DEI is killing people

Wow. After all those years of seeing discrimination against men becoming ever more blatant and intense, who would have thought that one crazy dude in the White House could threaten this highly successful feminist enterprise.

We will have to see how it all pans out, but Trump's decision to eliminate all government diversity programs is causing ructions in the mighty international DEI industry which has spent decades creating programs and policies designed to ensure women are advantaged over men, particularly white men, at every turn.

Note that Trump's Executive Order 14171 is titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity." Even though most of the howls of outrage from woke folk is focussed on the impact of racial affirmative action policies, merit-based opportunity would be a real novelty for white men working in colleges and government organisations across America who are used to being at the bottom of the heap.

A report from the American ABC shows no interest in the notion of "merit-based opportunity" but chooses instead to wail about the impact on a young female researcher working on intestinal parasites in India – supported by diversity-based funding which is now under threat. The news story reports on legal challenges to Trump's Executive Order and quotes a defiant professor determined to fight back, "We're doing DEI whether they like it or not."

Well, professor, most people don't like it. The endless discrimination against men is far from popular – look at that strong vote from young men which helped sweep Trump into power. Australia's Opposition Leader Peter Dutton named the problem in a recent podcast, saying young men were feeling "disenfranchised and ostracised", and fed up with being passed over for jobs.

As Dutton put it, "They're pushing back and saying, 'well, why am I being overlooked at work for a job, you know, three jobs running when I've got, you know, a partner at home, and she's decided to stay at home with three young kids, and I want a promotion at work so that I can help pay the bills at home.'"

DEI is responsible for men finding themselves pushed out. And now, finally they are allowed to complain about it. With the new zeitgeist encouraging people to give voice to their discontent about diversity programs, the public mood has even forced corporate America to take notice.

Look what's happening in the corporate world where so many big companies are now choosing to scale back their DEI programs. Last year a host of companies moved in this direction: American Airlines, Boeing, Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe's, Nissan, Walmart. Amazon, META and McDonalds took similar measures just last month. Even the public broadcaster, PBS, has got rid of their DEI department. Now that's a real turn-about for this huge anti-male propaganda unit.

Not much sign of change yet in corporate Australia but as they say, "when America sneezes, the world catches a cold." Hopefully the same applies to the anti-DEI sentiment.

What's driving this vibe shift in the USA is clear evidence that DEI is no trivial matter. It's not just unfair, distorting the productivity of workplaces by eroding meritocracy, creating resentment, and distrust. But it also puts lives at risk.

This has been on display, front and centre on the world stage, in a number of startling recent news stories. Take the attempted assassination of Trump at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. How could we ever forget the utter clown show of those bumbling female secret service agents who staggered around looking bewildered, with one struggling to holster her weapon. It turned out that the Secret Service had been working towards a goal of 30% female hires, pushed by Kimberly Cheatle, the Secret Service Director who was forced to resign over her handling of the fiasco.

Then came the Californian fires which drew attention to Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Kristin Crowley's obsession with making diversity a top priority for her department rather than focussing on the core mission of ensuring firefighters were capable of doing their jobs. Peak lunacy came when the head of DEI in the LA fire department sneered at the notion that female firefighters should be able to carry men out of a fire.

Naturally Trump drew flak by suggesting that the Washington plane crash could be related to the Federal Aviation Administration recruiting workers "who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative." Since then the FAA has refused to name the jobs available to such people in their organization, but the evidence is clear that the organization's diversity push risked bringing in workers unsuited for high stakes, high pressure roles.

The reaction to this sequence of events has been a flood of "DEI – EQUALS - DIE" social media posts as people voice the widespread public perception that compulsory diversity is not only mad but dangerous.

That's what I have been hearing for many years: police officers complaining of female colleagues who cower in police cars at the slightest whiff of trouble; army officers nervous about female members of their team who can't manage the very physical aspects of their role; firefighters reporting on the high injury rate of female colleagues who struggle with their loads; and mining personnel with safety concerns when women with minimal experience are pushed into management roles in their high-risk industry.

But there's another risk arising from decades of DEI distorting our workforces, particularly in the public sector – namely misguided policy driven by biased, feminist management. I've written before about the systematic discrimination against men which has occurred in our public service, with affirmative action programs relentlessly recruiting more women than men and pushing them into senior ranks. I reported that 31 of the 96 government agencies now have 70% or more females, including in key policy areas like health and social services.

We now have huge swathes of our public service utterly controlled by women, including many feminists captured by anti-male ideology. These are the people shaping our public policies, spending vital taxpayer funded resources and drafting our laws. This means when it comes to policies that should be saving lives, they are only interested in one side of the equation - saving women.

One obvious example is the domestic violence bureaucrats pouring billions of dollars into resources they claim protect women from dangerous men, whilst utterly ignoring the safety of men and their children who are at risk from violent women. Law professor Augusto Zimmermann exposed this shameful state of affairs in his powerful lecture at the Restoring the Presumption of Innocence conference last year.

Our key research funding body, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is massively supporting women's health research, whilst neglecting work that could save men's lives – despite women living on average four years longer than men. Look at this revealing graph from James Nuzzo – who blogs at The Nuzzo Letter.

But the most striking example of biased bureaucracy is the utterly shameful distortion of our suicide prevention policies which for decades have wilfully refused to target men – even though 7 of the 9 people who kill themselves each day in this country are male.

The National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement identified 15 priority populations yet didn't target men as a priority group. The latest strategy mentions specific groups of men, such as indigenous and LGBTQI men, but no programs targeting the broader population of ordinary men.

It's no wonder Australia's suicide prevention policies are such a dismal failure. Over the last two decades (2000-2021) suicides worldwide dropped by 6% but in this country they went up by 39%. Analysis by the Australian Men's Health Forum in 2020 showed that 4 of 5 beneficiaries of suicide prevention policies were female, and little has changed since then.

And now we have Coroner's report data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing that among men 25-44, the biggest cause of suicide is now "problems in spousal relationships circumstances". It is appalling that our suicide prevention programs are ignoring this key trigger for male suicide and refusing to provide services to support men going through this process.

It's no coincidence that these suicide prevention bodies are staffed almost entirely by female health bureaucrats, women who have no interest in saving the lives of ordinary men, and no intention of opening the can of worms that is our biased family law system. This system is a key part of the reason why these family men are killing themselves in such numbers – a system designed to chew men up and spit them out. Any decent suicide prevention program would ask what can be done to protect men from this fate.

None of that is going to happen whilst biased female hands are steering the ship of state. Dismantling DEI in our bureaucracies would be a small, but critical step towards a policy framework that cared about women AND men. But given the grip of feminism on all Australian institutions, we're a very long way from that right now.

Yes, ideologically driven diversity programs are killing people. We must promote this fact to ensure the demise of DEI in Australia.