The anti-DEI mob doing “PC gone mad” today claim that racism and sexism are “woke” social constructs but race and sex are real, i.e. that physical racial and gender differences are real, including “disqualifying” physiological traits. Like a 1970s Monty Python sketch, they invoke a common sense axiom like “Surely, you want the best person for the job, not someone just because they’re black or a woman”, an obvious concept that most reasonable would agree with. But, unlike Monty Python, do today’s revivalists of “PC gone mad” really mean that women and black people are not the best person for “a” job because they’re black or a woman?
First, there’s blame on “diversity-hires” for the fall of civilisation itself, without mention of nepo-hires, any rich man’s unqualified idiot son placed into positions of major responsibility. An incidental oversight, perhaps? No-one can say everything about a topic, all the time. But then, there’s a leader stating that certain academics claim they “fear” being called racist or sexist if they publish studies which, they claim, show that certain groups of people, innately, “underperform” relative to others. Clang! In good faith, you read their articles, in full, and then realise you’ve just wasted a good two minutes on pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook, when you could have had more intellectual insight from an adventure game on the internet (or one of Isaac’s trashy David Starr Space Ranger novels, the ones he wrote under an alias to pay his way through uni! Even Isaac’s rubbish was more intelligent than what these people churn out as what they call “great thinking”). Read a little further and find that when no reputable journal will publish their work, they cry “cancel culture”, as well as sulking that “People want their differences to be acknowledged and accommodated, then whinge when we acknowledge physical difference.” Such superficiality tends to tie itself in knots in slightly deeper waters, e.g. they say women should have the choice of not having to undress in front of a trans person and that anything less is abuse, but people are being “racist”, “sexist”, “absurd” or encouraging “dangerous DEI-hire” practices if they say they’d feel more “comfortable” being treated by a doctor of their own race or sex.
Of course, not all of the anti-DEI mob agree on their reasons or every aspect of race and gender differences. But there are those whose intentions take a somewhat more ominous tone than “PC gone mad” when pressed beyond disingenuous superficialities. There are those who, while carefully avoiding any mention of it too obviously, eventually get to the old chestnut of IQ, and no prizes for guessing where they head with that. Suffice to say, despite their claims that there are studies purporting to show racial or gender differences, there are no reputable studies that show significant differences in IQ between races or sexes. There are, however, more recent, credible, studies that show unexpected results, results that, in fact, point to how much environmental factors can affect performance throughout life stages, but none indicating innate “IQ” differences.
Particularly concerning are claims of studies showing propensity of certain “groups of people” to violence, or particular forms of violence, and claims that “studies” show that racism and sexism are inventions of the “woke”, “far left” and are driving false public perception. Many of these claims are made in op-eds, without provision of primary raw data, and therefore can be very persuasive to the uninitiated. However, closer inspection of these “studies” reveals flawed interpretation. Wider knowledge and familiarity with more credible studies and raw data tends to reveal more sensible analysis, incorporating more or all relevant variables necessary for accurate interpretation, leading to very different conclusions from those stated.
Of course, there are studies that show that some men are innately physically stronger than some women, a point I concede without hesitation. Certain “analysts”, however, are not so objective when, for example, invoking stats that show that women tend to live longer than men. That is true and in many societies. But in that instance, our trusty “analysts” are the first to point out that that’s more than likely due to environmental factors and not innate, superior “longevity genes”, factors they go to great pains to detail. According to them, it’s that women, apparently, are masters at “enslaving” men into doing more physical labour and for longer hours than they etc. etc. To my knowledge, there are no reputable studies that show significant differences in “performance” between races and sexes in relation to any trait of “worth” or “worth” to “civilised society”, as these people often frame it.
Importantly, superficial physiological traits are not preclusive to job suitability. The workplace has accommodated the physiology of men for millennia. If women had been there first, the arguments would merely be the other way around. Minor physiological differences, like accommodating menstruation, were solved easily when the first barrier of just being “allowed” into certain positions was lifted. World War II, when women had to do the jobs at home while men were away on the battlefield, dispensed with most of the objections to women being able to do certain work, they having proved by necessity they could do just about anything men could. Even Queen Elizabeth was a mechanic and drove a truck. She was also the Head of State and reigning monarch, living negation of any objections to women being in positions of power. Attempts to put the genie back in the bottle when the men came home merely resulted in the big break-out during the sixties and since then, the “issues” thrown out as the major “gotcha” hurdles, i.e. pregnancy, parenting and child-care, are now also gradually being accommodated, with nothing less than a quiet cultural revolution.
In many fields, technological or other solutions have dispensed with such inanities as “Would you want a women rescuing you in a fire or a big, strong man who can carry you down a flight of stairs?” Like modern firefighters even do that these days or there’s no such thing as muscly women. It’s like saying women can’t drive big rigs, when there are a lot of lady truckers who have proven themselves more than capable of doing so and women train drivers who know how to push buttons in computerised cabs. As many trains now are fully automated, run from computer centres thousands of kilometres away, the point is now moot. (And, actually, I would feel safer being carried out of a burning building by a big burly Pacific Islander man or woman, than a puny, white male desk jockey. 🙂 )
Unfortunately, inertia, resistance and the backlash to MeToo, BLM and DEI is still restricting women to a pyramid workplace model – lots of women in the typing pool but nearly all under a male supervisor, and people of colour to token representative roles in select positions. So, yes, as the anti-feminists” shout, workplace participation rates for women are up. But, presence in managerial positions is still very low. The critics of “feminism” point out the large number of women on the boards of Fortune 500 companies but neglect to mention that only 10% are CEOs. Those who claim racism is a “woke” delusion, point to Clarence Thomas serving on the SCOTUS, a reference so facile I squirm at the idea it’s even made.
Some of the anti-DEI mob magnanimously concede that inequity exists in the world, but claim the whole of civilisation shouldn’t be brought down by the faults in society acting against equal opportunity in “earlier” years, before people get to lofty places like universities. There, they say, the highest standards must be maintained and, therefore, no “lesser” person should be admitted. However, that they actively oppose equity programs designed to bring people up to required levels of admission, miss the point that all graduates are still required to meet all course requirements before being conferred a degree and overlook legacy inductions, raises valid questions as to their true understanding of the real world and what equity and equality are about. That they apply the same “magnanimousness” to kindergarten and offer no solutions as to how the inequalities in “earlier years” and society as a whole can be addressed, makes their observations irrelevant to the discourse.
After women and people of colour, the current targets of the anti-DEI mob’s most vocal virtue-signalling and soap-boxing are “Muslims” and recognition of native peoples.
Personally, I’m happy to be treated by any doctor qualified for the job, regardless of sex, race or anything else. In Australia, we’re very lucky. We’re a diverse nation with national standards and few barriers to the workplace and I can feel confident that whomever I see is suitable, regardless of any irrelevant superficialities. Likewise, in any workplace situation. Suffice to say, I don’t run out of a building screaming “The Muslims are coming!” when served by a man of colour (even the Sikh, Buddhist or Hindu “Muslims”) or a woman in a hijab. And, in fact, the only “issues” I’ve experienced in any setting, professional or otherwise, have usually been due to privileged “white” people. The most helpful person I’ve encountered in a supermarket recently was a young woman in a hijab, who patiently came to my rescue when I got into an argument with a self-serve checkout, and, fortunately, her understanding of how supermarkets work these days far superseded mine!
I didn’t think “The blacks are taking over!” during the Voice referendum, nor do I think “they” want to slaughter me in my bed in revenge for the sins of the colonial fathers. All that’s being asked for is recognition of past wrongs and some kind of reparation to address the inequities that have resulted from those past wrongs, so that people still living the effects of them know justice and have opportunities made available to them that, by law and all that’s moral, they should never have been denied, even if that means forced quotas. In a wealthy country, it’s not a race for limited spaces. It’s a matter of making more spaces available to accommodate everyone. No-one’s taking from someone else. Unless, of course, funding’s reduced by people who do want to make it about competition for limited spaces and competition based on criteria determined by those reducing the funding. Countering that sub rosa means of enacting fascism is just one purpose of DEI and why any attempt at Musk/Trumpian DEI purges and DOGE-style cuts in Australia must be countered at every step. Yes, there are occasional absurdities, but what could be more absurd than Donald Trump as President of the United States or the totally unqualified RFK jr as Secretary of Health, people who most certainly are in their positions because they are entitled, privileged, white males. Trumpism is something we do not want reflected in Australia, in any form, and one of the most essential ground- level defences from that is maintaining our egalitarian diversity through equity in a more sophisticated social and economic model than that offered by fascism by stealth.