Is the gender pay gap myth a bitch?

B.P. Terpstra asks if the gender pay gap myth a bitch?

Certainly, warrior feminists are being challenged – and not just by the usual suspects. As a recent fact check post on Crikey concluded:

So while a gender pay gap does exist in Australia, it does not seem to be the case that women are paid much less simply because of their gender. Choosing lower-paid careers, a temporary break in earnings to raise children and a need for flexible or part-time working hours all hurt women’s earning potential.

In other words, it’s simplistic to blame sexism and misogyny for Australia’s so-called gender pay gap.

Elsewhere, we learn that members of the “disadvantaged sex” are paid more than men. Indeed, in 2006, social commentator Bettina Arndt pointed out that your formally educated woman who chose a traditional male profession isn’t a victim. To the contrary, a female graduate geologist, for example, can expect a starting salary of $60,000 compared to $52,000 for men. Or as Arndt concluded: “Wage gap talk is a con job.”

Continue reading

Applaud for Mia Freedman



B. P. Terpstra

In which I applaud Mia Freedman’s rape prevention post 

I applaud Mia Freedman for highlighting the links between drunkenness and sexual assault. Or as she put it, “I’ll tell her [my daughter] that getting drunk when she goes out puts her at a greater risk of danger. All kinds of danger. I’ll tell her that being drunk impairs your judgement, slows your reflexes and dramatically reduces your ability to asses risks and escape from harm.” 

In other words, prevention is a good thing. 

However, I’ll condemn the selfstyled feminists who associate warnings with victim blaming because being drunk makes one vulnerable.

In point of fact, it’s misleading to say that a tipsy woman is safer than a sober lady on the town because rapists (or wouldbe rapists) tend to prey on vulnerable people. This is just a reality. 

Here, in the real world, we know that partygoers don’t deserve to be raped. But we also understand that rapists don’t think like normal people. That’s why we call them monsters.

 I’d advise women to lock their doors at night too. Does that mean I’d blame them for being robbed if they ignored my advice? No. But, regardless, I’d keep on warning them. 

You see, monsters don’t care for feminist theories. They know that women who leave their doors open at night are easy prey. And, they’ve worked out that tipsy women are easier to violate. 

As a male, I understand that men are vulnerable too, which is why you won’t spot me mincing around in certain clothes at certain nightspots during certain times. It’s just too risky. 

So, of course, vigilant mothers have every right to warn their vulnerable daughters (or sons) about the fact that monsters don’t play by the rules, and will see flesh and drunkenness as sexual invitations. Why wouldn’t they?

As Freedman recognises, “theories can’t always withstand the conditions of real life. Which is why I believe it’s crucial to educate girls about the link between alcohol and sexual assault and warn them about the increased risk to their safety that comes with getting wasted.”

Indeed, politically correct feminists endanger women, when they underestimate the barbarity of rapists. To say that wolves don’t target vulnerable women is naive at best, or borderline insane, at worst. 

As for promiscuous parents who drop their tipsy daughters out at night wearing nexttonothing outfits? Well, there’s a reason monsters adore them so.

Bleating leftists – bad losers



Abbott’s daughters can’t win in white

B.P. Terpstra

The feminist Van Badham claims that, “Australians got to see a lot of the Abbott daughters, usually dressed in white, over the course of the campaign.”  Which raises two questions: where’s the evidence. And, does it matter anyway? 

I do feel that some commentators are trying just a tad too hard. 

For example, Research Fellow in the Centre for Memory, Imagination and Invention at Deakin University, Dr Michelle Smith, describes Abbott’s recent victory speech as “striking” because his three daughters were “coordinated in white dresses.” Seriously. 

As the clearly imaginative Smith saw things, “Though the short hemlines and tight fit would be out of place at a Catholic First Communion, the connotations of religious faith and female moral purity were unmistakeable.”

In other words, then, the Abbott daughters look both religious and irreligious. They can’t win! 

Writing for The Guardian, Jeff Sparrow observed that “the Abbott offspring” (his term) “were front and centre at” the “Liberal victory party, parading in virginal white.” 

Still, what choices did they have now? Harlot red? Whorish green? Butch brown? Girlygirl pink? Of course, Laborites wear just plain white, but young Liberal women parade around in “virginal white” stress pop psychologists. 

Reminding us yet again that leftwing women are good at putting other women down, News Limited’s Tory Shepherd tweeted,  “Abbott daughters all in white AGAIN! Is it a virginal thing???” 

For the Abbott women must not wear white, unless they have permission from the hardLeft. After all, it could be construed as both sexual and antisexual, kind of like being both antireligious and religious at the same time.

Not to be outdone, however, web editor, Ben Cohen tweeted: “Abbott’s daughters in matching white virginal dresses is like watching some Mormon convention. But worse.” Yet, like most critics, he didn’t suggest what they should wear and why. 

Underpinning so many of these criticisms, are, of course, deeply held prejudices against both religious parents and their children, regardless of their personal positions. Indeed, it’s a feature of our establishment. 

They could have congratulated Abbott on his historical victory. Instead, they chose to attack his daughters revealing their own gender issues in the process. 

They could have congratulated Abbott’s daughters for joining Tony’s campaign. Instead, they mocked them, as if they were expected to remain behind closed doors. You see, nothing succeeds like hypocrisy in establishment circles. But where’s the outrage? 







Why I voted for Liberal candidate Sarah Henderson



B P Terpstra

On Saturday afternoon, I shook hands with Liberal candidate for Corangamite Sarah Henderson outside a prepolling centre. But it wasn’t her good handshaking skills that impressed me the most. 

To be sure, Henderson, a trained journalist and acclaimed reporter, has excellent people skills. However, I was very impressed by the fact that a candidate took the time to respond to my emails, her support for stronger borders and the Coalition’s commitment to strengthening families. It’s why I voted for Sarah.

I was impressed by Henderson’s commitment to abolishing Labor’s jobdestroying carbon tax too. Why? Because here in the ultramarginal seat of Corangamite there’s a strong sense that Labor duped us. The ALP delivered a carbon tax we didn’t approve of. 

Obviously, living in an ultramarginal seat means that I’m paying more attention to local politics these days, and the fact that Darren Cheeseman MP’s ALP hasn’t delivered one healthy budget in years is a worry. 

We deserve better. 

I live on a dirt road.  But there’s more. To add insult to serious injury, I often turn right into a “real road” with potholes, a Third World situation that needs remedying thanks to years of Labor neglect. 

Also, for the record, I don’t vote along gender lines. Still I recognise there’s a difference between Coalition women and Labor women. In the ALP, for example, many women are the beneficiaries of a patronising quota system whereas Liberal women are judged by their fruits. 

Interestingly, when asked about her role model last week, Sarah Henderson had this to say

I am a bit biased but I was a great admirer of my mother Ann Henderson. She really was my mentor. She was the member for Geelong from 1992 to 1999 and she was the Minister for Housing and Aboriginal Affairs from 1996 – 1999 and she was just one of those women who just got on and got things done. So she was greatly loved by people from all sides of politics. She drove the revitalisation of Geelong waterfront. That certainly is her lasting legacy and we know how important that is to Geelong now. So I have to say she was my great mentor and someone obviously who I admire very much as a politician. 

In my view, real results matter more than slogans. And, did I say that Sarah Henderson is good at handshaking?

Redefining marriage isn’t a vote winner in Blair


Blair MP Shayne Neumann isn’t on board with his leader Kevin Rudd on samesex marriage. Or as he told The Queensland Times, “Last time I voted against samesex marriage when the legislation came before the House of Representatives…and I haven’t changed my position. I canvassed the electorate widely with 700 people getting back to me…and 585 were opposed to samesex marriage and 115 were in favour. I sat on the committee that looked at the legislation…and I was unconvinced by the arguments. If the same legislation came before the house again I wouldn’t change my mind.” 

In key battlegrounds such as the southern Queensland seat of Blair, Rudd’s pontifications on samesex marriage could cost Labor votes, especially among serious Christians. After all, when 83.57% of your respondents oppose “gay marriage” you can’t just wish them away.

What’s more, voters across Australia don’t rate “gay marriage” as a toppriority issue. Indeed, this month, ABC’s Vote Compass found that the most important issues to Australians are as follows: the economy, asylum seekers (read border security), health and hospitals, climate change, education, broadband, trust, taxes, workplace relations, food security, NDIS (disability care), manufacturing, defence, childcare, transport, and mining. 

Social researcher Mark McCrindle believes that some groups are likely to see Kevin Rudd’s “gay marriage” stand as an elitist distraction. When you have unemployed or underemployed tradeies, for example, struggling to find work in the outer suburbs, Labor’s focus on redefining marriage looks out of touch. “It symbolises all that they don’t like about the government that is, distracted into symbolism and not governing on the issues that make a difference to them.” 

The respected commentator Gerard Henderson has also expressed concerns in relation to faith matters. “It is unlikely that evangelical Christians or mainstream Catholics will be impressed by Rudd’s conversion to samesex marriage. The same is true for Muslims who are an increasing influence in Western Sydney. Abbott’s enthusiastic reception in Lidcombe last week, at the end of Ramadan, was underreported in the media. It should have been of concern to Labor.”

But back to Blair. Why is the PM more interested in serving gaymarriage activists in innercity suburbs than Blair’s workingclass families? It just seems foolish, arrogant even. Still, Kevin Rudd says he doesn’t want to look like a “family dinosaur” in front of his children and wife. It’s all about him.

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant. 

Rudd must be set straight



Downer slams Rudd: “We have a perfect right to protect our borders”

Alexander Downer has slammed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s pro-appeasement boat policy.  

In an interview with 2GB’s Ben Fordham, the foreign minister under the Howard government, reminded listeners that turning around the boats “was quite simple.”  

Before Rudd’s term, the Navy intercepted the boats and towed them to the end of Indonesian waters. “We didn’t ask the Indonesians for permission,” he said.  

“We basically took the view that these were Indonesian boats, crewed by Indonesians, flying Indonesian flags, which were bringing people illegally to our country.”

An astonished Downer couldn’t hide his dismay. “I noticed the other day, Mr Rudd went to Indonesia and signed an agreement with the Indonesians that we wouldn’t act unilaterally to protect our own borders. I’d never do that.  

“We have a perfect right to protect our borders as a country. We don’t have to get anyone else’s permission to do that. 

“We’re sending a message now to the people smugglers – which you should never do – ‘Oh, we absolutely would never turn back the boats, it’s difficult, it’s dangerous, the Indonesians don’t like it…’  

“In other words, come on over to Australia. The door is open and the Navy is just waiting to assist you to land on our shores.”  

As well, Downer says it’s “heartbreaking to watch” Rudd’s dismantling of Howard’s successful policy.  

“The first task of our Navy is to protect our borders,” a truth Rudd doesn’t grasp. “That’s why we have a Navy.”  

“The boats will keep coming” under a re-elected Rudd-Labor government too, warned a concerned Downer.  

“Instead of 46,000 people having come this way, we’ll have something like 100,000 of them. And, of course, if you live in Sydney, a lot of those people end up in Sydney.”      

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant. 

“Our” ABC redefines sexism for Josh Thomas


On Wednesday, the sexist Laborfirst standup comic Josh Thomas made the Herald Sun’s frontpage.  Headline: “Nitwit tweets.” 

You see, for some reason the ABC2 joker and progressive Q&A guest thought it was funny to attack Tony Abbott’s mother, Fay.

Just hilarious, right? 

As the Herald Sun (Melbourne) editorialised:

THE ABC might think it amusing to put comedian Josh Thomas on the panel of Q&A, but his crude tweet about Tony Abbott’s mother should see him sacked. 

Thomas’s tweet that rather than stopping the boats, he would prefer it if Mr Abbott stopped his mother from “comin’ round my place at night for sex” is highly offensive and painfully personal.

His comments were sent to his 220,000 followers on Twitter when they should be consigned to the ABC toilets.

It is not the first time Thomas has ridiculed Opposition figures, but making Mr Abbott’s mother a target is a step too far.

Clearly, Thomas does not consider the rules of common decency apply to him. He’s wrong…

You might also remember Thomas from Channel 7’s C-list flop, Celebrity Splash. Nevertheless, the ABC celebrity is apparently beyond realworld accountability.  So, while Alan Jones is condemned for his remarks about Julia Gillard’s father in a private setting, Thomas’ public attack on Abbott’s mother is wished away. 

Recall too how the ABC melted down after a sexist antiGillard menu was allegedly distributed at a conservative dinner. I certainly do. The taxpayerfunded media’s outrage was palpable.  Yet, “our” ABC is now cool with Thomas’ sexism. 

In today’s toxic media groupthink culture, rules are selectively applied (in this case) to punish “sinful” conservatives and reward “angelic” leftwingers. Coalition bad. Labor good. 

As for Abbott’s mother? Well, she’s just a piece of comedy meat. Sexism, like marriage, is being redefined. 

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant. 








The Greens – society’s termites

TerpstraMilne’s Greens must condemn bestiality proponent, Peter Singer 

I see that Sarah HansonYoung is all worked up about Australians against redefining marriage. Redefining marriage won’t lead to polygamy, she assures us. Just trust the Greens. Except – oops! history teaches us otherwise. 

Also, don’t make slippery slope arguments about redefining marriage and bestiality or else “free speech” HansonYoung will fake outrage and cry bigotry. Except oops! Greens legend Peter Singer is a bestialityfriendly academic. 

How Orwellian. How Hanson-Young. If the Greens and their supporters want to act as Australia’s conscience on sexual politics, then they need to be completely frank about their past and their elders, including Singer. 

Here’s some history. According to the Greens, for example: 

With greatly increased membership after these successes, the party tackled the 1996 Federal election.  Our lead Senate candidate was Peter Singer, but we achieved only 2.9% of the vote statewide, largely because of a strong Democrats campaign led by Cheryl Kernot.  Within a month of the Federal election, the Greens took on both many local elections and a general State election.

Since then, Peter “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” Singer has come out to defend bestiality. 

But moreover, Singer was one of the founding members of the Victorian Greens. Or as he told Talking Heads (28/05/2007): 

When Bob Brown and others decided that there should be a national Greens Party, obviously one aspect of that was forming a Victorian Greens, so I was one of the founding members, but I never thought that I would do anything more than, you know, just be an ordinary rank and file member until there was a by-election in Kooyong.

Then, there are his controversial positions on “afterbirth abortions” and the like. As The Australian reminds us:

But Greens leader Christine Milne defended him.

“Peter Singer . . . deserves his global reputation for challenging people to reconsider their views on ethical behaviour, animal welfare and the human condition,” she said.

Professor Singer co-wrote the 1996 manifesto for the Greens with former party leader Bob Brown.

Curious how the current leader of the Greens hasn’t distanced herself from a bestialityfriendly academic. Instead, Milne equates his name with terms such as “ethical behaviour” and “animal welfare.”

When bleating Greens attack pro-marriage conservatives, while blessing Peter “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” Singer, it’s time to stand up for values. Just trust the Greens?

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant.

How “new atheists” play church

TerpstraAtheism is a closet religion – and there’s no shortage of field evidence.

Consider The Sunday Assembly, a group-identified “godless congregation” in London. There, the faithful meet on the first Sunday of every month.

As their evangelical pitch goes: “Come on down to hear inspirational speakers and to enjoy a morning that is part-foot stomping show, part-atheist church.” 

Being secular apostles, the assembly’s members (disciples?) are keen on planting new assemblies (churches?). To wit, “Sunday Assembly Everywhere is a framework that allows everyone to create their own Assembly, while staying true to the spirit and values of The Sunday Assembly.” 

Adherents have even adopted a hierarchal version of tithing. Or as their guidelines state, “The Sunday Assembly is run on donations and we ask you to send Sunday Assembly Everywhere 10% of your collection each month in order for us to provide ongoing support.”

But let’s dig a little deeper. 

The religious-sounding “nonreligious” movement is apparently the brainchild of Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones, two atheist comedians, with a knack for New-Age marketing techniques.

In one introductory You Tube video, for example, we see a room full of seekers in order to convey success. Most interestingly though, when Evans advertises the “life-affirming spirit” goals of her group, she sounds spiritual. 

At least, I’ve thought about what social-scientists would make of this. Why meet on Sunday mornings of all days, a time associated with mainstream Christianity? Why choose the word assembly, with all of its deep, biblical associations? And, why – oh, why – settle on 10% giving? At least this looks like mirroring. I mean, “life-affirming spirit”? Collection? 

Of course, for the faithful, including secular-fundamentalist journalists in London and abroad, Sanderson Jones is also a kind of atheist guru. With his loud beard, and charismatic personality, he’s even been likened to Jesus, without sandals. 

As one member conceded, “It will become an organised religion. It’s inevitable. A belief system will set in. There will be a structure, an ethical outlook on life.” 

But: “There is a difficulty that it might become cultish and it might become about one person. You could set yourself up as a charismatic preacher, that’s the danger.” 

Charismatic is one key term. Another concern to consider though is that when one belongs to a church-like community without a God, substitutes will always pop up in different masks. 

Furthermore, presenting The Sunday Assembly as some kind of hip, revolutionary and exciting new atheist congregation-planting outfit is misleading. As unedited history teaches us, atheist churches existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with their devotion to the secular holy trinity – aka the Great Milieu (space), the Great Fetish (earth) and the Great Being (humanity) – thanks to atheist Auguste Comte’s Religion of Humanity. 

Maybe, however, some attenders are trying to relive their positive childhood religious experiences through selective church mirroring. In this context at least, they don’t have to deal with God questions or social ostracism from their secular-fundamentalist peers.

Because “new atheists” carry their own myths and mystical rituals too, reason is often a pose.  Indeed, earth, the “Great Fetish” has often been the center of the closet religion. From catastrophic global-warming and global-cooling prophecies to socialist designs for a heaven on earth through higher taxes, many atheists are quite spiritual. 

And why ignore demographic questions? While politically-correct atheists have (falsely) portrayed Christianity as a male-centric white religion, Brian Wheeler observes in a BBC News Magazine article (“What happens at an atheist church?” – 4 February, 2013) that, “The [Sunday Assembly’s] audience – overwhelmingly young, white and middle class – appear excited to be part of something new and speak of the void they felt on a Sunday morning when they decided to abandon their Christian faith.” 

Like members of mainstream denominations, new atheists also identify with certain labels. Thus, some will call themselves irreligious, godless, new atheists, secular humanists, non-believers, and even enlightened.

Consider too how some atheists love their provocative symbols, from the anti-Christian “Darwin fish” to the scarlet letter A because they view themselves as victims, even martyrs, while attacking Protestants and Catholics. 

Most recently, the Assembly’s atheist pastor-figure, Sanderson Jones, pretended his group was kicked off a church-owned property. Why his members were worshipping there in the first place is another question.

Still, as I was saying, atheism is a closet religion – and there’s no shortage of evidence. “It’s really sad actually, we love that building,” complained Sanderson, in his new role as a media-approved postmodern martyr. 

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant.






When the BBC’s secular priests abuse


Contributor Ben-Peter Terpstra asks the hard question, although satisfactory answers from the BBC might be long in coming and short on substance. GC.Ed.@L.

“Our” ABC’s media elites are obsessed with sexual abuse testimonies when the Catholic Church is in the firing line. But, when children and adults are abused by powerful secular priests, watch them tiptoe away, or downplay events. 

There are numerous examples: 

I have to ask, where’s the loud, moral outrage surrounding the late Jimmy Savile’s five decades of abuse against vulnerable minors and women? After all, it’s understood that the child-abusing BBC presenter even sexually assaulted ill children in their hospital beds

I have to ask, where’s the media interest in serious allegations surrounding two male executives and the abuse of young fans visiting the BBC studio during the eighties? The so-called “Doctor Who sex scandal” raised by former Blue Peter boss Richard Marson is now the subject of a serious probe, led by former former Court of Appeal judge Dame Janet Smith.

I have to ask, where are all the opinion pieces concerning the veteran BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall’s history of sexual abuse? So far, the pervert has admitted to indecently assaulting 13 girls, including a nine-year-old, and he’s been charged with sex offences against 10 more girls and the rape of a young woman.

I have to ask, why was sexual harassment within the BBC a no-go topic for so many years?  According to, “Dinah Rose QC… there was a ‘strong undercurrent’ of fear at the corporation, in which 35 members of staff were involved in 37 cases of alleged sexual harassment at the BBC over the past six years, and where others verbally abused junior staff or made sexist remarks to young female workers.” 

I have to ask, what motivated the BBC to air false sexual abuse claims against one prominent Conservative figure, while shielding Jimmy Savile’s reputation from sexual abuse survivors? Sadly, police investigators now suspect the former BBC presenter abused hundreds of children, even at the BBC! 

I have to ask, where was the outrage when the BBC gave an academic a platform to promote sex with thirteen-year-olds? Or as one BBC spokesman sniffed, “The programme does not advocate the issue. It [exploiting young bodies] is a starting point for serious debate.” 

The question to be asked of media elites, and one they should ask themselves, should be: Why is a child abused by a Catholic priest considered more newsworthy than a child abused by a secular priest?

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant.