If women are the fairer sex, does that mean that men are the unfairer sex?
Lately, we’ve been hearing about how hard it is to be a man. Why, Donald Trump was expressing the view that it’s a very ‘scary time for young men in America’. His reasoning? ‘You can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of’. While he his way of putting it may have create a paradox, it’s easy to see where he’s coming from after the whole Kavanaugh thing. Personally, I’ll be telling young men that in order to be safe, they should never talk to strangers or go out alone, make sure that they don’t drink, and dress in ways that don’t encourage women to make false accusations against them. Of course, there is the problem that most false accusations will come from women they know but why should I let that fact alter my right to imply that men falsely accused may have brought it on themselves…
Perhaps, David Leyonhjelm was thinking along these lines when he recently began suggesting that if there’s an Office for Women, in the interests of equality, we should have an Office for Men.
Now it’s hard to argue with David at the best of times… mainly because he has trouble following when people say things that he disagrees with. It makes him stop and go: “Hang on, you have a different point of view. This is amazing. Before you go on, I need to consider all the reasons why you can’t possibly be right… Oh, of course. It’s because you’re someone who doesn’t agree with me. Thanks, but if I allow you to continue to speak to me it may inhibit my freedom to say what I like without having to consider that I may be wrong, so shut up and stop oppressing me!”
Anyway, an Office for Men. What a great idea!
Imagine: “We won’t stop until we have at least fifty percent representation in Parliament! Hey, done! Mission accomplished… Let’s go to the bar!”
Or: “We won’t stop till we have closed the gender gap on pay. So how do we do this? Is it easier to raise women’s salaries, or would cutting the salaries of company directors go some way towards balance?”
Yes, it’s certainly an idea worth floating. I’m surprised Scott Morrison hasn’t told us tthat every day he wears a tie near his Australia pin to remind him whose side he’s on. He could adopt a slogan something along the lines of: “We support merit, but that doesn’t stop women from having a go. Bless their little hearts.”
Sooner of later though, I guess Scottie has to stop floating ideas..
Mm, interesting phrase!
I guess one could argue that – given how quickly they sink – Morrison hasn’t actually “floated” anything. It would be like arguing that one had the power to fly because one fell out of a tree.
I particularly liked the idea of reassigning funds from the NDIS for drought relief. If he wants to help the farmers, fine. I don’t think too many people would have a problem with making money available for people struggling with the drought. It’s just that the choice to take it from the NDIS has a nasty edge to it. I mean, if somebody had fifty thousand set aside for future expenses, even if one is able to replace the money later, it sounds worse to take it from the money set aside for your child’s operation than it does to take it from your new car fund, even though you plan to return it in the coming months, and even if, it something went wrong, you’d drive last year’s model and make sure your child still had his health needs met.
Now I could draw the inference that Morrison is taking it from the NDIS because he basically believes that unlike farmers, people receiving money from the fund aren’t “having a go.” Of course, nobody would openly argue that. It’s not like anyone would say, “We believe that it’s every Australian’s duty to make a contribution, not take a contribution.”
Still I can’t imagine, Scottie telling farmers that the best form of welfare is a job, so why don’t they walk of their farms and get one?
Ah well, even the conservative writers are shaking their heads at the current Coaltion mess. The IPA was aghast at the Liberals suggestions of government intervention in the energy market. I’m not sure whether this because they took Rupert’s suggestion that three years of Labor might be a price that needs to be paid in order for the Liberals to get their act together, or whether the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison/Bishop/Dutton government is so bad that to defend them would mean that any claim you had to be taken seriously would be gone forever.
I suspect the latter, but it’s a line ball.