Sexism in Australian of the year 2015

Well, Australia Day 2015 has come and gone and the five awards for Australian of the Year have been awarded... to all women.  Not a single man among them.  One article, even before the awards had been handed out, cheered the supposed "lack of sexism" in the awards this year, whilst failing to notice the lack of any men receiving them either.

Let's face it, the award has just become a political platform to show what values the government of the day is showing off.  I can't tell whether giving all of the awards to women is because there were no men who were worthy of it this year, or if it's yet another point scoring platform for Abbott to try to appease the media and show he's "still not a misogynist".

Some of the people being awarded AotY I disagree with, particularly Rosie Batty.  Now, I'm sorry that she lost her son to a violent ex-husband, it's certainly a terrible thing to have happen, but going on to speak out about Domestic Violence claiming "it's mostly a male thing" (it's actually about a 60:40 male to female split) as though she's the first one to do it when that's ALL we're hearing about.

Currently we have white ribbon day, run by an organization that basically takes money to publicize itself we've got all of those signs and billboards up stating "To violence against women, XXX says no" and whenever a woman or child is murdered by her ex-partner we are reminded about it for years to come, yet no one remembers Xian Peng whose ex killed him by chopping off his penis back in 2011.  Her name is Jian Chen and she was only sentenced to 3 years jail and is now a free woman!  No more reports about her now being free because she's served her time and is entitled to get on with her life.  No one is appealing her release because, clearly, she didn't really mean to drug, torture and mutilate him resulting in his death.

Coming back to my original point, being a victim and coming back from it to tell about it and hopefully make the world a better place is one thing, but it doesn't mean you should be awarded Australian of the Year.  What about that guy who DIED in the Lindt cafe wrestling the gunman whilst others fled?  Shouldn't he be getting an award posthumously?  Isn't his bravery the sort of fighting spirit we want to inspire in the next generation of young men?  No, apparently only two men were in the running: a gay rights activist and a disability campaigner.  Clearly gay rights and disability campaigns are out and Domestic Violence campaigns are flavour of the month year.

Interesting to note that Gill Hicks, a survivor of the London bombings, missed out on an award for the work she's doing trying to unify society (with the people whose religion the bombers belonged) whereas Rosie Batty is seeking to go on the attack against the group (men) with whom the perpetrator of her pain belongs.  Seems like a similar situation, but I doubt that Gill Hicks would have been up for AotY had she been trying to single out Muslims in the same way Rosie Batty is trying to single out men.

By all means what happened to Rosie Batty was terrible, but I don't think being a survivor of a terrible situation warrants an award.  If so, where are the awards for all of the Holocaust survivors or the survivors of the Gulags in Russia?

My biggest complain still stands, however, that the selection committee for the Awards clearly had a gender bias because I have no doubt that there was AT LEAST ONE man deserving of an award (outside of the pathetic list of nominees!), but clearly gender quotas are more important than recognizing any male achievement.  If the selection panel was made up of mostly Chinese people and awarded all of the awards to ONLY Chinese people, then maybe SOMEONE would take note.  These newspapers may claim the awards as a victory for feminism, but let's face it, the awards have benefited those who usual benefit most from feminism: white women.

As a side note, perhaps men should take a break from doing anything significant for a while, since it's looking less and less likely that anything you do will be acknowledged for it!

The inconvenient reality of the future

I've been noticing a trend that's been developing more and more and have finally decided to write about it.

Simply put, young men face a big disadvantage both in Education (Primary School, Secondary School and University) and in the work place, specifically when it comes to being hired.

The simple truth about it is that going to University and studying STEM in a field that is sure to have a relatively high starting salary, is far riskier for men than it is for women.  This all harks back to the long term trend of women choosing not to stay in the engineering field for their own personal reasons, so HR is forever chasing its tail by hiring women over men time and again.

When I graduated from University I saw something amazing happen, 100% of the female graduates got jobs in their respective fields and a little over half of the male ones did.  I attribute this to the fact that big engineering companies are trying to meet an invisible gender diversity target that means if they've got two positions to fill and they have ten males and two females applying for the roles they'll hire the two female applicants for the two positions because the department that has the positions is 80% male already (forgetting the fact that most of those males are over 50).

What happens to those ten applicants who get passed over?  Well, some of them end up in remote areas working in FIFO positions, some of them end up in small towns away from their families for not a whole lot of money and some of them give up and work in an unrelated field after remaining unemployed for a while.

So, given that women seem to be the top pick for any company, either a man has to demonstrate incredible ability, be very persuasive or have contacts in order to get a foot in the door.

Starting an Engineering company of your own really only works once you've got 5-10 years experience (who'd pay contracting rates to a recent graduate?) you've got the problem most graduates face which is you can have the job if you've got 5 years experience, but you can't GET the experience until you get a job.  A possible solution could be for an enterprising consultancy to offer Engineer internships that pay low rates but offer training, but the risk you run there is that the interns may walk off with your client base once they finish their internship, either by striking out on their own as a contracting company or by getting hired by the companies you're doing designs for, thus negating the need to contract you in the first place.

The reality is that, even though there's a shortage of engineers in the long term (currently there's a glut of unemployed experienced engineers, but once the economy picks up it'll disappear) males, for the most part, will always be second choice to female engineers, especially when organisations like Engineers Australia keep plugging how awesome female Engineers are and ignoring their male members completely.

The thing that bothers me is that there's such a focus on getting women into Engineering and keeping them interested for the duration of their studies.  This is then followed by companies having to be seen to be trying to retain female engineers.  It just seems that so much more effort must be expended to try to keep them when the truth is that if they're not interested enough to stay without all of the extra incentives, why are we supposed to bother?  If a male engineer has lost interest nobody says "but we need to make sure he's using the skills we've spent money on training him with", the response is usually "he's decided to follow another path".

Artists want money for nothing, just trust them

In a recent article by the Communist Conversation:

Copyrights are bad, mmmkay

Basically, to get the best out of our artists and intellectuals we should just give them money for five years and hope for the best.

Forget payment on results, just pay them up front.

It's note-worthy that very few of the commenters (who normally eat the stuff this website spits out up like it's the best thing since sliced bread) agree with the message.

Just goes to show, you never go full communist / socialist.

Women to be hit harder by University fee increases

I came across this article over at the communist conversation:

Higher Education changes another hit for Australian Women

The underlying message is that women will be hit harder for services they use.  So, studying that gender studies degree, racking up $40k debt and then not getting a job with enough earning potential to pay for it may not be a good idea, as it turns out.

Considering that it's a user pays system, women who CHOOSE to study degrees that don't directly lead to high paying jobs can not then complain when they realise the choice they made doesn't pay off.

I could pay to study how to fix old CRT televisions and hope that someone somewhere will need their old CRT televisions fixed, enough that I can afford to make a living and pay back my course fees, but the reality is that a market will only pay as much as demand is present.  If there aren't any people needing CRT televisions repaired (because when they finally break down people replace them with LCDs) then I'll either end up on unemployment benefits or I'll have to get re-trained to do something else.

I do love it how it's a gender issue because of the issue of too many women making bad choices.  If too many men make a short-sighted decision and lose out the general opinion is that it's tough luck.  Since it's women on the receiving end of the problem, apparently we need to re-think the system.

Compare two different rape / sexual assault cases

Here we have two cases:

Case 1:  Man jailed for for four years for the attempted rape of a 15 year old boy
Case 2:  Woman handed two-year suspended sentence for "unlawful sexual intercourse" of a 15 year old boy

In case 1 the man didn't actually have sex with the boy, only attempted to and was sentenced to four years jail.

In case 2 the woman DID have sex with the boy, the boy cried rape, it went to trial and, instead of being found guilty of rape, statutory rape, etc she was found guilty of "unlawful sexual intercourse" and won't spend a single day in jail.

Notice how the reporting style of the two crimes differ.  The whole report about the attempted rape detail the details surround the event and the one about the ACTUAL rape go on to talk about 'feelings' and 'regret'.  Never mind that the boy who said he was raped probably didn't have a say in her basically walking free and that he was clearly unhappy she got to walk away un-punished.

Lady Justice may be blind, but it certainly seems to weigh into the equation the gender of the guilty when determining sentence!

Revenge porn compensation

Here's another case of a man being punished for posting up 'revenge porn' of his ex-partner.

A husband somehow managed to get compensated for defamation of character after his wife posted allegations of domestic violence on Facebook when they were going through a messy divorce.

It always surprises me when men actually win in court, purely because with the deck so heavily stacked again them and the level of proof required being so high it's a shock when they do.

Men who don't deserve bravery award, but the women in the same situation do

Fred Nile believes that men who run to safety leaving women behind don't deserve bravery awards, but imply that women in fact do.

Whilst I do agree with the fundamental point that simply being in a life threatening situation isn't an achievement, his implication that ONLY the men should be denied this because it's their pre-determined gender duty is out-dated and insulting.

I'll bet that Fred Nile would be happy for all of the males on a sinking ship to drown before a single woman does.  I know that I wouldn't want a male relative to be near him in any life-threatening situation as he'd probably shame them into getting themselves killed for women they've never met before.

Do the men who have children at home have a higher 'right to life' than single childless men or are we all just as disposable?

Remember children, in the eyes of people like Mr Niles girls are worth more than boys and men only exist to serve and protect women and children and are otherwise completely expendable.

Update:  Apparently the only real man in the Lindt cafe was the man to wrestle with the gunman, where Fred Nile goes on to basically shame all of the other men for not putting their own lives on the line for women they've never met.  Many may agree with Fred Nile, but remember that for everyone who wants equality of the sexes in every aspect of life, there is a Fred Nile who believes that men should still die protecting any women they happen to be sitting next to in a cafe.  So does Fred believe that women should have any obligations of any kind in his world, or is it just the men?

Why I will avoid Universities at all costs

This one might be a bit long, so please bear with me.  Going through University in early 2000s was certainly an experience, not a great one, but one that I needed to go through in order to get my degree.  It also showed me several things about an organisation that claims to be about free thinking (but don't you DARE have an opinion that deviates from the overall narrative!).

1.  Low quality of service if you're 'the majority':  If you're white, male, atheist and/or heterosexual, don't expect to get treated as anything more than a low-end customer.  There are special rooms for women (Womyn's room), gay people (Queer room), religious people (every religion except Jedi get a room) and international people, but the only room available for white, male, heterosexual atheists is the pub (which isn't a University facility).  All other rooms are paid for by student fees that everyone (including those who aren't eligible to access them) pays for.  Oddly enough, males make up less than 40% of University students, so aren't males technically the minority at Universities now?

2.  Freedom to have a different opinion: If you disagree with the opinion of the person marking (grading) your assignments, expect poor results even if you do as they claim "you're allowed to have a different opinion as long as you can back it up".  The justification for the poor results you get?  They don't 'accept' the sources of information you cite to back up your point.  If you want to do well, just parrot what they say and you'll get top marks.

3.  Corrupt Student Union, morally and otherwise:  The Student Unions are paid for by students, but run to benefit the Student Union staff and further their beliefs.  Time after time I witnessed as the Student Union would make bold sweeping claims that "all the students believe X" when they had actually never asked their 'members' what they believed.  I tried questioning a Student Union rep about how they came to the conclusions they did and was told to go away for questioning their beliefs.
I also found that the competitions were very dodgy in how they were handled.  My friend and I collected many wrappers to enter a competition that they hadn't really advertised well, and the prizes include a scooter, a brewing kit and something else (a PlayStation?).  Anyways, despite submitting my entry at 5 minutes before the closing time, waiting around until the end of the competition to be told that we had exceeded any other entry by a mile, the decision to award prizes was put off until another day.
We went back a few days later to be told we had SECOND choice of prizes because some other group (???) had actually submitted more wrappers.  Having been told that the PlayStation had already gone, we could choose the scooter or the brewing kit.  I chose the scooter because I already had a brewing kit at home.  I then got told that "sorry, the scooter has gone walkabouts, so you get a brewing kit, yay for you".  So, basically, my understanding of the situation was that they'd given the two best and most expensive prizes to their friends without any proof of results, and given me the illusion of choice in the consolation prizes only to hand me the cheapest and least desired choice all along.

The following year I printed out the necessary forms to apply to get my Student Union fees back (yes you CAN do this) and gave them out to all of the people that I know.  It's only about $20 and means you can't vote in the Student Elections, but who cares about which left-wing radical voices your their opinion anyway!  John Howard tried to ban compulsory Union fees (including student Unions) and the Student Unions were the most vocal about it for that very reason.  Student Unions offer so little to average people that they're not worth the money we all paid for them.

4.  Sexism under the guise of equality - In engineering, a field where there is a LOT of focus on attracting and keeping women, there were only three scholarships available: one specifically for women and two for high achievers.  What I witnessed in my time there consisted of the only two women in my course BOTH getting scholarships because some bright spark had decided that of the two scholarships available to anyone, it would be fair to give one to a male and one to a female.  The result was that BOTH of the females in my course got scholarships and only 1 in the 20+ males in the course got one.  So, by percentage, less than 5% of men received scholarships whilst 100% of women did.  Does that sound fair?

5.  Industry jobs - graduating in an Engineering field was a great feather in my cap, but it took me about 5 months after graduating to find a job, and that was in the 'good' times.  Fast forward to now where many large companies are cutting their hiring budgets.  What I saw was something that I believe to be almost ridiculous had I not known about it.  A female graduate I recent spoke with had not one, not two but THREE job offers to go and work for three very different companies at a time when most companies aren't hiring.  This woman may have been an awesome graduate, but I suspect it's more likely that these companies are aiming for their diversity badge at the corporate challenge.
I also saw a company that took on over ten undergraduates for a 3-month placement and all but two of them were women.  That's right, workplace experience that can lead to getting a full-time position at the end of the degree and more than 80% of the positions went to women.  Now, it's possible that women on average were better candidates, but considering that women still make up less than 20% of engineering students, that's a bit of a stretch.

Overall, University is still a necessary institution for many vocations, but my advice is as follows:
A)  Know what you want to do before you get there - you don't want to spend any more time (or money) in there than you need to.  Also, don't do any more electives than you need to.  I did one (gender studies related which had us watching movies and analyzing the gender roles) that I thought would be both easy and would introduce me to a lot of women.  It was easy once I'd worked out the teacher only wanted confirmation of her bias, but the women I met weren't worth associating with and I was stuck in the class.
B)  Be sure that the course you're choose actually requires a University degree - it's a lot of s**t to put up with for something that may be optional.  There are a lot of vocations that don't require University degrees and have a much more male-positive environment (ie Apprenticeships) and you won't come out the other end with a $30k+ debt.
C)  Be forewarned about the environment into which you're entering - if you're a right-leaning person, be aware that you're views, if/when they differ from the narrative, will NOT be accepted.  Parrot back the opinions of the person marking your paper or else these preachers lecturers working at institutions of 'free thinking' will invoke the unwritten rule of marking you down for incorrect thoughts.  Engineering is typically better, but the push for women in engineering will see a lot of the tutors and lecturers being told they need to help women more so they don't get discouraged.  If you're a male in engineering, you'll gain a lot of experience with working stuff out for and driving yourself with work, primarily because you will NOT get much help whilst there.
D)  Don't waste your time with associating with the Student Union unless you're looking at getting into politics as they're mostly a group looking out for their own interests and friends.  By all means, you could get yourself in and get some of the benefits for yourself, but unless you've got like-minded friends in the organisation the attitude you'll see is that you're welcome to pay your Union fees, otherwise shut up and stay in line.  You're better off applying to get your Student Union fees back and having a nice meal with the money.  Even better, print out several copies of the request for Student Union fees refund form and hand it out to your class-mates.  Many students are generally lazy, so handing them the forms will mean that more people will demand their fees back and 'starve the beast'.  A decent enough boycott of the rotten system should force the Student Unions to take a look at themselves and make the necessary changes or they risk losing more funding and people.
E)  Apply for vacation work experience with companies in the summer - this may be hard, but could lead to a job offer when you finish.  An added incentive is that big companies usually pay undergraduates a 'low' wage of between $20 - 25 per hour - this may be low by industry standards, but is definitely more than you'll get working at restaurants or in supermarkets.
F)  Start applying for jobs at the start of your final year, not waiting until you have your piece of paper - Be aware that if you don't tick any of the diversity boxes on the HR checklist, you'll need to bring other assets to the table, which is where having done three or six months of work experience will put you ahead of other candidates who didn't.

Note:  the above was my experiences and, whilst the experiences of others may vary and there may be areas that aren't always accurate (eg there may be some Student Unions who are honest and aren't dodgy in how they operate) this is more of a critique of the system in general.  It was also my experience over a decade ago, so some things might have changed, although I sincerely doubt it as they have no reason to given the present climate.

Predictions for 2015

It seems that everyone else is doing predictions for 2015, so here are mine:

• The world will once again fall into recession.  Not only has it been the obligatory 7 years since the last one but, as history has shown us, a tell-tale sign of a coming recession is that the year after AC/DC releases any album it is usually followed by a recession.  Their latest album was released on December 2nd, 2014.
• The USA, China and Russia's economies will slow down, mostly due to their aging demographics.  The ripple effect of these massive economies slowing down will see the economies of smaller countries also slow down.
• Australia will see a bit of a slow down due to the natural progression of demographics getting older, however it'll be the lack of jobs for recent University graduates that will see the economy held back the most.  Of course the government shouldn't try to un-naturally 'fix' this problem.
• The Australia jobs market will fare quite poorly as big mining companies scale back operations due to the dropping commodity prices.  The flow-on effect is that those who previously work FIFO will try to get work in their home state, presumably for less money, and will crowd out people who can only work locally due to family commitments.  Of course, this won't stop big business from claiming there's a skills shortage and that they need to import overseas Engineers to fill the gap.  An estimated 70k engineers are currently out of work, but newspapers don't want to report that.
• The unusually high rainfall we've had over the last couple of years will fall away this year and return to the near drought levels we're used to.  They'll roughly stay this way (with a few years of extreme lows or minor highs) until the next massive up-surge in about 2030, by which time the climate change people will have secured billions of dollars of investments to get over a 'problem' that anyone who could look at historical rainfall data to realize that we're just at a predictable point in a cycle could work out.
• The medical professionals, nurses specifically, will see a much tougher time as hospitals are cutting budgets for training new staff.  If the stock market does tank, however, then it won't make much difference to the level of care as existing staff looking to retire will have to procrastinate retirement in order to top up their retirement funds.
• We'll continue to see a media bias in reporting in all areas.  Crimes committed by women (underage sex, violence, etc) will be downplayed if reported at all, crimes committed by men will be held up (women have affairs with underage boys, men molest underage girls).  Crimes committed by immigrants will be swept under the rug or censored, whereas crimes committed by white males will be re-affirmed as being such at every possibility.  As is the standard operating procedure with anyone questioning these reporting tactics, anyone pointing out the double standard is either sexist or racist (when sexual assaults were happening in my area and the suspect was "of middle eastern appearance", only every fifth article mentioned that, compared with just about every article confirming that the the suspect was "Caucasian").

I've got some fairly broad predictions, which may or may not be correct when the time comes, but only time will tell.