In which the pond takes a nostalgic trip back in time to angry Anglicans, but still finds room for prattling Polonius doing the usual, and Dame Slap's sage advice to women in search of a pussy-groping ...

 

There used to be a time when the pond gave over its Sunday to the Angry Sydney Anglicans and to the Pellists, to the point where the pond was mentioned in despatches as being needlessly obsessed.

Then the Pellists went to an appropriate place, and the Sydney Anglicans tucked in their bibs, and the pond settled for getting its dose of religious bigotry via the likes of the "Friendly Atheist" on YouTube. 

It was American content, but it kept the pond in touch with news about the likes of bizarre Ryan Walters and bibles in Texas. Weird country ...

But every so often the pond gets nostalgic for the old days, and those lost idylls came rushing back in force with this splash featuring a reptile EXCLUSIVE:

What a splash, what a tease Chastity changes for Anglican priests chafe with church conservatives,The axing of the terms ‘chaste’ and ‘chastity’ in controversial changes to the rules of conduct for Anglican priests in Perth sparks a national outcry.

Sure, Jamie Walker's EXCLUSIVE runs an interminable six minutes, and is full of arcane angry Anglican theology but what a relief not to have to sit through a reptile raging about renewables for the umpteenth time. 

That snap of Kay of Perth was completely beguiling, Anglican Archbishop of Perth Kay Goldsworthy at St George's Anglican Cathedral, Perth. Picture: Colin Murty

The pond plunged into the angry Anglican pool, torrents and eddies and rips threatening to sweep the pond into the deep:

Anglican priests need not be “chaste” under a change of policy in the progressive Diocese of Perth that has angered traditionalists and stoked tension over moral standards in the nation’s second-largest church.
The terms “chaste” and “chastity” were axed when the Faithfulness in Service rule book for clergy and church workers in the West Australian capital was revised last month in a bid to accommodate same-sex relationships, critics say.
They argue that the changes will license permissiveness and potentially undermine years of ­effort to stamp out sexual abuse in the church.
Instead of “maintaining chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage”, priests and staff would value God’s “gift” of sexuality by “taking responsibility for their sexual conduct” in the amended code of conduct in which the Faithfulness in Service provisions sit.
The stipulation that priests and church staff “be chaste and not engage in disgraceful conduct of a sexual nature” has become a less-onerous expectation that “sexual behaviour should be characterised by faithfulness and integrity”, according to opponents of the shift.
Archbishop of Sydney Kanishka Raffel, the Australian president of the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion, a global alliance of traditionalists, said this was contrary to the teachings of both the Bible and the church.
He expressed alarm that Perth was the eighth of Australia’s 23 Anglican dioceses to “water down” the FIS provisions.

Ah, the pond should have known. Of course the Angry Sydney Anglicans were back at it again. Cue that pesky, tricky code of conduct:

Outrageous stuff, and enough to send fur flying:

“The Faithfulness in Service guidelines were the result of a ­process, guided by scripture, and reflecting a clear view of the standard required of those in Christian ministry,” the Archbishop told The Weekend Australian. “Those Biblical standards have not changed and yet one more diocese has changed the guidelines to permit sexual activity outside marriage, whether in heterosexual or homosexual relationships, and other sexually permissive practices. This is neither scriptural nor Anglican teachings.”
The chair of the WA chapter of EFAC, Marc Dale, said expunging chastity amounted to a “very radical departure” from Christian orthodoxy. “We’ve gone from a requirement that clergy are either faithful in their marriage or chaste in singleness, to that no longer being the requirement. I think even the average punter would see it as a significant shift in position,” Reverend Dale said on Friday from his parish of Highgate in inner Perth.
“Of course, in the broader culture I accept that people don’t have the same view of marriage as they used to, or, indeed, of being chaste in singleness. But the church has had that position for 2000 years … and those words carry a significant and clear meaning. I do think that most people in Australia would accept that being faithful in marriage is a good value to uphold.”
Rejecting this, Archbishop of Perth Kay Goldsworthy said the changes would strengthen the rules governing priests’ behaviour and were in line with measures adopted elsewhere.
The code of conduct was a “policy document” that was subject to being “amended from time to time”, she insisted.
“A change to the code of conduct does not give permission for wrongful behaviour in pastoral or personal relationships,” Archbishop Goldsworthy said.
“Integrity and faithfulness should be hallmarks of every relationship for Christians.
“Faithfulness has a far wider implication than sexual fidelity. It requires faithfulness of the heart and mind as well as body. This is evident in the responsibility taken by single and married Christians, apart from those who have made promises as members of religious communities which are life vows.”
The row is the latest in a series of pitched theological battles between the progressive and conservative wings of Anglicanism in Australia, spurred by the dilemma same-sex marriage poses for the churches.
Christian doctrine holds that people should refrain from sex – chastity in singleness – until they wed and then be faithful to their spouse. The catch for committed Anglicans in same-sex relationships is that marriage is the union of a man and woman – a position church traditionalists led by Archbishop Raffel sought to enshrine when the issue came to a head in 2022 at the church’s General Synod, its supreme decision-­making body.
The failure of the motion to pass the General Synod gave legs to a breakaway movement known as the Diocese of the Southern Cross, headed by former archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies. It now boasts six churches in southeast Queensland and one in Perth.

Sorry, the pond was enjoying itself so much that it felt no need to interrupt. Petty minds might revert to not so long ago, when sex reared its ugly head in The Graudian in March 2017 under the header Royal commission reveals scale of child sexual abuse in Anglican church.

Now there's sexual conduct and cover-ups done with integrity.

Instead enjoy a snap of that delicious dell - or is it Dale - deploring the expunging of chastity, Reverend Marc Dale at St Alban's Church, Perth. Picture: Colin Murty.

Wow, a truly stern vision ... and waddya know, it's teh gaze ...

Reverend Dale said the push to change the FIS in Perth came from activists concerned that the former rules were being used to challenge the positions of clergy openly living in same-sex relationships. “The speech made by the mover of the motion at the (diocesan) synod made it very clear that one of the primary reasons was to prevent the use of Faithfulness in Service as a cause to object to the ordinations of people in same-sex partnership,” he said.
“It affirmed what was well known – that is, that there were a number of senior figures in the clergy who were living in same-sex relationships but that could not be officially condoned.”
Asked if this was the case, Archbishop Goldsworthy said: “I don’t remember those words being spoken. I think it would be absolutely true to say that many church workers are people who live in relationships and friendships with people of the same sex. But that would not be the case only in this part of the country.”
Archbishop Goldsworthy, Australia’s most senior female church leader, said she was surprised the changes in Perth had attracted such heated opposition when “various iterations” of the code had been adopted in the Anglican dioceses of Grafton, Newcastle and Riverina in NSW; Wangaratta, Ballarat and Gippsland in Victoria; Bunbury, WA; and the Brisbane-based Diocese of Southern Queensland.
Firing back at one of her fiercest critics, David Ould, a senior ­associate Anglican minister in Sydney who writes an influential blog on church affairs, she said: “We’re the last in a long line … and it’s odd to me that David Ould – you know, just saying here – should single out the Diocese of Perth, the only diocese in which the bishop is a woman, to have a go at. I don’t know why he hasn’t ­singled others out.”
Reverend Ould said in response: “The idea that this is about whether the bishop is a woman or not is ridiculous.”
After Archbishop Goldsworthy advised members of the Perth synod on October 22 that she had assented to the amendments, the standing committee of the Diocese of Sydney passed a resolution expressing “the most profound concern” at the move and called on her to “repent of her decision”. If not, she should resign.
Archbishop Raffel said the Bible provided an objective standard and the role of churches was not to be “in keeping with community standards, but to teach and practice the life-giving and authoritative teachings” of Christ.
“I cannot see how removing a clear statement such as, ‘you are to be chaste and not engage in disgraceful conduct of a sexual nature’ improves the standard to which we want all church workers to adhere,” he said.
The Bishop of Bunbury, Ian Coutts, said the diocesan synod there voted several times before altering its FIS provisions, broadly reflected by the changes in Perth. “One of the stated reasons for requesting the change was due to a concern there was not a corresponding set of expectations about the quality of conduct in marriage in the original wording,” Dr Coutts said.
“I do believe that chaste behaviour is of importance for clergy in contemporary Australia.”
Bishop of Newcastle Peter Stuart said the diocese’s code of conduct, amended in 2019, required clergy and church workers to “set an example of integrity in rela­tion­ships and faithfulness in marriage and not engage in dis­gra­ceful conduct of a sexual nature”.
Dr Stuart said: “We urge all people, gay or straight, married or unmarried, to recognise the profound significance of sexual expression. We remind people not to casualise intimacy, not to engage in predatory behaviour, not to exploit others and to act in ways which promote the dignity and esteem of others. We teach that this is best expressed within marriage. The people of the diocese expect clergy to model healthy and safe approaches in their own lives.”
Perth and Brisbane are considered to be the most progressive of the Anglican Church’s metropolitan dioceses, whereas the bigger and financially powerful Diocese of Sydney is the seat of its fast-growing and deeply conservative evangelical movement.

Well that's one storm in a teacup and what a splendid serve of Assam Bold it was, the pond's favourite kick starter morning drop.

And so quickly on to prattling Polonius, hoping that he wouldn't feel offended being dropped down the listings, because he's in splendid form in Chairman Kim’s blind spot: lack of viewpoint diversity, It’s rare for a speech in Canberra to make news in North America. But it happened on Wednesday when Kim Williams raised the ire of US podcaster Joe Rogan as well as Elon Musk.

The pond isn't sure that Joe Rogan's ire was raised. 

LOL WUT, in the pond's understanding of the terms, is more jolly laughter and bemusement than ire. That's about as subtle and nuanced a display of emotions as you could expect from Joe (FAFO is a little trickier). It was Uncle Leon wut got his knickers in a Pravda knot.

Never mind, the reptiles began proceedings with a cruel snap of Kim, ABC chairman Kim Williams addresses the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra on Wednesday. Picture: NewsWire/Martin Ollman, which emphasised his increasing resemblance to a turtle, or perhaps to Mitch ...

Here the pond should confess that in its brief encounters with Williams in working days, he came across as arrogant, a self-regarding narcissist and inclined to frequent spleen-venting. 

On the other hand, who but a Polonius could argue with this:

Responding to a question after his address to the National Press Club on Wednesday, Mr Williams had said "people like" Rogan "preyed on people's vulnerabilities", and suggested they help spread conspiracies.
"They prey on fear, they prey on anxiety, they prey on all of the elements that contribute to uncertainty in society, and they entrepreneur fantasy outcomes and conspiracy outcomes as being a normal part of social narrative," Mr Williams said.
"I personally find it deeply repulsive. And to think that someone has such remarkable power in the United States is something that I look at in disbelief."

Well yes, and it was Uncle Leon that took umbrage, muttering about Pravda in his billionaire way.

Speaking of Uncle Leon, the pond did enjoy this:

The pond looked on that with disbelief, but back to prattling Polonius, seizing the chance to go full rear naked choke hold and make Kim tap out, because just as the pond was a gamer for a nanosecond, so Polonius is a devotee of the UFC and all things roguish Rogan ...

It’s a rare occasion when a weekly Wednesday speech at the National Press Club in Canberra makes news in North America. But it occurred on Wednesday after recently appointed ABC chairman Kim Williams managed to raise the ire of not only US podcaster Joe Rogan but also Elon Musk, who is said to be the wealthiest person in the democratic world.
It was one of those familiar occasions when an ABC chair begs for more funding from the government. Williams’s position is a familiar one in that he maintains that the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster is doing it tough on an annual handout of $1.1bn a year.
His address was somewhat vague. It mentioned only a couple of names: Vladimir Putin, Andrew Tate, Emmanuel Macron, British historian Mark Mazower and ABC TV personality “Tom Gleeson’s (Hard Quiz) scriptwriters”.
He spent considerable time railing against misinformation and disinformation without giving any examples of what he has in mind with respect to the contemporary debate. But the occasion came to life at the question/discussion period. Up stepped ABC regional reporter Jane Norman, asking a question about Rogan, whom she described “as the world’s most popular podcast host – he has three billion listeners”. Norman added that Rogan had “successfully captured that bro-market in America”. She then asked: “How would or should the ABC be going about capturing that kind of audience?”

Did Polonius pause for at all before wondering about the company he was keeping?

Apparently not because the reptiles seized the chance to do a cross promotion with Kroger, whose name just so happens to conceal "roger" within it ...

Former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger slams ABC Chair Kim Williams over comments made about Joe Rogan. “When Kim Williams came in right, he made some really good statements about the ABC and people thought maybe he’s going to shake this place up,” Mr Kroger said. “But then he gives this bizarre performance. “Kim, I’m afraid that was an absolute shocker at the Press Club.”

A little less like a turtle, but not bad all the same... as Polonius then proceeded to show his pedantic lack of a sensa huma or the wonders of comic exaggeration:

It is not clear whether Norman had taken in Williams’s warning about misinformation and disinformation. Sure, Rogan has millions of listeners – but well short of three billion.
Williams started off well by stating: “Look, I’m not sure that I’m the right person to respond to that question. I am not a consumer or an enthusiast about Mr Rogan or his work.”
Norman interjected with an ironic “shocking”. Then Williams went on to fang the American podcaster, declaring that he preyed on “people’s vulnerabilities” including their fear and anxiety. He described the podcaster’s work as “deeply repulsive” and said he was “absolutely in dismay that” Rogan “can be a source of public entertainment when it’s really treating the public as plunder for purposes that are really quite malevolent”.
All this from a speaker who said he was not the right person to answer the question since he was not a consumer of Rogan’s work. But there you go.
Williams’s performance reminded me of a recent appearance by conservative Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson on Fox News. Appearing recently on Gutfeld!, Peterson was asked to reflect on “what’s been going on in America” since the US presidential election. He responded that “it’s left me speechless, fundamentally”. But then Peterson went on to speak, declaring “it’s surreal and literary at the same time” – whatever that may mean. And he mentioned Musk.
Williams’s spray was noted by Rogan, who cited it on X with this: “LOL WUT”. Musk responded: “From the head of Australian government-funded media, their Pravda”. Hyperbole, to be sure, but amusing nevertheless.

Jordan Peterson? A detour to celebrate the joys of street libraries. Some mug punter had purchased 12 Rules for Life, and then gave it away for free, and so the pond came into possession of a copy it would never have wasted a shekel on.

The pond stopped reading after Rule 5, Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them, was followed by Rule 11, Do not bother children when they are skateboarding. Who let those bloody children skateboard on the footpath? The pond intensely dislikes children skateboarding, and will bother them whenever it sees them doing it, and be damned to Tony Hawke ...

End scene, with faux Colbert gesture.

At this point the reptiles felt the need to remind local hive mind members of the topic, Polonius's fellow snowflakes and bed wetters, Joe Rogan, President-elect Donald Trump, Kid Rock and Elon Musk at a UFC event this month. Picture: Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC

Odd company for Polonius to be keeping, but any port in an ABC-bashing storm. 

At this point the pond realised it hadn't featured any 'toons, and this might be as good a time as any to start, what with the Kid Rock of pandemics, the Uncle Leon of vaccines ready to start his bear in the park, whale on the car roof, gig:

With those excuses out of the way, Polonius could get on with what really appealed to him, his standard Sunday serve of ABC bashing:

Away he whacked, and the whacking sent the pond into a blind panic:

The ABC chairman has made numerous speeches since taking over from Ita Buttrose last March – too many, it would seem. He has delivered some good advice, including warning ABC journalists not to be political activists and to eschew bias. But Williams has yet to even concede the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster’s essential problem – namely, its lack of viewpoint diversity.
Presenting ABC TV’s Media Watch last Monday, a somewhat defensive Paul Barry declared “the ABC is often accused of being a conservative-free zone but for the past four decades Macca has been a staunch defender of old-fashioned values”.
Ian McNamara (aka Macca) presents Australia All Over on ABC radio. It runs from 5.30am to 9.30am on Sunday mornings. Hardly prime time. And McNamara is very much the exception. Moreover, he is certainly not presented by the ABC as one of its high-profile journalists.

Hang on, hang on, that reference to the ABC being a conservative free zone came directly from Polonius himself:

The ABC is a conservative-free zone without one conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of its prominent television, radio or online outlets. The management of the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster denies this but is not able to name any one such person who fits the bill – while the fact there are numerous left-wing ABC personalities is not contested.

And now suddenly there's an exception to the rule?

Suddenly there is one conservative presenter, even though it's Sunday morning, hardly prime time, and the pond likes to feature Polonius on a Sunday morning, hardly prime time, but about what his endless jeremiads are worth.

Now to do another flashback (the pond won't link to the Sydney Institute site source), how many times has the pond come across this kind of prattle from Polonius?

The fact is that there is more debate on Sky News in Australia and Fox News in the US than on the ABC. Sky has several left-of-centre paid contributors. Moreover, it encourages debate – as was witnessed recently when Andrew Bolt disagreed with Chris Kenny over the Indigenous voice to parliament and former Liberal Party candidate Katherine Deves went head-to-head with former Labor Party operative Nicholas Reece.

Last week on Fox’s MediaBuzz program, presenter Howard Kurtz presided over a debate between conservative Will Cain and liberal (in the US sense of the term) Laura Fink. There is no debate on the ABC Media Watch program.

Debate has not ended in Australia. But it is certainly in extremis on the public broadcaster and at literary festivals throughout the land.

So it was in the past, so it is in the present, so it will be in the future, with a few name changes for cosmetic purposes, such that many will imagine that they're trapped in a Hotel California with Polonius, trying to remember the lyrics and sing Katy Perry style out of tune. (Forget it Katy, you need the Whitney range).

Oh wait, that Hotel California joke wasn't an aged form of irony, it was Polonial projection. He really is trapped in his obsession with the ABC, and he can never leave:

Barry himself is part of the problem. Since its inception in 1989, Media Watch has had only left-of-centre or so-called progressive presenters. Namely, Stuart Littlemore, Richard Ackland, Barry, David Marr, Liz Jackson, Monica Attard, Jonathan Holmes and Barry (again). Linton Besser will take over from Barry next year. Not a conservative among this lot. And all are part of the ABC family.
Last week, the ABC announced its program for 2025. The taxpayer-funded public broadcaster is a reminder of the Eagles’ song Hotel California, in that you can check out of the ABC but you never leave.
Radio National’s line-up for next year provides an example. Fran Kelly, who once declared she was “an activist”, checked out of presenting RN Breakfast from Mondays to Fridays a couple of years ago. She returns next year with a daily RN evening program.
The ABC’s Sally Sara will take over from Patricia Karvelas at RN Breakfast. Marc Fennell will present a history program and Tim Burrowes will host a new program titled MediaLand. Not a conservative among this lot.
Karvelas will do an afternoon program on ABC TV. Nick Bryant will take over from Kelly presenting RN’s Saturday Extra and Julian Morrow will continue hosting RN’s Sunday Extra. Marr has agreed to continue presenting RN’s Late Night Live in 2025 where his regular guests include Laura Tingle (on Australian politics) and Bruce Shapiro (on US politics). Not a conservative among this lot.
Sarah Ferguson remains as the presenter of ABC TV’s 7.30. This despite her hopelessly wrong 2018 three-part series titled Trump/Russia. It alleged that Donald Trump had colluded with Putin to win the 2016 US presidential election. A conspiracy theory if ever there were one. This despite Wil­liams’s warning about misinformation and disinformation.
Unless Williams presides over the introduction of viewpoint diversity into the ABC, its impact will continue to decline. That’s the inevitable result of the public broadcaster running activist campaigns against the likes of Trump and cardinal George Pell.
Williams’s NPC speech suggests he is in denial about the ABC’s central weakness.
Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.

Diversity?

Yep, Polonius is sounding more Joe and Uncle Leon by the day. He can't get hisself enough of that diversity stew ...

At this point the pond hesitated. 

Surely this Sunday was fully sated, there was no need for any more reptiles, but just like that after dinner mint in that Python sketch, Dame Slap hovered into view with When does help for one sex become unfair to the other?, You may have the best woman for the job – but may never know if it’s the best person.

She was doing a six minute self-help for girlies session, and the opening graphic sealed the deal: You may have the best woman for the job but may never know if it’s the best person.

You may not know if that's the best illustration, you may not know if reading Dame Slap is the best idea, but what a ripper tribute to the current state of the lizard Oz graphics department, with more to follow.

Apparently there's a war of the sexes going down - to do a Henry for a moment, is there a chance that Dame Slap might finally catch up with Aristophanes and his Lysistrata, after all , it's only been around since 411 BC:

Every now and then, the government-directed war between the sexes breaks out of its usual pattern of low-level skirmishes and bursts into serious conflagrations.
Two such breakouts in the past week or two – the report by Elizabeth Broderick into Rio Tinto, and admissions by prominent recruiters that the use of women-only candidate lists is rife – are symptoms of institutionalised discrimination that warrants a thorough review.
This war between the sexes shows every sign of becoming a disastrous “forever war” for the same reasons some military wars fall into this trap. This war has no clearly defined objective, no timelines and no exit strategy.
Some activists offer up gender equality or gender equity as the endgame, but the meaning of these phrases is hotly contested and lacks any objective criteria by which we may know how and when we may reach this nirvana.
Cynics suspect the lack of defin­ition is deliberate. It justifies endless continuation of positive discrimination long beyond the point of legal or moral accept­ability. It’s high time, then, we agreed some rules to tell us when we no longer need positive discrimina­tion.

The pond has no idea why the reptiles do it, but trust the pond, in the original presentation, this snap of Former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick was ginormous:

Dame Slap seemed to be triggered and went into humdrum eye-opening overdrive:

The Rio Tinto report by Broderick, a former Australian sex discrimination commissioner, squarely raises the collision between merit and gender employment targets. It describes complaints about reverse discrimination where women with inferior qualifications, instead of men with better experience and qualifications, have been given jobs. It also acknowledges there are women who fear affirmative action undermines their credibility in their roles.
Almost simultaneously it has emerged that Australian Securities Exchange-listed and private companies are routinely telling recruitment firms to shortlist only women for certain senior roles to meet diversity targets. Meeting these diversity targets is frequently a factor in determining bonuses for senior executives.
This is both eye-opening and humdrum news at the same time. Eye opening because this is supposed to be everyone’s dirty little secret. If two prominent recruiters, Chris Karagounis of executive search firm Alex Kaar and Jason Johnson of Johnson Partners, were prepared to concede publicly that they had been asked to run female-only searches, it must be so rife the secret could no longer be kept.
It’s also humdrum. Anecdotal evidence suggests this has become standard practice in so many businesses that it has reached the point where it’s almost universal.
Given the profound questions – legal and moral – about the propriety of the practice, it’s a shame we still have only anecdotal evidence. Alas, the risk of retribution for disclosing what is really going on is still so high that many executive recruiters who admit to being asked to run female-only searches want to remain anonymous for fear that going public will damage their firm’s reputation and make it harder to win work.
We should not be surprised that this is where quotas, and remuneration systems that make bonuses conditional on meeting those quotas, end up. As American businessman Charlie Munger famously said: “Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” If you have female-only applicants you may end up with the best woman for the job – but you will never know whether you have the best person for the job.
The risk that a female-only candidate list will yield an inferior winner is obvious in any walk of life but increases in direct proportion with the degree to which a particular occupation is male-dominated.

At this point the reptiles interrupted with another graphic, When will time be called on positive sex discrimination in employment in favour of women in Australia? Picture: istock

iStock image for an iStock scribbler with an iStock brain and iStock ideas as Xmas stocking filler ...

This necessarily gives rise to the common belief that Australian industry is rife with examples where a woman has been chosen for a senior role when there was a better qualified man. We will never know for sure because no researcher would be so foolhardy to test that proposition empirically for fear of reprisal, but the lingering stench hanging over these recruitment and remuneration practices is terrible for both men and women.
We need to ask first whether the practice of female-only application lists (or lists where male participants are for display purposes only) is legal; then, irrespective of its legality, whether it is right.
Its legality is open to contest on two main grounds – as a matter of fiduciary duties and compliance with discrimination law.
How can directors of an ASX-listed company claim they are looking after the best interests of shareholders if they not merely allow but require their company to engage in practices that carry a high risk of not employing the best person for a job?
By making bonuses dependent on meeting gender (or any other diversity) targets, aren’t directors almost guaranteeing second best employment outcomes? How does this benefit shareholders or the company?
The more interesting question is how these practices survive discrimination law and, if they currently pass muster, for how long will they do so?

For some strange reason, the pond was reminded that at one point in her life, Dame Slap donned a MAGA cap and strode out into the night to celebrate the erection of a pussy-groping, Miss Universe perving to the big gig:

Mariah Billado, Miss Teen Vermont 1997 told BuzzFeed, “I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here.'” Three other teenage contestants from the same year confirmed the story. The former pageant contestants discussed their memories of the incident after former Miss Arizona Tasha Dixon told Los Angeles’ CBS affiliate that Trump entered the Miss USA dressing room in 2001 when she was a contestant.
“He just came strolling right in,” Dixon said. “There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless. Others girls were naked. Our first introduction to him was when we were at the dress rehearsal and half-naked changing into our bikinis.”
Dixon went on to say that employees of the Miss Universe Organization encouraged the contestants to lavish Trump with attention when he came in. “To have the owner come waltzing in, when we’re naked, or half-naked, in a very physically vulnerable position and then to have the pressure of the people that worked for him telling us to go fawn all over him, go walk up to him, talk to him, get his attention…”
The Trump campaign did not offer a response to either story, but in a 2005 appearance on Howard Stern’s show, Trump bragged about doing exactly what the women describe. “I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said.
His position as the pageant’s owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. “You know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it… Is everyone OK? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that,” he said.
(Billado told BuzzFeed she mentioned the incident to Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who shrugged it off, saying, “Yeah, he does that.”) (A Timeline of Donald Trump’s Creepiness While He Owned Miss Universe)

That suggests why Dame Slap is the very best person to comment on women's rights - she just loves herself some of a man certified by twelve jurors as a rapist.

Have a cartoon to celebrate:

Well it's a better interruption than the one provided by the reptiles, LNP MP Garth Hamilton says the gender hiring quotas is a “silly position” for businesses to have. Anti-discrimination boards are permitting major Australian companies to advertise positions for women only. It comes to help reach gender quotas in the workforce.

The season might be past, but the taste lingers on ...

And so to an extended final rant from a self-confessed devotee of a pussy-groper:

Positive discrimination in favour of women, or affirmative action, is legal in Australia, although the exact circumstances and limits are unclear. Section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act permits a person to “take special measures for the purpose of achieving substantive equality between men and women”.
This provision has its roots in what the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women called “temporary special measures”. The convention authorised states to adopt “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women”. Importantly, the convention provided that this “shall in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate standards; these measures shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved”.
The Australian Human Rights Commission’s own guidelines governing special measures also require that such measures be carefully monitored. It suggests that those employing special measures identify the specific inequality they are targeting, think about how the proposed special measures will achieve substantive equality between men and women, consider whether the proposed special measures are proportionate and appropriately targeted, and consider how to monitor the proposed special measure.
In other word, if special measures are wider than necessary, or last longer than necessary, they become just another instrument of oppression – but this time by women against men.
Again, no objectively verifiable evidence of compliance with these guidelines exists, but it’s not too outlandish a guess to suggest that almost no ASX-listed companies comply with these guidelines when they propose gender targets and condition bonuses on their achievement. It is a reasonable suspicion that the limits on affirmative action are not considered or deliberately ignored.
In an analogous context, the limits to racial affirmative action measures have been closely considered in the US and are leading to wholesale abandonment, or at minimum, drastic revision, of affirmative action programs at universities and workplaces. This follows the decision last year by the US Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard that outlawed race-conscious affirmative action programs at US universities as contrary to the guarantee of equal protection in the US constitution. That decision was only a matter of time because as justice Sandra Day O’Connor said in the 2003 decision that initially permitted some positive discrimination in university admission, Grutter v Bollinger, “race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time”.
So, when will time be called on positive sex discrimination in employment in favour of women in Australia? If your test is equality of opportunity, then it’s easy to argue that time is already up. Girls already do better at school than boys and enter university in significantly higher numbers.
Demanding equality of outcome is a particularly unattractive proposition and one that would not only be practically impossible to achieve but likely repugnant to women as well as men. It’s all very well to want 50 per cent female representation on boards, in parliament and in courts. But surely if you’re serious about equality of outcome you should be consistent and reject the cherrypicking.
Alas, no gender activists are calling for gender equality in HR departments (which are mostly filled with women) or the garbage collection industry (almost entirely comprising men).
My dictionary must be old. It defines special to mean something that’s not ordinary or usual, something different from what is normal. But today special measures have become the norm; they offer a permanent leg up for women in areas seen as desirable career choices. There will come a point when this normalised discrimination in favour of women, and therefore against men, becomes so unsustainable that even the gormless Male Champions of Change will realise time’s up.
The smart thing for women to do is plan an end to this forever war. Get ahead of the curve, girls, and agree an end date for special measures.

Yes, girls, get ahead of the curve. You too can enjoy being groped by a lover of pussy groping, and no complaining please, just bend over or don a MAGA cap in approved Dame Slap style ...

And now as it's been awhile since the pond visited Tom Tomorrow, it's time for a catch-up, with Uncle Leon first cab off the rank - just imagine the dialogue being read by Polonius for bonus pleasure.

That's followed by the pussy groper and mike stand fellator, and here you might like to imagine Dame Slap taking that ride to nowhere good: