Just weeks after sexually-explicit AI-generated images of Taylor Swift were circulated and viewed on his social media platform X more than 47 million times, Elon Musk trivialised what is a very real threat for women when it comes to these technologies.

On Sunday night (Monday morning in Australia), Musk posted a meme that shows just how little he cares about this threat.

“Boobs rock, it’s a fact,” he wrote on the post.

It’s the billionaire, Silicon Valley bro version of an 11-year-old boy typing “5318008” on his calculator and turning it upside down so it spells “BOOBIES”. I can picture an adolescent-like giggle escaping from Musk as he put fake boobs on the woman in the meme, wrote the caption and posted it to his 172 million followers on X, his very own platform.

But the truth is – the meme was immature, tone deaf and the clearest indication we have that Musk just isn’t funny.

Luckily, I am. And I want to show him how meme-making is really done.

The AI blame game

If there was any real accountability for Musk and people wanted to bring him down for making fun of a very real issue, I wonder if he would point the finger at AI.

Because that’s the pattern we’re seeing. When the pornographic images of Taylor Swift were distributed all over the platform, people vaguely blamed it on technology. No humans were accountable.

When Victorian MP Georgie Purcell’s body was edited and aired on a national television news broadcast, Nine News director Hugh Nailon cited AI as the reason the image was altered. No humans were accountable.

I’m tired of the AI blame game. It’s about time we point the finger at the real problem here – the people running the show.

SpaceX’s lawsuit

It’s an interesting choice Elon Musk has made to meme-ify image-based sexual harassment when his company SpaceX is facing a law suit for sexual harassment and discrimination.

In January, the California civil rights department informed SpaceX of seven complaints made by former employees at the rocket-making company. The complaints were in relation to managers nurturing a hostile work environment which allowed jokes about sexual harassment to go unnoticed. According to the accusations, women were paid less than men at the organisation, and any employee who complained about the conditions was dismissed.

Last week, Bloomberg broke the story that, as a result of those complaints, SpaceX is being sued for sexual harassment and discrimination.

Did Musk miss that memo? Because I don’t think prompting AI to alter an image to make a woman’s breasts bigger is helping the case, nor is making a meme about it.

Women’s bodies and AI technologies

Elon Musk owns one of the world’s biggest social media platforms. Ultimately, this guy gets to decide what goes on the platform and what stays off.

Last week, Women’s Agenda published an article about a woman who was kicked out of a shopping mall for wearing a midriff top. In the article, the main image showed a picture of her stomach.

When we posted the stories on social media, we ran into a problem. The article was blocked and unable to be posted on X.

Why? Because of the main image. Because of the woman’s stomach.

To be clear: AI-generated pornographic images of women are able to be widely distributed on the platform, seen 47 million times before Musk and the team at X notices a problem. But a woman’s belly? Not ok.

Women’s bodies are still being regulated by men – online and beyond. The men running the online world don’t see a problem with deep fake images, because it doesn’t affect them: rather, they see it curated for their pleasure and their pleasure only, because “boobs rock”, right? But stuff like this can ruin names, reputations, lives and so much more. 

Of course, regulation on the technology itself is important. Giving people the ability to create this dangerous content gives people the choice to create this dangerous content. That’s why so many women in AI are calling for more regulation and a stronger gender lens in government regulation of AI.

But don’t try to tell me it’s a robot’s fault. Because Musk’s poor attempt at being funny speaks volumes to how men in these spaces (still) disrespect women. 

Maybe it’s not giving people the choice to create the dangerous content that is the problem. Maybe it’s the fact we’re letting them get away with it.

The post Elon Musk made a meme about the sexual exploitation of women’s bodies online. So I made some memes about him. appeared first on Women's Agenda.

I wrote last week about Taylor Swift winning her historic fourth Album of the Year Grammy, only to have the press pull apart all the ways in which she didn’t perfectly accept the award — Slate wrote she was too ‘self-effacing’ — in that it was a strategy to endear her to the public rather than an authentic response, or she was too ‘strategic’ in the way she spoke as though it was too calculated and not spontaneous enough. That she didn’t give enough deference to Celine Dion when being presented her award and that she was crass because she used the occasion to announce her eleventh album was on its way.

Not everyone thought all these things, but far out, man. Imagine being — objectively, according to the Grammy’s — the most highly decorated (because Album of the Year is considered the greatest accolade) singer-songwriter-artist of the last few generations, only to be picked apart on precisely every possible tiny misstep she made in the space of 75 seconds (the amount of time she had to accept the award)? 75 seconds.

This is after months of relentless commentary about whether she was using her attendance at her boyfriend’s football game as a PR scheme, whether she attended them too much, whether she was being shown too much by the broadcasters when she did attend, not to mention the daft conspiracy theories about whether her relationship is actually some government psychological operation to influence the election.

Which itself was off the back of years of relentless criticism by the press for being stupid, for dating too many men, that she couldn’t hold on to a man, that she was petty for turning her real life events into song lyrics, and so many more she turned it into a song Shake it off.

And lastly, she was effectively shunned after the accusation by Kanye West that she had lied about approving his song lyrics “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex, why? I made that bitch famous” by providing recorded ‘proof’ of her consent after asking her if “it was cool?”.

Later on, that was revealed to be based on doctored recording. Her song Look What You Made Me Do on the album Reputation, references this false consent:

The vanishing woman

In response to the backlash, Swift disappeared from sight, renting a house in Europe where no one could find her for two years. She thought the world hated her and was sick of her. This is something Margot Robbie is doing right now, pre-emptively. She recently admitted she was taking time away from film making for a while out of fear that, after the enormous success of Barbie, ”everybody are probably sick of me”.

The relentless standards of perfection that successful or powerful women are held to, to be considered deserving is something to behold. But women must also be on constant surveillance of the limits of society’s tolerance for them, and then strategically never meet that limit to avoid ‘cancellation’. It seems we just can’t quite let some women deserve or enjoy their success or power, unless they are absolutely, 100 percent, unimpeachably, perfect, yet also, aware and humble enough to stay out of view and know her place, when she is.

While it would be easy to write this off as ‘champagne problems’, as the Barbie movie highlighted, this is a systemic issue for all women. If Taylor Swift or Margot Robbie as white women of immense privilege are vulnerable to it, imagine the challenges for other groups of women.

Double standards

These are standards that men simply are not held to.

I don’t recall Harry Styles being criticised in any way for any missteps he made when accepting the Album of the Year award last year at the Grammys. I don’t see any famous male spectator who regularly attend sports games ever criticised for attending too many games, or accused of it being a play for PR or being shown too much by the broadcast.

In fact, Ryan Reynolds literally bought a sports team then made a documentary about buying a sportsts team and he doesn’t get criticised for doing it for PR. I don’t see other male actor, say George Clooney or Brad Pitt, ever saying they need to step out of the public eye lest the public turn on them for saturating the cultural consciousness.

The former President of the United States was elected to be the President of the United States – the highest office in public service and one of the most powerful positions in the world – despite numerous allegations of wrongdoing, including an infamous recording of his admission on how he assaults women.

Closer to home, this past week we saw our video footage of former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, still a member of parliament, sprawled on a street, drunk, yelling expletives into his phone. There was criticism of his actions but there was also substantial grace afforded to him and concern aired that he needed medical treatment. You may recall, however when the Finish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, a woman, had a small house party where she had a couple drinks and danced and it was posted to social media. She was forced to apologise publicly to the world.

The silent woman

Nor can we give successful women permission for the voice or feelings they express publicly. Taylor Swift wrote in Dear John (yes, the song she wrote about John Mayer):

Mayer later said publicly how he was humiliated by the song “Because I didn’t deserve it. I’m pretty good at taking accountability now, and I never did anything to deserve that. It was a really lousy thing for her to do.” Despite Mayer (and every other songwriter in the history of the world) using his own life as fodder for his songs (and rumoured to have written his song Paper Doll about Swift), he has never been criticised for it.

Swift has subsequently said in an interview when talking about Folklore several years later:

“The most rage provoking element of being a female is the gaslighting that happens when, for centuries, we’ve been just expected to absorb male behaviour silently. Right? Silent absorption of whatever any guy decides to do. And often times when we, in our enlightened state, in our emboldened state now, respond to bad male behaviour or somebody just doing something that was absolutely out of line and we respond, that response is treated like the offence itself.

There’s been situations recently, somebody who’s very guilty of this in my life, it’s a person who makes me feel- or tries to make me feel- like I’m the offender by having any kind of defence to his offences. It’s like, oh, I have absolutely no right to respond or I’m crazy. I have no right to respond or I’m angry. I have no right to respond or I’m out of line.”

Society struggles to show a woman they are “impressed when she aces their tests”, so we react by picking apart any slight imperfection. Moreover, a woman better not have a reaction to male behaviour, or a public or private expression of her own feelings, or she will be treated as the offender — she will be accused of going about it the wrong way, being humiliating, being petty or spiteful, having a victim mentality, having an illegitimate motive, or just plain wrong.

Double standards for women in every industry

In the corporate realm, if a woman is not perfect or has opinions or feelings then she is accused of being ‘unprofessional’ or hurting the interests of the men around her. It will be coded as what’s in the best interests “of the company” but it will actually be about men’s feelings and reputations.

When Christine Holgate, the former CEO of Australia Post, was put on blast by the press, the Prime Minister and many others for gifting her staff some watches as a bonus for their good performance, it eventually resulted in her stepping down. However, she was an extremely effective CEO, and had turned around the performance of Australia Post.

Compared to those which she succeeded and those that succeeded her, Holgate outperformed and was paid less. Her base salary of $1.375 million was much lower than her predecessor, Ahmed Fahour, who pocketed $5.6 million in a year. Fahour left with a $10 million golden handshake. Nevertheless, when she and her Board made a calculated decision to reward the staff for some landmark agreements they executed, she and the Board chose not to give her staff $150,000 bonuses they were authorised to do and gifted them a $5000 watch instead. The Prime Minister at the time, used it as a political point scoring exercise, demanding in parliament that she step aside for awarding her staff such an egregious gift.

Eventually she would be forced to step aside for the “good of Australia Post”. Her successor went on to actually award eight senior executives collectively $4.45m in bonuses with another $24m in incentives paid to 362 non-executive staff, who already earned more than $235,000. And there was no controversy whatsoever. The moral of the story is, despite her success in her role, despite history subsequently showing her not to have made a mistake afterall, she was held to higher standards and the perception that was not utterly perfect, was her downfall.

Grace Tame, as Australian of the Year, was a force to be reckoned with in highlighting the plight of victims of child sexual abuse. She categorically refused to be silent about her opinions and feelings, or to play nice simply to placate the people around her, and for that she was relentlessly criticised.

Despite being an extremely effective Australian Of The Year, promoting awareness and legislative change for the victims of child sexual abuse, she was accused of being a ‘brat’, ‘disrespectful’ and unprofessional for refusing to smile in photos, for example. She was accused of not having sufficient deference for those who bestowed the award on her , or undermining the then Prime Minister Scott Morrison as though she was using her position to make a political statement….sounding familiar? (But also, so what if she was?). Grace Tame received far more criticism for simply not smiling than Scott Morrison ever did for secretly assuming 8 portfolios.

Over the years, when I’ve dared to have opinions, express my feelings or not tolerate poor male behaviour in the workplace, I’ve been called stupid, or crazy (the classic insults if you want to undermine a woman) or psychologically damaged, and made out to be the offender as a result. All these accusations, comments and feedback, were always from men.

This is not about not taking on board constructive feedback which we should all do. It’s also not saying women can’t be called out when they behave badly themselves. This is about how intolerant we are of women refusing to absorb male behaviour that they believe is out of line, or to stand up for themselves and how we try to coerce women to silence by making them out to be the offenders when they do. It’s also about how when women are successful, or they gain any power, we will still reserve the right punish them or dismiss them for the slightest missteps that simply don’t apply to men.

Are we really saying for women to enjoy their power or success or to not be relentlessly criticised, they should be perfect, and if not perfect, then neither seen, nor heard?

I’ll leave you with a lyric from The Man, a song from Swifts album Lover which I think is apt for this article:

The post The relentless pressure on women to be perfect and silent to ‘deserve’ their success appeared first on Women's Agenda.

I joined 6 other speakers, each sharing a different reflection on that dateful moment in 2012. When it was my turn to speak, I stared into the dark and took two deep breaths, before sharing why I had spent the past six years working to progress gender equality, why I’d founded Raise Our Voice Australia, a social enterprise aimed at mobilising young women and gender diverse people to transform policy and politics, and the legacy of that now famous speech for young people.

The audience was full of women, many of whom had brought their daughters, eager to share intergenerational reflections on this visceral rallying call as our highest political leader spoke up against treatment women had experienced for decades. In conversations afterwards, I heard both their optimism, and their frustration in how far we still had to go.

As part of my role leading Raise Our Voice Australia, I speak to young women and gender diverse people every week. Overwhelmingly, these young people, aged between 12-32 from across Australia, are smart, driven, and have a clear idea of the future they want to create – a future centred on climate change, equality, positive mental health, and support for education. Their message is clear: we’re passionate, can lead important change, and we don’t want to run for office as we don’t want to be in the firing line. Because, despite measures to get more women into politics, the lack of media accountability is stark.

I founded Raise Our Voice Australia in 2020, after years lamenting the absence of young women and gender diverse people from the seats of Australia’s parliaments. Years before, I co-founded a campaign to help young people ask “why not me?” when looking at their political representatives. After working in domestic policy and foreign policy as a senior policy officer, it was clear to me that those with the most at stake – young people – were missing from this decision making. Raise Our Voice Australia started with a training program, sharing knowledge on and networks in these key areas, before launching campaigns to connect young people with their elected representatives, running research, and building our community.

At Raise Our Voice Australia, we talk about how politics for women is shifting, and yet, this week was a visceral reminder that despite some positive shifts since 2017, some things haven’t changed.

You don’t have to look far to find a negative media story about women in the public eye, especially near the campaign trail. While gender was a key talking point in the 2022 federal election, media reporting of women remains reliant on outdated tropes. Who’s taking care of her family? Variations on “she was too emotional”. And recently, when I saw that Nine edited Georgie Purcell’s photo, enlarging her breasts and editing in a non-existent midriff, I was irate.

When Nine blamed its editing of Georgie Purcell’s photo – the youngest member of Victorian Parliament and a young, passionate woman who’s upset many on the conservative side of politics with her progressive views and her tendency to challenge the status quo – their excuses seemed laughable. It takes no stretch of the imagination to believe that the photo editing was deliberate.

After Adobe denied Nine’s claims of “but it was the AI,” the final insult was The Australian newspaper describing Purcell as a “ former stripper,” seemingly aimed at devaluing her worth and status as an important female politician based on her prior employment. In 2022, research conducted by Raise Our Voice Australia in partnership with the Body Shop Australia New Zealand, found that 13 per cent of young women and gender‑diverse people felt represented in politics, with just 35 per cent saying they would consider politics as a career.

Interrogating the media’s treatment of women in the public eye, 87 per cent of respondents reported that representation of women in politics by the media is mostly negative. Respondents cited the treatment of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, alongside the commentary surrounding Brittany Higgins, and Grace Tame. Other respondents noted the additional vitriol levelled as women of colour, First Nations people, gender diverse people, disabled people and sex workers.

In Australia, many of our media companies lack integrity. Too many rely on manufacturing outrage and printing stories that devalue women. When Georgie is described as a “former stripper” whether we like it or not, people click on the stories, and media companies know this. It’s gross and demeaning, reminiscent of a bunch of boys jeering and letting the woman know that they don’t value her achievements.

Like many media subjects before her, Georgie is an impressive MP, and a role model to so many young people, myself including. In the age of TikTok, too many articles are the product of the attention economy and drive click-bait journalism. What happened to pieces that are fact checked and rigorous? What happened to quality journalism? Some might even argue the public must also be held responsible for the maintenance of these tropes – after all, it’s us in the comment sections driving these debates. But, where are the media organisations leading a nuanced discussion on issues of policy rather than publishing the same tired,misogynistic click bait?

Four years into running Raise Our Voice Australia, I’m often overwhelmed by the scope of the problem we’re trying to fix. I’m frustrated. Frustrated that with every step forward, there’s someone – a journalist, editor or media outlet – who refuses to move. That we continue to ask women to “just put their hands up” or “lean in” while we tear them down in the media and in comment sections. The business case for diversity is strong: when we have more diversity in leadership, better outcomes are reached. And who doesn’t want better outcomes for all Australians?

Last year, I completed Pathways to Politics through Melbourne University. I’m determined that these hateful bullies do not win. In a cohort of 30 women, I received training on how to run for office and hear from incredible women political leaders.

If we truly want a better future, we need change, and we need accountability. It’s time that media outlets took some responsibility, and we the public voted with our clicks. If you’re sexist, I won’t subscribe. Newspapers are a declining medium, so if they want Gen Z, millennial and Gen X subscribers, they need to refocus their stories to meet our modern standards of inclusion and diversity.

As for Georgie? I couldn’t have more admiration for her courage, and for calling out this misogyny. But she shouldn’t have to. It’s time for change. The stakes are too high not to.

The post After the misogynistic media treatment of Georgie Purcell, is it any wonder young women are hesitant to pursue politics? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

I called my sabbatical parental leave without a baby. Unsurprisingly, it was nothing like parental leave with a baby. In Canada on school days, between the hours of 9am and 3pm, my time was my own. I had nowhere I needed to be and nothing that I needed to do. That freedom felt every bit as luxurious as my younger-self on parental leave with a baby could have imagined.  

Routine liberation notwithstanding, there was one similarity between my experience of parental leave with a baby and without. I often found myself asking the same question: How do people all over the world do this? HOW? 

Learning the ropes with a newborn for the very first time is a singularly foreign experience that has never been better described than by Esther Walker when she said: “It’s like being asked to sit your A-Level exams. In Russian.”    

In Canada I had no newborns to tend to, and it wasn’t Russian I was trying to master, so why did I find myself flummoxed? Because raising children without a skerrick of a village is HARD. 

When we arrived in Toronto we really didn’t know anyone. We were properly on our own trying to find our feet and even with older children it was a gigantic undertaking. The ages of our daughters meant the travel itself – planes, trains, airports – was (save for the inevitable sibling warfare) civilised. 

There were no prams, nappy bags, naps or bottles to juggle. Our girls could carry their own bags, watch movies, read, cut up their own food and tolerate the travel without much hassle. 

But, taking older children out of their comfort zone and placing them into a whole new unfamiliar world presented challenges that younger children might not encounter. They felt the absence of family, their own friends, their regular activities and the familiarity of home keenly.

Being overseas, away from the comfort and anchor of home, very naturally increased the emotional support our girls needed, at the very same time our own options for support were dramatically reduced. We were without grandparents, siblings, friends, neighbours, our regular and beloved babysitters. We really were on our own. The cumulative pressure on the family unit brought an intensity to daily life in which the highs were higher, and the lows lower. It was alot. 

It reminded me – viscerally – that the adage about needing a village to raise a child isn’t hyperbole. It’s factual. 

Parenting is, easily, the hardest job in the world. The patience, resilience, optimism and strength it requires, daily, cannot be downplayed. 

I maintain that there is nothing as physically relentless as having babies and toddlers; the 0-to-5 window is peculiarly demanding in ways too many fail to readily acknowledge and appreciate. If you are a parent with children under 5, I see you and I promise life will not always feel like a marathon no one really knows you’re trying to complete every day. 

I promise you that fast forward five years you will find yourself inexplicably longing for the opportunity to go back in time for just one more day with those sweet, funny, wild bundles of need. This does not mean you should be soaking up every minute right now. You just can’t. It is a chapter of survival that is filled with affection and joy and boredom and exhaustion and love. Enjoying the moments you do enjoy, however fleeting, is enough. 

I am no longer in that chapter and as a family we are now able to explore and enjoy life in ways that were utterly unfathomable when our girls were younger. But parenting remains the hardest job in the world. 

I have done some hard things in my life but nothing challenges me in the way that parenting does. One reason, I believe, parenting can feel so difficult is that so much of the trickiest terrain is invisible. As children grow older their privacy really matters and their highs and lows aren’t ours, as parents, to share. 

This can create the false notion that raising children is more straightforward than it really is. That belies the conversations I have with parents every single week. Conversations in which the full extent of parenting – in all of its grit and glory – is clear.

From managing illness or a diagnosis, to tricky sibling dynamics, to social exclusion and loneliness, to intense dysregulation, to school refusal, disordered eating, anxiety, relationship breakdowns: the list of specific triggers is endless but the result is the same. Families struggling behind closed doors. 

Parents spending hours and hours of time trying to work out what support looks like for their child or family. Tears. Angst. Heartache. Desperation. From professional intervention, to quick fixes: whether the challenge is health, social, educational, behavioural – there are parents out there hunting down answers to problems many don’t know they’re facing. 

My stint on parental leave without a baby taught me once again that parenting is the biggest, most-consuming job in the whole wide world for which there is no formal training. 

It is why The Parenthood exists; not just to lobby for positive policy changes like better paid parental leave and access to quality early education, to ensure parents and carers and children are supported, but to ensure that the reality of parenting and caring is recognised and validated. By leaders, employers, government, decision-makers but also? By us! 

It is the biggest, toughest, most important job that we all need to acknowledge and validate as such. So, if you are a parent or a carer you have permission to recognise the work you do every day.    

The post What I learned on parental leave without a baby  appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Just last year, we defended comments from Andy Kessler, who suggested the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) may have resulted from the team “being distracted by diversity.” 

Yet, it’s when pressure is applied that change happens. 

Take COVID-19 as a recent example. Employee demand to work from home and flexibly was growing, yet companies were painfully slow to respond. Then, a global pandemic took hold, and we saw an unprecedented acceleration in the enablement to work remotely. 

Post-pandemic, we commented on this trend, wondering what significant event could put a rocket up the stagnant progress happening in the DEI space. Enter the legal battles in the U.S., placing the whole industry under fire. 

This presents us with an opportunity and we need to make the most of it. Below are three ways organisations can safeguard and optimise the effectiveness of their DEI efforts. 

1.       Evolve from DEI initiatives to DEI integration.

DEI efforts are most impactful when embedded in the organisational strategy; they become much easier to defend when they are integral to a business’ success.

Don’t silo DEI in HR, it impacts every aspect of an organisation. Placing it solely under HR can diminish its impact, often making it the first to be overlooked. HR traditionally focuses on risk mitigation to safeguard the organisation, but DEI thrives on risk-taking for value creation. It should be treated as an essential function that is a key contributor to business performance.

To achieve this, DEI should be owned by business leaders, with key metrics embedded into business unit KPIs. Further, it needs to be woven into the way of working for all teams, with inclusive behaviours being the status quo and equity being top-of-mind across all hiring and promotion decisions.

2.       Walk the walk before talking the talk.

To date, DEI has primarily been treated as a tick-the-box exercise, with efforts focusing largely on brand image rather than lasting and impactful change. As external promotion of DEI efforts becomes increasingly scrutinised, it encourages us to move beyond surface-level initiatives that focus more on external perceptions and towards those that drive impact and progress internally.

Organisations can take the opportunity to assess the current initiatives they have in place and what their expected outcome is. Every initiative should be closely linked to a business priority, with mechanisms for measurement of effectiveness in place. Activities that are just for show should be challenged; they are taking money, effort, and resources away from actions that drive true and lasting progress.

Gone are the days of being able to bluff our way out of DEI scrutiny. In Australia, we’re on the brink of gender pay gap data being publicly released. Organisations will have the opportunity to release a statement to defend existing gaps. Still, for them to be regarded, they will need to demonstrate tangible steps that are being taken and the expected outcome of these. 

3.       Tweak positioning and messaging, not effort.

Responding to DEI backlash has been a requirement for as long as the discipline has existed due to the redistribution of power, the inevitable resistance to change, and the “perceived” threat it brings. The focus and sensitivity we should have is on how efforts are being communicated and positioned with a consistent talk track and rationale across the board. 

When launching or rolling out a new DEI initiative or project, organisations must be clear on how it has come about, how it’s intended to support the business, and the role all employees play in supporting it. Consider employees’ different perspectives, anticipate the threats they may perceive as a result of suggested initiatives, and address these proactively in your communication strategy. 

It feels like DEI as an industry is dealing with one new challenge after another. Still, we’re optimistic about the opportunity this time presents for realising what we’ve all been working towards for years: for full DEI integration to be the natural and expected way of doing business.

The post Why DEI ‘being under fire’ is a good thing appeared first on Women's Agenda.

From what we’ve seen in the media, you would think the majority of taxpayers are unhappy with the changes and even more unhappy with Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. But a survey of 1245 voters between January 31 and February 3 by Newspoll tells us otherwise.

While just 38 per cent of survey respondents said they would benefit from Albanese’s revised tax cut plan, 62 per cent of voters said the Prime Minister made the right choice to amend the Stage 3 tax cuts plan.

So, what does this data mean? 

Backflip or boost?

It is true that Anthony Albanese changed the government’s position on the Stage 3 tax cuts, a plan which was legislated by the Morrison government in 2019 and due to come into effect in July this year.

It was one of Albanese’s election promises to follow through with the legislated tax cut plan, until he announced earlier this year that the Labor government would be revising the plan to “boost the family budgets of middle Australia”.

Coalition parliamentarians, with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton leading the charge, used this announcement as a chance to attack Albanese and the Labor government for “lying” to taxpayers, backflipping and breaking an election promise. 

While that might be true, however hyperbolised, Albanese appeared at the National Press Club of Australia two weeks ago to explain to voters how the changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts might benefit them.

“These tax cuts will provide meaningful help for parents returning to work, particularly women with young children,” Albanese said in his speech. 

“Because one of the things that we know is that when women with children are making decisions about how many hours an increase in their take home pay is a powerful incentive.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Women's Agenda (@womensagenda)

Albanese has not shied away from media scrutiny. On Sunday, the Prime Minister spoke with David Speers on ABC’s Insiders, backing the call despite hard questioning.

“Circumstances have changed,” Albanese said in his defence of the tax cut revision, “and what we’ve done is respond to the changes to the economic circumstances.

“I’ve gone to the National Press Club and said, ‘we’ve changed our position’. Why have we done that? Because we’ve listened to people.”

Albanese’s clear communication – in the media, at the Press Club, on social media platforms – has clearly not gone unnoticed. Perhaps voters have seen through the negative messaging from the Opposition and understand that this reform could actually be a good thing.

You’ll get a tax cut on July 1, whether you’re a teacher, a nurse, a cleaner, an engineer, or a truck driver. pic.twitter.com/Ke6b1PBS9Z

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) February 4, 2024

Other changes

It’s not the first time a Prime Minister has changed their position on a policy. In the early weeks of her leadership in July 2010, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard declared she would not be introducing a tax on carbon in Australia.

Just months later in early 2011, Gillard unveiled a carbon tax plan.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the decision was a “historic betrayal” and hinged much of his leadership on negativity and opposition of the Labor Party, as well as Gillard’s broken promise.

Again, it’s not the first time a Coalition leader’s foundation is based on negative messaging. We see much of that now with opposition leader Peter Dutton and his outspoken, divisive discourse on issues such as the Voice to Parliament, Australia Day and now the Stage 3 tax cuts.

However, as the Prime Minister said on ABC’s Insiders, Albanese has been “honest” and “upfront” about the position change on the tax cuts. And perhaps that has made all the difference.

Can we forgive him?

Teal independent Member for Wentworth Allegra Spender’s speech at the National Press Club, one week after Albanese’s, also backs up what the Newspoll data suggests. As the MP for Australia’s wealthiest electorate, Spender put the call out to hear from her constituents on how they feel about Albanese’s announcement to revise the tax cut plan.

Spender said the Wentworth electorate is split on the call – but on the whole, “most people are saying this is a good thing”, despite having the “biggest proportion of people who are going to lose out”.

“There’s actually a really significant group of people who would have benefited, who are also saying, you know what, we want to help other people. This is a really hard time right now,” she told the Press Club.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Allegra Spender (@allegra.spender)

There is some truth to the messaging of the Coalition beyond the negative, damning attacks on the Labor party. As Spender rightly pointed out, a lot of high income earners were banking on the original Stage 3 tax cuts plan and feel “completely let down” by the changes.

But I think what Spender’s speech and the Newspoll data tells us, is that the majority of people know that there are others doing it tougher, and it’s those people who will benefit from the changes the most.

So maybe Albo’s “broken promise” isn’t such a bad thing. If Newspoll’s data is right, people care about those who are most affected by cost of living. Humanity wins, negativity loses, and maybe this time we can forgive Albanese for a broken promise.

The post Despite the ‘backflip’, most Australians back the revised Stage 3 tax cuts appeared first on Women's Agenda.

When I embarked on my entrepreneurial journey many people were surprised to see me shift from being a social justice lawyer with a stable wage to taking the risk of starting a business with an untested concept. I had just given birth to my third child and many thought it was a crazy time to take such a big financial risk.

But what only those close to me knew was that I came from a family of entrepreneurs, business owners, and risk-takers, so not only was it in my blood, but it was also my turn.

I needed to challenge myself and test my ability to combine commercial goals with my passion for solving social problems. I saw a gap in the market that conveniently also solved my need to access quality early childhood education and care for my three children under the age of three, so I decided to fill the gap!

When you throw yourself into entrepreneurship, there are the highs — like hitting 20 percent revenue growth month on month in the business’ first year. But there are also the lows, like when your personal bank account hits rock bottom because you can’t pay yourself yet, but you have to keep the lights on. The loneliness of decision-making and risk-taking at the top requires grit and determination, but it can also offer immense personal and financial rewards if you see it through.

Now that I have moved on from the business I established, I thought it was timely to share my reflections on the experience in the hope of encouraging others to take the plunge and bring their ideas to life that could just change the world.

The stomach for it

I have always said that to take the plunge as an entrepreneur, one must have the stomach for it. You need to be comfortable with rejection, making mistakes, and taking decisions that might not always pan out the way you hoped, despite all the best planning.

A recent episode of the Hidden Brain podcast (pop it on the list if you’re a human behaviour nerd like me) talked about our ability to live with failure and our own mistakes. They discussed the concept of ‘intelligent failures’, namely ones that are well-informed but occur when you are exploring new ideas, innovation, or trying to push yourself out of your comfort zone.

In my journey I needed to be comfortable with trying new things even if they didn’t work out, while taking the time to learn and reflect on them to improve my future decisions and actions. When you finally create something out of nothing, that feeling is indescribable, and it’s only through mistakes and failures that this kind of achievement is reached.

The right team

Having the right people around you to be able to execute is vital, but you aren’t always going to have the pick of the market when you’re a startup or make the right decisions the first time. So again, be comfortable with knowing when you’ve made the wrong choice and be swift in taking action to move people on if they aren’t the right fit.

Diversity of experience, skill, background, and way of thinking among team members is a must-have. You don’t want people who glorify you and are just excited to be part of a startup. You want people who question your ideas, push you out of your comfort zone, and bring skills you don’t possess.

As an entrepreneur, you are most likely the biggest risk taker in the room, but you need at least one person sitting next to you who tells you not to jump off that cliff.

The mental toll

Any entrepreneur or business owner will tell you that the mental toll of being a leader is almost impossible to quantify.

Not only is it lonely at the top at times, but you will also feel burdened by the weight of the business, you will have sleepless nights over finances, and you will be unpopular because of difficult decisions you make. So, ensuring you have strong self-care habits will be key to getting through these times.

During the height of Covid I found myself exercising more and taking frequent breaks from my computer to balance the stress of economic uncertainty. A great support network outside the business, like family and friends, will also provide reprieve and a place to debrief during those challenging times, not to mention being there to celebrate the successes.

In terms of the ongoing running of the business, make sure you have team members you can trust to run the business in your absence. Being away from the day-to-day is not only great for your mental health, but it also provides appropriate distance from the business to enliven creative solutions for problems you might have been grappling with for a while.

The learning

Once you decide to launch into business, you will most likely have the tools and skills to get something off the ground.

But be prepared to learn. A lot. I found myself watching YouTube videos to build a website myself, I got a friend to teach me how to use InDesign, and I tapped into my network to ask questions about insurance, marketing, trademarks, you name it.

After you have established the business and have confidence in the team you have created, be prepared to let go a bit (yes that’s directed at all the control freaks reading this). You need to impart your knowledge, give others the freedom to learn and make their own mistakes, but be there to guide and support them on their own journey of growth.

This type of freedom does, however, mean you need to maintain a strong culture of accountability and autonomy, otherwise you will forever be doing other people’s jobs. The reward of growing the capability of others will also form part of your entrepreneurial legacy.

The ‘why’

Many innovators and creatives can be easily distracted, so whatever you decide to focus on when taking the leap of faith into entrepreneurship, make sure it has staying power to command your ongoing attention.

If it’s going to be a fleeting interest then don’t do it, because there’s no such thing as easy money in business. Success takes time and commitment and your ongoing interest in the subject matter will be crucial to achieving that success.

In my case, the ‘why’ had a strong social purpose while also achieving commercial goals. The overall vision in the original business plan enabled me to create a clear set of values that remained relevant throughout the business’ evolution. This meant that many new recruits joined because of values alignment and understood the ethical framework that sat around decision-making and the way we operated, which allowed us to stay true to our purpose as the business grew and changed.

The leap

Taking the leap has to be the scariest but also the most exhilarating part of the journey. That nervous feeling when you don’t know if something will take off, but you have done all the preparation, planning, and research to get you there is fun, wild and takes guts.

If this is what you’re thinking of doing, then jump. You don’t know if you’re sitting on the next big thing that could change just one person’s life or shift the course of society forever, so maybe it’s time to step into the uncertain and share your idea with the world.

The post Six things I’ve learned since launching and exiting my startup appeared first on Women's Agenda.

On Wednesday morning, the first day of school in 2024 for students at Newington College, dozens of parents gathered outside the gates of the school, holding signs to protest the decision.

One parent accused the school of lying to families of the college. Another cited the “woke” agenda infiltrating society as the reason for the decision. Another was even brought to tears over the change.

Since the call was made in November 2023, parents created a change.org petition, which so far has received nearly 2,500 signatures.

A decision to (checks notes) let girls enrol at a school has shown just how passionate families who are wealthy enough for the $40,000 a year in school fees are about sticking with “tradition”.

But after hearing their point of view, I think some need to be brought back down to earth.

Below are the slogans, comments and arguments of the parents protesting yesterday – met with a much needed reality check.

‘Why after 160 years?’

Well, boys, the society we live in didn’t appear out of thin air. For decades, women weren’t allowed to vote, walk on the street alone, drink in the pub, open a bank account – until women fought and changed the way things were.

Change, believe it or not, often occurs in the pursuit of a better society. Of course, it’ll offend those in power the most – it can feel threatening when you hold that much privilege. But don’t be alarmed! Change-makers don’t want excess power and privilege – we just want change.

‘Boys will become second-class citizens in their own school.’

According to statistics from UNICEF, around 129 million girls are out of school. In low-income countries, just 36 per cent of girls will finish high school, compared to 44 per cent of boys. In countries that are affected by fragility, conflict and violence, girls are 2.5 times more likely to be out of school than boys.

Girls are systematically excluded from school in many parts of the world, and when they stand up against the system and fight for an education, they are met with ridicule, oppression and in many instances violence. 

Case in point: Malala Yousafzai – at 11 years old, she spoke publicly on women and girls’ right to education. One day, on her way home from school, she was shot by the Taliban on the left side of her head – just for wanting her and hundreds of other girls to go to school.

Even in Australia, in her work to introduce consent education at school, advocate Chanel Contos received more than 6,5000 testimonies of women and girls who were assaulted by men and boys – many of whom attended these elite all-boys schools.

Should Newington College proceed with the decision to become co-ed, girls enrolling in the school will be entering an environment where, at best, they’re not welcome and, at worst, they’re in danger of being harassed, assaulted or raped.

Reality check for the parents at Newington: that is what being a second-class citizen is like.

‘Co-ed = less diversity.’

I’m not really sure how to respond to this one, other than saying it is completely and utterly nonsensical.

‘I’m an old boy of this school, my son is also an old boy, and the intention was always I’d have a grandson… but I won’t bring him to a co-ed school.’

The waterworks were impressive, I must admit. My answer to Tony? Don’t send your grandson to a co-ed school. No one is forcing you, except presumably your desire to carry on the legacy of the men in the family.

But in case you didn’t know, that desire was conditioned by the patriarchy and old patriarchal “traditions” – traditions which have oppressed women for centuries.

‘I’m just afraid that it’s all part of this sort of woke, toxic masculinity type palava.’

Correct!

We’ve seen so many incidents, scandals and, in some cases, criminal activity at all-boys private schools. Most of the time, it’s fostered by the environment of the school itself, an incubator for toxic masculinity.

Professor Martin Crotty’s research in 2001, covered in his book Making the Australian Male: Middle-class masculinity 1870-1920, found boys were pressured to reach the heights of “real men” and conform to the standards of masculinity in school settings. Whether it was on the playground, the sporting field or in dormitories, the environment of the all-boys school produced a generation of men with the ideals that being a man means being tough, domineering and violent.

Of course, that research was 20 years ago and it was looking at the generation of men from over 100 years ago. However, these ideals are passed on from generation to generation, from son to son. 

What this parent should be more afraid of is the preservation of toxic masculinity, not the dismantling of it via the “woke agenda”.

‘I love the opportunity this school provides, and I would hate to see other boys stripped of that opportunity.’

What sort of opportunities does an all-boys school provide?

Is it academic benefits? No – the Australian Council for Educational Research confirmed there is “no value-add overtime to being a single-sex school compared to a coeducational school”, despite parents on the change.org petition arguing otherwise.

Is it social benefits? Can’t be – our society is no longer a boys-only one, although sometimes it may feel like that.

Is it a chance to preserve a culture of patriarchy, a tradition of exclusion of women, the ever-oppressing Boys Club? You bet it is.

The post ‘Woke toxic masculinity palava’: Newington College parents need a reality check appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Although the incidents happened in the academia world a pond over in the US, it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Both cases resonated so deeply with me because sadly, the narratives are not isolated incidents but are more common than expected.

I am a corporate girlie (among many other accomplishments) who is looking to pursue executive leadership in the corporate world, but a running theme that I continually discuss with my therapist is, “at what cost?”. So, I continue to progress in my career journey with trepidation.

WGEA reported that in Australia, women constitute 42 per cent of all employees, yet make up just a quarter of executives and only 10 per cent of CEOs for large, for-profit companies. For my case, I will need to add the intersectionality of being a migrant and being a Black woman which further widens the gap.

Not only do I have to navigate through a glass ceiling, but when I am in executive leadership, KPMG’s report She’s Price(d)less quantified the Australian gender pay gap to be worth ~$1bn, with the gap widening from 6 per cent among the lowest earning workers to 18 per cent among the executives.

In Australia, we have seen a fair share of women in executive leadership face the guillotine; from the misogyny faced by Julia Gillard to Christine Holgate’s public execution, as well as the most recent target Kelly Bayer Rosmarin. Is that what comes with the territory?! Should it though?! There are many other cases but so far the narrative around executive leadership is not sounding appealing to me AT ALL!

I hold onto hope that possibly Macquarie Group’s CEO Shemara Wikramanayake may have a positive story but I fear finding out more about her leadership experience as it may taint my perspective.

There have been countless DEI initiatives that have been implemented across the board, some successfully, others not so much. However, the fundamental flaw I see is the attempt to retrofit into an industrial system never designed with women in mind. There needs to be a radical rethink of how we look at the way we work and job design. Factors such as the impact of the burden of care, equitable access to opportunities and equitable compensation of labour all need to be considered to fashion an inclusive workplace that supports women.

The challenge is, not many want to invest in dismantling the system, especially when one benefits from it, so you get a lot of resistance to changing the status quo. Reality is the status quo is not working for half of the population and that is a costly problem for the economy. 

We have recent experience of pivoting quickly and on a large scale with our COVID experience, so don’t tell me it’s impossible. Radical change will also need to involve changes in societal attitudes towards women and the contribution women make to the functioning of society. Are we faring any better in that realm? With violence against women still a prevalent problem in Australian society, we still have a fair way to go in turning around sentiments. The discourse needs to be ongoing because the health of a functioning economy is subject to the status of the well-being and welfare of its participants.

As I contemplate my next career move, I am continuously seeking out positive representation and narratives that will fuel my hopes to enter executive leadership.

I have hope for the future and we are progressing as a society albeit at a slower rate than desired. However, I am embarking on the journey with my eyes wide open and prioritising my mental health with every step because what I am not going to do is sacrifice my well-being for the sake of a title.

So if you know of stories of women in executive leadership who are thriving, please share. Help a girl out!

The post I am pursuing a career in executive leadership but I fear the ‘glass cliff’ appeared first on Women's Agenda.

My heart goes out to the women’s family and communities, it’s horrendous and a situation that is all too common. Death, when it reaches the media, is the pointy end of crisis when we look at violence against women and children.

Many people in the public are shocked and horrified, they feel a sense of urgency that many of us in sector feel daily. My colleagues and I are often asked “How do we fix it?!”

Cultural change is a lengthy process that requires everyone to examine their attitudes and behaviours. In a time of mindless scrolling, we all need to engage a little more deeply on “those hilarious memes’’ we send without a second thought. A simple action everyone should take is observing our own responses to social media, media headlines and other popular culture engagement.

I went on a TikTok and Instagram deep dive over 7 days. We need to understand the voices that people are listening to outside of our social circles and belief systems. Social media provides a neat echo chamber where we don’t have to be challenged with views diametrically opposite to our own. It’s a space where we can always be right. I set a task to look at some top trending pieces of content and headlines I normally wouldn’t engage on.

I did this because hyper-sexualisation and aggression towards women and children is a perversive force in popular culture and an acceptable media narrative; we see these intersections when looking at community attitudes about violence against women and children. Underestimating content on TikTok and Instagram and its role in shaping the ideas of people, is a misstep in thinking. These platforms are a major source of information gathering and influencing.  

“The woman should feel smaller- he needs to feel like he could kill her.”

This was some advice that appeared on a podcast called “When Sex Happens”. Currently, on TikTok, they boast over 30,000 followers, 1.7 million likes and that clip has almost a million views. This channel is dedicated to celebrating very narrow forms of masculinity – that being attractive and commanding respect requires you to install fear in women. Women should be grateful that you are actively choosing not to hurt them. It’s alarming, but the stats and comments show this a view that resonates with people.

“What the F*CK are you wearing?” “Where the fuck do you think you are going dressed like that?”

This by no means is isolated to content from the United States. An Australian content creator Chris Keverian made mainstream headlines for berating his girlfriend over the length of her skirt. Now, anyone can see this is their bit; the video is staged, complete with slapping her at the end. This couple regularly produce videos being awful to each other – I suppose for entertainment? It’s not for me but it did amass 100k of likes and an array of comments from women saying, “they needed a man to humble them”. Often when we examine this content and indeed critique its damaging messaging – typically there is a boring response of “it’s just a joke, can’t you have a laugh.”

Why are you so uptight?

Well, I’m uptight because homicides of women are on the rise in Australia, and misogynistic views like these are rampant in our society. These views tacitly provide an environment where abuse and violence against women is normalised.

I recently spoke with my colleague Lauren French at BodySafety Australia, who outlined to me that the number one thing to have in a relationship for young people in Australia is ‘’loyalty”- women must be loyal, understanding and obey men. Young women know that loyalty and support is the expectation if they want the relationship to be successful. It would seem the ‘’tongue in cheek joke’’ has a darker more damaging meaning to the audience it is intended for.

These two channels on TikTok have a reach of over 27.7 million. They aren’t at risk of being deplatformed and they have an engaged audience. When we think of men’s rights activism, people immediately think of the poster boy Andrew Tate. Make no mistake, Tate is one of a cast of thousands. His views are distasteful and dangerous, but I would argue no more dangerous than these channels, or of mainstream media personalities like Jermey Clarkson, who famously published (in print and digital) he would like to see Meghan Markle “paraded naked through the streets with excrement thrown at her”. Her crime? Existing.

This week also saw global retailer H&M withdraw an ad featuring schoolgirls after complaints that the campaign encouraged the sexualisation of underage girls. The advert, launched in Australia, featured the slogan: “Make those heads turn in H&M’s Back to School fashion” above a photo of two girls wearing gray H&M pinafore dresses. Naturally, there have been the standard insincere apology, and regrets, reminiscent of the “apology” from Balenciaga in 2022 for having children feature in a BDSM shoot.

These kinds of campaigns occur because in a creative director’s mind, being talked about and considered edgy is of greater interested than really understanding and engaging with the horrors they are replicating for advertisements. The same goes for representations of child sexual abuse in movies and tv shows.

This weekend, The Sydney Morning Herald published a piece about the forthcoming movie May December headlined “She was 36, he was 13; their scandalous affair is now an unsettling film”.

What affair? She was 36, he was 13 – that’s a crime.

May December a movie based on the story of convicted child sex offender Mary Kay Letourneau and her victim Villi Fualauu. The movie is classed as a comedy/romance. This is extremely confusing to me, someone who talks to survivors of child sexual abuse regularly and understands the devastating consequences of it.

The director Todd Haynes turned this film into an intellectual exercise; how nice for him to be able to do that. He feels this film is about the ‘’ambiguity of desire” and mused he didn’t think that his lead character was paedophile – except of course Mary Kay Letourneau was and went to prison for this crime.

There is no ambiguity in a sexual relationship between a 36-year-old and a 13-year-old. Villi was a father to two children at 15. He suffered suicide ideation, and alcoholism at an early age. The film makers did not contact him to talk about his story.

He is alive and well, he has talked about his anger – that they have oversimplified a complex situation. Advocate Harrison James from Your Reference Ain’t Relevant expressed his frustration at this regressive narrative that damages the cause for victim survivors of child sexual abuse.

“This story is not the next Notebook- romanticizing paedophilia is a disgrace and irresponsible.’’ I agree wholeheartedly.

These headlines have generated thousands of clicks every day. This is the tip of the iceberg; but it clearly demonstrates that the current national approach and messaging to the broader community is not effective.

We should all question what we engage with online and think about what these “humorous or edgy” takes really support and normalize.

If you or someone you know is experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, domestic, family or sexual violence call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732, chat online via 1800RESPECT.org.au or text 0458 737 732.

If you are concerned about your behaviour or use of violence, you can contact the Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491 or visit www.ntv.org.au.

The post Misogynistic views are rampant on social media. We should all think twice before engaging with them appeared first on Women's Agenda.

It wasn’t until 10pm that we turned the TV off.

Only a show like Love Island could keep my eyes glued on the screen and my butt glued to the couch for seven hours straight. An island resort, glorious summer weather, hot women and men strutting around the joint asking each other for a “chat” to see where their “head’s at” – I couldn’t look away.

As I’m waiting to watch the latest episode tonight, the lives of a bunch of attractive, funny and at times extremely shallow strangers on the other side of the world are the only thing that has been on my mind.

What’s more, Married At First Sight (MAFS) starts tonight, which I’m sure I’ll be tuning into.

There are so many elements to reality TV that makes it a guilty pleasure many of us can’t refuse. But there’s one reason I wish I could quit.

We are addicted to the cliffhangers

“Next time on Love Island…”

Currently my least favourite words in the English language.

But the key to a good drama-filled story is a cliffhanger, something to keep us waiting and wanting. If part of a story or a TV show ends unresolved, most of us won’t rest until we find out what happens.

A study at the University of Buffalo found when storytellers – writers, editors, producers – deliver a cliffhanger, it keeps the audience engaged until the next episode, movie or book.

“We don’t like suspense,” said Lindsay Hahn from the University of Buffalo and author of the study. “We like when suspense is resolved, and resolving this novious state makes it more likely for an audience to move to a story’s next instalment.”

If all episodes are available, cliffhangers will most likely make us binge a TV show for hours on end. Likewise, if episodes are drip fed, released every week or so, cliffhangers will stay on our mind for days until we can find out what happens on the next episode.

The only reason I switched the telly off yesterday was because we had run out of episodes on Love Island UK: All Stars. The next episode comes out tonight, and if the wait was any longer, I would’ve lost my mind.

We are addicted to the reprieve from “reality”

Reading the news can be emotionally exhausting. Watching heavy drama shows or movies takes a lot of effort.

But trashy reality TV takes minimal mind space. Plus, reality TV gives us a break from the real “reality” – war, hate, crime, poverty, social injustice and so much more.

That’s not to say we should completely ignore what’s going on in the world around us and only concern ourselves with the relationship statuses of Love Island contestants. 

All it is is another way to navigate the ongoing challenges our generation faces. It’s a way to decompress, escape for 40 minutes in the episode, get mad about the pointless argument Arabella started with Chris, complain about how annoying Anton is.

Then turn the TV off. Return to the real reality, your reality. Get mad about injustice. Complain about the patriarchy. Repeat.

We are addicted to the stars

Reality TV only came to our screens as late as the 1990s. Before then, people who watched TV felt the more technology advanced, the more their lives were commercialised, and the more their world was becoming artificial.

The first reality TV shows emerged on screens to respond to demands for more authentic televisions, more relatable content.

That was 30 years ago. Now, technology is even more advanced, commercialism and consumerism is even more deeply ingrained in our everyday lives. 

And even though reality TV shows appear more unrealistic by the season, we have greater access to the real lives of the people who come onto our screens. Why? The answer is social media.

The people that appear on these shows have thousands, if not millions, of fans following their social media accounts. As the show airs, they may post about how they feel now after certain moments in that episode – that argument, that kiss, that elimination.

But even after the show finishes, fans stick around and follow the lives of reality TV stars intimately. They’ll know the moment a couple gets engaged, they’ll know the moment a relationship ends, they’ll know everything about every stranger they once saw on their TV screens and they now watch on their phone screens.

The accessibility to the lives of stars on social media makes reality TV more real to viewers. This parasocial relationship is nothing short of addictive.

We are addicted to the story

Strip away the fancy resort, the Prada sunglasses, the extravagant dates and parties, and a show like Love Island is simply a love story.

A group of young, single and unfairly attractive people have been unlucky in love and have come to a foreign place to find “the one”. There’s heartbreak, there’s conflict, there’s drama, tears, laughter, hugs, friendship, fights.

It’s a story of the human experience, and apart from being famous and most likely quite wealthy, the stories of the people on screen are relatable. The heartbreak, conflict, drama, tears, laughter, hugs, friendship, fights – we know it, we’ve experienced it, and we enjoy seeing our experiences reflected on TV.

I guess it’s just nicer to watch your story be played out by women in bikinis and men with abs.

The bad side

There’s one part of watching reality TV that I can’t stand – it’s the judgemental thoughts that come to my mind.

I’m judging the outfits, the hair, the style and the personalities of the real people that come on the screen. And it’s only a matter of time before that judgement turns on myself. Suddenly, I’m judging my outfit, my hair, my style, my personality and, worst of all, my own body.

It’s a side effect of watching reality TV that we could really go without. But I wonder if it’s the real reason that keeps me watching the next episode.

The post Four reasons why we watch reality TV – and why I wish I could stop appeared first on Women's Agenda.

As has now been well reported, a large group of men led by Thomas Sewell, the leader of the neo-nazi National Socialist Network, boarded a train at Artarmon (a small, quiet, suburban train station on Sydney’s north shore) where they claimed they were travelling to the City to participate in Australia Day events. This is also where large ‘Invasion Day’ rallies were taking place. 

NSW Police acted promptly and decisively where they intercepted the group at North Sydney Station. Six were arrested and 57 were issued with Rail Infringement Notices and prevented from continuing their journey and attending Australia Day events in the City.  

The group then walked up the Pacific Highway from North Sydney back to Artarmon, escorted by police cars and a police helicopter. There is some commentary that the group had travelled to Sydney from Victoria.

The following Sunday they were also seen gathering at a local Artarmon park where the police again acted quickly.

I follow politics and the news cycle closely every day through my work as a political commentator and campaigner. This is sadly far from the first time I’ve seen such a group gather and intimidate in this way in Australia and ASIO has been raising the alarm about a rise in neo-nazi groups for some time. However, seeing neo-nazis in my local community, in locations that are so familiar, is frightening and a strong reminder that none of us are immune or protected by where and how we live.

In recent years, Australia Day has become an issue where the views of an increasing number of people in our community have evolved to be more aligned with the views of Indigenous Australians and their concerns with this day. Politicians such as Peter Dutton and others, are increasingly using tactics straight out of the Trump playbook to whip up nationalism against these views through outrage and division.

Starting in early January, Australia Day has become a standard day in the calendar for these Trump-like tactics where this year we also saw violent attacks at various Woolworths stores as a direct outcome of Peter Dutton’s (and other’s) nationalistic calls.

Such tactics by politicians can’t work in isolation. They feed the agenda-led 24/7 mainstream news cycle of a highly disrupted mainstream media sector – whose revenue model now largely relies on how many listen to and watch shock jocks and click to read outrage headlines. This then flows to and amplifies across social media platforms which are mostly unregulated and unmoderated.  

It’s these tactics, these ‘ecosystems of outrage’ which are deliberately put into play by politicians and media again and again over a range of issues. Rinse. Repeat. 

These deliberate and predictable tactics find their audience through a ground ripe with social division. The annual Scanlon Report (out of Monash University), recently showed we are more divided now than at any time since the report’s commencement 16 years ago. The Report, which measures Australia’s social cohesion, found the “relentless cost-of-living pressure, rising interest rates, uncertainty about the direction of the economy and growing concern about inequality has undermined Australia’s sense of social cohesion”. The pandemic and The Voice also contributed. 

Throughout history we’ve seen populist politicians take advantage of social division with the most terrible and tragic outcomes. Those of us who are watching, clearly see history repeating, certainly overseas and increasingly here in Australia where we are also vulnerable to the global shift to populist politicians and parties. 

This concerning and highly charged environment coincides with 40 countries holding their elections this year (the most in a single year in history) including the US, UK, Canada, Germany, The EU and Indonesia. It is not alarmist to say that democracy is at risk.

Australia also has multiple elections – state/territory elections in QLD, NT and ACT – and council elections in Vic and NSW with media reporting the plans of fringe groups in some of these elections.

As I highlighted last year for the Women’s Agenda Keynotes series – the solution is in our hands. It requires our active, positive and inclusive participation in our democracy within our communities, and using the power of our compulsory vote to ensure we elect representatives who prioritise our interests in their actions and decision making. 

Our participation in our democracy is also perhaps the most profound legacy we can leave to our kids and our grandkids. I was reminded of this when I made that phone call to my eldest daughter warning her about the group of neo-nazis in our local area.

No one is coming to save us but us. We all have a role to play to support and strengthen our democracy. It’s time to step up!

The post Neo-nazis in Artarmon? A stark reminder that none of us are immune from the politics of division  appeared first on Women's Agenda.