Sunday, May 03, 2020




No, female leaders are not better at fighting Covid-19
Stop fawning over Jacinda Ardern and Angela Merkel – it’s sexist and embarrassing


In fact, Australia's Scott Morrison is doing a better job than Ardern, and with less shutdowns to destroy the economy. New Zealand has 0.4 deaths per 100,000 population while Australia has 0.3, according to a New Economic Forum analysis. And earlier this week infections were running at 26 cases per 100,000 people in Australia compared to New Zealand's 30 cases

Shut the labs, close the factories, tell the virologists to down tools. What we really need in the fight against Covid-19 is a woman’s touch, apparently.

That’s right, according to commentators the reason some countries appear to be handling the coronavirus pandemic better than others is because they have female leaders. A piece in Forbes argues that women are ‘stepping up to show the world how to manage a messy patch for our human family’. How quaint.

The article praises Angela Merkel for telling her countrymen to ‘take it seriously’; Sanna Marin for using her youth to tap into Finland’s resource of social-media influencers; Norway’s Erna Solberg for broadcasting messages to children; New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern for locking down early; and Taiwan’s Tsai Ing-wen for utilising the country’s considerable healthcare resources.

No mention is made of other rather important factors in these lady-led countries, like wealth, population density and access to certain equipment. Instead, the idea that women know best in the fight against coronavirus has been repeated again and again. On a slightly different tack, an article in the Guardian argues that women leaders are better at dealing with crisis because they had to work harder than men to get to where they are.

Underpinning many of these claims are barely veiled stereotypes. Women are said to have more compassion, love, kindness, intuition. This revival of the ‘gentler sex’ cliché in politics isn’t new. For years, people have argued for greater female representation in parliament or public life because women apparently create a more consensual, caring atmosphere that leads to better decision-making.

But it’s worth remembering that there are plenty of female leaders who make rubbish political decisions. Merkel might be praised for her response to coronavirus in Germany, but her frosty response to Italy and other EU member states’ calls for economic assistance could hardly be called ‘compassionate’. And remember when everyone was fawning over ‘the Lady’ Aung San Suu Kyi? Look at her now.

To suggest that gender should play a role in how we fight this virus risks undermining the solidarity we need right now. Plus it can distract us from the real issues. There has been plenty of chatter about the lack of women cabinet ministers at the daily Downing Street press briefings. But surely exit strategies, equipment and testing are more important things to press government on. Plus, it was interesting to see that when Priti Patel was put up to front a press conference last weekend, Twitter was less than impressed.

Claiming that women are different to men because of their feminine intuition, their caring side or their gentle nature is an old and ugly form of sexism. Women are taking a leading role in fighting this virus, but not because they are biologically predisposed to do so.

For now, we need to stop treating women like the gentler sex, and start taking women seriously as human beings, capable of as many good or bad decisions as men.

SOURCE 






Despite Scare Tactics, No Wuhan Virus Spike After Wisconsin Election 

“People should not be forced to put their lives on the line to vote.” – Bernie Sanders, April 1

“Wisconsin’s primary to go forward Tuesday even as coronavirus all but shutters the U.S.” – POLITICO, April 4

“Wisconsin legislature comes under fire for ‘unconscionable’ decision to hold primary amid coronavirus pandemic.” – Washington Post, April 5

“‘This is ridiculous’: Wisconsin holds its primary election in the middle of a pandemic.” – CNN, April 7

“Stay home and feel defeated, or go out, make my voice heard, and potentially contract a horrible virus.” – Wisconsin resident Quinn Blackshere, age 27

“52 People Who Took Part in Wisconsin’s Primary Have Tested Positive for Coronavirus.”- Associated Press, April 29

Fifty-two people infected.

That’s 52 people infected out of over 400,000 ballots cast in person, plus poll workers. Also remember that out of those 52 who tested positive, we have no idea how many — if any — were actually infected on Election Day due to in-person voting. Ryan Westergaard, chief medical officer at Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services, said as much: “It would be speculative to say that was definitely the cause without really investigating closely and being clear that somebody really had no other potential exposure to infected people. I don’t think we have the resources to really do that to know definitely.”

None of the 52 has died. One Milwaukee resident was quoted saying, “I don’t feel that I’m risking my life, but it’s definitely different. Everyone is properly practicing social distancing.” Social distancing, as I’ve been telling people for weeks, works.

Gov. Tony Evers, the state’s Democratic governor, tried to postpone the election, warning that holding the vote as scheduled would be “a significant concern and a very unnecessary public health risk,” but it would seem that his concerns, while significant, were over an insignificant public health risk. The primary vote was held as scheduled due to saner heads prevailing in the Republican-dominated state assembly and Supreme Court.

Wisconsin did see a surge in COVID-19 infections on April 22, but that was “due to an outbreak at several meat-packing facilities” near Green Bay, a major city. Most of the 52 “election” cases were in densely-populated Milwaukee.

New York City, the epicenter of the Wuhan-virus pandemic in the United States, is still in serious trouble. The New York Times reported on Monday that “more than 27,000 New Yorkers have died since the start of the novel coronavirus outbreak in March — 20,900 more than would be expected over this period.” In Florida, where Republican Governor Ron DeSantis was supposedly “late” in ordering a statewide shutdown, and where restrictions are already being lifted, coronavirus-related deaths are only 1,218 as of yesterday — and the growth rate is slowing. Florida managed to flatten the curve despite some of the country’s most relaxed restrictions. It seems at this point that the safest place to be is somewhere warm, or not-too-densely populated, or not completely reliant on mass transportation. The worst place to be is any city governed by populist blowhard Bill de Blasio.

Wisconsin’s primary vote was held more than three weeks ago, and the Wuhan coronavirus has an incubation period of about two weeks. So it’s extremely doubtful that we’ll see those numbers grow.

Just fifty-two.

I think it’s safe to say all the worry about holding the Wisconsin primary as scheduled turned out to be a big nothingburger with a side of zerofries.

SOURCE 





Hungary is not a dictatorship

Eurocrats' obsession with Viktor Orbán's authoritarianism is deeply hypocritical.

It’s generally agreed that legislation by decree, rather than approval by a legislative assembly, should be used only as a last resort in democracies. After all, it looks dangerously close to a ruler exercising arbitrary power. So, in which European country has legislation by decree been applied most frequently? And by which political leaders? The answers may be surprising.

The answer to the first question is France. Emergency laws have now been applied more than 1,000 times under the Fifth Republic. And the answer to the second question is former Socialist Party leader Francois Hollande, who was president between 2012 and 2017. He made 273 applications to legislate by decree. Standing second on the podium is the current president of France, Emmanuel Macron, who has used this measure 84 times in the first two years of his tenure.

In fact, six of rule-by-decree’s 10 largest users were socialist presidents in France. So why do the EU and its supporters deem it so outrageous that Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, has engaged in exactly the same rule-by-decree procedure to safeguard Hungarians from Covid-19, which everyone accepts is a dangerous and sometimes deadly virus? Because that is why Orbán pushed through the much criticised ‘state of danger’ law at the end of March, giving him the authority to rule by decree – to protect Hungary’s citizens.

It is absurd. EU leaders (who have done little or nothing to combat the virus themselves) are attacking Orban’s Hungary for doing exactly what every other nation has been doing during the pandemic. So while the Hungarian government is using the ‘state of danger’ measures to prepare to deal with Covid-19 – which means that at present it has reserved 110 dormitories and 58 hotels for patients, put 3,550 cars into service, and drawn up large-scale emergency healthcare provision – Eurocrats seemingly have nothing better to do than use that preparation as ‘proof’ that Orban’s Hungary is really just a dictatorship.

Time and again, Hungary has faced the false and vicious allegation that it is no longer a democracy. This charge predates Orbán’s 2010 election victory. Indeed, it has been levelled at Hungary whenever its government has shown some political vigour, and defended either its own principles or the nation’s independence.

Yet, even under the current emergency measures, Hungary’s citizens are guaranteed the same rights as before; the rule of law is still in force; the Constitutional Court is in operation; and, together with parliament, it oversees the emergency measures. The Hungarian government has made no decisions that go beyond its constitutional right to do so. It has merely taken a prudent view that certain decisions related directly to defending the nation against Covid-19 could be made more quickly and efficiently under a constitutional ‘state of danger’, designed specifically for such ‘natural disasters’ as a major epidemic. Parliament of course can still decide at any time to withdraw the emergency powers it has granted the government – and by a simple majority rather than the super-majority required to grant such powers. The constitutional court also could end the ‘state of danger’ if the government sought to extend it beyond the emergency itself. Setting a deadline for the duration of the emergency measures is therefore superfluous when a de facto deadline already exists under two constitutional headings. Its only practical benefit would be to try to stop Brussels badmouthing Hungary, but probably nothing could do that.

As for those best-informed on Hungarian politics — namely, Hungarian citizens — 90 per cent say they support Orbán’s use of emergency powers, with almost 60 per cent saying that they should last until the end of the pandemic. They see the gravity of the situation, and they trust the government to take appropriate measures to deal with it.

Yet Eurocrats ignore all this, and instead indulge in yet another round of Orbán-phobia. As well they might. It provides a useful distraction from their palpable failure to offer solidarity to the EU’s hardest-hit member states.

The hypocrisy of those slamming Orbán and Hungary is striking.
When presidents Hollande or Macron were ruling by decree on countless occasions over the past decade, where were the guardians of democracy then? How many international declarations were made, condemning France’s autocratic tendencies? How many EU leaders talked darkly of the end of democracy, and called for the expulsion of France from the European community?

Nothing is new under the sun, and we can find such hypocrisies throughout history. But that shouldn’t make us ignore them. If we do, they’ll occur more often. As one famously principled democrat once said:

‘We can’t use a double standard… for measuring our own and other people’s policies. Our demands for democratic practices in other lands will be no more effective than the guarantee of those practices in our own country.’

Those thought-provoking words from one-time US vice president Hubert Humphrey are worth heeding, especially now, in these troubled times.

SOURCE 






Shutdowns are risky times for men

Bettina Arndt, writing from Australia

The big news in the feminist press this week was the Family Court has just announced a new triage system prioritising family violence matters. Such cases will now be able to be rushed through the courts within 72 hours.

“Our calls answered!! Thank You!” enthused Women’s Safety NSW which had been pushing out press releases reporting “alarming evidence” alleging “domestic abusers are using their shared care rights as a tool for further abuse during COVID-19.” They claim the closure of safe places for child handovers means women are forced to compromise their safety using informal arrangements to hand over children to abusive ex-partners.

So now the Family Court is to strengthen its policy of giving priority to cases where there are allegations of violence with a new dedicated COVID-list. Rest assured the Court will be less interested in the other major component in the recent 39 per cent increase in urgent applications to the Family Court – fathers being denied contact with their children.

Men who have spent years battling through the court system for decent parenting plans are discovering such hard-won victories count for little under the new COVID-19 social order where ex-partners use the virus as a reason to deny contact.

Corona child access battles

I’m hearing from many of these men. Yesterday a psychologist wrote about a father who spent over four years and huge sums fighting to get reasonable custody of his young child. As soon as COVID-19 hit his ex-wife denied all access claiming she was worried about the child’s health because of the father’s work, even though he was in a very safe job. She produced doctors’ letters claiming this posed a risk to the child and eventually the father agreed to stop working in a desperate attempt to still see his son. He’s now  moved in with a family member to save money so he can still pay maintenance and lawyer’s bills but the mother’s lawyers are still making moves to cut back on the very minimum contact he currently has with the boy.

Of course, there are also men whose fears about the virus leads them to overreact, like the fathers who try to bully ex-partners who work in high risk jobs like hospitality or nursing to self-isolate from their children. But since it is mostly mothers who have the major care of children, they are usually the ones with the power.       

There’s a very interesting blog by Robert Franklin, published on the National Parents Organisation website, commenting on current articles about sharing parenting which quote judges and lawyers sensibly saying that despite the pandemic parents should work together and abide by court orders. But Franklin then includes an extract from an article in The Atlantic by writer Deborah Copaken, who shares custody of her 13- year-old son with his father.

Copaken’s reaction to the pandemic was simple. She decided it was safer to keep the boy with her:

‘“I’m keeping him home from school,” I texted my ex the next morning: a unilateral decision, not an opening to a dialogue.’

She followed this up with another text to the father:

“Hey, hey, we need to talk about parenting in the era of corona. All things being equal, I’d be happier if he just stays here until the plague is over, but maybe you could do bike rides together outside?”

It’s perfectly acceptable for this woman to boast that she decided to violate the court order: “If you’re a Mom with possession of the kid, hey, do whatever you choose,” observes Franklin.

It says a lot that the magazine editors clearly thought this was fair enough.

Men at risk

Last week I received a tragic letter from a man who is facing his own court battle. After I wrote back to him trying to find someone to help him, I received another email which ended with the chilling line:

“I have been close to ending it all and your email literally was a life saver.”

Seventy per cent of Australia’s suicide victims are male and our biased court system has long been a key part of this problem. Now the corona virus is putting even more men’s lives at risk as divorced fathers deal with yet another obstacle in their fragile relationship with their children.

That’s not the only way this pandemic is putting pressure on vulnerable men. Just wait until the economic consequences of the lockdowns really start to kick in and more men lose their jobs. 

It is now very unfashionable to talk about the burden men face providing for their families but the reality is that here in Australia males are more than twice as likely as women to be a couple’s primary breadwinner. Being the major provider for a family carries a real punch when it comes the impact of losing a job.That pesky legacy of “toxic masculinity” still  connects a man’s earnings to his sense of self-worth and achievement.

Data from Australia’s leading longitudinal study, HILDA, shows in 2018 that males were the primary earner in 58 % of couples – 20 per cent of the women earned no income. In over 40% of dual earner couples, the female earned less than half that of the male, mainly due to working part- time.

So, it is hardly surprising that the loss of that key income hits men hard. Just look what happened after the financial crisis. British data showed 1,000 suicides linked to unemployment from 2008-2010,  84%  of which were male, according to an analysis published in the British Medical Journal.  And men dealing with this personal crisis rarely have the social networks nor inclination to seek out the help they need to get through.

But there’s no way such analysis will impact on current media coverage promoting women as the real victims of the current economic crisis, as more jobs are being lost in retail, hospitality and healthcare sector which employ more women.

The barrage of stories about the stress this is placing on families has forced governments to dig deep for more money for mental health services. Our Federal government recently allocated an additional $74 million specifically for mental health services that are coming under strain during the coronavirus pandemic.

That money is to be shared amongst all the usual services, like Lifeline and Beyond Blue which in January received a $64 million funding boost for suicide prevention strategies. Most of that money will be spent supporting women, according to a detailed analysis by the Australia Men’s Health Forum (AMHF). Even Movember, the huge men’s health fundraising organisation, gives most of their suicide money to a programme called “Way Back” – 60% of people who benefit from this service are women.

But – wait for it – some of the new corona-related mental health funding is being directed at men. A very select group of men. Men’s Referral Services is to get more of the new mental health funding to deal with perpetrators of domestic violence. This is an organisation which proudly boasts of their expertise in weeding out the men who ring their help lines claiming to be victims of domestic violence but who are, in fact, perpetrators.

As for real victims, truly vulnerable men – MRS has no time for them and neither sadly, does our government.

Well, that’s it for now. Sorry about the grim tidings. Like most people, I’m enjoying some of the funny material floating around the internet at present. Here’s one of my recent favourites.



Via email:  bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************



No comments: