How interesting, but what’s the “right” answer?

Article here.

New Gallup research has found that 55% of Americans now say that if they had a new position, and it was up to them to pick a manager, they would have “no preference” in terms of their boss’s gender.

This is a far cry from the first time Gallup posed this question to respondents in 1953. Back then, 66% of Americans wanted to report to a male boss, a tiny 5% favored a female boss, and 25% didn’t mind, either way.

We are not our grandparents and therefore do not have the same socially-nurtured attitudes of our grandparents.

Perhaps this is neither good nor bad, perhaps it just “is”?

The more intriguing question is what do we think the answer will be when we’ve reached the perfect society?

That’s a leading question, of course, it infers that we have all agreed that a perfect society is a possibility and we are moving towards one.

Some might suggest theoretical perfection will have been achieved when 100% of potential employees express no preference as to the gender of their next manager.

But is that desirable or even possible? If not, why not?

Bill’s Opinion

The theoretical point of perfection in this survey is not possible while the human species is dimorphic. The physical differences between men and women are partially-responsible for personality differences.

Males and female differ both physically and psychologically. Sure, there will be outliers, an exceedingly muscular woman or a highly-empathetic man, but on a statistical basis the differences are self-evident. If this statement is incorrect and there is no difference between the sexes, why did we need a woman President of the USA and why do so many corporates operate public 50:50 Women in Leadership policies?

The survey seems pointless. Why not check to see how many people would want a Scottish boss or an alcoholic boss (but I repeat myself) as well?

What if the results never get above, say, 65% of people being happy with female bosses? Would that suggest a fault with “people” or female bosses? Would we be able to have an objective discussion around that, if so?

Pink “speaks” out

It is possible that Pink is simultaneously the least articulate and least self-aware mother alive today.

She also commended a school she had seen for having gender-neutral toilets.

“The bathroom outside the kindergarten said, ‘Gender Neutral – anybody’, and it was a drawing of many different shapes,” she said. “I took a picture of it and wrote, ‘Progress’. I thought that was awesome. I love that kids are having this conversation.”

“And I said to her, ‘Do you see me growing my hair?’ She said, ‘No, Mama.’ I said, ‘Do you see me changing my body?’ ‘No, Mama.’ ‘Do you see me changing the way I present myself to the world?’ ‘No, Mama.’ ‘Do you see me selling out arenas all over the world?’ ‘Yes, Mama.’ ‘Okay! So, baby girl. We don’t change. We take the gravel and the shell and we make a pearl. And we help other people to change so they can see more kinds of beauty.'”

Bill’s Opinion

Kids of five years old aren’t having this conversation, Cultural Marxist adults are and are projecting on to kids.

Why does Pink’s daughter get to be gender neutral while Pink is still “Mama” rather than a gender neutral noun?

Speaking of gender neutral nouns for parents, perhaps we could combine the two traditional names? Here’s some options;

Dummy – “Dad” added to “Mummy”

Mad – “Mum” combined with “Dad”

It’s the illogical conclusion

No, it’s not the first day of April; a white person claims to be “transracial.

Not content with being transgender, Adam Wheeler explains that, despite being born into a body that wouldn’t look out of place on a rugby pitch, he believes that he’s actually a Filipino woman.

Here’s Adam;

And here’s a Filipino woman;

The resemblance is uncanny, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

In Adam’s own words;

“I think things that made no sense to most people make sense to us on an individual level in almost every person, like a swelling feeling you feel when you listen to dramatic music.” 

Bill’s Opinion

It’s worth considering that everybody’s world view is incorrect, none of us have a clear epistemological understanding of how the universe works. For most of the time, this doesn’t matter, we seem to bumble along quite well with the strange worlds inside our heads coming into conflict with each other surprisingly rarely.

It’s probably also true that most people are irrational and use retrospective reasoning to make sense of their decisions and views.

In a world where there is a growing consensus among some of those irrational world views that gender is fluid and humans are not actually dimorphic, it was perhaps only inevitable that someone would eventually consider themselves of a different ethnicity. Presumably, different species and inanimate objects will be next on the shopping list.

Back on Planet Reality, it’s obvious to most humans that Adam has either an irrational craving for attention regardless of the negative consequences or he’s nuttier than squirrel shit.

The bet that dare not speak its name

We would have used the Voltaire quote, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise” as today’s title, except a cursory search suggests he never said it.

Nonetheless, this is quite an interesting discovery;

Apparently, Sportsbet and Crownbet have previously accepted bets on the result of the same sex marriage plebiscite but have bowed to pressure and removed their offerings.

In fact, we have been able to find only one Australian (well, British but their Australian subsidiary) betting agency willing to take bets on the Same Sex Marriage plebiscite.

For those not aware of the Australian betting formats, they use the decimal method. Under this method and using the odds expressed by William Hill, a $10 bet would pay a $60 return if it wins.

Bill’s Opinion

Brexit and Trump surprised the pundits possibly due to voters understanding and being embarrassed by the stigma of having to admit to the people undertaking the surveys and exits polls that they were a xenophobic, sexist homophobe.

William Hill’s offer seems fair value, therefore, if you feel that the result will be close*.

But more importantly, when did every other bookmaker grow scruples and a social conscience?

Ah, when Twitter outrage mobs get to decide what is offensive or not. This is not necessarily a good development.

 

*this does not constitute financial advice, in fact, if you were to take any kind of financial advice from this website you are tacitly admitting that you are financially illiterate and should immediately provide your email address in the comments so that we may send you fantastic investment opportunities in new and wonderful crypto-currencies.

Dear Patriarchy, I demand a full and immediate refund

 

The patriarchy is everywhere and is pernicious, racist and responsible for a large number of societal ills including under-representation of women in senior positions in government and business.

Fair enough.

Can we have a quick chat about mathematics, particularly statistical distribution before we completely agree that the science is settled on this evil patriarchy conspiracy idea though, please?

The Italian engineer, Vilfredo Pareto (a man, of course), identified the statistical phenomenon which now carries his surname. You may also know this by the “80:20 rule”.

Whether or not it’s exactly true that 20% of a group of people own 80% of the wealth of the group (in the UK, this was found to be more like 30:70) or that the square root of a group of people are responsible for half of the productivity (Price’s Law), matters not. The important point is that, over time, a distribution concentrates to a small subset of the whole. This is observed in an incredibly-wide range of subjects from error rates on hard drives to the size of sand particles.

This would suggest that, with a helping hand from a male conspiracy, all the wealth, power, influence, high-profile jobs, etc. should quickly concentrate almost exclusively to men. Just a couple of generations should be enough to see this statistical reality at play.

Let’s say we started the conspiracy just after the end of World War II, we should definitely be seeing an almost entirely male-dominated society in several, if not all, western countries by now if there truly was a heavy, cheating male hand on the scales of society.

In fact, the opposite is clearly observable in almost every walk of life in western countries. As a very obvious example, the UK is currently governed by their 2nd female Prime Minister. Hardly a resounding victory for the British branch of the Patriarchy, is it?

Bill’s Opinion

If there is truly a conspiracy of patriarchy, it’s probably the most incompetent conspiracy in the history of mankind homo sapiens. How else can it be that, after multiple generations of living with the effects of this conspiracy, there are any women in positions of governmental power, running corporations, able to own property, freely-associate with other women, travel without a chaperone, express an opinion, etc.?

This patriarchy conspiracy is utter useless bollocks and I want my subscription refunded.

Please forward the cheque to my new address in Saudi Arabia. Now there’s a country that knows how to implement a patriarchy competently.

Someone probably needs to take the role of parent here

My 5 year old son has decided that he’s a girl and, rather than distracting him with a fidget spinner or teaching him how to ride a bike, I’m actively encouraging his fantasies.

This will end well, I’m sure.

Tangentially, I’ve often wondered about the thought process used by those who believe that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”. This explanation of homosexual attraction seems to be in denial of the evidence of, until recently, how godawful that life actually is with those who “choose” it being the victims of ostracism, exclusion, violence and, prior to the 1970s in most countries, jail.

It might be argued that the same observation can be applied to transgenderism.

However, there seems to be a glaring difference between the two situations; in the first example, a person has made an informed choice, post-puberty, to have have sexual relations with people of their same rather than the opposite gender. Until they have reached the age of consent, it actually doesn’t matter much what their sexual desires are or aren’t. Certainly there’s little chance of an irreversible or regrettable physical change being implemented on their body.

In the second example someone has decided that they were born in the wrong body. The current school of thought in the progressive circles of society, including 35 year old “queer” feminist Emma Salklid, is that this is enough proof to commence encouraging this world view and, potentially, seeking hormone treatment and surgery to better-align their physical appearance with their brain’s self-image.

There is a chance that imposing Emma’s political world view on a 3 year old boy (this was the age when he declared himself as a girl) might not be the best course of action in this case. In fact, there is a chance that it might be highly regretted by the child in later life. Perhaps there might come a time when a 20 year old highly-screwed up transgender boy/girl/zirl turns to their mother and asks the following questions;

Mum, please can you explain why the fuck you took the word of a 3 year old and started making decisions that can’t be reversed, such as dressing me in skirts, organising play dates with girls rather than playing war games with other boys, commencing hormone treatment which resulted in my genitals not developing normally and, in fact, making my penis so small that there wasn’t enough material to work with for the gender-reassignment surgery?

Also Mum, why would you be so accepting of a 3 year old’s statement about gender when all the studies show that the suicide rate for transgender people is equivalent to those desperate people in German or Soviet concentration camps AND that this rate doesn’t drop following surgery?

Mum, why the fuck couldn’t you have been a parent rather than a political activist?

Bill’s Opinion

3 year old children say lots of things that don’t make sense. If they are insistent that they are a dog, most parents don’t buy them a lead and kennel.

There seems to be a mental problem at play here which would benefit from intense psychiatric help before hormone treatment and surgery become an option…..

And the 5 year old son should probably see a psychiatrist too.

The left do nothing but project

Clementine Ford is the gift that keeps on giving. One wonders whether the words “cognitive dissonance” are in her vocabulary?

This week, the most important topic for her scrutiny is the disparity between the allocation of domestic duties and her observation that women have a greater level of internalised anxiety when visitors are in their house.

Not Clementine or any of her friends, you understand, but other, nameless people. Perhaps we could give them a name? Let’s call them Mr and Mrs Strawman.

Mr Strawman is clearly related to “all the men I slept with in my 20s” of whom, “not a single one of them ever apologised for the fact that they were clearly sleeping on sheets that had never been washed and definitely smelled like it”.

Of course, it could be that there were men out there on the singles scene who had clean sheets waiting on the bed when they brought a date home, and it was just some unfortunate coincidence that none of them invited Clementine back to sample them. Hmmm, correlation isn’t causation an’ all that, but it makes one think.

In the Ford household, much angst is expended on presenting a fully-equal division of labour, witness; “We each do our own laundry and often cook or organise our own dinner, both of which stop these jobs from being naturally assumed to be my responsibility”.

Let’s stop for a moment and unpack that statement; you do your own laundry and cook your own dinner?

That’s a very interesting choice of words, isn’t it? One imagines a scenario where Clementine is sifting through the laundry basket to ensure that only her dirty clothes make it into the washing machine and none of her partner’s are cleaned by mistake.

Similarly, does she tuck into a hearty plate of tofu surprise while the poor chap is stuck with instant noodles?

Bill’s Opinion

Clementine Ford is extremely lucky; she is paid to write lengthy Strawman articles where she projects her own insecurities onto general society and then lays the blame at the door of the “patriarchy”.

In the real world, most busy couples manage to find an equilibrium and division of labour that is appropriate to their respective levels of domestic and external activity and contribution which is less about being “gendered” and more about practicality.

Ignore the relationship between supply and demand at your peril

The Norway Football (soccer) Association has announced that the female and male national players will be paid the same.

Cricket Australia recently made a similar announcement.

This prompts some questions;

  1. Will the ticket prices be set at the same level?
  2. Will the governing bodies negotiate equality of payments and demand equal TV time from media organisations?
  3. Will the governing bodies demand equality of sponsorship rates; i.e. if Heineken wish to sponsor the male sport, they must sponsor the female version at the same rate?

If the answer to those questions is “no”, what does that tell us about the true level of equality between male and female Football and Cricket players?

Bill’s Opinion

Assuming the motivation behind this is a genuine desire for equality, rather than the usual modern disease of virtue signalling, it is inept and incompetent.

Intervening to equalise supply does not result in equalised demand.

It is highly likely that the ticket prices for the female Football and Cricket world cups in 20, 30, 40 years’ time will still sell for a fraction of the price of the male equivalent.

Because people value one higher than the other.

Simple solutions to complex situations

We should have equal opportunities.

We should have equal outcomes.

One of these two statements represents a desire to help others, the other is fascism.

An Australian university study has found what everyone who has ever met and interacted with other humans already knew; personality, cognitive skills and conscientiousness are more of a factor in career success than gender.

Their conclusion; invest in training to improve women’s skills and personalities, for example in being extroverted.

Facetiously, are they suggesting we try to make women more like men?

Perhaps the differences between male and female characters have served us well as a species?

The Chesterton quote seems relevant here, often summarised as; ” Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up”. The original quotation is as follows;

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

Obviously, gender-wide generalisations are just that; generalised. A man can be a natural carer just as a woman can be an extroverted powerful leader. It’s just that statistics show trends.

Should we accept those trends and legislate against or even knowingly inhibit the outliers following their chosen career path? Of course not, that would be fascism.

Should we inhibit people who fall into the trend to enable more outliers to be successful? Again, fascism.

There is an Australian government website here which hectors us to consider the inequality across the not so lucky country.

This infographic is quite amusing;

Western Australia has a shocking statistic there, doesn’t it?

Well, it does if you fail to consider the high wages paid to mine workers. It turns out that when it comes to equality, many women vote with their feet and actively choose not to work in dangerous environments, 45 degree heat and spending weeks away from home in the remote north of the state.

95% of Australian workplace fatalities are male. See if you can find that data point in the official statistics here.

The Finance and Insurance Services gap does look somewhat damning, however. It would be interesting to see a more detailed view of the data; is it skewed by 10 incredibly-well paid men at the top of the main institutions, perhaps?

Bill’s Opinion

There’s probably thousands of reasons why there’s a pay gap between men and women.

In order of materiality though, “sexism” is likely to be far lower down the list than;

– freely-made life choices

– suitability of personality type

– attitudes to physical danger

Question the data, question the agenda behind the data.

“Significant drain”

The postal vote survey on same sex marriage is causing a significant drain on the LGBTIQ community, apparently.

Let’s just unpack that statement, shall we?

Firstly, definitions.

LBGTIQ apparently stands for;

L = Lesbian

B = Bisexual

G = Gay

T = Transgender

I = Intersex

Q = Questioning

So, the vote survey is only directly relevant to 2 of those groups then; lesbians and gays. As an aside, one wonders whether it might save significant ink and keyboard wear and tear for intersectionalists if they were to refer to lesbians and gays as homosexuals and use an H instead. But we digress.

Transgender people will be unlikely to be bothered about same sex marriage until they’ve completed the medical procedures and then, presumably, decided they are attracted to members of the gender they’ve transitioned to.

Similarly, intersex people will have fewer concerns too.

“Questioning” people are presumably still on a journey of discovery so may or may not arrive at the conclusion that they wish to marry someone of the same sex. Hopefully, this questioning is using a robust methodology such as Socrates’.

So, just the lesbians and gays then.

Why does the journalist write about the LBGTIQ “group” as if they were an amorphous lumpen mass with exactly the same desires, concerns and needs?

Lastly, what is a “significant spike”? The only numbers we’re offered are from the Reachout website service; they claim 1.5 million unique visitors a year and a 20% increase since August. So about 800 more a day then, (presumably not independently verified).

Given that Reachout are currently running an advertising campaign in favour of same sex marriage and this is their website’s landing page, perhaps there’s an alternative explanation behind the increase in traffic?

Bill’s Opinion

To suggest that there is a single common opinion held by people falling into the manufactured categories of LBGTIQ is a red herring (“furphy” in Australian vernacular).

There is an agenda behind the users of theses acronyms; to shut down debate on the issues by suggesting that there is a much large demographic with a single common opinion than there actually is.

The author of the article could have spent his/her/zhe’s 400 words arguing the pros and cons of same sex marriage instead. It speaks volumes that Adam Gartrell chose not to.