On the Herod's profile of Ms Broderick

A very disappointing piece of soft reporting, little better than a puff piece really, by Ms Nikki Barrowclough on Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Ms Elizabeth Broderick appeared in The Sydney Morning Herod’s Good Weekend magazine on Saturday. It revealed very little about her that one would not have been able to infer otherwise, and failed to probe critically into exactly what it is that Ms Broderick stands for. For instance, Ms Barrowclough asked Ms Broderick how well-versed in academic feminism the latter was, but she let her dodge the question so that the reader is left none the wiser as to whether or not she has any grasp of feminist theory. And needless to say, there was no interrogation of Ms Broderick on her recent absurd assertion that “[t]here is no question that legislated paid maternity leave is a basic human right”, nor did it give us any clue as to what, if any, religious convictions she might hold, despite the fact that this might have been raised in connection with the death of Ms Broderick’s mother. One might object that it’s just a weekend magazine, but if one compares this to the relentlessly critical recent piece on a visiting Creationist one might wonder why they can’t be more even-handed.

The article did, however, do readers the service of alerting us to two of Ms Broderick’s latest pre-occupations: getting men to do more housework, and getting men to consider part-time rather than full-time work, encapsulated in “her view that couples sharing more of the home duties can also lead to a change in workplace culture.” The latter shows just how out of touch she is, since there are plenty of men working both part-time and full-time, and those working only part-time probably would take full-time work if they could find it. And as for the former, a more equitable division of total work done might be achieved by encouraging mothers to do fewer hours of paid work. Nonetheless it will be interesting to see how Ms Broderick pursues this agenda.

The article did reveal one thing to the credit of Ms Broderick and her family, though: they do not have a television!

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Cantius, Confessor, 2008 A.D.

Preparing for an activist vice-reign

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24108604-421,00.html

I read with great interest an article in last Friday's Sydney Daily Telegraph by Mr. Steve Lewis (available on-line under the Courier-Mail masthead, link above) about certain changes taking place in the Governor-General's official staff. The Official Secretary, Mr. Malcolm Hazell, despite being regarded as "resolutely non-partisan", was dismissed by the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Mr. Rudd denied any involvement, and it is not too great a leap of logic to infer that Ms. Quentin Bryce, the Governor-General-Designate, was behind the sacking.

(And I was amused to note that "More recently, Ms Bryce raised eyebrows after visiting Therese Rein, the wife of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, at her office in Brisbane last Friday." They would have been two peas in a pod.)

So what does this imply for our expectations about Ms. Bryce as Governor-General? I think we ought to prepare for an activist, 'agenda-setting' viceroy; in particular, the feminist agenda. This demands like-minded, even partisan, assistants, secretaries and speech-writers, hence Mr. Hazell's dismissal, and no doubt he will only be the first. Her Excellency's greatest pre-gubernatorial distinction appears to have been becoming one of Australia's top-ranking political correctness commissars ('Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner' or some such high-sounding but mediocre office) and is well-known as a member (one of the first, in fact) of the genteel, pearl-necklace-wearing wing of feminism that has been so influential in the corporate and civic worlds (in contrast to the noisy but irrelevant feral feminists in academia, like Germaine Greer). Ludicrously, she is of the opinion that "it can be argued I believe that Jesus was a feminist" (see here for that and other insights), which clearly verges on blasphemy.

When we hear Ms. Elizabeth Broderick (cut from the same cloth as Ms. Bryce, and her successor as Sex Discrimination Supremo (Suprema, or would that be sexist?)) say that "There is no question that legislated paid maternity leave is a basic human right" we can dismiss it as par for the course. But imagine what resonance it will have when coming from the mouth of the viceroy. We will see an inglorious new chapter open up in the cooperation of feminists like Ms. Bryce and economic rationalists like Mr. Rudd in driving every last mother into menial, low-paying work. And I'm sure it will be a suitable softening-up of the populace for the inevitable popularly-elected 'President' with a popular mandate of his or her own, at which point the 'Washminster' (Washington/Westminster) system of ours will break down entirely.

Reginaldvs Cantvar

"There is no question that legislated paid maternity leave is a basic human right."

So says Ms. (I use that title reluctantly) Elizabeth Broderick, one of Australia's chief political correctness commissars (from whose ranks comes our next Governor-General).

What nonsense.

But in the interests of trying to work out whether there could possibly be some logic beneath what appears on the surface to be a perfectly absurd statement, let's think it through a bit. How might compulsory paid maternity leave be justified?

1) The State ought to support families: yes, but it does not follow from this that paid leave is a basic right (indeed, if done through the tax system it only means a transfer of welfare among families, not an increase in overall welfare)

2) Since child-bearing is done by women, no paid leave would mean relative discrimination against them: but the husband does share in the burden of lost wages, and in any case, paid paternity leave would probably be the next step.

I see no conceivable basis for paid maternity leave as a human right. And what is truly sinister about this is that, since one infers from a right a corresponding duty, it implies that mothers have a duty to be in the paid work-force. And this is a cruel lie. What we see here, and have seen over the last forty or so years, is feminists like Ms. Broderick serving as tools in the hands of the economic rationalists, for whom work-force participation is a key variable in the frenzied pursuit for economic growth.

Reginaldvs Cantvar