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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.