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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?