Hard Truths About Power for the Weaker Sex

Read the paper this morning (25 May). Karen Andrews, former minister for home affairs, is reported as saying that it is important to understand why women abandoned the Liberals. “Disaffected with the Liberal Party,” she said they are, “highly educated, reasonably well off … traditional Liberal Party voters.”

The Australian newspaper’s environment writer Graham Lloyd wrote this:

In Germany, women were 13 [per centage] points more likely than men to be concerned that climate change would cause them harm. Double digit differences were also present in the US, Sweden, Britain, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia and The Netherlands.

The latest figures from North Sydney (my electorate per chance) with about three-quarters of the vote counted, has Zimmerman (LINO) on 38.1 per cent, Tink (Teal) on 25.9, Renshaw (Labor) on 21.5 and Armstrong (Greens) on 8. Take women out and would Zimmerman have won? I don’t know, but probably yes. Trump would have won, despite electoral malfeasances, sans women’s votes.

Women seem to be disproportionately more susceptible to dire warnings of impending doom; and, consequently, to superstitions, like the latest scares propagated by climate-change cultists. When Ms Andrews appeals for a greater understanding as to why women abandoned the Libs, she is on the money, though not perhaps in the way she thinks.

It would be totally counterproductive and dangerous to all of our futures to pander. To adopt policies espoused by Simon Birmingham, Bridget Archer and other like-minded feminine wets among the Libs. As always, it’s best to stick to truth, but conveyed in ways which take account of the concerns of women, as well as men. The key lies in the fact that the Nats retained all of their seats. Women voted there too.

While I’m no expert on women’s thinking, I suspect that they highly value security. Matt Canavan apparently made it his business, despite the howls of some his colleagues, to go around explaining how Labor’s cap and trade policy on 215 of the largest companies, the so-called “safeguard mechanism”, is a tax on jobs by the backdoor. Jobs and security are synonymous.

The way in which so-called climate change is being tackled threatens more than jobs. It will increase electricity and gas prices. It will undermine the reliability of power, the wellspring of prosperity, and plunge households and businesses into blackouts. And, at the most inconvenient of times. And, it will have no effect whatsoever on floods and bushfires in Australia, even when or if we reach net zero. All pain for no gain. Forget the no gain. Focus, laser-like, on the pain.

Amid the recent vituperative gush from Janet Albrechtsen on Scott Morrison, she makes a telling point that the Libs should have made net zero contingent on nuclear energy. That is a thought which Peter Dutton might toss around in his mind.

I recently read a claim by the CEO of Santos that producing blue hydrogen (hydrogen from natural gas from which CO2 has been stripped and stored underground) was around one-third the cost of green hydrogen, beloved of Twiggy Forest. Leave aside the much lesser cost again of simply burning the natural gas. To do otherwise is to risk madness. The Libs in opposition should be arguing for affordable and reliable power; and to explicitly include blue hydrogen and brown (made from coal) and nuclear. Anyone with a license to run wind and solar farms must be made to guarantee, with eye-watering sureties from banks, the delivery of a specified minimum level of uninterrupted base load power. How they do it is their business. Ensuring an affordable and reliable power supply should become the business of the Libs.

Part of that business will be to convince women that affordable and reliable power is a non-negotiable aspect of their lives. That shouldn’t be too hard. It’s the truth. For example, do expectant mothers look forward to an electric car with a flat battery when their waters break, to a power failure when giving birth, when nappies are being changed in the middle of a cold winter’s night, when milk formula is being warmed, when clothes are being washed? I’m not being sexist. It doesn’t matter which sex is performing the tasks, apart, that is, from the first two; women might feel a tad more concern. As they justifiably should.

25 thoughts on “Hard Truths About Power for the Weaker Sex

  • Daffy says:

    The Libs have an easy game to play: the cost of energy is a cruel, heartless regressive tax on the less well off; both in direct cost and its effect on transport, manufacturing, retailing, etc. No politician might realise this because they earn about twice the amount typical working families live on. Maybe they should try it.
    At every opportunity the light must be shone here, on families that skip food to pay bills, that skip their annual holiday at the beach, that cut a trip to a fancy restaurant to once a year to fund the verdigris fantasies of the wealthy.
    I compare the millionaire down the road from me. He had a ‘teal’ corflute in his garden, while the single working mother in social housing up the road has cut back her holidays to a weekend in the mountains. I don’t begrudge the millionaire his two Rolls and his two or three overseas trips a year. His money, he can do what he likes, but there is a basic injustice when the poor fund the solar farm on his roof.

  • Lawriewal says:

    “The way in which so-called climate change is being tackled threatens more than jobs. It will increase electricity and gas prices. It will undermine the reliability of power, the wellspring of prosperity, and plunge households and businesses into blackouts. And, at the most inconvenient of times. And, it will have no effect whatsoever on floods and bushfires in Australia, even when or if we reach net zero. All pain for no gain. Forget the no gain. Focus, laser-like, on the pain.
    Ensuring an affordable and reliable power supply should become the business of the Libs.”
    Your wise words Peter; my beliefs exactly!
    A big thanks for this important piece

  • Ian MacKenzie says:

    Lillian Andrews writing in the Australian yesterday has a rather more direct approach to the Teals. She begins by claiming that “the animosity of the most affluent electorates towards the Liberals is not because of climate change or women’s equality. Those are the excuses that make them feel good about their vote, Underneath it is because Liberals have started to speak more about the daily lives of the working class than the pet causes of socially smug doctor’s wives…. Liberals being unseated by teals, and to a lesser extent Greens, reveals a sector of exceedingly well off Australians who cannot stand to be confronted with the daily lives of people who are not like them. They don’t want ‘their’ party to heed the views of those beneath them. You know, those grubby little people who have to worry about things such as making ends meet for bills, food and daily survival.”
    This rather suggests that status is what is important, and that is likely to be impervious to logical argument or persuasion. I had thought that with the defenestration of Kristina that there had been 30% reduction in Australian political mean girls, but it would seem that Ms Andrews at least believes that there is a whole class of them out there. In any case I see Tanya Plibersek has stepped up to fill the gap left by Kristina’s hurried return to Scotland Island.
    Ms Andrews continues: “What we are seeing in Australia’s most Scrooge MacDuckian suburbs is a dirty, relentless class war, hidden under the guise of progressive politics and greater equality. The silence of platinum progressives when struggling businesses in Sydney’s poorest suburbs were going under and families suffering during Covid restrictions is a case in point. It is the ultimate piece of hypocrisy to pretend to care about progress and equality while doing everything possible to hurt the poor and demolish the social structures, relationships and institutions that the commoners still care about.”
    She ends up with some advice for the Liberals; that they should “ignore screeching demands to let sulky upper-class women dictate policy and understand those women will be satisfied only with a party that places them at the top of the pecking order – never one that governs for the unwashed masses. Then, and only then, might they take seats from Labor and find their way back to power.”
    Ms Andrews certainly leaves no one in any doubt about her views. That is refreshing and rather against trend in the Australian (with some honourable exceptions) and so I hope she becomes a regular contributor.

  • padraic says:

    Some good points there Peter. I have noticed in the “Letters to the Editor” section of The Australian the vast majority of letters supporting “Climate Change” and its alleged catastrophic consequences are written by women, whereas those who question it are by men who basically say it’s rubbish. Then I noticed last week on TV I noticed one of the teal women candidates basically saying “Vote for me you women, because I’m one of you” as she was surrounded by what looked like French Revolution zealots of the feminine persuasion with one or two token men barely visible. Then today in The Australian there is an article inferring injustice in South Australian Liberal ranks where a man looks like replacing a failed woman candidate from the recent election. What is going on? If women are expected to vote for women and men for men you can kiss democracy goodbye.

  • Stephen Due says:

    I remember being amazed when women in their 20s and 30s started appearing at the wheels of ever larger SUVs. When I was growing up, it was the men who drove the big 4-wheel drives, and the ladies had little cars that were easier to park. There was a lot of talk about how big cars would be phased out due to the unaffordable cost of fuel.
    It turned out that fuel cost was no object, and the big SUVs had a feature that greatly appealed to young mothers – they were safer. In an accident they could be pretty much guaranteed to protect the occupants (although the effect on other parties could be devastating).
    If women are more worried about the climate than men are, it is probably because they obsessed with safety. Climate change is making them feel unsafe, so government must fix it.
    Since in reality no members of the general public – including women in the relevant age-groups – know anything about climate science, their worries are evidently nothing to do with the climate as such. Rather they are to do with the messaging.
    Therefore the government should take the least expensive approach to allay their fears, which is simply to announce that the climate has actually been fixed. As with the non-existent pandemic-of-a-deadly-disease-for-which-there-is-no-cure, the best approach is just to start announcing that Australia has led the way, we have followed the science, and now all is well.

  • Adam J says:

    Women, being physically weaker, must have written in their genes the desire to manipulate others into providing physical and economic security to them. What else could they do? Men on the other hand look to themselves, which explains why poverty-stricken males perceive themselves as failures and commit suicide rather than complain and make demands of government as modern educated women do.
    Or perhaps it is not a product of biology but a product of feminism?

  • padraic says:

    Now that the planet is saved after Saturday there will be no excuse for schoolgirls in the teal seats to wag school.

  • Tezza says:

    I’m with Adam J. Of course women are more disposed to climate alarmism than men. Women are more ‘neurotic’ than men, using the word as a psychological term of art. Women have to be more neurotic: they bear children, and face periods of great vulnerability in which protection from threat is an evolutionary necessity. That’s why they always prefer alleged ‘protective’ big government.

  • STD says:

    Padraic ,that sounds like gender carbon neutrality.

  • ianl says:

    Gaia must be appeased through sacrifice – the lower one is on the economic scale, the more one is sacrificed.

    Teal (and turquoise) women just know this, as it’s their zeigist. So does the WEF, which uses climate propaganda as a control tool.

    There are too many disruptive and elements contrary to each other abroad in the world now for rational resolution. So irrational resolutions will occur.

  • Necessityofchoice says:

    When you conceed your opponents premises, you have lost the argument.

    How many more books must Ian Plimer et al. publish before AGW is finally revealed as a tissue of lies used to support the faux virtue of the green energy titans sucking hard on Government teats ?
    Obviously I don’t know, but there was a time in medieval England iwhen it was thought the sting / bite of a dragon fly was fatal. Eventually a lack of evidence won the day. Tedious it may be, but we have to keep opposing the fiction of AGW.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    PS: “All pain and no gain.”

    Indeed. ES electricity prices up again today. Interesting timing, just after the election.

    You want more RE, senorita? You got it. Wong/ALP now promising 82% by 2030. Why not 83.5%?
    You want “climate stability” for a whole planet, for everyone and forever. Good luck with that pie in the sky.
    Does the AEC provide data on voter age and sex? If so, we could answer padriac’s question: “What is going on? If women are expected to vote for women and men for men you can kiss democracy goodbye.” No kissing here, please.

    Age is another factor. We are now reaping the whirlwind of the UN’s “ambition ” to radicalise the young after Hopenhagen 2009, of years of green activism in schools, universities and on social media.

    The Church of Climate Control has replaced the Inquisition. Welcome to the age of pseudoscience. Heretics, watch your back.

    You want democracy, senorita? You got it. The CC lemmings are determined to “save the planet” by jump off the highest cliff of their choice, taking us all with them.

  • padraic says:

    I don’t know whether my posts have struck a nerve or a chord or both, but the point I was making that asking people to vote on a gender basis is not a good look. Most of my female relatives also think that “global/warming/climate change” is rubbish. There is no way as Alice mentions that we can ascertain whether women only vote for women – some may – probably an extreme feminist activist minority, but there was a newspaper article many years ago about the male miners in the Hunter Valley (Labor to the core) wondering who was voting Liberal in those electorates.

  • Peter Smith says:

    Necessityofchoice, Of course, I sympathise with your point. However, I think you can question AGW and, at the same time, support more sensible power-supply solutions than wind, sun and green hydrogen.

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    padriac: “There is no way as Alice mentions that we can ascertain whether women only vote for women – some may – probably an extreme feminist activist minority,”

    Curtin WA is an instructive case. Incumbent was a Liberal, Celia Hammond. Yet she lost to another woman, Kate Chaney, a so-called “teal”. New word for my political lexicon. Chaney wanted “stronger climate action now” and “a clear decarbonisation policy framework for a smooth transition, including “a 50% emissions reduction target by 2030.” Only 50%? You’ve got it already, senorita.
    No one today, of course, ever mentions carbon dioxide, the invisible trace gas that allegedly is the cause of all our woes. All the wailing is about “carbon”. More semantic trickery to hoodwink voters.
    The beauty of pseudoscience is one can’t prove anything, but who cares? It’s the new religion. You can’t argue folk out of their belief in the CC bogeyman with facts.
    Last Saturday morning I was approached by an excited young woman who handed me a Chaney How to Vote card. As Venus was bright in the predawn light, Gaia told me to expect such an encounter. I therefore came prepared with a copy of atmospheric physicist Garth Paltridge’s magisterial little volume, “The Climate Caper” (Connor Court, 2009))
    “You think we can change the planet’s climate?” I asked her.
    “Oh yes!” came the breathless reply.
    “Well, you should read this little book. Do you know the painting on the cover?”
    “No. what is it?”
    “It’s one by Pieter Bruegel the Elder: THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.
    But Ms Chaney and her CC disciples had the last laugh. She won in Curtin.

  • pgang says:

    ‘The Libs in opposition should be arguing for affordable and reliable power.’ I think they’ve burnt that bridge for the time being Peter. Probably better to focus on internal restructuring. I can’t really see that they have any policy points to argue with Labour for the near future, unless it’s on borders or defence.

  • Winston Smith says:

    Women’s Liberation will be dead the moment the grid goes down. And I’m not sure it will resurface in the next 100 years.

  • Simon says:

    I agree with Janet 100% when she said the sensible thing would have been for the Coalition to say net zero but only if we adopt nuclear. Nuclear really would solve this issue once and for all and is very safe.

    But of course you need a leader with some courage and conviction to make that policy – both of which Morrison was lacking.

  • call it out says:

    I watch the AFL as a good weathervane for women and wokeness.Its attempts to feminise the game, to make it more manageable for females umpiring in men’s games, are disguised under all sorts of nonsense.
    I point this out frequently in The Australian. My comments are always censored away.

  • Ceres says:

    I must be unlike most other female voters. I didn’t leave the Liberal Party vote, they left me. The biggies were:-
    net zero when CO2 is not a problem, but also their ruling out any nuclear,
    the PMs kumbaya “National Cabinet” with him also remaining mute on the Labor Premiers’ police brutality against Australians.
    Isn’t it an absolute no brainer that no one should have to convince women (or any rational human being) that affordable and reliable power is a non-negotiable aspect of their lives? Guess there are too many ignorant zealots of both sexes who live in la la land.
    And please Peter Dutton keep on being serious, principled and assertive when you are Opposition leader, we’ve had enough of a smirking, jovial, weather vane.

  • STD says:

    Only one thing is for certain ,motor mechanics think most people, but women in particular are fair game (easily conned). Furthermore women love BS – just ask all the would be Casanovas trying their Lady Luck . The girls do wise up – but only after the con becomes apparent ,and it will.


    Think of climate action – which is just another way of saying political action- as being a figurative form of schmoozing, then it’ll all make perfect sense- a man made conundrum known for seducing women and in the climate case attracting and having many seductees .


    Let’s say I get my hands on a beam scale -on one side I placed 10,000 dollars and on the other $4, ( think of 10,000 as air molecules and 4 as Carbon dioxide , what we arrive at is a justifiable situation whereby the 4 extra molecules of CO2 have absolutely no impact or bearing on the act of being added to the bigger picture- it does not even pretend to create a tipping point in regards to scale.
    So in regard to the truth, it is justice that on balance gives truth it’s due justice. Therefore in regard to the climate action con we find that when empirical evidence is weighed we find the truth and therefore reasoned justice resides with the $10,000 dollars and as such the imputed amount of $4 has very little influence or bearing on the totality of truth whereby true Justice really resides, unlike the social narrative of the impact of $4 , which these days you would be hard pressed to buy a loaf of sour dough.


    4 parts of CO2 in 10,000 equates to 400 parts per million.


    Can someone please explain why 4 parts of Carbon dioxide is worrying politicians and why left leaning politicians of all political persuasions are using pre voting age children to tell adults that they have no idea how the world turns.


    Sorry girls , climate action is just consensual political hot air.


    ICAC needs to do some investigating into the vested interests at stake here. A good starting point would be Matt Kean and Micheal Photios, closely followed by corporate interests and influences ie KPMG et,al, and of course the Carbon profiteering and agenda emanating out of Davos and the electron king himself Will of Gates.

  • 27hugo27 says:

    CIO, don’t get me started on the AWF(U)L! Outgoing and smug chief Moe Sizlak may be the wokest sports boss on the planet. The feminisation of the game is near complete, with all the predictable problems ensuing. Bullying of female umpires? Unprovable, yet the Media’s dream to uncover the rampant sexism/misogyny of the boys. That umpires for a century have been hated by half the crowd for every decision, and booed incessantly is of no consequence, so an unfixable problem was created by Gillon to tick that “first female” box. Ditto the AFLW, where uppity players and officials clamour for unearnt spoils, complaining all the way. All this is to weaken men’s influence on society.

  • vickisanderson says:

    It gives me no joy to admit it Peter, but you are right. I am a woman, & I freely admit & recognise that I am risk averse. I believe it is a product of evolution that women are the advocates of security, & men are the sentinels of security.

    So it is not surprising that women are fearful of threats to the family. This is a problem in the case of existential threat like climate change etc. I felt it personally in the case of Covid & then the advent of vaccines. I was similarly alarmed at Covid when it first appeared, but also of the vaccines when adverse reactions began. In both cases it was research that placed both in perspective. But my point is that I was more alarmed than my husband. Whilst this is just an individual example, I do think it holds true in terms of the sexes.

    So yes, we need to allay the fears of women with targeted arguments in matters of Climate Change et al.

  • norsaint says:

    The Good Book and St Paul in particular have all the answers on letting women participate in public life and in particular, usurping the authority of the male.
    Kipling said the female of the species is more deadly than the male. He ought to have known, apparently suffering under fierce petticoat rule.
    As for the sheilas swallowing the climate hoax, it’s because they’re so easily deceived. (see Eve)
    The explosive growth in the size of government in the former freedom-loving west, coincided directly with women’s emancipation. The answer for Freedom Parties seems obvious!

  • whitelaughter says:

    It is the well off, privileged in every way women who are screaming about this and everything else.
    Abandon the inner cities to them, and ignore them.

Leave a Reply