On last night’s Q&A, two viewers,  Dr Karey Harrison from Harristown (via Toowoomba) and Dr Cathy Byrne from NSW raised the question of students being taught creationism ‘as fact’ in schools. How strange that we keep bringing up this subject but politicians keep sticking their heads in the sand and denying it’s happening!

Addressing the panel by video, Dr Harrison said:

I expected my children to be taught science in science classes at the local state school. So I was a bit angry when my son was taught a creation story about  the origin of the universe in his Year 11 physics class at the local high school. My son didn’t want me to do anything because he was concerned about possible repercussions for his grades which in Queensland, count towards university entrance. So I want to know from the panel what is your attitude towards teaching religion in science classes and to Tanya [Plibersek, ALP] and Greg [Hunt, LNP], in particular, what you and your parties will do to stop religion being taught in our science classes?

Labor Minister, Tanya Plibersek’s response was to fob off the question, noting:

“… but it’s one state school. You might have run into one teacher with particular views in one school. I don’t know that we can say that that is a characterisation of what’s being taught in science in all of our state schools. I’d be very surprised and very disturbed if that was the case.”

Soon after, a video question from education researcher, Dr Cathy Byrne, confirmed that the problem was far more widespread than ‘just one school’.

“My question is for Laurence Krauss,” said Dr  Byrne.

“You may know that some evangelical religious groups have direct access to children in state schools in Australia. My research has shown that some of these organisations teach that man and dinosaurs lived together, that the earth is only 6000 years old and that children will burn in hell if they don’t read the Bible every day. How might teaching children such things in our state system effect Australia’s future?”

It is clear that Dr Byrne has found sufficient evidence of creationism in enough schools to feel it is an issue worth raising. Her concern clearly suggests that the problem transcends ‘just one school’.

And Drs Harrison and Byrne are not the only ones concerned about the infiltration of creationism into Australian schools. On February 13, Dr Paul Willis, director of the prestigious Royal Institution of Australia – a national organisation for the promotion of science –  wrote an article revealing his growing concern about creationism in the classroom. Is it likely that Willis would raise the issue if he believed the problem was confined to a rogue teacher or two?

“My concern is not simply for the specifics of demonstrating through science that evolution has occurred, that the palaeontologists are right and that the creationists are laughably wrong on each and every count”, wrote Willis.

“The burden on a science education of having to deal with this rubbish effects the fundamentals of understanding what science is and how it’s conducted. It challenges and erodes an education in logic and reason.”

In the Australian Book of Atheism (Warren Bonett, ed, 2010), Professor Graham Oppy, Head of the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies at Monash University, affirms that:

“Groups like CSF (Christian Science Foundation), Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, and Creation Research … work hard to get their materials into schools …”

And they’re succeeding. According to Professor Oppy, since 2000, the teaching of creationism in science classes has become “more prevalent”.

How is it, one might ask, that creationism in the classroom is widely acknowledged by teachers and academics, but, when politicians are asked about it, their  inevitable reaction is to feign surprise!

Late last year, I wrote about a Queensland state school where creationism is being taught ‘as science’ in the science classroom. The information came directly from a science teacher who was so appalled at what was going on at her school, she risked her job to speak out. She later told her story on Radio National’s Life Matters program. That teacher has said, plainly, this is not the only school where this is happening.  Science teachers speak to each other and while many know creationism is a problem, particularly in Queensland schools , many fear for their jobs if they speak out – especially under the current conservative regime of happy clappers. I’m reliably informed that Education Queensland’s reaction to the news that creationism is being taught ‘as science’ in a state high school science class has been to ‘deny, deny, deny’.

So, perhaps we should not be surprised that when creationism in schools was raised last night, Ms Plibersek’s reacted as if she had never heard of such a thing; as if the problem of creationism in Australian classrooms was a completely new issue.  It’s not. We’ve been carping about it for years and politicians from both sides of the political fence have been sticking their fingers in their ears for approximately the same amount of time.

In August 2011, for example, there was a public uproar after a chaplain from a state school in Gympie arranged for creationist, John Mackay, to deliver a ‘scientific’ lecture to students. Yet, chaplains still infest our schools and creationists are still being invited to speak to students.

Recently, one of the Young Australian Skeptics confirmed that, at his ‘semi-private’ Christian school, students were told by an invited guest that the evolutionary theory they were being taught in science class was ‘not true’. As the student says:

“I don’t mind having people come and speak to us in chapel if they are talking about how God wants to help you, loves you, etc; but I cannot stand it when someone comes into the school and tells us the curriculum set for us is wrong. “You learn about evolution in the classroom, but this is the real truth. All of that stuff isn’t based on anything provable.” Arguments ranging from irreducible complexity to the point that Noah’s flood is the reason for the Grand Canyon being around. He even managed to mess up natural selection by almost reversing how it works. What a spectacular man!”

“What actually happened in the past?” is the rhetorical question posed by creationist, Dr Mark Harwood, the above-mentioned speaker, in his set speech to school students. Here is what Harwood and his mates from Creation Ministries International are telling Australian school students:

While still wildly inaccurate, Harwood’s approach is slightly more sophisticated than the misguided religious instruction teachers who have told students that “Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark” and that “Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.”

On the Atheist Foundation of Australian forum, I found a post from the chief scientist at a reptile sanctuary in Canberra. With considerable frustration, he reports that when he attempted to answer questions about the reptiles from a visiting school group, a teacher interrupted his explanation and asked him  to answer the questions without mentioning evolution.

“Yeah mate, look we don’t buy into that evolution stuff, there are too many holes in it, its just a theory”

With a stunned gaze I managed to get out some words “what do you mean”

“Well we teach creation at our school, evolution is just one world view, that’s your world view, and our world view is as it is stated in the Bible”

In 2010, the Australian reported that school students in NSW had been presented with ‘creationist showbags” by a  group of scripture volunteers. These “Creation For Kids” give-aways contained “colouring books, calendars and DVDs deriding evolution and claiming that the universe was only 6000 years old.”

And, if  the practice of bringing creationism into the classroom is not widespread as so many teachers, researchers and academics claim, why did the chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O’Doherty, howl  (in early 2010) that the SA government was withdrawing “the right to teach ”biblical perspectives” as part of science”?

We know that creationism is entering Australian state schools’ science classrooms by stealth. We know that it  is still taught, quite openly, in Christian schools. In schools where the science classroom has been successfully ‘roped off’ from creationist myths, the fundamentalists find other ways to undermine the science curriculum.  This will continue as long as government ministers, like Plibersek, adopt denial as the most convenient way to deal with the rising problem of religion in schools.

We know that, throughout Australia, in both public and private schools, inside and outside of science classes, evolution is being undermined while a fundamentalist, literalist view of creation is being touted to students by whatever means and in whatever pedagogical venue the creationists can manage to infiltrate.

Indeed, a 2010 report notes that:

“Kings Christian Church youth worker Dustin Bell said he taught ‘about creation’ in Sunshine Coast schools.”

“Set Free Christian Church’s Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.”

And, in a shocking but amusing anecdote (which I can confirm, because I know the parent involved):

“A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

“The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve,” he said.

“My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that ‘wouldn’t they all be inbred’?

“But the teacher replied that DNA wasn’t invented then.”

Another parent, Graeme,  from the Sunshine Coast complained  to Queensland Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, that, after his daughter’s science teacher explained the theory of evolution by natural selection to the class, he screened a video on intelligent design.  In reply, Premier Bligh assured Graeme that it was perfectly acceptable for science teachers to ask their students to ‘look at a range of opinions – a range of views’.

So, when teaching geography, do we also show students DVDs from flat earth theorists?

When teaching astronomy, do we bring in an astrologer to explain how the stars guide our lives and personalities?

When teaching kids how the brain works, do we ask teachers to screen a video of John Edwards so they will understand ‘there is a view’ that a living, functioning brain is not a necessary prerequisite to communication. (A necessary clarification –  I’m speaking here of the spirits with whom Edwards allegedly communes, not Edwards himself!) After all, we wouldn’t want the children of parents who believe in TV psychics to feel their parents’ views are not being respected in the science class, would we?

Teaching creationism alongside evolution cannot be justified as ‘teaching the controversy’. As Professor Lawrence Krauss confirmed on Q & A last night, there is no ‘controversy’ about evolutionary theory. It’s supported by over 200 years of irrefutable evidence from a wide range of  scientific and medical disciplines. While a huge collection of fossil evidence (complete with ‘missing’ links) has helped to establish evolution by natural selection ‘as fact’, evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins assures us the evidence from other fields is so voluminous that evolution can now be proven even without reference to fossils:

“Fossils are not necessary to prove evolution nowadays, as we can do that with comparative evidence, especially via chemical molecular evidence. But fossils are very nice for showing the direct course evolution took – fossils are the only evidence we have which show what animals were like in the distant past.

We are very lucky to have fossils, [but] if we didn’t have fossils at all, we’d still know evolution was true. There are some gaps in the fossil record too, of course, which those sceptical about evolution think is important, but of course it’s not. The whole fossil record could be one big gap and we would still know evolution was true. But although there are gaps there are still substantial parts of evolution where we have a pretty good record of what exactly happened.”

It is simply unacceptable that the laxity of our state and federal governments has allowed an ideological belief to infiltrate schools and undermine the teaching of a vitally important scientific theory which undergirds so many of this nation’s scientific, agricultural and medical endeavours. We need our children to be well informed about science because they are the scientists, researchers, inventors and innovators of the future.

Dr John Dickson from the Centre for Public Christianity confirmed on Q&A last night, that a literal interpretation of Genesis is neither scientifically nor theologically sound. Further, he noted that not even early Christians would have read Genesis literally – this is a far later affectation.

Even the Catholic Church, which can’t seem to get its head around the fact that condoms reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, has been forced to  acknowledge the truth of evolutionary theory. There is simply no reason for our government to cave in to extremist fundamentalist fringe views at the expense of our children’s education.

Indeed, it is unfair to allow children to be confused by well-meaning, but misinformed religious evangelists – whether these be teachers, principals, guest speakers, or volunteers invited into the school for the purpose of teaching religion.

Let me try an analogy. Would anyone find it acceptable for children to be told by an RI teacher or guest speaker that their maths teacher is lying when they say 1+1=2  and that, in fact,  1+1 actually equals 3?  How would we feel if some maths teachers who, despite all evidence to the contrary, subscribed to the belief that 1+1=3 were allowed to teach that in the maths classroom while the government looked the other way, denied it was happening and responded to evidence by downplaying it as an ‘isolated incident’? Teaching that there is some scientific controversy about the fact of evolution by natural selection, or suggesting to students that creationism is somehow supported by science is every bit as unsound as telling them that 1+1=3.

Ms Plibersek and her party (state and federal) have to stop ignoring the problem of religion in government funded schools – both state and private – and implement policies which promote science, reason and critical thinking and which confine religious mythology to the home and the church.

If you know of an incident or incidents of creationism being taught or touted within Australian schools, please contact Ms Plibersek’s office at:  Minister.Plibersek@health.gov.au. Perhaps we can convince her that it’s not happening in ‘just one school’.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Media

Q&A – Monday, 18 February 2013

Creationism in Schools – Radio National, Life Matters

Faith in Schools: the dismantling of Australia’s secular public education system  – ABC Religion & Ethics, Chrys Stevenson

Keeping ignorance and extremism out of public schools: The role of teachers and their unions – ABC Religion & Ethics, Dr Cathy Byrne

Creationists hijack lessons and teach schoolkids man and dinosaurs walked together, Carly Hennessy and Kathleen Donaghey, the Courier-Mail.

“If you think about that, somehow saying that, well, anything goes, we shouldn’t offend religious beliefs by requiring kids to know – to understand reality; that’s child abuse.” – Lawrence M Krauss

Professor Lawrence M Krauss is appearing on Q&A next Monday along with Tanya Plibersek, Greg Hunt, and Dr John Dickson, Director of the Centre for Public Christianity.

One of Krauss’s pet topics is the idiocy of teaching creationism in the science classroom. In fact, he has equated it to child abuse.

I have it on good authority that Professor Krauss is aware of some of the problems we are facing here in Australia and it would be brilliant if we could get him to speak about it during Monday night’s Q&A.

So, can you please submit questions on this subject to Q&A.  Please, take a moment, go to this link and ask a question about the growing problem of creationism being taught in Australian schools or, more broadly, about the intrusion of religion generally into our public school system. If you like, you can even send in a video question.

Need inspiration? You might find these links helpful.

Life Matters – Creationism in Qld Schools

Faith in schools – the dismantling of Australia’s secular public education system by Chrys Stevenson

(To cut to the chase, search for “Creationism in the science classroom”)

Creationists hijack lessons and teach schoolkids man and dinosaurs walked together – news.com.au

If Q&A is bombarded with demands to canvass this topic, perhaps they’ll find it hard to refuse.

Chrys Stevenson

Ask a Question at ABC’s Q&A here.

I tend to spend a lot of my time slamming religious extremists and bigots on this blog. But, I believe that credit is due to those Christian organisations which take a more enlightened view. In light of the current debate about exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations, it’s important to note that the view of extremist ‘stakeholders’ like Jim Wallace’s Australian Christian Lobby do not represent the ‘mainstream’ Christian view. Why does our Prime Minister and Attorney-General Nicola Roxon not take note of this? This is the burning question!

So, congratulations to UnitingJustice Australia, the justice unit of the National Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia. Their submission to the senate standing committee’s inquiry into the human rights and anti-discrimination bill, 2012, clearly states their (qualified) opposition to religious exemptions.

It is, in my view, a sensible and well thought out argument which puts the so-called ‘Christian ethics’ of the ACL to shame.

Here is the section that deals with exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations, submitted in December 2012:

Recommendation Eight:

That the sections governing religious exceptions be amended to remove those protected attributes that are not demonstrably justified by religious needs.

UnitingJustice is deeply concerned that the wide ranging list of protected attributes to which an exception applies for religious organisations serves only to perpetuate the potential for discrimination both by and within religious organisations and institutions.

While we believe that the right to freedom of religion is of vital importance, and its recognition necessary, we do not believe that this is an absolute right. We acknowledge, then, that the exercise of religious freedom is subject to the regulatory norms that govern Australian society. Importantly, we support the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights statement that discussions in this area must consider whether an exemption is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”

We believe that religious organisations require an exemption in relation to the ordination or appointment of their religious leaders. The act of ordination is core to the integrity of a religious community and we believe it is appropriate that religious organisations are given the freedom to appoint their leaders in keeping with their religious traditions and beliefs.

We are concerned, however, with section 33 of the Anti-Discrimination Bill, and feel that it gives too wide an exemption to the activities of religious organisations and institutions. We do not believe that it is necessary, in light of the need to balance the rights of the wider community with the freedoms to be afforded to religious groups, to grant an exception to that permits discrimination when that discrimination consists of conduct, engaged in good faith, that:

(i) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion; or
(ii) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion.

When religious bodies are provided to what amounts to a ‘blanket exception’, there is no incentive for that body to ensure that it does not discriminate, and no incentive to promote equality and inclusion in areas of employment and representation other than those leadership positions necessary to maintain the integrity of the religious organisation.

While we acknowledge “the need for some level of exemption, to allow faith-based organisations to maintain their integrity according to the tenets of the relevant communities” faiths, references in the Anti-Discrimination Bill to concepts such as “doctrine”, “tenets of that religion” and “injury to religious sensitivities” are, in many cases, unhelpful. This language is contested even within religious communities themselves, and so to require participants in court proceedings to present and decide on a definitive definition of any of these terms is problematic.

In its submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century project, the Uniting Church National Assembly stated our support for federal legislation prohibiting religious discrimination, including a specific provision which allowed for discrimination on the basis of religion by faith communities in the area of employment in leadership and teaching positions, where it is reasonably necessary for maintaining the integrity of the religious organisation.

Several of the protected attributes listed under sections 32 and 33 disproportionately impact women, including pregnancy, potential pregnancy, breastfeeding and family responsibilities. There are no justifiable grounds for the inclusion of such attributes.

Indeed, they serve only to act as a proxy of sorts for enabling discrimination on the grounds of gender. For this reason, we do not support the wide-ranging list of exceptions granted to religious organisations and institutions under the proposed legislation.”

Well, Prime Minister, Ms Roxon? Why does the ACL’s view trump this one? Please explain …

Chrys Stevenson

UnitingVoice Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill

Please use GetUp! to contact Nicola Roxon and your local political representative about this matter. And please spread GetUp’s link among your own networks.

Congratulations and thanks also to Joumanah El Matra, Executive Director of The Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights. El Matra has  also opposed the legislation exemptions – Shutting out the ‘sinners’ feeds bigotry – The Age, 18/1/13

Has our first female PM legitimised misogyny? – Dr Jennifer Wilson at No Place for Sheep

The ALP’s appalling capitulation to religious bigots has been roundly criticised this week. Despite overhauling Australia’s federal anti-discrimination legislation, the ALP has apparently done a deal with the devil Australian Christian Lobby, assuring them that exemptions to anti-discrimination laws will remain in place for religious organisations.

The Prime Minister has assured religious extremists they will still have the freedom to target fellow Australians who offend their religious ‘sensibilities’ – gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, unmarried mothers and people living in defacto relationships to name just a few of the ‘sinners’ the ‘religious’ would prefer not to employ.

Voters should be particularly interested in Senator Doug Cameron’s admission that this cozy little deal was made arbitrarily; the matter, he says, was not discussed in caucus.

Well may we ask which members of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) have been busy pulling Ms Gillard’s strings! Mr Farrell? Mr de Bruyn? What exactly do you owe these people, Ms Gillard, that you will bypass caucus in order to fulfil their wishes?

Of course, this little victory has made the ACL’s managing director, Jim Wallace, a right happy little Vegemite. Although, curiously, while lauding the government for preserving bigots’ ‘religious freedom’ to flout the laws which every other Australian has to follow, Mr Wallace says it’s ‘not a big issue’.  Indeed, Mr Wallace insists that, as far as he’s aware, there are no religious institutions which actually practice the discrimination they’ve so vociferously demanded. WTF???

Yep.  “We lobbied for a right to discriminate, but don’t get your knickers in a knot, because no-one’s going to do it.”

Really? Really?  This from the monster man who cheerfully agreed in February last year that church schools should have the right to expel students for no reason other than being ‘openly gay’.

In an interview on ABC News yesterday, a disingenuous Mr Wallace said:

“I’m not aware of any Christian organisation that has refused to hire anyone (based on their sexuality), and I’ve looked. I’m not aware of any school that has expelled anyone… for homosexuality. So, I think this is a beat-up in that it’s a problem that doesn’t exist.”

If the problem doesn’t exist, Mr Wallace –  if religious institutions have no interest in discriminating against their fellow Australians – why did you lobby for them to maintain the right to do so? Have you any idea how badly this is playing with the general public? This is Australia, Mr Wallace, land of the ‘fair go’ – not land of the ‘one law for everyone – except religious institutions’. This is a secular democracy Mr Wallace – despite your burning ambition to turn it into your own personal theocracy.

And, might I ask, exactly where and how hard did you look for victims of religious bigotry?

As one of my Facebook contacts observed:

“By “looked”, perhaps Wallace means that he stood alone in a dark room and squinted, which is precisely how the ACL seems to do much of its strategising and policy development.”

Another hastened to clarify:

“No … the man’s eye’s were firmly closed and he placed a bag over his head just to make sure he couldn’t see.”

Well, Mr Wallace, the time has come to put your manhood where your mouth is. You reckon you’ve gone searching for victims of religious bigotry and have found none? Seems you’ve just been asking the wrong people.

Today, veteran gay rights campaigner, Rodney Croome, of the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, issued a media release stating that he would be happy to arrange a meeting between Mr Wallace and ‘some of the thousands of employees and students’  who, Croome says, have been discriminated against by religious organisations.

“I invite Mr Wallace to meet GLBTI employees who have been sacked from church welfare agencies and GLBTI students who have been expelled from church schools,” said Croome.

“I want him to look them in the eye and tell them why their contribution and their rights matter less than other people’s.”

Well, there you go, Mr Wallace. You say you’ve been looking for victims of religious discrimination and couldn’t find any. Mr Croome has kindly found what you were looking for. The question is, are you honest enough, man enough, Christian enough, to take Mr Croome up on his offer?  Man up and accept the offer, Jim  – or people will take you for a dick.

Chrys Stevenson

Croome – Media Release

Please use GetUp! to contact Nicola Roxon and your local political representative about this matter. And please spread GetUp’s link among your own networks.

Related Post:

Has our first female PM legitimised misogyny? – Dr Jennifer Wilson at No Place for Sheep

 Jim Wallace blames homosexuality for clergy child abuse – Flourish& Bloggs

More on Julia Gillard’s pet religious ‘stakeholder’: Is the Australian Christian Lobby Dominionist? – Chrys Stevenson, ABC Religion & Ethics

Better understanding the world of atheists – survey

Late last year I wrote about a survey on atheism being conducted by Professor Tom Arcaro of Elon University, North Carolina.

The final date for submissions is drawing close and Professor Arcaro has informed me the response from Australia and New Zealand has been so good we will be able to proceed with our plan to co-author a paper on the results.

If you are an atheist or agnostic and have not already completed this survey, I would greatly appreciate your input. Depending on how many comments you wish to make, it will take between 10 and 20 minutes of your time.

If there are questions you don’t like or if you wish to clarify your answers you can do so in the spaces provided. I guarantee I will be taking comments into account during the analysis.

I envisage that the final article will compare both Australian and New Zealand results and Australia/NZ with the USA and the rest of the world.

It’s an exciting project and the more input we can get from this part of the world, the more accurate the results will be.

Please complete the survey if you have not done so already and please circulate the URL to your networks:  www.surveymonkey.com/s/HDJ5C6L

Cheers and Happy New Year to you all

Chrys Stevenson

I’m not a big sports fan. I’d be hard pressed to name Australia’s top 10 sports people – male or female. I am, however, a very big fan of fairness, a commitment to equality, professionalism and good judgment – all qualities sorely lacking in the two bozos from the Daily Telegraph who thought it was oh so funny to name cricketer, Michael Clarke, Sportsman of the Year and Black Caviar – a racehorse – Sportswoman of the Year.

Phil Rothfield and Darren Hadland are the two sexist oafs who conceived of the idea but one also has to ask, “Where were the gatekeepers?”  Did no-one at the Daily Telegraph read this piece of neanderthal nonsense and think, “Hmmm, maybe that’s a really bad idea?”

In my recent article for the King’s Tribune I reveal that women are extremely poorly represented on the front pages of Australia’s leading newspapers. Drawing on research by media expert, Dr Louise North, of Monash University, I suggest that the blokey culture of Australian (and international) news rooms is a major obstacle to female journalists’ professional success. In turn, the lack of senior female reporters and editors means that newspaper reporting is often skewed to favour masculine perspectives – and not always in a good way.

The Daily Telegraph was one of the newspapers I studied over 10 business days. The results weren’t good.  In 10 weekday issues of the Tele not one front page story was written by a female journalist. Further, seventy-eight per cent of the Daily Telegraph’s front page stories focused on male protagonists. On my ‘blokeyness index’ which took into account six key categories:

The Sydney Morning Herald achieved the highest score for ‘blokeyness’ with an average ‘male representation’ score of 82 per cent based on the six key indicators (see table). But it was a close race, with the Daily Telegraph scoring a whopping 80 per cent on the blokeyness barometer.

It’s very hard not to see this latest stunt as a symptom of the Tele’s blokey culture and apparent lack of female gatekeepers.

In an interview with the Women’s Weekly in July, Telegraph editor, Paul Whittaker, insisted that his paper was not failing its women readers. I’m sorry, Mr Whittaker but I beg to differ.

The idea that it’s okay to name a horse as Sportswoman of the Year is a prime example of a masculine perspective which is completely out of touch with contemporary values. It is particularly irksome considering the high profile public debate we have recently had about misogyny. Frankly, it is so gobsmackingly stupid it’s almost hard to believe.

And you don’t have to be a militant, hairy arm-pitted, bra-burning feminist to be offended by this schoolboy stunt. I mentioned it to two delightful 88 year old ladies this afternoon. They gasped in disbelief when I told them the story and, when I assured them it was true, they launched into a spirited tirade which included the words ‘outrageous’, ‘demeaning’ and ‘disgusting’. One of the octogenarians, my mother, shook her head and said, “The bastards!”

With newspaper readership on the wane, newspapers are increasingly aware that they need to capture the female demographic. This is not the way to do it, Mr Whittaker.  The Daily Telegraph was the second worst of the eight newspapers I studied for my King’s Tribune article – all of which scored badly on the ‘blokeyness index’. Naming a horse as Sportswoman of the Year takes your newspaper to a new nadir.

In my view, the two ‘so-called’ journalists who conceived of this drivel should be stood down and so should the editors who let  it go to print. Here’s a novel idea – why not fill the vacancies with women?

Chrys Stevenson

Related Articles:

The Blokeyness Index: blokes win the gender war in Australia’s 4th Estate – Chrys Stevenson, King’s Tribune

Sportswoman of the Year? Really? – Wendy Harmer, The Hoopla

My friend,  Dr Tom Arcaro is a Professor of Sociology at Elon University in North Carolina. In 2010 Tom did a fascinating sociological survey on the stigmatisation of atheists. Now he is conducting a new survey which touches on stigmatisation, but which also focuses on non-believers’ participation in, and attitudes about, our local, national and international atheist organisations.

Tom plans to publish at least one paper as a result of this research and, if there is sufficient response from Australia, he has invited me to co-author a piece based on the Australian results.

The survey will take around 30 minutes and, if you don’t like or agree with any of the questions, there is room to say why (I always like that in a survey).

Last time, we received 300 responses from Australia and it would be great to better that in 2012-2013.

So, please consider completing the survey and share it with your own networks.

You’ll find the survey here:

Better Understanding of the World of Atheists Survey

Chrys Stevenson

I’m not big on Christmas presents, but today I got an unexpected Christmas bonus that really touched my heart. What’s more, I don’t have to worry about whether it fits the colour scheme, or whether I’ve got the cupboard space to store it.

Writer, broadcaster and feminist, Clementine Ford assembled a list of the 20 greatest moments for [Australian] women in 2012 for Fairfax newspaper’s Daily Life website. And there, at No. 18, is the article I wrote about Catherine Deveny’s appearance on Q&A on this very blog!

Considering this blog began as an extremely modest effort to direct web traffic to the  (then fledgling) Embiggen Books website, I have been thrilled and somewhat amazed at its growth over the past couple of years, and especially during 2012.

Clementine’s accolade is the icing on my Christmas cake and comes at a time when I definitely needed a little boost.

So, many thanks to Clem and to all of you who’ve discovered this little corner of the blogosphere, for your readership, friendship, comments, insight, encouragement, support, and compliments  during the year. And yes, thanks, too for the brickbats which made me think, or pound my head against the keyboard, but much more often made me laugh.

It’s been a blast and I look forward to continuing to Destroy the Joint when I’m back on deck in 2013.

Chrys Stevenson

“The Blokeyness Index:

blokes win the gender war in Australia’s 4th Estate”

My Dad swore that, at the very moment I emerged from the womb, I opened my mouth and howled, “IT’S. NOT. FAIR!!!!!!”

At some point during my childhood, my overdeveloped sense of justice became so irritating to my parents that, “IT’S. NOT. FAIR!!!!!” went on the banned list of phrases – along with, “BUT. I. WANT. A. PONY!!!!!!”

I don’t think I’m a particularly effective feminist – Leslie Cannold and her ilk put me to shame –  but I still have a very strong adverse reaction to things that aren’t fair.

I didn’t think it was fair when Catherine Deveny was attacked for ‘taking over’ Q and A recently. Fortunately, the transcript backed me up and I was able to show that Deveny did not dominate the show, nor did she interrupt more than her nemesis, Archbishop Peter Jensen.

Analysing the transcript of Q and A is a tedious and laborious job and I swore I wouldn’t do it again. But, when Kate Ellis faced a pack of slavering chauvinist wolves on a subsequent episode, I pulled another all night stint to expose the injustice.

On the strength of those two blog posts, I was recently invited to undertake a project for the King’s Tribune, an independent magazine which focuses on politics, media and pop culture.  I should have been thrilled and honoured – and I was. But, my first inclination was to say “thanks, but no thanks”.

The thing is, I knew how much work the two Q and A projects involved. What Jane Gilmore, the editor of the King’s Tribune was suggesting was on a far greater scale altogether.  It was a fascinating project but, as I replied frankly to Jane, as a struggling writer, I just couldn’t agree to commit the amount of time needed for the project without getting paid.

It’s come down to this. I just can’t go on spending hundreds of hours researching and writing while I pay our handyman/gardener $30 an hour to do things  I could be doing myself if I wasn’t spending so much time on the computer! At some point you realise, you’re not just writing for nothing – it’s costing you to write for nothing! Costing a lot!

It’s particularly annoying when you know some people who are putting out online journals are making a living out of it, but the writers who supply the content often get nothing – not even a token fee.

There are very few online journals that pay writers – and those that do, pay much less than you might expect. And that’s a shame because, while people like me are often happy to clack out a couple of thousand words every so often on things we feel strongly about, ultimately, writers have bills to pay too!

I have to admit that I didn’t know a lot about the King’s Tribune when Jane approached me. My friends Shelley Stocken, Jo Thornely, Mike Stuchbery  and Ben Pobjie are regular contributors so I knew it was a quality magazine, but I hadn’t been nosey enough to ask them if they were paid for their articles.

So, when Jane emailed back to confirm that “Yes” the King’s Tribune pays writers and would pay me for my time, I was surprised, and thrilled, and, even though the fee offered wasn’t astronomical, it was something and I appreciated the goodwill and respect that signified. In short, it was FAIR.

‘The project’ Jane had in mind was inspired by a newspaper article,  “Why is British Public Life Dominated by Men?” ,  by Kira Cochrane from the Guardian newspaper and subsequent research undertaken by UK advocacy group –  Women in Journalism.  Both Cochrane’s original research and the follow-up WiJ study found that women are extremely poorly represented – both as journalists and as news subjects – in the British media. Similar international and US studies reached similar conclusions; women journalists, and women in general, simply weren’t being treated fairly or equally in the media.

But what about here, in Australia? Is our media the exception or the rule? In a country led by a female prime minister and a female governor general – a country in which Michelle Grattan is a household name – surely the media is more enlightened than the British tabloids and their infamous  ‘page three’ girls?

The project took a month – pretty much full time – to research and write. It’s the kind of project that probably wouldn’t have been done if someone hadn’t been willing to pay for it. The King’s Tribune was. And, this is my (and their) point:

If we want good writers to undertake serious, time-consuming projects like this,  then we have to value their work and pay them. For independent publishers – the only way to pay writers is either to take advertising (which may compromise their independence) or to charge readers for access.

All of which is a long winded way of making two important statements.

The first is that my first (and hopefully not my last) article for the King’s Tribune, “The Blokeyness Index: blokes win the gender war in Australia’s 4th Estate” is the lead story in the King’s Tribune December issue; available both online and in printed form. But, to read the whole article you will need to subscribe ($5 for a single month’s subscription) or order a printed copy of the magazine to be mailed to you ($8.95). That means you won’t just get my article, but all the other great articles in the December edition of the magazine.

The second point  is, that in order to continue paying good Australian writers, the King’s Tribune needs more than just subscribers for this one edition. They could really do with your ongoing support. So, if you can manage it – either before or after you get your hands on the December edition – please consider taking out a one year, six month or three month subscription.  If you have friends or relatives who value good quality writing on topical subjects – think about a gift subscription.  And, if you have had a particularly good year and you’re feeling all welled up with Christmas spirit and goodwill towards us starving scribes – perhaps you might consider making a ‘one off’ contribution to help the King’s Tribune stay afloat.

Here’s editor, Jane Gilmore, talking about the history of the magazine and why you should think about supporting it.

As Jane says in her September article, “On Paying Writers”:

“… ultimately it’s the readers who need to know that the service they are getting is valuable. Ten or more years of free content online has inculcated everyone with the idea that good writing is a valueless service. It’s not. But paying writers what they are worth is not going to happen until that ingrained attitude changes.

Finding good writers is far more difficult than you would imagine. Finding good writers who are an incentive to paying customers is even more difficult. But the solution to this is not just up to publishers. Everyone has to join the dance.”

You can read the introduction to “The Blokeyness Index” here. But, to read the whole thing, you’ll need to subscribe – either to just the December issue ($5) or in one of the ways listed on the link above. Please consider subscribing (either short-term or long-term) in order to read the full article and, if you enjoy it, encourage your friends to do the same.

Yes, they’ll have to pay a small fee but,  come on, isn’t that only FAIR?

“The Blokeyness Index:

blokes win the gender war in Australia’s 4th Estate”

Chrys Stevenson

Pedophile priest, Father Risdale, who is said to have abused hundreds of children, walked to the Melbourne Magistrates Court with his support person, Bishop Pell – Source: Broken Rites

12 November 2012 – 5.30pm: Breaking news. Prime Minister Gillard announced, this afternoon, that the government has agreed to a royal commission into institutional responses to allegations of child sex abuse in Australia – The Australian

Everyone I know agrees we need a national (not state) Royal Commission into child sex abuse – AKA child rape – in the Catholic Church and other religious institutions.

There are now several petitions floating around the internet, but I’m very pleased and proud to be one of eight well-known Australians to launch the petition below.

Petitioning the Prime Minister of Australia:  Australian Government: It’s time for a Royal Commission into child abuse by the clergy including the Catholic Church

At the invitation of Catherine Deveny, social commentator, comedian and celebrity, I’ve joined with:

• Jane Caro, social commentator, media personality and education expert
• Michael Short, editor at The Zone and editorial writer for the Age
• Father Bob Maguire
• High profile PR consultant and corporate strategist, Sue Cato
• Andrew Knight, writer of shows such as Sea Change, Fast Forward and Rake (and multi-award winner)
• Josh Bornstein, principal in charge of employment and industrial law practice at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
• and Catherine Deveny

to launch this petition today.

That’s a pretty high powered group with amazing contact networks. And you can be sure this is only the beginning of the lobbying process. A major media release will also be issued later today.

Lawyers worked through the weekend to establish there is no constitutional law impeding the government from calling its own national Royal Commission into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and other religious institutions.

THIS is the petition that needs to go viral in the same way the Alan Jones petition went viral.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Reading:

Detective challenges O’Farrell over Catholic abuse claims – ABC News

Former priest alleges system of abuse cover-ups – ABC News

Royal commission on church abuse is not the answer: Hockey, Shorten – Sydney Morning Herald