The female half of my brain momentarily melted down pre Chrissie reading Daily Telegraph headline (Sat, 10/12) announcing emerging Australian MMA fighter Megan Anderson as ‘our ultimate bad girl’. Bloody. Hell.
I had forgotten momentarily the national media oligarchy is no longer a bastion of intelligent mainstream media, but corporate with an agenda that ensures women are reminded of their “ultimate” appeal: sexual viability.
Yeah, you can make allowances and give old mate, a young male journo the benefit of the doubt in calling Megan, Australia’s premier deviant, which is according to studies is characterised by ‘unacceptable’ sexual behaviour.
Let’s think about that? She’s valuable as a kinky whore and that’s what women should to aspire to because that’s what men want. Did I miss anything?
Of course, he didn’t mean to say that! I’m not the one with the limited repertoire – but whether it’s intended or unintended, it’s still anti-feminist. And when I bought the sexist headline to his and his employer’s attention, they remained silent and compounded the problem.
And what is the problem for corporates like News Corporation besides the fact their core values are a lie, as evidenced.
There’s a well-known social construct so-called Darwinism. The concept was ‘evolved’ in post-modern times as a Darwin Award. The award is usually given out to individuals who have killed themselves by doing something ill-considered. Like the American mechanic who put a jet engine into his ute and drove it into a cliff at ridiculous speed, thus killing himself and winning the annual award.
Drawing a line between A and B right now; if your business is sexist and racist, how long do you think it’ll take before you begin losing market share as worldwide women, and other marginalised groups, become exceedingly educated and eschew messaging that does not reflect their growing self-worth.
Like the message that Trump’s election sent to women worldwide; how many of us revised our understanding of social progress with that vote of confidence?
I’d love to see quantifiable data across the top four social media platforms, but it doesn’t take a particularly smart woman to know, if Trump easily abuses and degrades women at which point he’s elected leader of the free world, women might take ‘umbrage’.
So if women are increasingly assigning their personal and professional value that isn’t being reflected in business attitudes and behaviours – what will they do?
Well, if you’re lucky, they tell you how they feel and what they think – but mostly, women opt out.
Hell, everybody knows people avoid confrontation – if you get bad service in Australia, you’re likely never to return and bad mouth said operations, which as we all know is the biggest nail in the coffin.
So here’s my fiscal health warning to Australian business that isn’t walking the ‘diversity’ rhetoric they spout – hire a diversity consultant to help you board the train – because ‘nasty’ women account for 87 per cent of the world’s consumerism. Yep. Men might unbelievably earn 27 per cent more for doing same role, but they don’t ‘control’ it.
According to Harvard Business Review in the The Female Economy, women responded to a womenspeakworldwide.com consumerism survey that they felt vastly underserved with sexism still present, for example, in seeking financial advice and health care.
Coupled with data showing women make purchasing decisions in 94 per cent of household furniture; 92 per cent of vacations; 91 per cent of homes; 60 per cent of automobiles; and 51 per cent of household electrical items – it’s clear, business must nurture customer relationships founded on respect and trust if they want to survive.
And business relations must be authentic, or a woman will sniff you out a mile away.
Of course, it’s not just management responsibility to train-in and enforce diversity policy because employees must account for their professional choices; you, as an employee of a diverse business, must reflect the policy in language and deed.
And if you aren’t and management accepts the poor behaviour, then they also accept the risk for hurting employees/publics, damaging their reputation and losing money/market share. Of course, one day they might not and sue their employee/s to recover litigation costs – oh wait – they already are.
In this instance, although it’s just another case of a male sports journo who has poor headline word selection; cause let’s face it, as a journo, if you don’t know the meaning of words you publish in a national publication, then in this instance, you fail.
So if you’re an influencer, know what you’re saying and doing to ensure it’s in keeping with a socially regressive or progressive position…either way that’s fine. I just want to know who I’m up against.