Prime Minister Scott Morrison wants us to promise something before we all go too far with this whole feminism thing. Basically, that: no men are harmed in the making of gender equality.
Delivering a speech at an International Women’s Day 2019 breakfast in Perth this morning, an event that’s designed to celebrate the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women, our dear leader somehow managed to make it about the blokes.
“We want to see women rise,” he told the Chamber of Minerals and Energy. “But we don’t want to see women rise only on the basis of others doing worse.”
LISTEN: Mamamia’s daily podcast, The Quicky, asks: ‘Does the Liberal party have a women problem?’
Prime Minister Morrison made the comments in the context of a recent statement made by Minister for Women Kelly O’Dwyer. During an address to The Press Club, the Liberal MP had rejected the idea that “girls doing well must mean that boys do badly”.
“See, we’re not about setting Australians against each other, trying to push some down to lift others up,” Morrison added, according to attending media.
“That’s not in our values. That is an absolutely Liberal value, that you don’t push some people down to lift some people up. And that is true about gender equality, too.”
Which is awkward. Considering that for, oh, let’s say… always, the economic/political/social success of men has come at the direct expense of women’s. But I guess we can’t blame the bloke for wanting to keep the good times rolling. You know… like our eyes are doing right now.
But, benefit of the doubt for a moment: maybe Prime Minister Morrison just chose his words poorly? Maybe.
“We want everybody to do better,” he continued, “and we want to see the rise of women in this country to be accelerated to ensure that their overall place is maintained.”
Their-whatnow?!
Oh, Sir. No.
Labor MP Tanya Plibersek was among those clearly baffled by the Prime Minister’s comments.
“Gender equality is good for both women and men,” she tweeted. “It gives all of us more freedom and choice at work, at home, and in our relationships. Feminism is a fight for equality between men and women, what’s so complicated about that?”
Plenty joined the chorus of ‘the others’:
Don’t worry, Mr Prime Minister. As we work toward achieving precisely the same privileges/pay/opportunities/treatment, we’ll do our very best to keep yours safe…
Top Comments
I see a lot of discussion of equality and the need to ensure that those higher should give up the things that make them higher. Or alternatively that we elevate the lower in a way that does not take away from the things that make the higher people higher. I don't like this. Lower or higher in what sense? Money? Power? Workload? Freedom? Education? Safety? Stress? Pleasure? Happiness? Absence of pain? Loneliness? Ability? Friendships? This is why I think equality is meaningless. There is no absolute means by which we can assess equality. And bear in mind that equality is a double-edged sword. CEOs are not usually very happy people. The corporate world is one of misery - Despite the monetary privilege. I look at the behaviours of these wealthy people (usually wealthy men) and think... How could someone's life be so bad that despite earning millions of dollars they still feel the need to steal money from the business they are employed to manage? Why would someone do this? So when we aim for quotas - and I think that we should do so in order to grant the same freedoms of opportunity to women as we do men - bear in mind that the corporate world will not change. The corporate world will corrupt women as it has corrupted the men who control it. Just like these men... The women who enter the corporate world will be influenced and changed by corporatism well before the women can exert any positive influence on it. Think of it as being like a basket of rotten fruit. Adding a fresh clean apple to the basket will not clean up the other fruit - the one clean Apple will be infected by the rotten ones.
I agree. Women should have every opportunity to enter and progress in the corporate world - the same opportunities as the men. This is clearly not happening because if it were then we would see equal numbers of women and men in board rooms, parliaments, etc. I think that women should have these freedoms to choose. I agree that wealthy elite men in the management structure are taking these freedoms away, and I agree that paternalistic sexism is wrong. If we are truly free then we are free to make decisions. This includes the freedom to make good decisions for ourselves and others, and the freedom to make mistakes (we all do). It is my opinion that entering the corporate world, the management structure, is (often, but not always) a mistake. It is a mistake that men frequently make, and women should have the same opportunities as men to make decisions and enter the corporate world (including the freedom to make decisions and therefore make mistakes). This freedom also includes the freedoms to make decisions that generate achievement and personal fulfilment, and women should have these freedoms as men do. It is a humanist argument, not an equality argument, but I think the broader intention is the same... to improve the quality of livelihood for both women and men.
The article and some of the comments seem to reinforce the MRA view that Feminism is determined to achieve equality at the expense of men.
From Feminist sites I read on reddit, they also see this MRA view as a counter-productive misconception about what Feminism is and it's aims. In essence, both are saying to bring everyone up to the same higher level instead of bring everyone down to the same lower level.
I guess I tried to see it more charitably in that he is trying to allay that common MRA view/fear which hinders and provokes resistance from MRA's while supporting women - a clumsy attempt at having a bet each way I suppose which turned out pear shaped it would seem.
OK, but my comment was related to how he echoed the same views as a wide variety of Feminists I have read
Previous comment doubled up - so this one is now dust
Nor has he said mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
Is there is a specific point you are aiming for - if so, please make it