Glossary items: (these are not ads.)
End of list.
HREOC and sex discrimination against men
The Sex Discrimination Act
Many people say lots of highly principled things about Australia and gender equality. Behind these disingenuous pretensions, many of these people also claim that the Sex Discrimination Act, 1984, doesn't restrict discrimination against Australians of male gender.
This interpretation, from Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), is pushed throughout the community. States, employers, schools, universities, media organisations and government agencies set up their own legislation and codes of conduct. These are based on HREOC's view that discrimination against men, fathers and boys is a legitimate activity.
Since 1984, a succession of HREOC Commissioners, and particularly Sex Discrimination Commissioners, were empowered to review the Act and recommend changes. They could have recommended changes to the Act, or how it was interpreted.
Previous Sex Discrimination Commissioners could have discouraged discrimination against males. Commissioners could have made public statements when there might be discrimination against males, in the same way they do when there might be discrimination against females. Instead Commissioners preferred to "look the other way".
The fact the Commissioners haven't recommended changes to the Act, or spoken about discrimination against males, reflects poorly on these Commissioners. By foregoing this opportunity, HREOC Commissioners continue to support and encourage discrimination against Australian men, fathers and boys.
Gender-based corruption
Gender-based corruption is making decisions and bestowing financial favours on some people based on their gender, rather than merit, while excluding others based on them being the opposite gender, irrespective of merit.
Gender-based corruption is the same as any other form of corruption. It is the same as abusing planning regulations to find loopholes to give contracts to people of your group, or to exclude other people because you don't like the group they belong to. We have perfectly good words for this behaviour – negligence, cronyism and corruption.
Two of the mechanisms used to try and hide gender-based corruption are dicktation tests and lacktation tests. These tests are used to disguise decisions made on the basis of gender.
A Dicktation Test is a negative test - it finds men and fails them, but allows women to pass or to avoid the test. A Lacktation Test is a positive test - it finds women and passes them, but men are excluded.
Dicktation tests
Dicktation tests are one of the indicators of gender-based corruption. A Dicktation Test is a negative test - it finds men and fails them, but allows women to pass or avoid the test.
Derivation: Dictation tests were part of the White Australia Policy of the early 20th century. Legislation allowed potential migrants to be tested with a 50 word dictation test in a European language. But in practice the test was only given to people who administrators wanted to fail.
Failure was ensured by making the test words difficult, and choosing a rare European language. In reality, the dictation test was a way to exclude people on the basis of race, without making it explicit. Of those given the test, 96% failed before 1909, and 100% failed between 1909 and 1934.
The test was challenged successfully in the High Court in the 1930s. The case showed a Czech refugee passed successive dictation tests in several languages. Testing continued until he failed a dictation test in Scottish Gaelic - a language so rare that the test administrator, who had grown up in northern Scotland, couldn't speak himself. The High Court found that administering the Act in this way was unfair.
An example of a dicktation test is Pru Goward's claim that Australian men who work "need an autocue to remember their children's names".
At the time Goward said this, the Family Court was the subject of a Parliamentary Inquiry to see if the Court's practices discriminated against men and should be changed. Goward made her comment as part of her lobbying campaign to prevent reform of Family Law.
Goward's statement is obviously false - there isn't any research showing men can't remember their children's names. But Goward's statement also implies a father can't care for his children, and isn't even interested in his children, just because the father works. An offensive suggestion, again without any evidence.
What makes it a 'dicktation test' is that Goward left her own young children in Adelaide, and moved to Sydney to live and work there. So, Goward applies one standard to herself, but wants a different, more harsh judgement to apply to all men, based purely on their gender. Goward is lobbying for this harsher standard, that she couldn't pass herself, to be used in judging men (but not women) before the Family Court.
What makes it 'corruption' is that Pru Goward was the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the time she made the comments - in effect supporting continued discrimination against men in Family Law.
The joint party Parliamentary Inquiry eventually concluded that Family Law reform was necessary - effectively finding the Courts were discriminating against men. This was the opposite to Goward's claims. So much for her credibility.
Lacktation tests
Lacktation tests are one of the indicators of gender-based corruption. A Lacktation Test is a positive test - it finds women and passes them, but men are excluded. Lacktation tests can also be the arguments that allow women to avoid the test outright.
An example of a lacktation test is the response to Goward's comment that Australian men who work "need an autocue to remember their children's names" - see dicktation test discussion.
Although Goward's comments were noted in the media, there was no criticism. There wasn't even questioning of whether this was an appropriate comment for a Sex Discrimination Commissioner to make. But if a man made a similar comment about Australian women - e.g. "they need a map to find the filing cabinet" - there would be an explosion of criticism.
I believe some men lodged complaints with HREOC about Goward's comments. However, I will not comment further until I have verification of that.
We do know that HREOC didn't make any public clarification or apology. So we presume the Commissioners stand by Goward's description of Australian men as "needing an autocue to remember their children's names".
What makes this a 'lacktation test' is that everyone looks the other way, solely because Goward is a woman. The lacktation test is functioning here to allow Goward to avoid being held to the same standard as men.
This is 'corruption' because it bestows a benefit onto Goward by allowing her to avoid sanction and embarrassment.
Help by sending your story
You may have lodged a complaint about discrimination, or inappropriate activity, effecting a man, father or boy. Your complaint may have been mocked, ignored, or fobbed off because the rules didn't apply to males.
If so, send us your story. No breaches of privacy, or inappropriate identifying details, please.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
End of Section
Copyright © 2007-2008, Max Rollins. All rights reserved.