Jennifer Oriel and Female Victimhood

Jennifer Oriel, a recent contributor to the right wing think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, provided an opinion piece to the Australian on 23 September 2015 which was breathtaking in its inaccuracy, curiously unabashed in its misrepresentation of recent history and laughingly inconsistent and self-defeating in is argument.  Evenso, it is still not worth paying the $4 The Australian is demanding for the opportunity to read it, so if you are curious I recommend a search of Google News.

MalcolmTurnbull Ends the Era of Female Victimhood

The third paragraph dives deep into her argument:-

“In six short days, the new Prime Minister has put an end to the era of female victimhood. His ministry is brimming with women keen to make a mark on federal politics, including the country’s first female defence minister.”

Oriel’s argument relies on the proposition that the appointment of 5 women to the Turnbull Cabinet represents the establishment of an era where people are appointed to Cabinet posts by virtue of their individual merits.  As a consequence, she announces the end of the opportunity for feminists, particularly those from the “hard left” to complain about discrimination. This is an end of the age of victimhood. Further, she posits, the age of merit will not be the nirvana for these hard left women that they may have anticipated. They are, of course, bereft of the merit so ably demonstrated by the conservative members of society so beloved of the IPA. Accordingly, they will not be troubling the current status quo which is of course full of meritorious men and a few women who can aspire to the great heights of their male betters - five at last count.

She illustrates the lack of merit by a discussion of that clearly unmeritorious hard left ideologue, Gillian Triggs and the evil Julia Gillard who launched into a diatribe about misogyny because that great egalitarian Tony Abbot looked at his watch.  She clearly did not watch the video and see the trigger.

I will not seek to defend either Triggs or Gillard.  The claims of the article are just too ridiculous to give credence to and don’t deserve to be prolonged by a response.  However, I cannot stand by and see logic so badly mauled in the name of opinion. 

The first observation is that if the appointment of 5 women represents the end of the age of victimhood and the beginning of the age of meritocracy, then prior to that time, the appointments were not made on merit.  Accordingly, the prior claims of discrimination are valid.  The idea of victimhood, an invention of the right wing media, was not kept alive by leftist complaints, but by the fact that discrimination was rife.

Secondly, if 5 women out of 24 cabinet members represents a cabinet based on merit, all the statistics which demonstrate clearly that for twenty years or more girls outscore boys at every level of education from preschool to post graduate must somehow not be related to merit. (see for example ABSGender differences in educational achievement )

Thirdly, if a society which maintains a 20% and rising gender pay gap suddenly becomes discrimination free as a result of the appointment of 5 women to cabinet, I have misunderstood discrimination. (Pay Gap Data)

And of course, the right wing garbage bin of “minority politics” to which she consigned the greater than 51% of our society comprising women – herself included – should rightly have been assigned to the Liberal Party which holds government by grace of a coalition with the National Party, while attracting less than 35% of the popular vote.  That however is not minority politics but the age of meritocracy.  If you are born to rule you deserve to rule.

“Perhaps women in public life should consider feeling less and thinking more, but such dedication to logic requires evidence, mental effort and the disciplined inhibition of emotional impulse: all anathema to hard left ideology.”

I will assume all readers were sufficiently amused by the above paragraph which accused the rest of the world of being driven by hard line ideology and not the logic, facts and evidence so clearly set out in her article. 

Clearly, she has nothing to gain from a meritocracy.

The vexed issue of ‘Mandate’

The Australian election has just played itself out over the last weekend and today we are already hearing the claim that the winners in the House of Representatives have a mandate for all their policies and the Senators should just support them.  This is a common theme just after an election and not just from one party or group.

For those not up on the Australian system, it is similar in many ways to the US system.  There are two houses of parliament, a lower house or House of Representatives and an upper house of review called the Senate.  The Senate is notionally a state house, and each state selects an equal number of senators by proportional representation using a preferential voting system.

Half of the Senate and all of the House of Representatives are elected every three years.  By convention these elections are held concurrently even though the timing of elections is determined by separate rules.  To overcome the problem, the newly elected members of the senate take their seats in accordance with the timing of the Senate Election, which may be up to seven or eight months after the election.  In the meantime, the old Senate sits.

In a similarity with the British House of Commons, the Prime Minister is the person who can command a majority on the floor of the House of Representatives, while the Head of State is the Governor General, representing the Queen of Australia (who is also Queen of England).

As a result of this arrangement, the Prime Minister is the key political figure in Australian politics.  The now Prime Minister elect, Tony Abbott, campaigned on the policy of abolishing the Carbon Trading scheme, which he called a carbon tax.  Now that he has been elected he is claiming a “mandate” for the abolition of the carbon tax and demanding that the senate, still dominated by parties supporting the Carbon Trading scheme, respect his mandate and pass the legislation abolishing the scheme.

This argument is flawed.  It is built around the concept of winner takes all democracy, which has emerged in the House of Representatives due to the ability of the dominant party to force its legislation through based on numbers.  The current government elect in the House of Representatives received about 53% of the total popular vote, but closer to 60% of the seats. The Senate is, however, a house of review, and due to its proportional representation voting system usually represents the actual split of the electorate more accurately that the House of Representatives.  Further, the conservatism driven by the longer appointment period and the half senate elections each three years means that the Senate does not represent the hot issue of the day, but a longer term average of community opinion.

If a member is elected to either house, it is incumbent on that person to vote according to the policies (s)he proclaimed during the election process.  There is no reason why a senator should change her /his position based on the outcome of the election in the lower house.  Otherwise, there would be no reason to have a senate.

The argument that the Government has a mandate and Senators must support this mandate in the Senate is a logical fallacy, but what else would you expect from politicians?

What Passes for Public Debate

How many times have you heard the words "What passes for public debate in this country"?  It is usually said by someone who has been critical of political discourse or the latest media outrage, who feels (s)he deserves to be served by an idealised version of democracy or press freedom.  Of course, hoping for high quality public debate from either politicians or journalists in mainstream media is always likely to end in frustration.  Neither group is particularly qualified or interested in debate.  Politicians are interested in being re-elected and exercising power, while journalists are focused on writing stories that sell papers to make them enough money to survive and ensure that they are sufficiently famous to keep their jobs.

So, from where will this much lamented high quality public debate emerge?  Obviously, from people interested in public debate!  

Two such people are Kim McKay and Michelle Wood, co-convenors of Sydney Salon.  I attended the second event of Sydney Salon, appropriately on the night of the State of Origin, that other high quality debate that Sydney stops to consume.  Kim and Michelle were inspired by the French  salonnières whose salons were vectors of social and intellectual exchange which helped spread the Enlightenment from its core in Paris to the remainder of France and eventually further afield - even to Sydney, some 250 years later.

Wednesday night's  ‘Provacateur’ was the undoubtedly provocative and entertaining social researcher, Randall Pearce, who addressed the topic: 

A golden voice but a tin ear: why the media has misread community opinion on climate change and where our thinking is headed.

Dr. James Bradfield-Moody kept the discussion flowing and the house in order.

While Pearce sought to reframe the climate change debate to focus on the 80% of Australians who believe climate change is happening, rather than a discussion of whether it is caused by human action, the discussion from the floor expressed the frustration of people who understand and care about the issue, but see it tossed around as a political issue aimed at not losing votes in marginal seats.  The Tony Rudd's about face on the ETS and Kevin Abbott's "non-delivery of an invisible trade to no one" comment, provided a suitable focus for the frustration.  Fortunately there was none of the physical disagreement seen at ANZ Stadium on the same night, and no streaker to conclude the proceedings.

I took two things away from the debate.  Firstly, as a representative of the old white men who were blamed for nearly everything, I felt a little hurt at been described as a "Pale, stale, male".  In particular, I felt that the comment that these people would probably die off soon, solving the problem of "climate skeptics" hit a little close to home.  Oh! The cruelty of youth.  But secondly, as a director of several companies which need to give some strategic thought to the issue of climate change, whatever the cause, I began to wonder what questions I should be asking at the next board meeting.

I am looking forward to the next one, reportedly on gambling to be held on the day before the Melbourne Cup!

What you are reading

I have spent some time recording my travels on my related blog, Gallimaufry Set and now feel ready to start to record my occasional thoughts and observations while at home in Sydney.  Hence, Sydney Noted.  Hope it is worth the read...........