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.

'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!

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.

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?

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.

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.