Clearly Andrew Bolt has missed a few things

I was browsing conservative media sites the other day, as I sometimes do, and came across this article on Andrew Bolt's blog. Andrew, for those who don't know, is one of Australia's most widely read journalists and prominent climate skeptics. I came across this curious post -

How dumb is warmist Friedman?

– Tuesday, December, 25, 2012, (7:14am)

Thomas Friedman savages the Republicans as stupid, but for true stupidity readers should check out ... Thomas Friedman:

But if Republicans continue to be led around by, and live in fear of, a base that denies global warming after Hurricane Sandy and refuses to ban assault weapons after Sandy Hook — a base that would rather see every American’s taxes rise rather than increase taxes on millionaires — the party has no future. It can’t win with a base that is at war with math, physics, human biology, economics and common-sense gun laws all at the same time.

What makes Friedman’s brand of stupidity worse than most is that it is protected by the impregnable smugness of the group-thinking elite. Friedman would not even suspect he’d made an error or feel the slightest wish to check whether the comfortable pieties he repeats are well-founded. Why take the risk of becoming unpopular by advancing an unfashionable truth?

Fact: anyone who claims most sceptics are “deniers” of “global warming” are plainly fools or liars. None of the sceptics I know doubt at all that the planet has warmed in the past century. Most would agree man’s emissions are likely to have a warming influence. Friedman’s language suggest he simply does not understand the position held by those he so casually damns as stupid.

Is there anything more stupid than a man contradicting an argument he doesn’t even trouble himself to understand?

Well, yes. It’s a New York Times columnist who then claims Hurricane Sandy - actually just a storm at landfall - is proof of catastrophic man-made warming. That is a position not one in 10 warmist scientists would endorse, yet Friedman advances it as his ultimate proof of the idiocy of everyone else.

My God, is this man stupid

My eyes nearly jumped out of my skull when I saw the words 'Fact: anyone who claims most sceptics are “deniers” of “global warming” are plainly fools or liars. None of the sceptics I know doubt at all that the planet has warmed in the past century.'

Please Andrew, allow me to put you right!

“Those same people don’t say that when we have cold weather, like if there’s a cold snap, so they’re not being consistent. I don’t think we can say which direction the planet is going based on a few events one way or the other” - Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado)

“Look at the patterns. It gets cold, it gets warmer, it gets colder, gets warmer. God is still up there, and I think it’ll continue in the future” - Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)

"I believe the earth gets warmer, and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man through the production of CO2 which is a trace gas in the atmosphere and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all of the other factors, El Nino, La Nina, sunspots, you know, moisture in the air" - Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania, and 2008 Republican presidential candidate)

Even more startling than this horde of delusional conservative politicians is the constituents they represent. This poll (http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-science-doubters-world-warming-080143113.html) taken just a month ago shows that a full 30% of Republican voters don't think the world is even warming, and this is still a significant improvement on surveys taken several years ago. The simple truth of it is that the skeptics side of the climate change debate is still widely populated with complete scientific illiterates, including not only everyday voters but its political leaders.
 
I'd advise Andrew Bolt to stick to debating Australian politics. Keep hounding Labor over wasteful spending and empty rhetoric. Steer clear of trying to defend Republicans in the US who are convinced the world is less than 10,000 years old and that universal healthcare is a socialist plot to dismantle the US constitution. While Andrew may be considered very conservative by Australian standards, in America he'd probably be a quite progressive Democrat. I haven't heard him say that Australia should abolish most of its gun laws, or double military spending, or de-fund its equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency. These are positions which would bring him more in line with your typical Republican congressmen.

Subtle sexism in the workplace

So unless you've been living under a rock, you might have noticed that gender equality and gender roles are big topics in the news right now. The brutal gang rape in Delhi that made global headlines last year and caused widespread protests in India against inhumane and degrading treatments towards women seems to have sparked the current discussion. Here in the western world the Internets are abuzz with complaints against the ways women are still treated unfairly in modern society. While women may be somewhat more willing to walk the streets at night here in Australia compared to India, we clearly still have a fair way to go down the road to total gender equality. Just the other day I read an article citing statistics that show a male graduate of say, a law degree here in Australia, is still destined to make about a million dollars more over his lifetime than a female graduate. Even adjusting for the number of women who drop out of the workforce to have children, a significant gap still exists. Now I'll leave the broader debates over what causes this discrepancy to other posts. Today I'd like to examine something much closer to home. That is, my local working environment.

I'm currently a full time uni student, but part-time I've spent much of the past year scurrying around Melbourne's south-western suburbs delivering pizzas and garlic breads to hungry customers for a bit of extra cash. Its an alright job being a pizza delivery boy. I haven't even been robbed or crashed the car yet, so I guess I can't complain. Browsing the internet for articles on gender attitudes got me wondering, does the foul stench of sexism permeate even into my own humble workplace?

Now a few things here. First of all, I'm confident none of the fellow employees or the employer of my local pizza store is inherently sexist. We're all decent people. Men and women performing the same roles get paid the same amount and are treated much the same. What I'm talking about is what roles societal attitudes have pressed people into. There are at least three subtle differences in gender roles that I noticed at my work.

The most obvious example of this I became aware of a few months ago. Now most of the people working in the store itself (answering phones, manning the front counter, making pizzas and putting them in the oven, etc) are girls, and most of the drivers are guys. This isn't an absolute rule, but there's a reason its not as evenly balanced as it could be. One of the girls working there recently turned 18 and got her drivers license. Now the drivers are paid $2 an hour more (and also get tips) than the people working in the store. I asked her why she didn't ask to work as a driver instead. She gave the answer I was expecting. That, quite simply, she was fearful of sexual harassment if she worked in that role. She even said that her father advised her as such.

Now $2 an hour extra may not sound like much, but over a year of employment that could mean a difference of a grand or two. This girl has, not unreasonably, judged that amount of extra cash is simply not worth the added risk of driving around Melbourne's suburbs on her own, often at night. I should also point out here that the drivers we have at the moment all happen to be either very young guys (say 18 to early 20's) or much older women (30s to 50s). We actually had a driver who was attacked, beaten and robbed several months ago. He was a teenage boy. Can anyone deny, as painful as it is to say it, that had he been a girl a much worse fate might have befallen him? All the drivers recognize the same risks here, and yet it has only been the men and some of the older women who have chosen to accept them.

I've heard people argue that advising an attractive young women she should be more aware of her safety in certain circumstances than say, a young man would be, or even a less attractive or older women, is sexist and 'victim-blaming'. Well sure, the fact that such advice needs to be given at all is unfortunate, but the simple truth of the matter it that when it comes to that young woman's safety, it is not necessarily a bad idea at the moment is it? The mere fact that someone recognizes sexism exists does not make them sexist. Its akin to saying that someone who advises you lock your front door at night or when you leave the house is condoning burglars. No, they are not justifying a crime, they are simply explaining it, and additionally trying to prevent it. Until the day comes when theft or sexual harassment truly becomes a thing of the past, giving out such advice on occasion will continue to be the logical thing to do (although of course it can be taken to outrageous extremes).

The second thing, and this is something I'm sure is common to many workplaces, is that most of the people serving customers at the store's front counter happen to be young teenage girls. Now I am sure the boss, because he is running a business and makes his livelihood from the profits, is somewhat more eager to hire attractive girls than either unattractive girls or guys. Now does this somehow make him a bad person? As long as societal attitudes remain the same it is going to be a logical financial choice to hire people in this way. The only other real alternative is some degree of government regulation, but how on earth would you eliminate such a gender bias? Have some government bureaucrat come along, give all new employees an attractiveness rating out of 10 and not allow any people to be hired who will bring the store's average score above 5? What workable solution is there? I think there's no denying that in much the same way that 'sex sells' a pretty young smile will sell. I'm not of course saying that society should just make peace with this distortion of gender equality, but as long as people act this way, businesses have really no choice but to facilitate it. Indeed, otherwise they could very well go out of business.

There was also a third example, and it ties very much into the first one. The store's manager is a guy, and his wife works there (and presumably co-owns it) with him. Now the manager doesn't work at the store every day of the week and occasionally as one of the drivers I'll be the only one left at the store when it closes aside from his wife. He's told me a few times to make sure I stay until she's closed everything up and left. We did indeed agree that the presence of a tall young male is a wise deterrent to have against thieves or vandals who might try and raid his store or attack his wife. May we please have a show of hands who thinks this is a waste of time?

So anyway, there you go. At least three examples of how gender roles are still significant in our daily, modern lives. Even in something as simple as delivering pizzas men and women have to weigh different priorities and anticipate that they will on occasion be treated differently to one another. Are these differences bad? Should we try and eliminate them? And if so how? These are the questions I've gotten round to wondering lately. What do people think? And are women or some other group of people similarly disadvantaged in your workplace?

Thanks for reading