The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Good blokes or smug thugs > Comments

Good blokes or smug thugs : Comments

By Sarah Russell, published 15/4/2015

Gillian Triggs remained composed and dignified. She is a role model for all of us at the receiving end of such attacks in both public and domestic places.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
I won't side with this or the other in this ever-stupid class-war.

What I observe is that, if you, "Good blokes" have such hate for the TATs, and vice-versa, then why are you still living together as the same "nation"?

Surely the land is big enough to divide, so that nobody is forced to live under people they so hate!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 7:01:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
with 90% of children now out of detention and no drownings you would think the 'compassionate'ones would be happy. Also Sarah forgets to mention that Triggs either saw guns that did not exist or made it up. Role model? You have to be kidding.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 7:52:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gillian Triggs is an honourable person that made serious blunder.

Her purpose as head of the AHRC was to investigate human rights issues in a rational and non partisan manner, and thus provide reports that can be used as the foundation of government policies.

It is difficult for any rational person to see the deliberate delay of the report into detainees to prevent embarrassment to the labor government before an election as anything but a partisan action, and unless Triggs is an idiot, this perception is entirely predictable. The result is that both Triggs and the report are tainted, and like a court judgement where the judge has been found to have a conflict of interest, the integrity of report has been seriously damaged.

While Triggs is getting kudos for standing up to Morrison, the reality is that she has spent the commission's time and resources in producing a study/report that is unable to influence policy and can be ignored much like the labor/green showpiece senate inquiries.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 8:03:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Triggs is a dishonourable Lefty who waited till her maaates were sacked by the electorate before commencing a shallow inquisition over the remnants of a problem almost totally Fixed by the new government.

No complaints, she is heartless; as her maaates were happily drowning many with a statement of "Tragedies happen. Accidents happen".

Wringing ones hands, Pontius like while being complicit does not wash away the blood. Lady Macbeth killed only one.
Posted by McCackie, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 8:24:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting case of log and splinter in this piece.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 9:27:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Notice how the TATS who've commented prove the author's case? They've demonstrated each of the characteristics she describes in spades.
Great article
Posted by Cambo, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 9:27:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Notice that Cambo's comment is content-free and consists entirely of scatter-gun smear, just like the article?

About the only thing good about either of them was their short length.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 9:46:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thoughtful article Sarah, and likely explains a master servant mentality in people too rigid to understand just how driven they are to preserve privilege and how much their professional intransigence has cost this nation!

And just what you'd expect when narrow ideology and visionless dogma replaces reason and logic!?

And when winning replaces everything else including genuine progress?

Thus we see endless petty squabbles and the rejection of basic fair mindedness!

So, instead of genuine reform that made the tax avoiding privileged rich pay their fair share; we got instead, a granny killing GST, and most small business operators forced to spend considerable valuable time acting as unpaid proxy tax collectors!

You can see just how well the TATS accept constructive criticism, given the 'Good blokes' and the TATS were seen as two different species, and or, that they hate each other!

What's that? Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the dumbest blowhard of them all? [More tea? Lovely (pa ee) party!]

Or that the article was as ever, just the politics of envy or an attack?

Not so much as a minute pause to consider if there was any merit whatsoever in the article?

And yes, it can be hard to see yourself through the eyes of others, and none too flattering!

Then we wonder why they want to privatize income earning assets, reduce tax/revenue and increase the size of government/jobs for the boys?

Even as record foreign debt continues to balloon; over a 100,000 homeless people sleep rough every night and fewer and fewer can actually afford a home!

Or live in a veritable two storey shack occupying less space than a mobile home!

What's next in a country almost empty; floating trailer parks?

I mean, come on; what else would you expect when protecting privilege and position trumps true progress or the national interest/everything else!

Sarah; the good book advises, do not cast your pearls before swine. And given some of the snorted responses, excellent advice?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 12:03:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What possessed the author to rehash the Triggs debate now? This article is a typical example of feminist argument... point the finger at the bad men, call them names (TATS, wow so cleaver) and if anyone responds in disagreement, label them as bullies or thugs.

Gillian Triggs was caught out exercising a partisan agenda. Most of the children are no longer in detention and certainly 90% less than when Labor was in government. If anyone's actions stifled the discussion on children in detention, it was Triggs undoing of her own message by bad timing.

Get over it.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 12:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh gawd, Rhrosty, the piece was a straightforward class-politics smear polemic that ended with a self-serving whine.

The Triggs issue was merely a convenient and easily identified partisan point from which to hang the tatty mess of hypocritical smear.

Presumably Dr Russell is capable of better. Perhaps she might care to prove it.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 12:36:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah wants to defend the indefensible; the behaviour of Gillian Triggs. When a lefty has no defence, they attack.
So the author baselessly attacks the good blokes. Any doubt that she is wrong is removed by the support from the hound. He unerringly works out what is wrong, and then supports it.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 3:31:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns, "An interesting case of log and splinter in this piece"

You are right.

General comment
While this is an opinion piece and some leeway is allowable, one nonetheless expects some evidence of academic rigor from a PhD. There is already an abundance of tabloid journalism.

"TATs" LOL, childish.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 4:26:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns: “scatter-gun smear”. I like that – it’s a very good description. Such pieces as this ‘article’ are tiresome and self-indulgent.

If the author has a problem with those she describes then she should do something about them. Describing them and telling us she does not like them is totally self-indulgent and an abuse of her position. Trying to make out like she cares about the Forgotten Children is simply a smoke screen to have a rather childish whinge about those who are in power.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 5:53:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you Sarah about the existence of the 'Tony Abbott Type' or TAT. David Manne has written extensively on Tony Abbott including a Quarterly Essay, and I felt at the time of reading that Manne had missed that GPS born to rule dimension/explanation of Abbott's character.
I too went to a similar GPS school at about the same time as TA and it took me by surprise to discover their inadvertent hypocrisy. For example they would say 'we teach you how to think not what to think' but if you then challenge the existence of their precious god then you immediately become an outsider and troublemaker. (I was told to read Corinthians as proof of their argument!). Similarly if you go into a TAT's home they will preach female equality but the (slim, manicured) wife is waiting hand and foot on her (obese) husband.
The problem for Tony Abbott now is that he has been promoted to a position above his ability, hence his continual foot in mouth disease and frequent back-pedalling. The plus side is that he has antagonised both sides of politics and raised real questions about the nature of leadership. Finally perhaps the right questions are being asked as TA inadvertently draws attention to the broken model that is politics in Australia at present.
Posted by TimH, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 6:35:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TimH,

I'm amazed at this fantasy world you live in. I don't believe a word. This fantasy land where beautiful dutiful wives look after obese husbands. What a crock.

I don't believe you went to a GPS school either.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 6:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TimH, your comments and support for Sarah's views are very suspicious, especially given this is the only post you have ever made on OLO.

It's just too convenient that a man with a similar education to TA just happens to find OLO and this discussion, just in time to defend poor Sarah, who happens to be under full scale attack. Who knows, maybe you are actually Sarah in disguise, it wouldn't surprise me.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 7:35:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm trying to get my head around some of Triggs' decisions:

* a bloke murders his wife and she (Triggs) recommends that he be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.

* the number of boat-people in detention declines by 90 % and THEN she releases her Report, after years of silence.

Ah, I understand now ! She was having a go at Abbott. Got it.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 16 April 2015 7:57:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most biggotted artical I've come across in a long time. Terrible generalization after generalization. You'd expect more from a first year women's studies student.
Surely white women are the most privileged species on the planet. By practically all indicators white women do about the best of any 'identity' groups yet all we get from cretins like the author is more whining. If she doesn't like white men I suggest she move to Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. She won't find many of us there.
Posted by dane, Thursday, 16 April 2015 10:56:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An extremely poor defence of Gillian Triggs by Sarah Russel.

Of course, Sarah did not have much to work with. Triggs got caught red handed using the publically funded Human Rights organisation to push a political line and aid the Labor opposition. Triggs did this because Labor shares her vision that the best way to solve third world poverty is to have the entire third world jump into boats and head for Australia. Triggs's actions were so blatant and politically partisan that Sarah was going to have to get creative to defend her. So Sarah needed to break a few of the trendy lefties moral absolute boundaries to try and put together a half way credible defence.

Sarah started with a red herring. Lead the readers away from the real issue, which is of course Gillian Triggs's screamingly obvious politically partisan behaviour. Sarah did this by indulging in a little stereotyping, prejudging and labelling.

Please note, normally trendy lefties get apoplectic when "racists" stereotype, prejudge and label minority groups who the trendy lefties champion. But when it comes to the groups of people that trendy lefties don't, like, suddenly these supposed evil vices are fair and reasonable tactics.

So what did Sarah do? She identified a group of males by first labelling them with an offensive name, and then prejudging them with a long list of negative traits to categorise them with a negative stereotype.

My own stereotype of country shopping asylum seekers is that they are just economic migrants desperately trying to escape the poverty caused by their own people's cultural values, and their stubborn resistance to getting their birth rates under control. And my stereotype of Sarah Russel and Gillian trigs is that they are part of a new caste of people who despise their own people and culture, and they will always work against the interests of their own people. This they think makes them morally and intellectually superior.

Personally, I think that my negative stereotypes of country shopping asylum seekers and trendy lefties is far more accurate than Sarah's negative stereotype.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 17 April 2015 7:10:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

May I address to you the same question as I addressed Sarah in my first post:

Obviously Sarah hates TATs and you hate SRTs (or GTTs), then why are you still living together as the same "nation"?

Had you and Sarah been in a domestic situation, surely you would have gone through the family-court decades ago. Surely the land is big enough to divide, so that nobody is forced to live under people they so hate!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 17 April 2015 10:01:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu.

I read your post and could not understand what in the name of God you are trying to say.

Who or what is a TAT?

1. Begin with a clear premise.
2. Support your premise with a reasoned argument.
3. Respond to your opponents premises and arguments using logic.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 17 April 2015 12:49:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

1. "TAT" was defined by the author as "Tony Abbott Types". I extended that to "SRT" (Sarah Russel Types) and "GTT" (Gillian Triggs Types).

2. Opponent? I don't see you as an opponent, I only asked you a question. I even declared at the start that I won't take sides in this ever-stupid class-wars.

3. Clearly you hate Sarah and Triggs to the core (as they hate you just the same, as expressed by this article).

My question for you (as I earlier questioned Sarah but received no reply), is:

Given this hate, what if anything still makes you want, perhaps even insist, to share and belong to the same "nation" as they, where you keep fighting bitterly and endlessly, rather than split the land and live peacefully each according to their beliefs and preferences?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 17 April 2015 2:10:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

You are poisoning the well. Which opens you up to a claim that you only want to stymie the debate.

Freedom of speech is what is being exercised here. That is despite this noxious regulation that endeavors to prevent it,

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 17 April 2015 2:53:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OTB, Yuyutsu is not by any means "poisoning the well", he is simply asking a question that has part of its basis in the original article.

If LEGO doesn't identify as a "TAT", then all he has to do is say so, but whether he does or he doesn't, Yuyutsu's question remains valid.

It's also interesting, so far from stifling discussion, he is encouraging it. There is no issue of freedom of speech involved, except perhaps that some here might prefer that Dr Russell not exercise hers.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 17 April 2015 4:24:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I don't think hate has anything much to do with this subject. It's basically a straw-man, or red herring. What are the issues, that's the question ?

Did Triggs keep silent for all those years, until Labor was chucked out and Abbott/Morrison rapidly cut back the number of people in detention (including children) by succeeding in stopping the boats ? What proportion of refugees are now coming to Australia through the proper channels, filling out the forms and waiting their turns in the vast camps of Africa and the Middle East, totally unable to ever accumulate enough thousands to get on a boat ?

Did Triggs, for God knows what reason, reward a wife-killer (so much for opposing domestic violence) to the tune of hundreds of thousands ? Is there something she knows that the rest of us don't ? Is that bloke actually some sort of saint, totally innocent of lifting a finger to his dear wife for whom he grieves constantly ?

So many unknowns !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 17 April 2015 4:28:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

What possible purpose is served by this then?

Quote, "Clearly you hate Sarah and Triggs to the core (as they hate you just the same, as expressed by this article)."
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 17 April 2015 4:47:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, I'm not sure that you're quite right. The author's article is arguably based on her "hatred" of "TAT's and I suspect that a fair amount of that is reciprocated, as Yututsu points out, while the Triggs issue is the real red herring on both sides.

In other words, in the absence of Triggs, a similar piece and a similar reaction would be likely to emerge, based on whatever premises seem to suit at the time.

What is really interesting is that it may well be that there is no article the author could write that would not be subject to a similar reception to this one from some of the respondents here.

So while "hatred" may not be the right word, it seems to me that the behaviours evinced may well be almost indistinguishable.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 17 April 2015 4:50:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crai Minns, "So while "hatred" may not be the right word, it seems to me that the behaviours evinced may well be almost indistinguishable"

You too are poisoning the well.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 17 April 2015 4:56:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Given this hate, what if anything still makes you want, perhaps even insist, to share and belong to the same "nation" as they, where you keep fighting bitterly and endlessly, rather than split the land and live peacefully each according to their beliefs and preferences?"

I'm sorry Yuyutsu but this 'question' actually doesn't make any sense; once again you haven't thought through the big picture or ramifications of your solution.

Here we have two parties that disagree so you suggest we simply divide up the nation and then give them each half to live in. The problem is this is only one issue of disagreement; there are hundreds of other interest groups that can't see eye to eye; how many ways do we carve up the nation.

Maybe we should just redistribute the populace into the existing states and territories... Tasmania for all the greenies; WA for the climate deniers'; SA for Libs; ACT for the feminists; NT for all non-white ethnic types; NSW for the Laborites; and Queensland for outdoors minded folk. Then close the borders... but no that doesn't work because you believe anyone should be allowed to travel freely across any border without restriction.

I really think you should re-read your posts; they may seem genius inside a cloud of wacky-tabaccy but more often than not much of what you say simply defies logic and doesn't stack up in a practical sense.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Friday, 17 April 2015 5:10:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CH, I took Yuyutsu's question to be an example of reductio ad absurdum, designed to make people think, rather than being a seriously literal proposal.

How do people with viewpoints that are so completely at odds ever arrive at compromises that might minimally satisfy?

And as for poisoning the well, perhaps a bit less talk of "wacky-baccy"?
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 17 April 2015 5:20:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear OnTheTeach,

I read here an article that is full of hate and I see replies that are also full of hate - so I wonder why those people who hate each other so much want to stay together.

Of course I rather stymie this stupid debate which has already lasted over a century with no resolution (but with terrible consequences, including the failure to address so many real issues which I find so much more important) - and suggest a simpler solution instead. Do you actually believe that a debate could ever convince either side while real conflicting interests are at play?

Just as you may freely express your support of either the red team or the blue team, I may also express my view that people who don't like each other should better each go their own way rather than attempt to subdue the other.

Dear Joe,

In this instance, the issue of hate is more serious than the specific blames thrown at each other. We are looking at two tribes which would rather see each other on their dinner plate.

Dear Hippie,

Lets take it a step at a time: I will be more than happy to have a discussion on the practicalities once the quarrelling sides agree in principle that separation is at least not a bad idea.

I never made my preference for smaller independent countries a secret, but this doesn't mean that populations will be forced to move; or won't be free to travel; or that borders will be closed. International agreements are quite possible, most of Europe for example has open borders, much of it a common currency and the NATO alliance for common defence.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 17 April 2015 5:34:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig, I think you are giving Yuyutsu more credit than he deserves. Going on his track record, he would be deadly serious with his question.

But, I take you point regarding the reference to him being high when he posted the question (twice). My apologies Yuyutsu, I'll aim to be less sarcastic toward you in the future.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Friday, 17 April 2015 5:34:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Yuyutsu, I despise Gillian Triggs and Sarah Russel and every other person who wants to destroy my society for their own vanity. I share the same country because there is nothing much I can do about it these people except to ridicule them.

The problem of splitting the land and forming one land for the white racists and one for the multicultural white haters, is that our white society would of course be successful and prosperous, while the multicultural society would be dysfunctional and bankrupt. The multicultural Australian nation which Gillian Triggs and Sarah created would be FUBAR'd so much that everyone in multicultural Australia would be swarming over the border into white Australia wanting "Asylum."

This is pretty much already happening. The Australians are fleeing multicultural suburbs and forming their own suburbs in new housing estates on the city fringes. The only white people who remain in places like Auburn and Punchbowl witht heir almost nightly shootings are angry and frightened elderly folk, who can't afford to move.

I don't know where Gillain Triggs and Sarah Russel live, but you can bet it is in some leafy white middle class alcove as far away from multiculturalism and it's problems as they can get. It may be fashionable to pretend that you hate your own and prefer ethnic Australia, but most of the people who advocate multiculturalism try to keep as far away from it's consequences a possible. The Labor member for Cabramatta lives in Coogee.

The problem for white society is that we are running out of places to keep away from everybody else. I mean it is flattering to think that everybody wants to live in our countries, but I prefer for them to say in their own countries, solve their own problems, and stop invading mine.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 17 April 2015 7:32:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, "most of Europe for example has open borders"

There are unforeseen negative consequences too.

Sure it suits migrants but has (say) the UK public always gained? The answer is emphatically in the negative and the UK parliament is considering its options after receiving solid boots to the backside from a public exasperated by TOO HIGH and poorly managed immigration.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 17 April 2015 7:53:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CH, you may be right...

However, judging from the answer to his question, I'd say the characterisation of "hatred" isn't too strong. What a horrid mind some people inhabit.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 18 April 2015 8:28:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The Labor member for Cabramatta lives in Coogee.' says it all Lego. The Australian voter has been very dumbed down. Its like many of the protestors who are finding another way of causing civil unrest by protesting about aboriginal community closures. Had a mate who visited a community recently. Out of a dozen or so houses only one family in community. The rest travelling around other communities (oe in prison). Of course a full time teacher was living there. What a joke.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 18 April 2015 9:07:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

Thank you for your reply - much appreciated!

I still see no reply from Sarah and her side!

It goes without saying that technical problems, such as border-protection, must be addressed at each step and deliberated carefully: I can see more than one solution to the issue you raised, but I am sure that this is something which an independent country is quite able to work out for itself.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 18 April 2015 7:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you to all who have commented on my article. I welcome debate on the issues that I raised in my Opinion Piece. Due to the word length restriction, my response will come in two separate posts.

In all online discussion groups, my avatar is “Sarah Russell”. I have never logged on to any online site as “TimH”.

ConservativeHippie is correct. My Opinion Piece uses a feminist framework to interpret certain types of behaviour. In hindsight, I agree with both ConservativeHippie and onthebeach –it was cheeky to coin the acronym TATs. I regret doing this and apologise if this acronym offended anyone.

The primary purpose of my Opinion Piece was to describe certain behaviours that are sometimes used to silence debate. I chose to “rehash the Triggs debate now”, ConservativeHippie, because the way Tony Abbott treated Professor Triggs illustrated my point.

Tony Abbott decision to respond aggressively to Gillian Triggs (and also Juan Mendez, the author of UN’s “Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”) silenced a debate about the content of the report. Dismissing Professor Triggs as a “dishonourable Lefty”, as McCackie does, is another tactic sometimes used to silence debate.

Rather than attack Gillian Triggs, our prime minister could have chosen to discuss the content of the reports and its recommendations. Jonathan Green suggested a more respectful way for Tony Abbott to respond to the Human Rights Commission’s report.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/green-the-speech-abbott-could-have-made-about-triggs/6263032

I note with interest that Julian Burnside described Tony Abbott’s behaviour as “bullying”.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-a-bully-over-un-convention-against-torture-20150310-13zk4s.html

I also note with interest that Australia’s peak law bodies and academics support the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs. They go so far as to warn that attacks on her by the federal government are “a threat to democracy” http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/15/academics-and-law-bodies-warn-attack-on-gillian-triggs-threatens-democracy?CMP=share_btn_fb

I am not “kidding”, runner, about Professor Triggs being a role model for all of us who have been bullied by men in positions of power. I admire how she remained calm, particularly during the aggressive questioning during the Senates Estimates Hearing http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-estimates-turn-aggressive-as-coalition-senators-line-up-to-take-a-swing-at-gillian-triggs-20150224-13nmtx.html
Posted by Sarah Russell, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 11:55:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason I am impressed with Professor Triggs is that she did not engage with the personal attacks. For example, she has taught me not to respond to people who call me a “cretin”, as dane did.

I am interested in evidence to support dane’s view that “white women are the most privileged species on the planet”. In my view, the prevalence of domestic violence, rape, glass ceilings, inadequate childcare, political underrepresentation, catcalling, bullying and financial disadvantage such as unfair pay and unequal superannuation all suggest a lack of privilege.

In response to Yuyutsu suggestion that I “hate” people with different views, quite the opposite is true. I learn a lot from talking with people who have different views, including those who have responded to my Opinion Piece. I certainly do not advocate people with different views living in different locations. I do, however, advocate people engaging respectfully with difference.

Unlike Shadow Minister and Lego, I do not believe that the The Human Rights Commission’s report was partisan. The interviews with children in detention took place between January 2013 and March last year (i.e. under both Labor and Coalition governments). The report criticised both Liberal and Labor’s policies that detain children.

Loudmouth brings to the discussion Professor Triggs response to Mr John Basikbasik’s complaint. It is my understanding that Professor Triggs reported that the government’s treatment of Mr Basikbasik was inconsistent with the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It seems reasonable to me that to hold a man for eight years after he has served his full prison sentence is something that requires at least the regular consideration of his case, as Professor Triggs suggested in her report
Posted by Sarah Russell, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 11:56:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah,

With all due respect, you have either failed to read what I wrote or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

My claim was not that the report was partisan, but that the timing of the delivery of the report was partisan, and for this we have Triggs' own words that she delay the release of the report. While the AHRC might have interviewing children until March 2014, it is entirely unnecessary to take 15 months to prepare a simple report on a couple of hundred child detainees that could be done in 3-6 months at worst.

As for Triggs' determination that John Basikbasik should be released from immigration detention and awarded $350 000 after beating his Australian pregnant wife to death with a bicycle was bizarre to say the least, especially since Triggs admitted that the detention was entirely lawful under the immigration act and the UNHCR charter as JBB was not an Australian citizen. For anyone that has actually read the charter, no country is obligated to grant asylum to a criminal even if that criminal is a genuine refugee.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 2:51:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I apologise, Shadow Minister, if I misrepresented your argument. I did not do this intentionally.

I agree that Gillian Triggs is an honourable person.

It is my understanding that the Human Rights Commission's report was delivered to the Attorney-General, George Brandis, in November 2014. However, it was not tabled in the Federal Parliament until 11th February 2015.

Regarding the timing of the actual Human Rights Commission's enquiry. Some people, such as Chris Kenny (The Australian, March 4th 2015) believe that Professor Triggs “failed to explain why she delayed the inquiry into children in detention”.

Ben Saul, Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney, on the other hand, believes the Commission has fully explained the timing of its inquiry. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/saul-attacks-on-commission-unbefitting-our-government/6115078

Irrespective of the timing of of the Human Rights Commission’s inquiry, the delivery of the report and the tabling of the report in parliament, I believe that either the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, or the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, orThe Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Michaelia Cash, should provide a substantive response to the Human Rights Commission’s report and its recommendations
Posted by Sarah Russell, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 3:33:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done, Dr Russell!

Your response was a much more worthy effort than your original piece and I applaud you for it and more especially for the courage to apologise for an ill-considered approach to the original.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 5:58:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sarah,

Thank you for your response. I am glad to hear that you do not hate other people, even if they have different views and I appreciate that you like learning from them.

Now what happens when you do successfully learn from each other to the point that all misunderstandings are cleared and you agree on all the facts, yet you still find that your values, or your dreams, are fundamentally different and incompatible?

Is it the case, in your view, that yourself and Abbott essentially want the same and only disagree on how to get there, or is it that you desire different and conflicting outcomes?

If it is the former, then how come this "Left"/"Right" conflict was not yet solved in over 100 years?

I definitely support "people engaging respectfully with difference", yet how can one maintain the respect when the differences come down to one's core values and one's success in living according the their values and fulfilling their dreams - is the other's failure?

My solution is to separate, to create space, so that people of fundamentally different values can live independently of each other rather than be tempted to subjugate each other for the fulfilment of their dreams. Moving physically to different locations is indeed of last resort, so if only possible, it's best when this separation is only in governance, not in geography, which could be the case if both sides are committed to "live and let live" without enforcing their dreams upon others.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 6:42:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah,

'not to respond to people who call me a “cretin”, as dane did'

You disparage millions of men of who are white and heterosexual with the insinuation that they are somehow 'smug thugs' with a 'toxic sense of entitlement' but then claim you don't respond to personal insults. I guess that's one positive because you sure do know how to dish them out.

'I am interested in evidence to support dane’s view that “white women are the most privileged species on the planet” '

Feminists are now the establishment. Women control our schools, universities, and government. Women have much better life outcomes then men by practically every measure. Girls have long outperformed boys at school and universities, they work less hours per week on average for less years in jobs that are less dangerous than men. Women receive more health care funding than men, take more sick leave than men, take more time out of the workforce than men and retire earlier than men only to live about 6 years longer than men.

Women initiate more divorces than men because they know they they will get the house and kids while men will get the bill....the list goes on and on.

Then you have the gall to rehash long debunked myths like a gender pay gap, domestic violence, glass ceilings, superannuation differences etc.

A cretin is a stupid or mentally obtuse person. I was incorrect to call you a cretin. It is the legion of men who willingly go along with their own demonision and marginalisation at the hands of feminists like you who are the real cretins.
Posted by dane, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 6:53:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah:
“it was cheeky to coin the acronym TATs. I regret doing this and apologise if this acronym offended anyone.” So your are only sorry if you have offended someone. You are not apologising for your behaviour which was intended to offend but only if it hit the mark.

Why do you need to use a ‘feminist framework’ to interpret behaviour? If the people you describe have behaved in an unjust or aggressive way then it is enough to show how they have done so and leave the reader to interpret whether or not their behaviour is sexist. It is enough to point out that Tony Abbot’s behaviour was that of a bully – it is irrelevant that he was a man. It is the bullying aspect that needs to be challenged not the fact that he was a man. Are you suggesting that bullying is the sole prerogative of men?

So many of the other attributes that you ascribe to ‘TATS’ are human behaviours that are equally displayed by women when they are in positions of power. The problem for you seems to be that men are in power and you think that by describing their faults and failings you are presenting an argument for more women to be in power. There may be an argument for more women to be in power but not for those reasons.

Your opinion piece is not an opinion piece about the issue Griggs was addressing. It is a lament that men have positions of power and the Griggs issue is just an example of how they sometimes abuse that power. If you have a problem with men having so much power then you should approach that problem by using your reason and wit and not by trying to pretend that women would be any different.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 10:05:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah,

Now I believe that you are being deliberately disingenuous for the following reasons:

a) Your link is to an opinion piece by Ben Saul, (who for all his qualifications leans strongly in favour of refugee activism), and his ready acceptance of "the dog ate my homework" excuses carries little weight especially since he was subsequently proved wrong.

b) the link predates Triggs' own admission that she deliberately delayed the submission of the report so as not to affect the elections, which irrespective of her stated motivations, saved the Labor party from embarrassment on subject that was hurting it in the polls. This was an action that clearly favoured labor over the Libs, and given the absolute need for Triggs to be non partisan, this was either incredibly naive or deliberate.

c) Triggs also admitted having discussions with Chris Bowen leading up to the election. Which given b) looks like collusion.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 1:44:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi SM,

And, once she released her report, did Triggs say anything about the dramatic reduction in the number of people affected ? The number of children affected ? And the efficacy of the new policies ?

Conversely, did she complain about the high numbers under Labor ?

So much for impartiality. Let's move on.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 1:52:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I do not agree that people with different values should live separately. I enjoy living in a multicultural society. I think it is better for all of us to acknowledge and respect each other’s different values, religions etc. My problem (and the reason for writing my Opinion Piece) is when leaders in government, the community sector and the corporate world do not engage respectfully with alternate views.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 6:10:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dane

My intention was not to disparage all men but only those who do not respond respectfully to alternate views. I do not believe that all men have a “toxic sense of entitlement”. But I believe some men do. The former Victorian Chief Commissioner of Police, Ken Lay, supports my view. He said: “Our culture is filled with men who hold an indecent sense of entitlement towards women”.

Evidence supports your view that women live longer than men, and that girls do better than boys at school and university. However, evidence does not support the claim that “Women control our schools, universities, and government”.

1. Schools
The latest OECD Teaching and Learning International Study found that Australia has a significantly lower proportion of female principals than men, despite women being the majority of the teaching workforce. The study showed that while 57% of secondary teachers are women, only 39% of principals are female. http://www.educatoronline.com.au/news/calling-all-female-principals-where-are-you-194888.aspx

2. Universities
In Australian universities, 65% of Deputy Vice Chancellors and 77% of Vice Chancellors are men. Studies by the OECD show that women have not made significant progress in terms of promotion. http://theconversation.com/female-leaders-are-missing-in-academia-27996

3. Federal government,
There are 18 men and 2 women in the current cabinet.

Regarding your claim that gender pay gap, domestic violence, glass ceilings, superannuation differences are myths:

1. Gender pay gap
In Australia, women working full-time earn 16% less than men. In every occupational category, there is a gender pay gap. https://www.wgea.gov.au/addressing-pay-equity/about-pay-equity

2. Domestic violence
According to the Personal Safety Survey, 15% of Australian women have experienced physical or sexual violence from a previous partner and 2.1% from a current partner. In contrast, 4.9% of Australian men had experienced violence from a previous partner and 0.9% from a current partner.

3. Glass ceilings
According to a recent business report, women occupy 22% of senior leadership roles. http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/australias-glass-ceiling-still-strong/story-e6frfkur-1227249189152

4. Superannuation
Currently, the average superannuation payout for women is a third of the payout for men - $37,000 compared with $110, 000. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/gender-gap-retirement-savings

I have no experience of divorce but my expectation is that the Family Court’s decisions are just.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 6:14:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LM,

While I fully agree with the policy of stopping the boats, I am not entirely comfortable with having children in detention especially for extended periods.

The purpose of the AHRC is to investigate areas where potentially human rights are being infringed or abused, and bring them to the attention of the government and the public at large. These reports are always uncomfortable and embarrassing for whichever government is in power, which is entirely their purpose, as it spurs action to rectify these breaches.

However, it is my opinion that Triggs entirely overplayed her hand, and in doing so ended up not only sabotaging herself but the entire report. A wiser ploy would have been to submit the report in a timeous manner in say July, making children in detention an election topic, and enabling the AHCR to extract promises that would be impossible otherwise. An inquiry a year later could be used to measure the actions against the commitments.

Instead we have a report handed to incoming government who can justifiably blame everything on the previous incumbents, and an immediate inquiry that pretty much will get the same response. Her admission to what is perceived as a partisan action has now enabled the government to wash their hands of her.

While Triggs cannot be sacked, she can now be ignored, while she remains in office her and the AHRC's ability to influence the government is now close to zero. And while the left has taken up arms to defend her, the honourable thing to do now would be to resign, and anyone that wishes to advance human rights should recognise this.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 6:19:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Phanto

In addition to the responses on Online Opinion, I also received many private emails after my opinion piece was published. Some people liked the acronym, others found it offensive. I apologised to those who found it offensive. The purpose of my opinion piece was to challenge readers, not to offend them.

Regarding a feminist framework: All of us use a specific lens/framework when we observe social issues, whether or not we are conscious of it. In my line of work, we are expected to articulate the framework we are using to analyse social issues – so others know where we are coming from. A feminist framework shows that a person’s gender influences attitudes and behaviours towards them.

I agree attributes that I ascribed to ‘TATS’ are also displayed by some women when they are in positions of power. It has been suggested that some women feel they need to behave like men to get ahead. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201108/do-women-have-act-men-be-successful-leaders
Posted by Sarah Russell, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 6:19:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister

After your earlier response, I read a few articles in The Australian, The Age and ABC online. I was more persuaded by Ben Saul (The Age) than Chris Kenny (The Australian) though I am happy to concede that you know more about the timing of the report/inquiry than I do. Your avatar also suggests that you know more about politics than I do.

The reason I provided a link to Jonathon Green’s article is because it showed how a substantive response to the report would have carried more weight than merely dismissing it as partisan. It remains my view that senior members of our government, including present and past Ministers for Immigration and Border Protection and those on the senate estimates hearing should demonstrate that they have read the report, and respond to it and its recommendations. In my view, simply dismissing was a mistake. Ditto the UN report.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 6:20:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sarah,

I appreciate that you enjoy living in a multicultural society, that's nice and it's really nice when people with different values can live together so long as those values are compatible, requiring none of them to compromise on their core values.

But what do you do if and when values are incompatible?
For example, when one group believes in economic/industrial growth while the other believes in "back to nature"?

Or, to make an extreme case, suppose one group believes in the sanctity of human life, the second believes in the sanctity of all biological life (so killing an animal is judged as murder), while the third group believes that sacrificing first-borns to their deity is good, both for themselves and for these first-borns.

With lots of goodwill, if the concept of "live and let live" is mutually respected, then those three groups could perhaps agree on how to live together, albeit with separate governances. The first group would have to agree not to kill the animals of the second group and to be tolerant of members of the third that sacrifice their child. The second group would have to agree to be tolerant of those of the other groups who kill their animals and/or children and to guard their own animals so they do not stray onto the property of the other groups. The third group would have to agree not to kill the animals of the second group or any children but their own.

But I cannot see such goodwill at present and as you say, leaders in government, the community sector and the corporate world do not engage respectfully with alternate views. In fact, I'm afraid that they now go in the opposite direction, as for example just recently, Abbott declared a war on non-organised religion (on the matter of vaccinations). Given this reality, it's better to separate than to fight.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 7:07:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah:
“Some people liked the acronym, others found it offensive. I apologised to those who found it offensive.” It is not about how people reacted it is about what you intended. If you did not intend to offend then why are you bothering to apologize?

“we are expected to articulate the framework we are using to analyse social issues – so others know where we are coming from.” You were not analysing social issues you were analysing the behaviour of individuals who happen to be in power. Their behaviour has nothing to do with their gender and so it is totally irrelevant to create a ‘framework’ unless you mean a bunch of pre-conceived biases that are not allowed to be challenged. Such a framework is not interested in finding the truth.

“It has been suggested that some women feel they need to behave like men to get ahead.” This sounds like an excuse. Women need to be bullies because they are down trodden whereas men are bullies because they are men.

What does it say about the poverty of women’s values that they are prepared to become like Tony Abbott and others in order to have power. Who would want such a woman in a position of power who is so devoid of integrity?
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 8:18:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah Russell,

I seem to have come to your article rather late in the piece, and it's an article that hits the nail on the head.

"Tony Abbott's aggressive behaviour towards the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, has been named for what it was: bullying...."

Indeed....Tony Abbott, Brandis and Macdonald (he who chaired the inquiry, yet couldn't be bothered to read the report) displayed pure odium in their treatment of Gillian Triggs, and in doing so merely showed how thug-like the "Tony Abbott Type" far right-wing born-to-rule elites conduct themselves when the chips are down.

Never mind that the report criticised both parties - or that we now know that the Abbott govt knew of child abuse on Nauru for 17 months and did diddly-squat about it. - Gillian is to blame because her report rendered the govt (and the Opposition) transparent in the depraved little scheme it calls "border protection".
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 9:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah,

Like many advocates who push an agenda rather than look for truth, your use of statistics is specious.

It reminds me of a story I once read in the newspaper where the reporter reported that up to a third of all road fatalities involved alcohol. The joke was that you better start drink driving because TWO-THIRDs of road deaths are caused by drivers who are NOT drunk.

This is the history of feminism and the use of statistics. Here is a 4:45min video where a Thomas Sowell demolishes feminist arguments about pay gap. It appears this was done over 30 years ago. But either feminists have an enormously difficult time understanding and interpreting statistics or you wilfully advocate falsehoods (or both!).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

Incidentally, Sowell belongs to a racial group and gender who run the risk of getting shot in the back when they come in contact with the police. To me that constitutes a real disadvantage. Please let me know the next time you hear of a white woman getting shot in the back by police.

Since feminism has long since stopped being about an equal playing field and is now about equal outcomes, surely you would join me in advocating for a higher retirement age for women? After all, as I said in my last post women spend only a fraction of the time in the workforce that men do and retire earlier only to liver 6 years longer than men so why not raise the retirement age for women? This would give women more time to accumulate super too (I noticed you were baffled by women's lower super). Surely a win-win situation: more wealth for women and equal outcome in terms of gender.

If my tone is a touch sardonic, please remember: white women are hardly treated like black men (or women), yet for decades you have misused powerful positions in government, schools and academia to portray yourselves in the same category as the genuinely disadvantaged. Middle class, white feminists have reaped all the benefits of being middle class and white while accepting none of the responsibility.
Posted by dane, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 10:39:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the topic of this thread is Abbott, how would you rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being trivial and 5 being utterly evil:

* wearing a blue tie

* wearing Speedos

* winking

* eating an onion

* drinking a beer

* hacking the heads of twenty people on a beach.

Take your time :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 23 April 2015 8:48:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

How about you consider toddling off and growing up.

Cheers
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure - you go first, Poirot :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:10:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah,

I don't think you did herself any credit in terms of having a plot - and then revealed a whole list of your viewpoints. You are entitled to do this, regardless of what I may think though.

As one person put it to me, all that has happened over time, is that humans have labelled other humans as a certain type of "designer label" - and humans have constantly tried to out label each other, essentially like designer label clothing. Some labels have of course come out looking and selling better (fashion wise) and others have not.

In terms of your list of items in the woman vs man fight, these are all human created. Are they needed at all?

For me, it's not about separation, it's simply respecting other people's values, beliefs and personal space - even when values are incompatible or different.

For example when I went vegetarian as part of a high school project, my mum dumped a plate of meat in front of my face and DEMANDED I eat it. I said no and pushed it away. I don't go around telling people to go vegetarian - I simply want basic respect principles for individuals worldwide as much as possible. Not selection. This basic respect of views unfortunately is going down.

For example, one woman said to me when she sees other women wearing the burqa - she is offended. I said would she like to be told to stop eating meat? She changed her attitude. I also know of one case where a man was screamed at because of his views on abortion - but it was my view he is entitled to believe this, with no force placed onto others.

We do need solutions to problems facing the planet, as humans live on the planet earth - and that is where I do differ - as the environment cannot always look after itself, facing constant human damage.

You don't mention that though - why?
Posted by NathanJ, Thursday, 23 April 2015 2:00:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nathan,

"We do need solutions to problems facing the planet, as humans live on the planet earth - and that is where I do differ - as the environment cannot always look after itself, facing constant human damage.

You don't mention that though - why?"

Because it's off topic.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 23 April 2015 4:40:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Because it's off topic?

Well wasn't the topic in relation to this matter meant to be about how:

"Gillian Triggs remained composed and dignified."

and that....

"She is a role model for all of us at the receiving end of such attacks in both public and domestic places."

But then we have put in this discussion post a lot of detail in relation to the divide between women and men - by Sarah. Why? There are differences between all humans. Sarah's opinion piece pushed a human centric line, with a range of things - some could argue we could easily live without.

We can't though live without planet earth - unless of course, Sarah doesn't want things like clean air, fresh food or drinkable water as part of her life.
Posted by NathanJ, Thursday, 23 April 2015 5:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dane

Thank you for recommending the YouTube clip. Sowell makes some interesting points, particularly about how data is broken down. I liked how he challenged the category “single woman”. He prefers to use “never married” because a single woman may have once been married and spent 20 years out of the work force raising children.

The sources that I cited in my previous response were from respected research studies. However, I agree that statistics can be used to pursue a particular agenda.

I liked your example about drink drivers. You may be interested in an Op Ed I wrote about older drivers. Many who want older drivers off the road cite the TAC statistic that 60 older people died on our roads in 2013. A breakdown of the statistics showed that 45 per cent of these older people were either passengers or pedestrians, not drivers. http://www.research-matters.com.au/publications/OlderDrivers.pdf

Clearly, the most important thing is for statistics to be used honestly – so that we can have an informed debate about important issues.

phanto

Many different frameworks have been used to analyse bullying (e.g. a socioeconomic framework highlights class; a feminist framework highlights gender). In my view, the behaviour described in my article is gendered but other factors clearly contribute to this behaviour. I agree some women in leadership positions also behave badly.

In my experience, most men and women in leadership positions behave well.

loudmouth
I agree: Our political leaders in Australia could be worse.

The intention of the Op Ed was to discuss behaviours that silence debate. Chopping off someone’s head is an extreme way to do this.

Shadow Minister
I agree, The Human Rights Commission will most likely be ignored whilst the current government is in office. You suggest that the honourable thing is for Gillian Triggs to resign. I suggest (with tongue in cheek) that it is Tony Abbott, not Gillian Triggs, who should resign.

Finally, thank you Poirot, for keeping discussion on topic, and for reminding us that the Chair of the Senate estimates hearing did not even read the Human Rights Commission's report. Macdonald was extremely disrespectful.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Friday, 24 April 2015 6:05:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NathanJ

I am happy to discuss human’s responsibility to care for our planet, and the importance of maintaining clean air, fresh food and drinkable water, but would prefer to do so another time. My work for the past 20 years has involved the social, economic and environmental determinants of health. Such a discussion would be right up my alley.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Friday, 24 April 2015 6:08:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah:
“Many different frameworks have been used to analyse bullying (e.g. a socioeconomic framework highlights class; a feminist framework highlights gender). In my view, the behaviour described in my article is gendered but other factors clearly contribute to this behaviour.”

What you seem to be saying is that the bullying would not have occurred if those in power were not men. You are saying that if there was a different framework (if men were not in power) then things would have been different in this case.

You may have a point in saying that she was bullied – the evidence is there for all to see but you have not established a case that she was only bullied because men were in power. If you are trying to mount an argument that she was bullied then that is fairly obvious and probably does not need to be made. If, however, you are trying to make the point that men are far more like to bully when in positions of power then you need to come up with an argument to prove you point. A ‘feminist framework’ is not an argument it is a series of opinions. I think some are closer to the mark than others. If such a framework holds that men are more likely to be bullies when in power than women then it needs to be proven or else it cannot be taken seriously. Taking on a feminist framework without critically analysing each of its elements is intellectually naive and rather fundamentalist.

The purpose of your article seems to be not to show how Griggs was bullied, since that was well known, but to further the un-examined mantra of feminism that says women would be much better in power than men. Acknowledging that some women can also be bullies does not detract from the core belief of feminists that they would in general be much better in power than men.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 24 April 2015 11:14:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah,

I agree in principle with Yuyutsu who doesn't want to side with "this or the other" in this ever-stupid class-war. For me it's a waste of time, effort and energy - when in terms of life and the planet we live on, we only have one of them.

In terms of the earth (and its creation in any form) it did not create:

1. Schools
2. Universities
3. Federal Government
4. Gender pay gap
5. Domestic violence
6. Glass ceilings
7. Superannuation

These were all created by humans. Some of them (as I said, could be argued are not needed), so for me there is no need to discuss them in the context that this original discussion post, which is meant to be about actions around Gillian Triggs - but then a focus relating to a women vs man gender fight comes into the picture. Personally, for example I have seen with homeless individuals (of all types), I will give some money, when I am asked, but would argue (with what I've seen) around 95% of "passers by" do not. What category do you fit into?

You can also state: "I am happy to discuss human’s responsibility to care for our planet and so on..... but would prefer to do so another time.... but humans will face social, economic and environmental determinants re health if we have an unhealthy planet to live on. That's really something for humans (worldwide) to decide. I can't force that onto you - nor do I want to wait for a long time for some type of reply on that topic.

It's more what Yuyutsu said from the start - wasting time being interested in "an ever class war" and I believe we should do whatever we can, as humans to throw the "hate factor" in the rubbish bin.
Posted by NathanJ, Friday, 24 April 2015 12:52:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nathan,

"You can also state: "I am happy to discuss human’s responsibility to care for our planet and so on..... but would prefer to do so another time.... but humans will face social, economic and environmental determinants re health if we have an unhealthy planet to live on. That's really something for humans (worldwide) to decide. I can't force that onto you - nor do I want to wait for a long time for some type of reply on that topic."

Can I introduce you to point 1 of the rules of OLO?

"Keep responses on topic."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp

We all know that threads tend to meander and sometimes go off topic.

However, I don't think it's appropriate for you to intentionally try and steer a thread away from the article topic - as you appear to be set on doing.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 24 April 2015 4:41:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'In terms of the earth (and its creation in any form) it did not create:

1. Schools
2. Universities
3. Federal Governmen'

and yet Nathan the human brain which is far more complex than anything you listed came from chaos according to the god deniers. And these people have science degrees!
Posted by runner, Friday, 24 April 2015 4:56:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto

Both men and women make good leaders. Both men and women bully.

Organisations work best when there is a both men and women in leadership positions http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/top-companies-with-women-on-boards-perform-better-research-finds-20150423-1mqsm2.html

Most men do not behave in the manner that Tony Abbott behaved towards Gillian Triggs. But some men do.

The point of my article was to explain the social conditioning that may have led to this type of bullying behaviour. I proposed in my article that some men (please note I did not say “all men”) who attended an exclusive private boys’ school, studied at a sandstone university, lived at an exclusive college and did the ‘right’ courses (e.g. law), as Tony Abbott did, do not engage respectfully with alternate views.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Saturday, 25 April 2015 7:42:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah, with respect, your last post is not convincing and it explains why I found your article disappointing. You have conflated two separate ideas.

The first is the idea that some men (you don't discuss women with a similar background) have a privileged upbringing that supports access to high quality educational opportunities.

The second is that some people are not respectful of views that differ from their own.

From this you extract the small minority of those in the first group who also fit the second group and attack their social background as causally responsible for their personality.

It may be, in the case of that small minority, but if that is so, what is it about that minority that makes them susceptible to such a causative mechanism, given that the majority of those who experience such an upbringing are not afflicted in the way you define? Conversely. given that the affliction you mention is fairly widely distributed within the community, what makes you believe that the social environment you describe is in fact causal at all?
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 25 April 2015 8:53:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah:
I wrote this before I read Craig’s post but is says a similar thing -

Bullies come from all kinds of socio-economic backgrounds. There are no specific social conditions that lead to the development of bullying behaviour. If the bullying was a product of all those conditions you describe then all those who have those conditions would turn out like Tony Abbott and as you say it is only some men who turn out that way.

There must be other conditions other than all that privilege that lead to the development of bullying behaviour. Bullies are basically insecure people and all the privilege in the world cannot fix that. That is why bullying is so random across all sectors of society. One of the core aspects of bullying is the unequal relationship that forms when one has power over another. Power relationships must exist for society to function but bullying often does not emerge until a person has access to some power over others.

I don’t think it is helpful to point to someone’s ‘privilege’ as a cause of their bullying behaviour because it comes across as a kind of resentment of socio-economic advantage or a resentment of networks and looks more like bitterness.

I think it is enough to say that Tony Abbott acted in a bullying way in this particular case which everyone who watched the news could see for themselves. Trying to use that example to decry privilege as a social phenomena is a waste of time. If there are injustices in socio-economic conditions in society then we should all do what we can, by reasonable means, to right those injustices. Linking them to the existence of bullying is not an argument which stacks up.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 25 April 2015 9:45:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns

You ask an excellent question:

“what is it about that minority that makes them susceptible to such a causative mechanism, given that the majority of those who experience such an upbringing are not afflicted in the way you define?”

I am afraid that I do not have the answer to it.

I agree with you, Phanto, “One of the core aspects of bullying is the unequal relationship that forms when one has power over another”.

I wrote the piece because I have witnessed men silence women using techniques similar to how Tony Abbott et al silenced Gillian Triggs. The technique of attacking people who disagree with them, or ignoring them, was very familiar to me. The men who I have seen behave like this all came from backgrounds similar to Tony Abbott.

I acknowledge that "the plural of anecdotes is not data". This was however just my opinion, not a research paper. I have welcomed the discussion that suggests that my opinion may need some tweeking.

It is unfortunate that some people (both men and women) see disagreement as combat they must win, rather than an opportunity to learn new things. When I discuss these issues with colleagues (and online opinion readers), I learn.

Tony Abbott may have learnt some things if he had taken the Human Rights Commission’s report seriously rather than simply dismissing it.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Saturday, 25 April 2015 10:27:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah: The only person who has mentioned the word combat is you. Everyone else must be given the benefit of the doubt that they are seeking the truth.

You saw men behaving badly and they all came from the same background so you argued that it is the background that caused them to behave that way. At the same time you say that only some men who come from that background behave that way and that people who come from other backgrounds also behave badly. So it cannot be the background which is at fault. This kind of argument does not only require some tweaking it needs to be owned for what it is – bad logic and a wrong conclusion.

“Tony Abbott may have learnt some things if he had taken the Human Rights Commission’s report seriously rather than simply dismissing it.” Why do you need to add this opinion? The discussion had moved to your argument and not to Tony Abbott’s problems. It is like you are trying to water down your failings by pointing out that others have them as well. Others do have failings but we have affection mostly for those prepared to admit them.

It may also be a final snipe at Tony Abbott. Sniping is churlish. If we do not like what he does in power then we should do everything we can to get rid of him and we do have that power.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 25 April 2015 11:07:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto

If you scroll back through the past 10 days of comments on my article, you may see why I used the word "combat". I have been attacked, called a lefty (among other things) and I have had malicious motives attributed to me. It is interesting that most of those who initially attacked me have not engaged with my subsequent responses.

I have engaged respectfully with those, like you, who have made valid points. I am not trying to win an argument, but instead have a discussion and share our different views.

In terms of basic logic:
All men who did X came from Y background
Although not all men from Y background do X, it is worth considering whether Y background contributed to behaviour.

Tony Abbott's behaviour was core to the argument in my opinion piece. That is why I mentioned him. And I sincerely wish he had read the report and acted on its recommendations.

I will be back in my office on Tuesday, if you would like to continue this discussion.
Posted by Sarah Russell, Saturday, 25 April 2015 11:31:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah
Well it takes two to engage in combat. If you are attacked then you are free to ignore those people. Perhaps they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt – only you can decide that.

“All men who did X came from Y background
Although not all men from Y background do X, it is worth considering whether Y background contributed to behaviour.”

You would not have to consider it for very long to realise that the number of people who come from Y background is rather small whist the number of people who do X is rather large. What reason do all those non-Y backgrounders have and could it be the same reason for Y backgrounders doing it?

Since it is a fairly common behaviour amongst all human beings regardless of background you would have to conclude that factors other than a privileged background are to blame. Why would Y- backgrounders have different reasons for bullying than those from non-privileged backgrounds since underneath both groups are still human beings? It just so happens that more Y-backgrounders make it in to politics or other positions of power. There are many people who have come from under-privileged backgrounds who have attained positions of power and become absolute tyrants.

You have not just considered your view as some kind of whim but have published it and invited discussion so presumably you think it is a good argument. Others and I have tried to show it is not a good argument nor a logical conclusion.

“Tony Abbott's behaviour was core to the argument in my opinion piece. That is why I mentioned him. And I sincerely wish he had read the report and acted on its recommendations.”

We all know that but as I said we were not discussing what Tony Abbott did any longer. We were discussing the logic of your argument which is equally flawed no matter which politician you are talking about. It was totally irrelevant to that discussion to tell us what you hoped Tony Abbott would have done.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 25 April 2015 12:19:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy