Picture: Kev’s gabfest
So Kev’s gabfest aka “Let’s have a barbie and discuss important stuff, mate” is going to be mostly led by blokes. Of course, it should be mentioned that Aussie “everywoman” Cate Blanchett is also going to be one of the leaders, and she’ll probably ensure the event makes it into the pages of Woman’s Day (“Shock! Cate cheats on husband with bunch of blokes”). Anyway, Kev might’ve had the following quotes in mind when it was decided who’d be the “2020″ leaders:
Now, I know you’re a feminist, and I think that’s adorable, but this is grown-up time and I’m the man. – Peter Griffin (Family Guy)
Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn’t, it’s that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such and such. – Homer Simpson (The Simpsons)
“Steve, this comes from years of experience: Women are never right.” – Stan Smith (American Dad)
So far the Jabberfest of tthe Chosen Kilo is exactly what I expected it to be: the same old tired names, faces and suits representing the office of this or that. It’s hardly surprising they’ve exclusded women. There aren’t many women represented in the Self-important Windbag pool from which the Jabberfest stems. It’s a wank. and the boys want privacy. They also want applause.
>
it’s compensation. Kevvie never made the ‘A’ Rugby Team.
Pretty pathetic stuff from Kevin Rudd. He could have easily found a few more significant women to play leadership roles in this 2020 Summit if he wanted to.
from today’s SMH Letters page:
“Never have I heard so much whingeing and whining about so little.
Each of the 10 chairwomen and men at the 2020 Summit can invite 99 women, and six of the groups will be co-chaired by women.
Marilyn Shepherd Kensington”
She has a point.
I don’t think they deliberately set out to exclude women.
Who’d want to make the ‘A’ Rugby Union team. They’re just a fat bunch of blokes that couldn’t cut it in Rugby League. Probably because they’re fat and slow.
I tend to agree. I think the narrow social composition of the Steering Committee is a product of institutional sexism and institutional racism in the selection procedure rather than conscious sexism or racism on the part of Rudd and Glyn Davis.
Having said that, the end product is a stuff-up and it is worrying, on several counts, that Rudd is unwilling to simply admit that it’s a stuff-up and rectify it, rather than resorting to the palliative afterthought of having six female Ministers as co-Chairs, which doesn’t really redress what was wrong with the original selection and the terrible messages it sends.
O’m more worried about the potential for a predominance of wowders than a lack of women. While not having many wome4n is regrettable, it probably won’t do much harm. Having heaps of wowsers could do a lot of harm, especially if Kev takes up on trheir ideas.
Of course what you’re suggesting Paul is a kind of Affirmative Action with the attendant pitfalls. Are we to select the best minds, or representatives of society.
>
Or in this case fund the Jabberfest of the Same Old Wankers.
No, I’ve suggesting that we recognise that institutional sexism and institutional racism constitute a powerful (because often unrecognised and unwitting) kind of affirmative action for white blokes, with all the attendant pitfalls of the kind we’ve seen in this instance, and having recognised its existence, try to get rid of it.
It’s nothing like “affirmative action” to expect to have more women involved.
From what I’ve been told they didn’t even want Cate. It’s actually her unborn son that got the invite.
Good gag, skribe
Do you know something about the gender of Cate’s bub?
The lack of women leaders involved in “2020″ (gabfest) is a disgrace, institutional sexism or not.
The gabfest will come and will go, but if more women aren’t more involved, it’ll leave a bad taste. An accumulation of bad tastes tastes really bad.
Before “jage” gets a word in, yes, luvvies turn on Kev shock horror
It’ll be interesting to see who this panel of (mostly) blokes select for the ten topic areas now. . .
Ouch Scribe!
I’ve emailed GetUp sugesting they mount a campaign about this. I know GetUp isn’t necessarily that popular around here, but they do mobilise people. And this sort of institutional sexism (as Paul Norton points out) infuriates me.
It’s also the fact that it’s all a load of middle aged men in suits, who’ll be inviting other middle aged men in suits. This doesn’t reflect Australia at all and points to a very boring weekend in Canberra.
BTW, i have nothing against this particular sub-set of people, it’s just that other people exist. And have opinions. And some of those opinions may be worth listening to.
Way to go, Fine
Let us know if GetUp get back to you.
Gosh knows, Grendel, same old same old probably.
There was an episode of “Yes Minister” when Jim Hacker was required to decide whether to say something substantive and challenging in a party political, or to fill if full of fluff.
Hacker’s spin doctors knew what was required.
Fluff = a flashy suit and Stravinsky as the intro music.
Substantial = wearing a sober suit and “Land of Hope and Glory” as the intro music.
Looks like Kevvie will chose the Stravinsky for his gabfest.
Other unrecognized forms of affirmative action include many women taking time off to help raise families, and the fact that non-white ethnic groups are less established in this country, both culturally and economically.
A lot of discussion has been about how the relative lack of women is unrepresentative of Australia. That’s true, but I don’t think representation is the goal here. If it was, a majority of those gathered wouldn’t give a toss about politics, their incomes would be far lower, and most importantly, almost none would be community leaders.
Putting sexist words into Kevin’s mouth seems pretty petty. Institutional sexism does exist, and Rudd is not the only institution involved: every subgroup which selected the 1000 within the community, as well as all the non-Rudd staffers who organized this shindig, are implicated as well.
Darlene, never met Cate B, but when I’ve seen her on docos, interviews and heard her on radio, she’s always managed to leave a good impression. I agree that a more representative group of women would be better, but kinda get the feeling you’re being a tad harsh. Anyone who can persuade as a junky and Betty One, twice, and take the hard-assed NY theatre scene by storm, has got to have something going for her and may become a champion for overdue changes in national attitude. Maybe it’s because I’m a fan.
Hope you like the ‘toon.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/02/27/ned-the-bear-and-the-steering-committee/
“It’ll be interesting to see who this panel of (mostly) blokes select for the ten topic areas now. . . ”
See here Grendel for one certainty. Boys on the flashest and most expensive war machines.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/02/27/non-denial-denials-from-nick-minchin/#comments
Cate is a worthy selection. She’s smart as a tack, knows lots about arts and administration and policy, and is personable and has social skills.
I see Kev is now trying to shift the blame onto Glyn Davis.
And doesn’t Kevvy know it… as a nerdy dentist look-alike with no Hollywood cred he would normally have as much chance of getting close to The Goddess as some yoof from Woop Woop. But as Prime Minister he gets to be near her (in a fresh working families Christian way of course)
Actually if I were going I’d prefer he brought along his New Best Friend Hugh Jackman…phwoarrr
Darlene;
Ignoring half the talent in Australia is downright foolish.
There’s an open invitation to all women, regardless of who they are, to participate in the online Counter Summit at http://countersummitaustralia2020.blogspot.com …. or contribute to OzIdeas, or maybe both [sorry, don't have the link at the moment].
Paul Norton [5]:
You’ve sized it up very well.
Goodnight everyone ….
Take it as a compliment ladies.
Everyone:
The link to Oz Ideas is http://ozideas.wetpaint.com
EC, got nothing against Cate.
Good actress, smart etc, but there are plenty of other women involved in business, community groups etc who could’ve also been in a leadership position.
Absolutely, GB. Hope you had a good kip.
I don’t think representation is the goal here.
Yeah, “representational democracy” is so last century.
If Rudd intends to treat the gabfest deliberations the same way he’s apparently treating the Garnaud report, wouldn’t we all be better off, gender regardless, staying home that weekend to read a book, watch DVDs or blog on LP. In each case we’d probably do the country more good. The only reason I can think of going is to stop the more wowserish Xtan ideas getting up. Or am I the only one who thinks the whole thing has an unstated moral religious agenda Rudd wouldn’t get away with if he came out with it pubvlicly?
“…home that weekend to read a book, watch DVDs or blog on LP”.
Or for the younger ones amongst us, go to the disco.
You’re right, it’s always best to try and combat the wowser element, so people should respond to Suz’s post in the affirmative if they can.
Incidentally, people getting a DVD out should avoid The Notorious Bettie Page. Watched it last night and it was superficial and a romanticised account of the makers of porn in the 1950s, although the lead actress was radiant and very pretty.
Are we allowed the odd cross-post?
Here’s my contribution, from comments at ‘Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony’:
A genuine mechanism through which sparkling, fresh ideas could be channelled and incubated would be ongoing think tanks in specific areas eg: health, housing, education, womens issues, climate change and so on – not one-off whitebread blokey talkfests. I also think local councils should adopt this type of community consultation. It would facilitate lobbying to State departments on public transport, over-development etc. But no level of government actually wants grassroots feedback that they are compelled to take seriously, we the people are simply an annoyance! can you imagine the input big business will have at Kevin’s gabfest?
the Whitlam, Hawke/Keating & Cain-Kirner govs were much better incubators of social change via community participation. Don’t get me started on the Bracks-Brumby contempt for commoners. I’m deeply involved in public housing issues – all of the consecutive ministers, Pike, Broad & Wynne refuse to meet with public tenants on any issue, unless it’s simply for a gratuitous photo opp.
As for dear Cate, apart from the Arts & the fashion industry, she doesn’t even cut it as a spokeswoman for working mums, in the sense that she would be travelling the world with an army of nannies and personal lackeys. I don’t mean to be unkind, but she’s a multi-million $$$ earning film star, for god’s sake!
But Matilda, she’s not there to be a spokesperson for working mums. She’s there as a spokesperson for the arts, for which she’s entirely appropriate.
I don’t think this summit of the 1000 best and brightest is supposed to representative.
I should add that I’m trying to defend Rudd here: I think the summit could put out some great results, and I don’t think it’s worth slamming before it’s even started based on a few screw-ups in the selection process.
With the summit we have a microcosm of the people fighting over the spoils of a government managed pie. Whenever government gets involved, everybody has a complaint that they aren’t getting their fair share (women, indigenous people,etc.)
On a broader scale, some people in certain electorates complain they don’t get as much pork-barrelling as other electorates.
When it comes to water, we fight over who gets to use the most and who is exempt from restrictions, as most of Australia’s water companies are publicly owned.
Strange how this problem of scarcity never seems to occur when I go and purchase a computer from a privately run department store. There always seems to be enough computers to go around for everyone who’s willing to pay.
Fine [29]:
Wouldn’t it be better if she was there speaking for herself and not necessarily representing any particular group?
That just means computers are a luxury.
The govt should get the best talent available. Monster brains and moxy are what it takes to get to the top in most fields. The intellectual and institutional leadership group should be composed of people who have demonstrated capacity in this area.
It pains me to admit that my demographic (white middle-aged males) seem to predominate in this class. Painful because there is very little racial or gender solidarity amongst our competitive peers in the relentless competition for status-elevation.
The North Eurasian males talent distribution tends have long tails at both ends ie males tend to produce most agressive geniuses and dead-beat morons. So it is not surprising that the jails and board-rooms are full of such types.
Eurasian males tend to excel at numerical and spatial reasoning, which is crucial for high-value managerial and industrial tasks.
These occupations depend on natural, rather than cultural, ability which makes them natural monopolies. That is why they tend to command top dollar.
Unfortunately most minorities (excepting Azkenhazi Jews) do not produce individuals with super high IQs and egos to match. In competitive, meritocratic open societies their more centrally-tending talent distributions are reflected in sub-Alpha/super-Omega performance. Women occupy 2% of the CEO slots in the Fortune 500.
Women can console themselves with the thought that though they may not earn as much as men, they spend, and wind up inheriting, more. Trillions more.
In the global sphere there seems to be little likelihood that North Eurasian males are likely to be giving way to other minorities any time soon. Patriarchy still looks inevitable as my friend Steve Goldberg predicted some thirty years ago.
Women who do not marry or have kids (eg Ms Wong) are in a more competitive situation and deserve more public recognition for their efforts. So perhaps such folks should be given greater representation in the gab-fest.
Not that we’re judgemental here…but no wonder you like them so much
“Eurasian males tend to excel at numerical and spatial reasoning, which is crucial for high-value managerial and industrial tasks. These occupations depend on natural, rather than cultural, ability which makes them natural monopolies. That is why they tend to command top dollar.”
Meanwhile more and more Indians and Chinese are doing far better at high-value managerial and industrial tasks than Jack ever will.
Everyone:
The basic concept of the Australia 2020 Summit is terrific. Get groups of talented people to focus on specific areas and from that, develop new and better policies.
Great!
The mains objection to what is happening, though, is in its implementation.
We expected that when Howard lost the election, we would see no more of him – yet this whole show is Howard II through-and-through. This is supposed to be about the Future but it is being dragged back into the gutter by the Dead Hand Of The Past. It already reeks of the same old bunch of losers and dunderheads who gave us the take-over craze, Poseidon, the white-shoe brigade, Aboriginal “health”[wtf], the “skills shortage”, the gravy Navy, strike aircraft with a 10-minutes-or-less combat life, the housing mess, the crash of literacy and numeracy, etc. …. and as for the selection process for participants; what else can you expect from The Clever Country.
Graham Bell @33. Yes, my point is that Cate Blanchett isn’t representing the interests on any one group. What really irritates me is when women are discussed in the context of their reproductive function, when it’s irrelevant. I’d assume most of the male chairs are fathers. But no-one would ask if they’re good representives of ‘working dads’, or not. To paraphrase an academic essay, called I think ‘A Womb With a View’, which I’m too busy to look up at the moment, ‘Women not only have a womb, but it needs to be on view at all times’.
Fine [40]:
Without sounding unintentionally sexist, there’s a good case for parents – and especially mothers – being especially well represented at the bunfight. Anyway, would we be worse off if the majority of participants were women? Doubt it.
37 Nabakov Mar 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 am
THis is a pointless bit of spite, even by Nabakov’s shifty standards. FTR, I rejoice when nerds, whether they be black, white or brindle, reap rich rewards for useful work.
In fact, it is corollary, rather than contradictory, to my argument that techhy Chinese and Indian males will eventually “do far better than” me. And Nabakov too, for those who feel the need to make such puerile comparisons.
The balance of global power will tend to shift to nations who can field big battalions of high-IQ competitively and cognitively gifted males. This class includes most of China and large bits of India.
And, last time I checked, these two countries were still situated in what I, and other English-speaking, geographicly-informed persons, refer to as the “Nothern Eurasian” landmass. [Emphasis added and qualifier included to correct disingenuous selective quotation.]
Fortunately, the Chinese and Indian states have kicked on mightily since they purged much of their bloated and parasitical bureaucracy of time-servers, cronyists, commissars and tax-mooching fat cats. This is an example we would do well to follow, although our multi-culti Leftists would probably draw the line at a practical example of celebrating that kind of diversity.
FWIW, I have never pretended to be a Master of the Universe. This is distinct from those who carry on like the Great Panjandrum. More hat than cattle.
Shorter Jack: If you prick me will I not wax and wax and wax and wax on? Us blokes deserve to run the world despite what those evil wets think. Yes, take that you straw man. Master of Universe is only a pejorative term because I’m not one.
I mean really Jack, why do you bother commenting on blogs anymore? Even when I and others agree with you on global policy stuff (Where you have advanced some good points, albeit in typically windy and self-aggrandising fashion. And to be honest I can see some merit in the “field big battalions of high-IQ competitively and cognitively gifted males” point although as usual you make no allowance for the infinite capacity of the future to be unpredictable), your pompous, humourless and self-obsessed delivery just puts everyone offside. Basically you keep displaying the emotional intelligence of a teenage nerd horrified that others don’t believe he knows everything about everything.
And for the past five years or so you’ve being singing the same monotonous tinny song about how the “wets” are undermining the glories of western civilisation without ever seeming to realise that that is the whole point of western civilisation – that it should be a harbour for and be
continually tested by a multiplicity of views.
And what have you achieved over the past half decade online? No minds or views of consequence have been changed and you’ve now pretty much a universal figure of fun throughout the Ausblogosphere. Although Graeme Bird seems to think you’re a bit of alright intellectually speaking. I think that recommendation speaks for itself.
Chill dude. Write that book. If your ideas are really of their time, I’m sure you’ll find the right publisher. If not there’s always print on demand and blogger. Anything but constantly treating everyone else to your interminable and dreary impersonation of King Canute in reserve.
“in reserve.”
should read
“in reverse.”
Another punchline ruined by a lazy reliance on spielcheck.
42 Nabakov Mar 4th, 2008 at 12:18 am
I have obviously rained on a few self-indulgent parades, including your own. I confess to taking some malicious pleasure in this.
I write mainly to get closer to the truth. That should be sufficient justification. If minds are not changed then I am the last person to feel bad. At least I can say I told you so.
We have to take Nabakov’s word on who is “a universal figure of fun throughout the Ausblogosphere”. This is not a source I would stake much on. Pr Quiggin, for one, managed to stifle his laughter. But what would he know, compared to such towering geniuses as Nabakov and Kim?
Even if I am ridiculed, so what? Oooh, the scornful laughter of the hard men of Ausblogosphere. I guess I will just have to be brave about that.
I set out to substantiate some general theories about the form and substance of politics, areas where liberal arts students seemed to be out of their depth. The economical approach to psephology and the biological approach to sociology. Also, to add my 2c worth to how revolutionary technology relates to the crooked timber of our species.
Lets just stick to facts, rather than unsupported assertion or puerile accusation.
In the psephological case, the results speak for themselves. Pseph blogging is about the only place that the MSM has respect for bloggers. The past three federal elections my predictions were more accurate than any other academic blogger, or MSM commentator, for that matter. Standard theory works.
So when someone tries to come the bounce I am the one splitting my sides laughing. Because there is no answer to the killer put down: just look at the scoreboard that counts. BTW, what is your score?
In the revolutionary technology case, I concede that no-one much is interested in my take on gadgets that can change human nature. (WHy is human nature a taboo subject amongst liberal arts graduates?) Too hard or too ahead of its time. Their funeral, my trial, I suppose.
In the socio-biolgical case, I apply evolutionary biology to the Culture Wars. This is still the topic most likely to raise blood pressure more than any other in Ausblogoshere. So it could use a grounding in hard science instead of moral posturing.
Again, the Big Picture on science and policy looks good to me. We have just seen a PM elected who is Howard me-too on cultural policy. That is why Rudd will stick to cultural conservatism. To keep it real.
He is committed to the most fundamental shift in cultural policy – the Aboriginal intervention – in over a generation. A conservative “corporal”, opposed to constructivist liberal, policy shift relating to a racial group. Pretty much the whole population and disinterested political class have fallen in behind this. Just as “Decline of the Wets” theory predicts.
Also, the socio-biological approach to human culture is gaining momentum. Although there are hiccups when people like Summers and Watson make gaffes ie let the cat out of the bag.
For a Cultural Rightist, it does not get any better than that. But wait, theres more.
The Wets are in decline in most other cultural policy areas that count, symbolic tokenism aside. Pretty much everywhere you look post-modern liberalism is tripping up on the tails of the human special distribution, with adverse public reaction.
On issue after issue the public has had enough of minorities who have taken liberties, over-stepped the mark and who need to be pulled back into line for their own good: self-destructive indigenes, ethnic gang-bangers, barren women-of-a-certain-age, plague-prone sodomites, dope-peddling drug fiends, bug-eyed compulsive gamblers, lard-assed couch potatoes, people smuggler/drowners, black-board jungle-infested state schools and now booze-fuelled yobbos.
Although I will give you porn. The general public seem to have accepted this form “freedom of expression”, the proudest achievement of post-modern liberalism. You should be happy with this, being a bit of a wanker yourself.
Graham Bell. I imagine that most summiteers will have kids and that that will help form their opinions. I have no problem with that. I just don’t see how it’s a qualification that’s solely applied to women. I wonder if John Hartigan, for instance, is an example of a good ‘working dad’? Personally, I couldn’t care less, but the question will never be asked of him.
I set out to substantiate some general theories about the form and substance of politics, areas where liberal arts students seemed to be out of their depth. The economical approach to psephology and the biological approach to sociology. Also, to add my 2c worth to how revolutionary technology relates to the crooked timber of our species…
…In the socio-biolgical case, I apply evolutionary biology to the Culture Wars.
Mind-boggling Jack. Do you have any, like, qualifications?