although I believe they certainly are a problem). When a man calls women fools and twats and idiots, and a few other things that seem to have been deleted, and when he insists that women who don’t agree with him are ‘f*cking yourselves front and back’, I’m sorry, Harquebus, but what that man is doing is the very heart and soul of abuse. This is what women put up with, have been putting up with all their lives, and this is what we need to get through to men like you who ‘don’t classify it as abuse’. This really is purely and simply gender-based abuse. Please take the time to consider, because every single man who is able to change his mind about this sort of thing becomes a powerful agent for change, and that could be you.
You have misread Trish’s comment, She said:
Your views on this have been expressed numerous times. We should only have to express ours once. Speech that is intended to harm others is frowned upon.
So, I hope all that educated dribble made you feel superior. You’re still a huge bunch of blind fools. You are in for a big shock.
In my opinion, it is the curbing of free speech that causes the harm. I did not misread Trish’s comment.
I had a feeling that we had argued over this before. Yes, we would not be having this conversation but, others would be, underground and we would be excluded unable to argue against.
Here is something that I read a while ago. Not entirely related but, some here might be interested.
“But the dark side is that men used their larger size to get out of the most boring chores. In 98% of all societies, past and present, women do most or all of the cooking. Even in the most egalitarian societies that have ever existed, like the Vanatina of the South Pacific, women did the cooking, washing dishes, fetching water and firewood, sweeping, and so on. Meanwhile the men sat on verandahs chewing betel nuts.”
“Bonobo females form fighting alliances to protect themselves from male bullying, but in all other great ape species, including ours, women lose out to men.”
you still haven’t explained why you think Trump and Hanson have the solutions to any of our socio-economic problems.
But you do seem to fit their supporter profile in that you think to belittle your opponents is fair game while providing no chance of better solutions yourself.
My comments not meant for women alone…they are meant for men alike and not specific. Anyone who is reading it. No not pointed at women .
An inappropriate metaphor but, I do not consider it abuse.
A **** ******* ************ *** ** * *****. Now that’s abuse.
Why do you think that Donald Trump’s band of billionaires will solve anything? Profit is their god. Nothing else matters as seen by the removal of all reference to climate change from the US government website.
Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns or to place his business interests in a blind trust should sound warning bells? The obvious inference is that he hasn’t paid taxes for years, bringing forward losses from previous failures where his creditors and contractors get screwed but Donald rises from the ashes of six bankruptcies to become billionaire president with a world full of contracts for his kids to pursue.
And it WAS a women’s march, wasn’t it? Methinks Rob is telling porkies when he says, ‘ No not pointed at women.’ What about ‘They have not had an excuse for crazy street marches for a very long time. Tramping through the streets …’ And ‘.OH MY you are so done trodden …’ And ‘EVERYTHING YOU ARE PROTESTING ABOUT ALREADY EXISTS YOU TWATS’. These remarks are ‘not meant for women alone’?
Let us rephrase that for you:
“In my opinion, it is the curbing of the freedom to insult, offend, belittle, slander, degrade or hurt people that causes the most harm to me”.
Harquebus, What a shame. It’s difficult, I know, to take a few steps in another person’s shoes.
AIMN, Wonderful bit of re-phrasing there.
So your insulting tirades are not directed to anyone in particular, be they male or female, but are merely random ejaculations of abuse being blindly flicked towards anyone who happens to be reading?
Sounds stupidly indiscriminate to me.
I am interested in further explanation of “you all get sucked in by the radical extremist leaders of these groups.” In this case, the ‘group’ was women (and friends) who represent more than half of the population. We don’t have a leader. What we do have is compassion – we care enough to march for the human rights of all. We also have good communication skills.
Let me use my own words.
In my opinion, it is the curbing of the freedom to insult, offend, belittle, slander, degrade or hurt people that denies me the opportunity to defend the insulted, offended, belittled, slandered, degraded and the hurt and to combat those that would still whisper these things in secret anyway.
I think that you are misinterpreting insults as abuse and as for taking steps in other shoes, perhaps you should.
Harquebus, Whose shoes would you like me to take a few steps in?
Hi H – I couldn’t remember debating anyone on this old article about freedom of speech because it barely got any traction at all. it was one of the articles I am the most proudest of, but hardly any reads. But sometimes life is like that.
Thanks. I will read it later. Also, I do read your articles that you send me.
Someone the other day, described a particular thread as a ‘circle jerk’ and this thread fits that description to a tee.
‘Censorship’ writ large, albeit on a temporary basis (thanks to MT), denied the opportunity for Rob to flesh out his political points. And that’s a real pity because he has much to say. In a ‘political’ sense.
A real shame.
Harquebus, Professor Google is well worth a visit if you’re interested in what constitutes verbal abuse. Here’s one offering: ‘Verbal abuse is the excessive use of language to undermine someone’s dignity and security through insults or humiliation, in a sudden or repeated manner.’ Here’s another: ‘Verbal abuse (also known as reviling or “verbal bullying”) is described as a negative defining statement told to the victim or about the victim, or by withholding any response, thereby defining the target as non-existent.’
Ah, those nasty women.
Back in 1976, an incident occurred in Belfast. If you google ‘Peace People’, you will get the gist of it. The women of Ireland, like all of the people of the world, had been told for centuries that this was sectarian violence and was, therefore, acceptable (if not justifiable) dependent on your belief.
Catholics and Protestants duking it out in defence of their gods. It was never any such thing. Henry V111 created the English Protestant church around about 1530, when he was about 40 years old. He became the first English monarch to rule as King of Ireland in 1542. He was made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he was three years old. Longwinded, but the point is the occupation of Ireland was just that. Up until he ‘accepted’ Lutheran theology, for obvious reasons, he was a devout Catholic. The sectarian conflict was a construct that suited expediency. (As there aren’t enough Catholics to fight Protestants these days, we better make it Christians V Muslims.)
The women of Ireland, way back in 1976, started marching. They said “Enough.”. They marched regularly. Their religions no longer mattered. Their allegiances no longer mattered. Their refusal to accept a life subject to violence mattered. It became the pathway to the Good Friday Agreement, albeit decades later.
The women of Iceland went on strike on the 24th October, 1975. Those ingrates wanted gender equality. As I understand it, there is an annual recognition of that first strike. In 2005, women left work at 2.08 pm on the 24th October. A reminder of the disparity between the hours they worked and their remuneration, compared to their male counterparts. In 2008, they left at 2.25 pm. In 2016, they left at 2.38 pm. The gender pay gap in Iceland (in 2016) was about 14%. They have a long way to go for parity. They are, however, the world leaders, in terms of gender equality.
Women in Black was started in Israel in 1988. Israeli women protesting against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
All of these women, according to the chump and his cheer squad, mean nought. That women of substance might aspire to a greater good is no match for a man, devoid of substance, aspiring to a lesser god.
Malala Yousafzai, another ‘mere female’, once said “We realize the importance of our voices only when we are silenced.”
Seems we have a way to go.
Thank you, Ms Corry, and most commenters. Take care
I must have read Rob’s comments four of five times now. My impression is that the insults were delivered mainly as criticisms rather than as an attempt to belittle or degrade anyone. You are too sensitive.
Kyran, Thank you.
Harquebus, Are you really and truly suggesting that poor, misunderstood Rob needs me to walk a few steps in his shoes? Are you really suggesting that when people are demeaned, belittled,vilified and so on, they should try their best to feel sympathy for the demeaner, belittler and vilifier? Tell that to all the battered wives! We do need to try to understand why people belittle, demean, vilify and so on, but not because the poor little bullies need our sympathy. We need to understand so that we can be more effective in stopping them from doing it.
Wow, a rabbottian with anger! I would hate to meet him/her in a pub after a few beers,
Trumpism is a natural teacher at releasing for and against ‘vile bile’.
I am a non card holding cash AIMN bludging moderated twit and have no idea how google is involved enough to charge the people behind this site.
I shall give my son some church cash and ask him to donate.
Harquebus, ‘You are too sensitive’. You are probably unaware that ‘you are too sensitive’ is a classic gaslighting technique.
Harquebus, you and I have so many points of disagreement on so many things (and they stand), but on many of the ‘principles’ you espouse here, I offer congratulations.
As an aside wam, you won’t meet Trump over a beer because he doesn’t drink. Alcohol free and all that.
Thank you for introducing me to a new term which, I will read up on more thoroughly shortly. It is my opinion and not an attempt at a mind bending technique.
I recall your response some days ago when comments were deleted from a heated discussion. My admiration and respect to you also in defending free speech. On other matters, as you say, our disagreements stand but, all is good.
“‘Censorship’ writ large … denied the opportunity for Rob to flesh out his political points. And that’s a real pity because he has much to say. In a ‘political’ sense.
A real shame.”
It’s a real shame that he hasn’t bothered to comment for a while so that he may relieve you of all this pity. As far as I can tell there’s nothing stopping him from doing so.
This ‘censorship conspiracy’ is getting ridiculous.
Harquebus, I keep coming back to this site over many years because there is (potentially) so many different views on offer. That’s its strength. Over the years, I’ve argued that many of the contributors should be ignored. Not responded to and all that, because it ‘encourages’ them.
But I don’t recall recommending that they should be ‘censored’ – broadly defined to include ‘non-publication’. Banned and the like.
Shit, thought we were better than that. That we wanted to hear what the ‘other’ was saying. Hateful, repugnant and the like as it might be.
But maybe, I’ve been left behind? Maybe, ‘censorship’ is the new way forward?
Roswell, did YOU delete the original comment? A Yes or No answer will suffice?
And were you over ruled?
Back to your topic, Trish, it’s a pity that the media isn’t asking the same questions raised in your post. I guess that selling newspapers is more important than holding politicians to account.
No I didn’t. I wasn’t here much today.
Matters Not, What do you actually think about the WAY Rob expressed himself here? Should people be perfectly free to use the kind of language that Rob has used, to belittle people for no better reason that he doesn’t agree with them? Just so’s we’re quite clear.
Kate Ahearne (I see you’re back to the ‘capitals’) re your question, which I will answer in brief and then draw your attention to an earlier statement:
Personally, I don’t like it. That might be my problem. But I don’t believe we are talking about ways of expression here. I am a believer that people on Blogs should be able to vomit, here, there and everywhere. But then again I have serious intellectual objections to your earlier ‘rationale’.
Lots of messages I don’t like, but that some people think that way – I want to know about it. What about you?
Or should ‘censorship’ be the order of the day? So we don’t know about it?
In short, the ‘method’ is a lower order concept.
Harquebus, allow me to add my voice to that of Matters Not in congratulating you for your principles and your patience.
I looked over the exchange and thought to myself, what is the greater danger, the expression and substance of Rob’s post, or the views of Kate A and AIM’s ‘rephrase’?
It was not a long pondering: the latter perspective terrifies me.
Again, well done.
Matters Not, Yes, back to capitals when necessary. If I knew how to produce italics in this comments section, I would have used those instead. (Although my 3 capitalised letters can hardly compare with Rob’s caps-lock rampage,)
You say, ‘But I don’t believe we are talking about ways of expression here.’ Some of us are, though, Matters Not, some of us are. For me, invective of the kind we have seen from Rob is simply unacceptable. It is bullying, and bullying is a huge problem on social media, as I’m sure you are well aware. Concern about verbal bullying and abuse on social media is not a ‘lower order concept’.
You say, ‘But then again I have serious intellectual objections to your earlier ‘rationale’. And you quote me (‘It was the message that I really didn’t like.’) from an entirely different article and an entirely different context without acknowledging what you had done. That really wasn’t honest of you, was it? On that occasion, I was commenting on a post by a person whose first language is not English. I didn’t mind at all that the commenter didn’t have an excellent command of her second (or maybe even third or fourth) language, although I did have serious reservations about the points she was making. In the case of Rob’s comment here, I didn’t like either the viciousness of the language OR the points he was trying to make. And in Rob’s case, the vilification was an integral aspect of the message. As Marshall McLuhan once so famously said, ‘The Medium is the Message’.
So, should censorship be ‘the order of the day’? No, of course not, and nobody is suggesting that it should. (And Michael has pointed out quite clearly that, apart from anything else, there is the practicality of what Google will accept and what it will not.)
I can’t help wondering what you would think if a white person commenting here were to refer to a black person as a ‘nigger’ or a ‘coon’. Would you see a case for censorship in that instance?
Poor Pauline, she is not as unique as she thinks she is. She is a text book conservative woman. All women have to learn to survive a male supremacist world, and conservative women choose compliance. This ‘choice’ is self reinforcing through male hegemony. We have to remember this, conservative women are created by patriarchy.
Rosemary, I think you will find the more recent research on brain development focuses on complex trauma.
Harquebus you really are a painful concern troll that I could do without.
Michael, I was not aware that people have to do the tedious job of editing F bombs. I will refrain from now on.
This is not a conversation about censorship at all. It is about the method of expression. If I was talking to Rob in person I would have said “Don’t speak to me like that”. If he had a point to make, it was lost because of the way it was made.
“Wayne you have absolutely no idea how the usa HAS to vote and be counted…..you are talking bullshit.” – Nice assumptions lol!
The electoral college system in America’s voting system that got Trump over the line.It’s a shame that the electoral college system is undemocratic,flawed,illogical and outdated,This article explains this well:-
Approx how more votes Clinton got than Trump.
Finally,no need for the swearing Rob.Please stick to the topic,and no need for assumptions and “projecting” either Rob.
Robert Shaw, it would be wonderful if by chance you were to start your own blog as I’m sure it’d be an inspiring example to every blog owner in the world as to how perfection could be achieved.
But you haven’t, so you just have to remain ‘terrified’ at how people run their own.
please address my comment @ 10.03 pm last night. I want to know why you believe what Hanson and Trump will do to help you, your nearest and dearest and your community.
As you can see in this discussion, most people (if not all) would not share your viewpoint but if you express it in a reasonable and respectful manner, you would likely receive the same back.
We are here because we are interested and invested in the issues surrounding this article and we want to discuss, so that we all learn, including you.
Michael, I for one truly appreciate being able to come here and feel safe, unlike places like facebook where vitriolic rants are the norm. I have no problem with opposing views but I think we are entitled to ask for a degree of civility.
This freedom of speech/censorship debate is a total red herring.
You say, referring to Rob’s remarks, ‘If he had a point to make, it was lost because of the way it was made.’ You have hit a very important nail on the head! Thank you.
Jennifer, ‘As you can see in this discussion, most people (if not all) would not share your viewpoint but if you express it in a reasonable and respectful manner, you would likely receive the same back.’ Yes. It is true that when we express ourselves with civility, we have a much better chance of receiving civility in return. That’s a very good point. On the other hand, I can’t see that anybody here has treated Rob without civility. There has been some heat under some collars, it’s true. But he has not been vilified, or called a twat or a fool or a sheep or an idiot. Nobody has told him that his ‘stench can be smelt for miles’, and so on and so forth. He’s been very fortunate, under the circs.
You say, ‘We are here because we are interested and invested in the issues surrounding this article and we want to discuss, so that we all learn, including you.’ Yes!
… which is why I want him to come back and explain …
I think the same diversion is used in the 18C debate. 18C in no way stops anyone from raising concerns or asking questions. If you cannot express yourself without being offensive then you probably don’t have anything important to say. Opponents point to two specific cases, neither of which were upheld. They then say but the defendants went through hell. Yup – that’s our legal system for you. Which is why lawyers encourage people to pursue dubious cases in the hope of a pre-court settlement.
It isn’t the law that’s bad – it’s the advice from opportunistic legal firms that should be under scrutiny.
It is “terrifying” (sorry, just had to use that word) that there are a couple of individuals who would prefer to show more respect to a new commenter who dishes out abuse than to people who discuss the article in civil manner.
It is “terrifying” that the author of the article saw no reason for the censorship but it happened anyway, the site wasn’t inundated with complaints from outraged readers to my knowledge and a handful of regulars got their collective heads together to complain
You call it “methods of expression” I call it censorship.
If it was removed for Legal reasons, say so
If it was removed so some luvvies felt better, different matter.
If this is current policy, any chance of revisiting previous posts where I and others have copped what I feel was unacceptable attacks and removing those also? It would give the site police something productive to do
“a handful of regulars got their collective heads together to complain”
“If it was removed so some luvvies felt better,”
you sigh a lot …………when people don’t agree with you
I know, boring isn’t she, Kaye. Boring to the point of intolerable.
For your information, Nurses, nobody complained. I have explained why profanities are not acceptable, which you obviously don’t believe.
I really am getting sick of you. This site doesn’t exist to be run the way you want it run. Sorry, but it’s not about you.
No, Kaye sighs when she has to read your continual rubbish. That’s why she sighs a lot.
By the way, ‘In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll’s amusement.’ From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Background_and_definitions
That describes a couple of people here to a tee, kate.
Michael, I see what’s happening here. If you moderate the obscenities – as is your right and your obligation – it makes this site a pleasant experience for 95% of the readers. But the 5% kick up such a fuss about it that it makes it an unpleasant experience for the 95%. The only solution is to put the 5% in moderation (watch them scream about that) until they are prepared to engage rather than troll.
nurses, I sighed because I have explained countless times to you that there is no clique and I am tired of your paranoid unfounded claims and the implication that I am controlled by, or seek to control, other people.
Go for it, Roswell.
This isn’t, despite your childish snide comment, about how ‘to run a blog’. This is about how you, or others at AIM, responded to Harquebus’ legitimate concerns. By all means, you are able to ‘run your blog’ how you see fit. That was never in question despite your clumsy conflation. What is in question, to me at least, was the way someone at AIM chose to ‘rephrase’ Harquebus’ words in an attempt to delegitimise his open and honestly expressed views.
I would call that a ‘verbal’.
And I find that inexcusable.
If you wish to cull Rob’s remarks that’s entirely up to you. I’m indifferent.
Just don’t meld the two issues – Rob’s expression, and Harquebus’ views – and expect me to buy it.
Save it for others.
Jennifer, well done on seeking out a fuller clearer articulation of Rob’s views. That to me, despite it not being ‘my blog’, seems a more mature way of dealing with contrary opinion.
Nurses, re: the Stinson cull. I too registered my protest only to have Roswell erase all of my posts without a single word of explanation. To me the issue wasn’t about censorship as such, but more in the way of AIM’s response to posters, like myself, who asked ‘why’.
If it was for ‘legal reasons, then surely it’s reasonable to expect a short editorial from the AIM team stating such.
It would have taken all of three sentences and the matter would have been satisfactorily addressed and closed.
Instead we had the issue blow out of all proportion into a childish argument over ‘AIM’s right to do what it wants’.
As if that was ever in question.
And so we find ourselves here again – someone with atrocious expression and contrary views set upon. His right to speak freely, civilly, defended. Conflation of issues leading to silly charges of ‘red herring’. And a few of us in the doghouse again.
And here I was thinking I would set out my thoughts and critique on the Women’s March!
On second thoughts…..
Getting back to Trish’s article, I found Pauline Hanson’s comments completely inappropriate for a politician who should recognise our democratic right to peaceful protest. Her comments about physical appearance are unacceptable.
pot calling the kettle black …
Could you imagine the uproar if every comment was held in moderation like is the case with most sites?
I’ve commented on many sites where I have had to wait until my comment was cleared. They are the rules of that site, and I commented there happy with their rules.
This seems to be the only site going around where a few commenters think that they have the right to make the rules.
I had thought long and hard about introducing moderation for all comments, but that would be unfair on the 95% that Roswell talked of. But when the 5% take up more of our time than the 95%, you sometimes wonder who we are here for.
To Kate and Roswell,
if you think this is about ‘trolling’ or ‘obscenities’ then it’s clear that we’re just talking past each other.
I can’t speak for others but this point, for me, has nothing to do with that.
Robert Shaw, I’m also tired of your constant moaning about others, and you’re continual put-down of them. As to your remark that my comment was ‘childish’, I find that insulting and, well, childish.
Quite frankly, I’m sick of the sight of you. You are one of the 5% and you are not welcome here. You make this site an unpleasant experience for almost everyone.
I have noticed that you rarely comment on the points raised in the article.
Very true, Kaye Lee @9.52am. In fact, I feel like another phone call coming along …
Kaye, he’s too busy sniping at other people.
Oops, I said ‘he’. His last identity here was a ‘she’.
That’s a bit low, Roswell. There’s no law against sock-puppeting.
Surprise, surprise. Nobody is answering Pauline’s phones!
I left a message for both Pauline and James Ashby that her disparagement of the women marchers (and their male supporters) in the Women’s March is disgusting and she should show some proper leadership if she wants to continue to get her lucrative salary.
I said I would like Pauline or James to ring me back. I wonder if they will? 😉
By the way Rob, you still haven’t returned to explain what I asked. Does that mean you’re really just an anonymous, coward, trouble-maker misogynist?
Allowing the use derogatory terms such as “coon” or “nigger” would identify the bigots and allow us to oppose them. As it is, it is illegal to use those words in a derogatory way and therefore, the bigots that whisper them in secret go uncontested.
In Rob’s case, I would hope that we have set an example in civil discourse. Pushing him away will not make him a better person nor improve his vocabulary.
The world is awash with blogs otherwise, I would have one also if, I could afford it. As you are on my mailing list, you are aware my alternative low cost activity.
To those who have defended my principles on free speech, I thank you.
My comment is awaiting moderation, again. Sigh….
Harquebus, most comments now go to moderation. It’s our new rule.
What people whisper in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. If those terms are never used publicly the next generation will either never learn them or they will learn that it is completely unacceptable to use them.
I totally disagree with the idea that we allow people to be offensive so we can identify the bigots. The behaviour is unacceptable. End of argument. As I taught my children, go to your bedroom until you learn how to behave yourself.
Thanks for that.
The response is appreciate.
You don’t know that for sure because, it is all hidden now. We don’t know what is being taught to children because, it is secretly whispered in the privacy of their own homes.
And that is exactly where it should stay. You make no argument otherwise.
Harquebus, ‘In Rob’s case, I would hope that we have set an example in civil discourse. Pushing him away will not make him a better person nor improve his vocabulary.’ Nobody has pushed Rob away. They have rejected his way of expressing himself – they have not rejected HIM. They’ve sent a clear message about behaviour that they find unacceptable. As Kaye says, ‘… go to your bedroom until you learn how to behave yourself’. I bet a few mothers here are smiling at that one! But I do find a rare moment of agreement with you about this bit: ‘In Rob’s case, I would hope that we have set an example in civil discourse.’ Yes, I would hope so, too.’.
And about having your own blog – You can set up a WordPress blog in a few minutes, and the ‘vanilla’ version won’t cost you a cent.
Kaye, ‘If those terms are never used publicly the next generation will either never learn them or they will learn that it is completely unacceptable to use them.’ Yes. I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
Jennifer, I found this email address for Pauline: firstname.lastname@example.org.
The link is http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=BK6
Home is not the only influence on children. Society also sets expectations.
Thank you, Kate. My phone message can suffice.
We’ll leave this message here as this is the active thread, but admin and authors will have trouble logging in sometime later today while new security measures are being installed. The problem will only disrupt your access for no more than a half an hour.
Thank you. That explains why I’ve been having trouble today.
Kaye, Yes, that’s what you’ve been saying all along in many different, very reasonable ways. My dear old Dad, who has been dead for many years now, used to use terms like ‘wog’ and ‘abo’ and ‘chink’ quite routinely. It is precisely because i went to school and learned that this was not considered to be OK by most other people around me, that I had the opportunity to experience the disconnect between what my Dad thought was normal and what was acceptable in the broader community. So I had the chance to consider the issues, and have been able to plot my own course accordingly. I’m not saying that I’m free of bigotry, because it’s unlikely that any of us is entirely free, (and I’m probably bigoted about bigotry). But if we want to think of ourselves as decent people, let’s behave decently towards each other, even (and especially) when we are trying to conduct a discourse with people that we just don’t agree with. As you pointed out earlier, ‘ If he(Rob) had a point to make, it was lost because of the way it was made.’ Thanks.
That only hides the problem which can then reappear. It does not solve nor eradicate it.
As I stated to M.T., the world is awash with blogs and theAIMN is not my only haunt.
Why do visit this site whilst sometimes criticizing it? Because, the intelligence demonstrated by most contributors and posters here is above average compared to other blogs. A convert to my population and consumption reduction cause here is easily worth 10 anywhere else.
It won’t “reappear” if we make it unacceptable for it to be publicly aired. Sometimes I feel like I am talking to a tape recording.
It is much more likely that the children would feel ashamed and embarrassed about what they know to be unacceptable behaviour.
The state of our world is deteriorating at an increasing rate. Trump and Hanson are the result and you say that it “won’t reappear” when, it is staring you in the face.
The children in my neighborhood have no such inhibitions.
That is a fair point which I spent some time considering. IMO the deterioration is due to rising inequality and the need for people to have someone to blame – a need that is exploited by unscrupulous politicians who want to direct attention away from their own failings. If the governments weren’t so hellbent on making rich people richer there would be less resentment. Religious intolerance also muddies the waters.
As for the kids in your neighbourhood, perhaps they should be afforded less leeway to be offensive rather than more. Back up the teachers and schools who are trying to help these young people grow into productive contributing caring members of society.
Test only – having trouble making a larger post
” … the intelligence demonstrated by most contributors and posters here is above average compared to other blogs”.
It is recognised that my presence here alone pushes the average IQ up twenty points at least.
[What people whisper in the privacy of their own homes is their own business. If those terms are never used publicly the next generation will either never learn them or they will learn that it is completely unacceptable to use them]
Yet a big part of both Hanson and Trumps appeal is from a sense of feeling verbally oppressed by the gradual progression of left initiated PCism. This PCism is readily adopted by big business as it opens a wider resource base from which they can select obedient people. Once adopted career fear arises in the corporate ranks and everyone becomes a sycophant.
Rob’s problem seems to be his faith in loose worded and headed egotists like Hanson and Trump.
I think the far more of the Hanson supporters would undertake jobs involving high degrees of physical labour (or be a part of that grouping by relationship), whereas maybe all of the Woman’s March participants would be in service industries. Working in service industry allows more frequent and deeper access to more reasoned arguments. Eg if you work with computers, you’ll use them privately for information seeking, whereas a tradie might generally only use them for entertainment reasons. Working in service industry also means one by necessity has to display at least a veneer of professional, non-offensive behaviour. Unlike within non-service industries it becomes par for the course when conversing with both clients and cohorts.
While I’d love the left to not get their knickers in not over EVERY minor issue, such as Hanson’s bit of fat teasing, or feminists and minorities over-sensitivity about everything such as Eddie McGuire joke mistakes, I have to admit that would be unfair considering how consistently loud the far right is about anything and everything they do not like.
I read this quote yesterday. “For the privileged equality seems like oppression”. If one does not feel privileged and Hanson supporters are not WITHIN AUSTRALIA when compared to say service professionals, yet they are continually lambasted as “bigoted white persons”, well of course they will feel oppressed. As it is the left saying this of course they will feel like enacting vengeance on the left.
The left do need to give people like Rob a say on left based forums. We know Trump voters have minds that fear more* so I think we somehow need to find a way, if such a way exists, to redirect their fear and anger to be anti-capitalist (for me this means anti-growth) not anti-equality. A lot of their angst is related to the repaid degree of change that has a personal effect. It is not technology change they fear or detest, it is the changes that have an effect on their personalities that large corporations are making occur both through their fool-tools on both sides of politics and by their anti-human interest practices (such as causing small local businesses to close, expecting unpaid hours, terminology, taxation fraud harming gov expenditure, boring work, lack of personality/expression at work, copycating by small business, price gouging, fraud and corruption, lack of self-determination or respect for the conditions that create good morale and innovation etc etc etc).
ROB: “you are all stupid fools for letting yourselves get conned by the Big Money Conglomerates”
You can see by this quote that there is some recognition that unchecked capitalism is one of the root causes of their anxieties related to current or future conditions, but no acceptance that limiting the negatives of big business will never really come from the conservative side and that both Hanson and Trump are very economically conservative in its traditional sense.
We spend so much intellectual energy and side taking when arguing about low level “examples” of stupidity, to come together in relation to the all-encompassing stupidity that is unchecked growth.
Personally I do not want either the left or right to win anything more than they already have. It is high time for the moderates to rule – those who are sceptical of both sides. Vote informal until such time as we see non-corrupted quality politicians.
(I said a little bit more as a conclusion – but I lost it when editing before posting and couldn’t be bothered rethinking)
jimhaz, I don’t see anything caught up in the spam folder (or whatever it’s called).
[It is recognised that my presence here alone pushes the average IQ up twenty points at least]
An intelligence so profound it must be alien ! (Cue X-files music)
(was coming up with Page not Found, even after restarting – splitting worked so must have been a length issue, I guess)
jimhaz, our web developer is working on some security issues today so there might be a few glitches while they are being updated.
Of course it does, Roswell. Of course it does. (Cue – the Outer Limits music).
Ah, you’re here, Michael. It just went down again. (Cue – Helter Skelter).
Our local schools are well provisioned and the teachers are good. It is after school that the damage is being done. The program Housos is not far from fiction where I am. My suburb was also the subject of one of their shows.
The GMH factory is a 20 minute walk away and the suburb immediately to the north has an unemployment rate of about 30%. The closure will make it worse.
This is a couple of years old but, was still accurate as of about 12 months ago.
“The suburb of Elizabeth in Adelaide has the highest inner-city jobless rate in Australia with 32.4 per cent of locals unemployed.”
It ain’t gonna be easy. I interact with the Rob’s of this world every day. They are my neighbors.
Kaye, ‘Sometimes I feel like I am talking to a tape recording.’ Love it. Sometimes the beak moves. (As in ‘Read my Lips’.) When that happens, you’re probably talking to a parrot.
Roswell, ‘It is recognised that my presence here alone pushes the average IQ up twenty points at least.’ Oh Goody! I’m pretty sure I have at least ‘the average IQ’. The extra 20% will elevate me to dizzy heights.
Harquebus, ‘That only hides the problem which can then reappear. It does not solve nor eradicate it.’ Ignorance will never be completely eradicated. Neither will all the other evils we have been talking about on this page. There will always be people who choose to vilify, belittle and demean others, the human condition being what it is. There’ll always be nastiness of every conceivable kind. But if we don’t refuse to let that sheer nastiness pollute our forums and discussions, the nastiness will prevail. Let’s change the world by being different ourselves. Let’s treat each other with respect.
jimhaz, I agree with much of what you said but take exception to these bits.
“This PCism is readily adopted by big business as it opens a wider resource base from which they can select obedient people. Once adopted career fear arises in the corporate ranks and everyone becomes a sycophant.”
“Working in service industry also means one by necessity has to display at least a veneer of professional, non-offensive behaviour. Unlike within non-service industries it becomes par for the course when conversing with both clients and cohorts.”
It is not a veneer adopted through fear. I, and many other people, think it is unacceptable to be deliberately hurtful. I see no reason for people in non-service industries to set themselves lower standards. This does not preclude criticism or expressions of concern – just express them without being denigrating and using offensive stereotypes.
jimhaz, I didn’t really get what you were trying to convey with the PC part of your comment. But just a remark about political correctness. I think it’s a heavily loaded term that is used to undermine very worthy and laudable efforts to build a better, fairer, more tolerant society.
Fair enough Kaye and Kate.
I do accept much of what I include within the term PCism is ‘desirable for all’ amicable and caring behaviour and that is something we should try and create in society. It’s one of the overgeneralisations I so frequently state. Though it may not start out genuine, it can become so in time. There is still a lot of veneer around though – you see a fair bit of this in the sports arena and from politicians.
In saying this though, I’m only partly backtracking, and highly likely to resort to form. For instance I’d like to see more “advantageous conflict” at work. One example would be the conflict that would occur from lesser tolerance to very poor English skills, another is greater expectation of quality IT performance from mainly Indian contractors, another would be to review immigrant cabals (ie where an immigrant leader employs a high ratio of folks from their own country).