The Danger of Gender Quotas: Why Artists Must Not Renounce Individualism and Meritocracy

This post is written by Emma Stephenson, an award winning jazz pianist and songwriter, and member of the indie-pop band Trash Can Dream. Image Copyright Karen Steains Photography. 

DISCLAIMER: I am a beneficiary of affirmative action aimed at supporting women in the Australian Jazz music scene. I have no hesitation in recognising and expressing gratitude for the enormous impact that this has had on my career prospects, and am under no illusions as to my advantage over equally or more deserving women who were coming up in this scene in different decades under different circumstances. Nevertheless, I am also a beneficiary of new knowledge and insights that I incrementally inducted into my worldview over the past few years. Upon reflection, these new understandings have allowed me to appreciate the risks inherent in affirmative action policies. In this essay, I aim to delineate different forms of affirmative action, and argue against an overly reductive attitude that assumes that all diversity-oriented initiatives must be benevolent and intelligent by default. In my estimation, the introduction of quotas to support a disadvantaged group is an example of a type of affirmative action that works against what we should care deeply about in our industry - the flourishing of self-determined individuals. 

Introduction

On the 9th August 2017, many members of the Australian music community received an email from the Australian Performing Rights Association and the Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (APRA AMCOS) informing us of the introduction of new measures to correct the gender disparity in the Australian Music Industry. Research conducted by Dr. Catherine Strong at RMIT was cited as the impetus for these initiatives. The most compelling finding of this research, which surveyed some members of the Screen composing field, was that 67% of female participants agreed with the statement “Gender discrimination is common in the industry”. The initiatives that have been implemented in response include a goal of doubling annual female APRA AMCOS membership applications within three years, a focus on mentorship and support programs for  women, and the imposition of strict 40% female participation standards on all membership programs and external programs funded by APRA AMCOS. 

Given the significant and all-encompassing reach of these measures, which will potentially affect all active members of the APRA AMCOS community, one would hope that the research cited would provide impenetrable arguments and evidence in support of their immediate enactment. It is undoubtable that instances of sexism and unfair discrimination against women continue to occur within the Australian Music Industry. However, the research cited does not justify the conclusions drawn and the policies adopted. 

Whilst it is unlikely that this singular event will dramatically affect our industry at large, it is representative of the typical initiatives that are being put into action to address trends in the discourse around issues of gender and racial diversity.  This is a helpful case study, arguably not significant in and of itself, but part of a concerning pattern. 

My reasons for drawing the following conclusions are elaborated upon in the subsequent sections of this article. Firstly, the aims of the research, as set out by the researchers and thoroughly fulfilled by the research, do not justify the measures taken in response. Rather than being based on the research outcomes, there is evidence that the proposed initiatives are ideologically motivated. The affirmative action strategies proposed are strongly geared towards ‘equality of outcome’ - sometimes termed ‘equity’ - a policy which has severe political, historical, and philosophical ramifications. The narrative that is being endorsed by APRA AMCOS is heavily and unfairly biased against men, and condescending towards women as demonstrated not only by the policies introduced, but by the language used in the report and surrounding media articles. The sample of individuals used for the research is unrepresentative of the Australian music industry population at large. The style of questioning is vague so as to guarantee inconclusive results. Finally, the response to the research report largely ignores existing knowledge on the differences between men and women, and the many reasons other than systemic oppression that could create a gender disparity in the Australian Music Industry. This reliance upon systemic oppression as an explanation, is despite the research report clearly identifying child-rearing commitments as a significant contributing factor to the differences in gender outcomes. 

1. The Aims of the Research Do Not Justify the Initiatives Introduced

The research report communicates the aims of: 

- gaining an understanding of the pathways to participation available to women who work in film and television music composition in Australia, including the barriers to their inclusion in this field; 

and

- developing an overview of educational institutions that provide training in this area and understanding the role these institutions play in the development of women's careers. (p. 9, Strong and Cannizzo 2017)

I do not contest the fact that these aims were thoroughly met. What they do not justify is the introduction of industry-wide measures that are not restricted to the niche discipline or particular individuals surveyed in this study. The initiatives indicate an assumption that the industry has a problem with unfair discrimination and/or systemic oppression that is so severe that it warrants the restriction of opportunities for all male members, and the expansion of opportunities for all female members. Given that this results in penalties and rewards being assigned to individuals on the basis of gender alone, we must pause and wonder whether treating the perceived problem of sexism with more sexism is not a tad juvenile. 

To arbitrarily equate a gender disparity within any population as a ‘problem’ that requires ‘correcting’, implies an overly reductive assessment of what a gender disparity may or may not indicate. Even in the case of being able to prove the existence of a severe level of systemic oppression in the industry, that would not verify the claim that the introduction of industry-wide quotas are a viable solution to this problem. The authors themselves note the ‘preliminary’ nature of this study, a description which unfortunately cannot be similarly applied to the response from APRA AMCOS, which seems to have been motivated by a preexisting allegiance to ideologically based assumptions. 

2. The Influence of Postmodernism and Intersectional Theory

The ways that the research results have been interpreted strongly indicate the influence of postmodern, neo-marxist ideology and intersectional feminism. I hereby cite Stephen Hicks’ book ‘Explaining Postmodernism’ (2004) as the main source informing my current understanding of postmodernism and its evolution. 

As its name suggests, postmodern philosophy criticises the central foundations of ‘modernism’. In doing so, it is a counter narrative to modernist values that emerged during the enlightenment in Europe. Primarily, the values which postmodernism opposes are the reliance upon reason to discern reality and truth, and the emphasis on the individual as the agent of reason for this purpose. Instead of a discernible ‘reality’, there are only social-linguistic constructs (and gender norms are an example of such). American postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty claims that the values of both ‘faith’ (which preceded the celebration of reason) and the ‘enlightenment’ are “beyond recovery”. Founding postmodern intellectual Michel Foucault claims that “It is meaningless to speak in the name of, or against, truth, reason and knowledge” and “reason is the language of madness.” It is not surprising, therefore, that many left-leaning, postmodernist thinkers willingly espouse the idea that language is not a tool for defining or seeking truth, but a weapon to bring about social change.  In denying the self-determined agency of the individual, Postmodernists instead advocate a collectivist attitude to human nature, which holds us hostage to our identity groups (delineated by race, gender, sexuality, religion etc), acknowledges the inevitability of conflict between these groups, and invites us to always side with the perceived ‘weaker’ party. Postmodern thought tends to deny the legitimacy of value judgements, and therefore promotes relativistic modes of thinking. Ironically, the legitimacy of value judgements is redeemed only to make room for the assumption that the West, with its capitalism and free-market competition, is racist, sexist, and exploitative. 

Intersectional theories of diversity mandate that we must also take into account the multiple interacting dimensions of oppression and privilege acting on any individual. Intersectionality therefore upholds the postmodern principle of delineating groups of people by immutable traits, but acknowledges the inadequacy of merely taking into account one dimension of race, gender, sexuality, or other immutable trait. An intersectional theorist would claim that a white gay woman is operating with more privilege than a black gay woman, despite sharing the traits of gender and sexual orientation. In the case I am dissecting, the researcher’s commitment to intersectional theory is transparent: 

"More research is still needed, especially to widen the focus to create a more intersectional understanding of inequality in music." (Strong, C. 2017)

Some elements of postmodernism and intersectional theory have much in common with the central premises of Marxism (and with some of the collectivist tenets of ‘National Socialism’ for that matter). These parallels are not a coincidence, as the emergence of postmodernism is at least somewhat attributable to the crisis of socialism in the 1950 and 60s. These decades saw leading postmodern intellectuals such as Michel Foucault (a proclaimed Maoist) and Jacques Derrida (supportive of the French communist party) finding new ways to defend the ideas that capitalism was an exploitative and cruel system, and that socialist economies would ultimately be more productive, humane, peaceful, and prosperous. This ran contrary to the overwhelming, undeniable and persistent failure of the socialist regimes enacted in many countries including the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. Meanwhile, the growing prosperity of capitalist societies, and the failure of the ‘proletariat’ classes to revolt against the ‘ruling class’, administered a further blow to socialist predictions. Marxism operated under the maxim “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Postmodernism largely resulted from the tweaking of socialist philosophy to focus on rectifying inequality, rather than the satisfaction of people’s needs, which were proving more and more satiated in capitalist economies during the 1960s and 1970s.

“I think that a good left is a party that always thinks about the future and doesn’t care much about our past sins.” Richard Rorty. 

When institutions and organisations fail to encourage critical thought in aid of understanding the central premises of their most commonly held intellectual attitudes, such attitudes become the general consensus by dint of no other options being acknowledged. To this process, we may attribute the severe lack of diversity in philosophical and political thought in the Australian arts scene. There is a ‘correct’ set of ideas to which we all expected to swear allegiance, and dissenting voices are generally shamed into silence. This is an indefensible failing on the part of arts education. Collectivist mentalities, such as commitments to gender and racial diversity, are the unquestioned norm in Australian arts organisations and institutions. Social-constructionist attitudes to gender are reliably promulgated by compassionate advocates of women’s rights, which are naturally given due consideration in the liberal and progressive circles than tend to encapsulate most artists and arts workers. This is why the the recent gender parity initiatives introduced by APRA AMCOS have not been subject to any public criticism, and instead simply ushered in enthusiastically by the industry at large. Any approach that claims to uphold the values of equity, diversity, and women’s liberation must be a step in the right direction, right? Not necessarily, in my humble opinion. The leftist bias in the arts scene does not stop at issues of gender equity. There are economic ramifications too, as the instability of a heavy reliance on government funding to subsidise the arts is easily obscured in a climate that fears the harsh ramifications of free-market competition on artists and creative people.

Throughout the subsequent sections I do not wish to make the case that postmodernist social-constructionist, anti-individualist, collectivist mentalities are consistently and completely unethical. My general point is that the APRA AMCOS research results can be interpreted in multiple ways, and the way that it has been interpreted to justify the gender parity initiatives is highly indicative of postmodern influence. If you question the central premises of postmodernism, then you are unlikely to agree with way that the APRA AMCOS research has been interpreted. However, to make an objection to the narrative being promulgated, one has to actually read the report and form their own conclusions. This is not the norm. Like the cannibalistic witch who lures Hansel and Gretel to her gingerbread house, superficial and dangerous ideologies have a way of sneaking up on agreeable and well-intentioned people, tempting them with disingenuous promises of Utopia.  

3. Affirmative Action, Quotas, and the notion of ‘Equality of Outcome’

Affirmative action is an umbrella term that describes the enactment of social policies that support and nurture the prospects of groups that are deemed to be disadvantaged in some way.

Historically, affirmative action has taken many forms and been taken on behalf of many populations, with varying levels of efficacy. The most convincing case for affirmative action is the fact that it has unquestionably instigated important and permanent changes for African Americans in U.S workplace culture. Nevertheless, there are some lingering and legitimate concerns, such as the overlooked necessity to revise the premises and underlying assumptions motivating affirmative action as progress is made (Thomas; 1990). There is also evidence that varying the admission and employment standards between racial groups in order to correct unequal representation may negate efforts to eliminate negative stereotypes in the long run (Coate and Loury; 1993).  Such measures have also been found to exacerbate cross-racial conflicts and self-segregation in populations of university students (Haidt and Jussim 2016). Affirmative action often includes measures to ‘correct’ people’s implicit biases, and educate them on matters of diversity, and yet attempts to assess and intervene on people’s ‘unconscious biases’ have proven unsuccessful, and in some cases, counter productive (Fiedler, Messner & Bluemke 2006, Haidt & Jussim 2016).

There is a crucial distinction to be noted between the goals of equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity merely requires that the same pathways to success are equally accessible to all individuals, regardless of race, gender, or other immutable traits. Equality of outcome, sometimes synonymous with ‘equity’, on the other hand, applies to the outcomes of these opportunities. Equality of outcome proponents demand that the representation of genders, race, and other groups categorised by immutable traits, in any organisation, institution or industry must mirror that of the surrounding demographic. In regards to gender, equal outcomes are achieved when men and women are represented roughly equally (making room for non-binary persons to participate also). In order to equalise outcomes, members of these organisations and institutions must first be divided into groups according to various traits  (sexuality, gender, biological sex, race) so that their levels of 'privilege' and 'disadvantage' can be assessed.

The equality of opportunity standard ensures that the freedom of the individual be upheld and protected as the most valuable asset. The equality of outcome standard instead regards the identity group, and not the individual, as the entity to whom rights and responsibilities ought to be assigned. This makes sense if you are sympathetic with the social-constructionist (postmodern) argument that we are all intrinsically identical in capabilities, interests, and personalities, and that these qualities are only disparate as a result of the imposing roles and expectations placed on us by our culture and society. This view is demonstrated when someone comes down on the side of ‘nurture’ in the ‘nature vs. nurture’ debate on why women and men differ on average, or why ethnic populations exhibit disparate trends in interests and personalities. Hence, according to its proponents, equal outcomes will be the inevitable result of a ‘fair’ game. In attempting to design such a game, the pursuit of equal outcomes necessitates the reduction of the availability of opportunities for some (in the case of APRA AMCOS’s initiatives: men), and the increase of opportunities for others (in the case of APRA AMCOS’s initiatives: women). The irony is clear: in order to undermine discrimination, we must practice discrimination. As one writer put it “in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently” (Kennedy 1985 p. 1328). To achieve equal outcomes we must first take into deep consideration, the gender, race, or other relevant trait of the individuals being assessed, despite the desire of those individuals to be liberated from such scrutiny. 

To struggle to better oneself so as to excel in any area of expertise, is in and of itself, an act against equality of outcome. Many reasonable people would agree that providing equal opportunity and then allowing individuals to compete in a meritocracy is likely to foster a perfectly fair, yet inevitably unequal outcome. The fabric of the most peaceful and prosperous societies of the 21st century are saturated, to the point of irreversibility, in the freedom of the individual to unshackle themselves from the associations of group identity and surpass expectations by dint of their own talents and hard work. I for one would prefer that we didn’t tear the seams of this fabric so god damn enthusiastically. 

There are a number of excruciating problems that are yet unsolved by those pursuing equality of outcome. Firstly, how do we appoint the leading individual, or group of individuals and adorn them with the privilege of making these decisions on everyone’s behalf? Do these decision makers themselves have to be members of the underprivileged group? And what a task to undertake! To fail spectacularly at such a feat would merely confirm the fact that the human race has never proven itself capable of sustaining the Utopian vision that our most revolutionary-inclined members have been compelled by. We are, after all, made of the same stuff as those who were complicit in failed far-left regimes throughout the 20th century. Throughout their brutal and murderous demise, such regimes insisted upon the redistribution of wealth and resources in the name of equalising outcomes.

Furthermore, how do we know which identity traits are relevant to group membership? To ensure that groups are ‘fairly’ represented, as is the goal of those who advocate for equality of outcome, these groups must first be defined. When do we have enough information about someone to adequately assess the severity of their privilege or their oppression? At race? At gender? At sexuality, income, family history, place of birth, height, intelligence, attractiveness, or age? Those pushing for equal outcomes must either:

1. Deny that there are intrinsic differences in interests, personalities, and abilities between groups of people delineated by immutable traits (more on this later) OR

2. Acknowledge that these differences exist, and insist that some authority ought to intervene in order to ensure that the differences do not eventuate in inequity.

The fractionating of society into identity groups is an infinitely recursive task. For example, LGBT becomes LGBTQ, then LGBTQI, then LGBTQI+, then LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual). Some activists now purport to speak on behalf of an enormous group of people, simultaneously using an acronym to acknowledge a diverse range of subgroups, some of which are related to genitals, some to sexual orientation, some to gender identity, and some to gender expression. It becomes more and more apparent that it is impossible to categorise people by their identity traits without undermining their individuality, and if we are to continue fractionating into smaller and smaller subgroups, will we not eventually end up at the level of the individual? Ought we not, therefore, to support actions that maximise the equality of opportunity between individuals, without demanding equal outcome between groups defined by identity traits that we know are inadequate, as demonstrated by the ever-expanding acronym above?

In seeking equal outcomes we must attribute all disparate outcomes between populations delineated by any immutable trait to unfair discrimination or systemic oppression. Proponents of equality of outcome initiatives do not apply this standard consistently across all areas of human behaviour, because in some circumstances its ludicrousness is obvious. Most people who value equal outcomes would not blame the over-representation of men in prisons on unfair discrimination (though, incidentally, there is some evidence of an anti-male bias in reporting of legal statistics on issues such as domestic violence - see Arndt, 2017 c). A consistent commitment to equal outcomes would demand an equal representation of men and women in prisons, and the attribution of the existing discrepancy to discrimination against men. It is not taboo amongst those who campaign for equality of outcome (who fail to promote equal outcomes in this particular instance) to admit that men have higher rates of incarceration than women because men are far more likely to commit crime. What most decent people can agree upon is that regardless of any population-level analysis, each individual case needs to be assessed on its own terms. If you murder someone, your gender, race, sexuality, should have absolutely zero impact in how you are punished for that crime.

Given the zero sum game of any economy, it is difficult to create forms of affirmative action that do not advantage one group at the expense of those against whom the affirmative action is being taken. I am not proposing that this disqualifies all forms of affirmative action by definition. Rather, I propose that we view the solutions available to us on a spectrum and think carefully about the consequences of traversing the various terrains. In a diagram provided on my website, (https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d3b2fa_c3f05912330549b98218c414bf49c91e~mv2_d_2418_1292_s_2.png/v1/fill/w_968,h_517,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/d3b2fa_c3f05912330549b98218c414bf49c91e~mv2_d_2418_1292_s_2.png) I have tried to place various types of affirmative action on a spectrum between those that pursue equality of opportunity (left end), and those that pursue equal outcomes (right end). (Please note that I do not intend for this spectrum to be considered in relation to the 'left-right' political spectrum.) For example, the use of blind auditions fall to the left of the spectrum because they close the opportunity gap, without demanding any particular outcome. The initiatives taken by APRA AMCOS rarely rank lower than a 5, and in the case of introducing industry-wide quotas, score a 10. The exception is their first initiative, which involves doubling the number of women who are registered as APRA AMCOS members. This initiative does not make demands on a limited fund (with the exception of administration costs I suppose). It is more like baking a bigger pie so as to be able to feed the underrepresented group, than demanding a redistribution of an existing pie. It hovers to the far left of the spectrum. Opinions will vary as to where on the spectrum we ought to limit ourselves, which is why an open discussion is necessary prior to enacting policies that are on either extreme of the spectrum. Further complications arise when it is not easy to distinguish an ‘outcome’ from an ‘opportunity’. Depending on your personal interpretation it is sometimes possible to argue either case in regards to the formation of exclusive career-building opportunities for people belonging to ‘disadvantaged’ groups. For example, the distinction gets blurry when considering teaching positions and student placement in university degrees. Those coming at this debate from one side will no doubt want to define as ‘opportunity’ what many on the other side would define as ‘outcome’. 

While affirmative action geared towards equalising opportunity in the Australian music industry is likely to succeed, actions that pursue equal outcomes, as suggested by some of the APRA AMCOS initiatives, require justification that is thus far unsubstantiated by the research cited. It is true that a 40% female participation rate would not achieve perfectly equal outcomes, but as the percentage of female memberships with APRA AMCOS are currently in the low twenties, it will certainly be a dramatic shake up of the status quo. Given the enthusiastic strides that have been taken down this path, I would be glad to be convinced that the initiatives are indeed the best strategy. I’m not claiming to know for sure that they are not. I am merely proposing that the required case is yet to be made. In light of the severe historical ramifications of commitments to equal outcomes and the introduction of quotas that exclude and demean the so-called ‘advantaged group’, members of any organisation or industry ought not to acquiesce to their introduction without first demanding, at least, persuasive and supportive evidence and argument. Anyone who wishes to re-enact neo-marxist experiments, however seemingly benign their intentions, must justify the sacrifices and risks that the affected population will necessarily need to absorb and sustain.

4. Assumption of Guilt for Men, Assumption of Victimhood for Women.

Announcers of third wave feminist phrases such as ‘men are the worst’ and ‘I hate men’, will often roll their eyes when they have to add the disclaimer, no ‘not all men’. It is as if the person who required such a detail is appallingly unsophisticated to not detect this unspoken, but irrefutable subtlety. Disclaimer: no, not all third wave feminists hold these views, but at least ‘third wave feminism’ is a group identified by its ideas (rather than skin colour or gender), thereby giving us some information about the opinions of those who fall within it.

One only needs to examine the political initiatives that are so often supported by those who utter the ‘not-all-men’ disclaimer, to see through this insincere and facile retort. Despite the fact that ‘not all men’ are complicit in the acts of a few offenders, left-leaning policies that are sympathetic with anti-bias training, such as the introduction of quotas, inevitably work against the prospects of all men, who are the ‘guilty collective’. Unsurprisingly, rather than identifying and punishing individual perpetrators of sexism, APRA’s new initiatives punish them collectively. This may seem like an over-dramatisation, but if a policy greatly reduces opportunity for the ‘advantaged’ group, then that is a penalty against all members of that group. If you question this logic, ask yourself what a man could do about the his reduced likelihood to be accepted into an exclusive program that has a strict 40% participation standard for women, despite 80% of the applicants being men (that latter statistic is hypothetical). Alas, that is the fate of those who are merely seen as collateral damage in a cause that is geared towards the ‘greater good’.

Given the atrocities committed against large populations of innocents in the 20th century, we should know better than to administer “justice" at the level of the collective rather than the individual. The alternative is to merely hold individuals responsible for their actions by giving them a fair trial when accused, and administering justice when the situation demands it. If that sounds familiar, it is because our existing legal system is already designed to hold individuals accountable for their actions, and to assume innocence until the proof of guilt emerges. I am indeed suggesting that we already have a legitimate (though imperfect) system for dealing with instances of unfair discrimination in Australia. One may argue that the access and availability of such legal avenues is often limited to disadvantaged individuals. If that is the case, perhaps it is necessary to make financial and legal support more available and accessible to vulnerable people. This form of affirmative action, geared towards assisting the individual victim and penalising the individual perpetrator, would hover towards the far left of the spectrum proposed above.

Whilst the research that was used to support the policy changes cites the opinions of individuals who participate in one area of the Australian Music Industry, it deems the opinions of women (who, in this unrepresentative sample, were more likely to perceive a gender bias) as more reliable than those of men (who, in this unrepresentative sample, were more likely to perceive a meritocracy). If the sentences below aren't indicative of an unprofessional level of bias against men, then what would be?

"At the same time, the men who could see there was a problem often had difficulty articulating exactly what it was or what the effects were." (Strong, C. 2017)

“men's understanding of women’s experiences - and therefore the ways in which they might be contributing to women’s marginalisation - was limited.” (Strong, C. 2017)

The researchers largely ignore factors that run contrary to their claims. For instance, the authors report that women in the screen composing industry tend to be more qualified and educated (p. vii). It would seem that women are, at least, not discriminated against when it comes to handing out degrees and qualifications. If gender discrimination was a severe problem in the industry, you would expect it to show up in the graduation statistics of tertiary programs, where many leaders in the industry work.

The conclusions drawn from the study often degrade women’s capacity for self-determination by designating them as victims of forces that actually affect both genders. The majority of both men (78%) and women (75%) reported difficulty in finding the amount of work that they wanted (p. vii). Other factors that were reported to stunt career progress include the global financial crisis, the increase in graduation rates without comparable availability of work, the favouring of younger composers, and the devaluing of original compositions by producers and directors (p. 29-30). Gendered expectations around creative output are also discussed, particularly, the idea that women compose different types of music to men which, "could be characterised as a barrier, in that it suggests the separating out of 'women’s music’ from other types of music, thus limiting women’s options for composing” (p. vi). The researchers ignore the fact that the reverse is true for men, as substantiated by one female participant, disparaging a typically ‘male’ style of composition: “…big dick music. It’s all about massive drums, and the kind of music that you hear in car advertisements or beer advertisements” (p. 25). Despite the fact that issues that affect both genders were the most prominent barriers identified by participants (p. 33), the APRA AMCOS response would have it that women, and only women, need their attention. One could be forgiven for suspecting ulterior motives.

Women are not the only group in our society affected by stereotypes, which pervade every aspect of human existence. In free societies, we have the right to conform to or transcend these stereotypes, or exist somewhere in the middle of these extremes. Life isn’t fair for anyone. In many ways, men in the West are disadvantaged, being far more likely to commit suicide, to be incarcerated, to underperform in education, and to die from workplace accidents (Sommers, 2015). If you meet these facts with the phrase “the patriarchy hurts men too”, then let me infer that, having divorced the word “patriarchy” from its implications of the balance of powers between genders, you are actually just using the word to describe Western civilisation in general. As I said earlier, this postmodernist, anti-capitalist, anti-west rhetoric appears to be the unquestioned consensus of most people educated in the Australian arts and humanities system.

It is also unconscionable to assume that the words of a handful of individuals represent the experiences of the whole group. The study claims that by interviewing women who were motivated to participate in the survey and interviews, they are able to begin the work of ‘unpacking’ factors relevant to all females in the music industry. Contrary to the implicit message of this study, we women do all not think and feel the same, and those who complain on our behalf do not, by definition, represent all of us. We are not all in favour of the already invasive measures taken by some universities to ensure our participation in certain programs: “….one interviewee said their institution accepted almost any female applicants, and another institution gave female applicants a boost to their Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) score” (p. 55). Many of us would rather be rejected, than accepted under these conditions, and are disturbed by the real possibility that some of our successes have been born of such measures. Unfortunately, dissenting voices are an inconvenience to those who are committed to the pursuit of equal outcomes. The report continues to outdo itself in its patronising rhetoric on women’s status as victims. We are told that the lack of female role models in the industry is contributing to the gender disparity, yet we are expected to believe that the introduction of quotas into award judging panels will rectify this. Can we rely on the idea that emerging female artists will feel empowered by a sudden upsurge in female panel members, when they know that some of these women are there to fill a quota?

How utterly ridiculous would it seem to Australian musicians if measures were introduced to correct the gender imbalance among singers! How insulting to men it would be to loudly proclaim that they are victims of constructed stereotypes and societal expectations, and that they need institutions and organisations to rectify these injustices by demanding more male participation. Similarly, how unfair to talented and dedicated female singers, who would now be guaranteed, by the demands of policy, to be treated differently to men in application and audition processes. Some types of affirmative action perpetuate notions of victimhood that denigrate and disempower the the autonomous individuals forming the underrepresented group, whilst unfairly penalising all members of a group that is understood to have an advantage. This is exactly the type of policy that subverts the goals of progressive inclusiveness by undermining the freedom of the individual.

5. Unrepresentative Sampling

The researchers cannot guarantee that their sample is unbiased. This problem is more salient when considering the implications for the entire industry, but also subsists within the subgroup of members that were studied.

The research cited in favour of the policy changes is not at all comprehensive, and only examines ‘Screen Composing’ - one of many areas of the Australian music industry. APRA AMCOS concerns itself with all areas of creative music activity in Australia, and so should not assume that the findings of one study, attending to one area of the industry, are a sound foundation upon which to make changes that affect the rest of us.

The subgroup of Screen Composers were chosen because their 13% female representation was considered particularly low. Targeting a subgroup where the gender disparity is wider than others is an ideal way to yield results that will appeal to the compassion of self-flagellating Utopianists. If one really wanted to understand issues of sexism in the Australian Industry, what would one lose by examining niche disciplines that exhibit different gender representations than that of Screen Composing? What one stands to lose in such an enterprise is the potency of the narrative of women’s victimhood and men’s privilege in our industry. For the enactment of quotas to be universally accepted, we must all drink this kool-aid, and to dilute such a concoction is to risk failed conversions.

The population of screen composers surveyed and interviewed is highly likely to have been biased. The authors of the study admit that the survey results can be considered more representative of women than men, but as men are a ‘comparison category’, and not the focus of the study, this does not affect the validity of the results (p.5). In so far as fulfilling the aims set out by the researchers, which were to collect information about women’s experiences in the Screen Composing industry, there is nothing wrong with such a brush-off. And yet it hardly justifies the industry-wide measures which directly affect men’s ability to participate in all career-enhancing programs offered by APRA AMCOS.

There seems to be an implicit assumption that the instances of gender discrimination reported by participants were offences committed by the existing population. This is not a fair assumption, given that 76% of participants were older than 40, and 73% claim to be ‘established’ (as opposed to emerging). The authors themselves identify this problem in questions relating to the culture in educational institutions “most such stories [of clear gender discrimination] were from at least a decade ago” (p. 57). Indeed, the study reports participants’ common belief that sexism in workplace cultures were declining. The researchers seem to see the improvement of attitudes as an impediment, rather than an a testament their cause “the idea that maturing is taking place and can be relied upon to gradually erode sexist attitudes could also make taking direct action to counteract inequality seem unnecessary” (p. 26). Yes, it most certainly could.

The representation of women in the populations surveyed and interviewed (25% and 39% respectively), are far higher than their representation in the Screen Composing industry as a whole (13%). The survey was administered by email and voluntarily filled out. The follow up interviews were conducted with surveyed participants who had expressed interest in providing further information. It is likely, therefore, that the results disproportionately reflect the attitudes of those who felt they had something to say, and largely disregards those who were uninterested or otherwise unmotivated to participate. It is unprofessional to act upon these findings as if they were representative of the entire Screen Composers subgroup, or of the Australian Music industry as a whole.

A similar case of unrepresentative sampling involves college rape statistics in the U.S. Many women’s rights advocates unapologetically regurgitate the claim that ’1 in 4’ college attending women will be sexually assaulted on campus. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, however, finds that the number is 1 in 53 (Sommers, 2015). Any instance of sexual assault is a terrible injustice, which is why accurate statistics and bulletproof research methodologies must be used to promulgate advocacy campaigns. It turns out that the original source of the ‘1 in 4’ statistic was a study that used unrepresentative sampling (Sommers, 2015), incentivising victims of sexual assault to participate at far higher rates than non-victims, as well as vaguely worded questions that were easily reinterpreted by a media intent upon sensationalising the results.

A similar media distortion and sensationalisation of research results occurred in response to the recent Australian Human Rights Commission study (2017) that looked into the nature and frequency of sexual harassment on Australian University campuses. This study has its own sampling problems, as evidenced by the report itself:

“However, weighting cannot account for unknown biases such as the likelihood to respond to a survey about sexual harassment. In any survey there is a likelihood that response rates will be higher amongst people who are already engaged with the topic.”

The AHRC study also uses broad terminology, easily sensationalised by the media for political purposes (see Arndt, 2017a and 2017 b). Categories included in the survey and then documented as reports of ‘sexual harassment’ include:

“Sexually suggestive comments or jokes that made you feel offended” (p. 209 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Study).

“Repeated or inappropriate invitations to go out on dates” (Note the use of ‘or’, rather than ‘and’) (p. 209).

“Intrusive questions about your private life or physical appearance that could be offensive” (p. 209).

None of the statements above are true to the legal definition of harassment outlined in the report, which must take into account the intentions of the perpetrator: “to be unlawful, this behaviour must have taken place in ‘circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated the possibility that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated’” (p. 26). Unfortunately for those who wish that the matter were black-and-white, defining something as sexual harassment requires that you assess the internal experience of both the offended and the offender. This is significant, as sometimes advances may be unwanted due to a misreading of the situation by the advancer. Unsurprisingly, the media reporting around this study distorted and exaggerated the true findings so as to obscure these subtleties, and perpetuate the politically correct narrative of women’s victimhood and men’s sexual predation (Arndt, 2017a and 2017 b).

6. Style of Questioning Leads to Inconclusive Results

The research cited in favour of the APRA AMCOS gender parity initiatives can be similarly criticised for its style of questioning.

67% of female participants agreed with the statement “Gender discrimination is common in the industry”. One might wonder if it matters what we mean by 'common'. This term is not defined in the survey. The problem repeats when participants are asked how much they agree with the statement “sexual harassment is common in the industry”. 36% of women agreed with this statement, but what exactly does ‘common’ imply? Similarly, ‘sexual harassment’ is not defined or delineated into categories. Indeed, even ‘in the industry’ is not properly defined. One woman reported being harassed by a computer tech man, a risk which is unlikely to be mitigated by the introduction of quotas and the pursuit of equal outcomes within the membership base of APRA AMCOS community.

49% of female participants claimed to have personally experienced 'discrimination or disadvantage', and yet the difference between 'discrimination' and 'disadvantage' is not acknowledged. The difference is important. For example, a woman who chooses to take time off to raise children may experience a career disadvantage, without experiencing any discrimination. When participants were asked to identify the three greatest barriers to success, only one category of responses (‘Problems with Industry Culture’) could reasonably be understood to include issues around gender discrimination (p. 70). This category represented only 13% in over all ‘frequency of themes’ (a count of 42 mentions out of a total of 326 spanning all categories), and only 6 mentions out of 42 in this specific category directly implied sexism, which is 2% of all responses (male and female) given to this question (see pages 69 - 71 and do the math). Yet, unsurprisingly, the statistic that is used to evoke sympathy towards the APRA AMCOS gender parity initiatives is the overly reductive and simplified statement: “67% of women agreed with the statement: ‘gender discrimination is common in the industry’.” This is an unconscionable disservice to men, who are inevitably expected to willingly adopt their status as potential perpetrators of such discrimination.

The most uncharitable interpretation of my pointing this out, will be that I am ‘victim blaming’. Allow me to plead innocent. As I said in my introduction: I am not denying the existence of sexual harassment or sexism. However, the victims and perpetrators in such situations are individuals that must be acknowledged as such, and not merely taken as representative of their genders as a whole. The opinion that “gender discrimination is common in the industry” might be exacerbated by the fact that we are so often taught to equate gender disparity with evidence of sexism, without considering other explanations. This is a dangerous and regressive trend that can not lead anywhere worth going.

7. Failure to Account for Existing Knowledge on Gender Differences

Here is a question that we need to carefully consider:

Why ought we care about achieving gender parity in the Australian Music Industry?

The answer to this question is surely that we believe that women face disadvantages, and were they to be truly liberated from these disadvantages, there would be gender parity in our industry.

Such a claim is not necessarily problematic. What is problematic is equating all examples of disadvantage with evidence of unfair discrimination or systemic oppression, and assuming that intervening to correct for these disadvantages will serve to emancipate women and improve the fairness of the industry as a whole. This error of judgement relies upon the following premise:

Gender parity (or equal outcomes between genders) will be the natural consequence of true freedom and fairness in the industry. Therefore, until we see a gender parity in our industry, we must, by definition, be failing to uphold the values of freedom and fairness.

The counter argument to such a premise is as follows:

The natural outcome of true freedom and fairness may not be gender parity. A gender imbalance is not necessarily evidence that an industry is failing to uphold the values of freedom and fairness.

Such counter arguments have been made in accordance with research conducted in other industries and disciplines. Research that confirms this counter narrative often goes unacknowledged because it is an unwelcome presence in the current climate of political correctness.

This link provides an  example of overlapping bell curves representing the differences between men and women in trait agreeableness (https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d3b2fa_5e387323c6884b4883ae09e075e3248e~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_612,h_420,al_c,lg_1/d3b2fa_5e387323c6884b4883ae09e075e3248e~mv2.png Source: Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Yanna J. Weisberg1, Colin G. DeYoung2 and Jacob B. Hirsh). ‘Agreeableness’ as defined by the 'Big Five Trait' psychologists is associated with cooperation, trust, likability, social conformity, compliance and friendliness. Agreeableness is one of several areas of personality and interests where women and men differ, on average.

Such comparisons between populations are contentious because of the way that they can easily be distastefully misinterpreted. Firstly, there is often a failure to acknowledge that population-level analysis does not allow for accurate assessment of an individual. To make this error entails racism, sexism, or whatever type of bigotry accurately describes the situation. As with most data representing differences in gender, the graph above shows that the differences between individuals in the same gender group is far greater than the difference between the groups. The same could be said for the height difference between men and women. On average, men are undeniably taller than women, but the knowledge of someone’s gender is not enough information with which to accurately estimate their height, because there are plenty of short men and plenty of tall women. The graph above shows that there are plenty of disagreeable women, and plenty of agreeable men, while also showing that women are more agreeable on average. The above comparison does not offer any premise for predicting an individual’s agreeableness based on their gender.

Another misinterpretation of such population-level comparisons is the failure to see where they are applicable. Despite the fact that the difference between men and women seems trivial, at the far ends of the spectrum, the most disagreeable extremes will be populated by predominately men, and the most agreeable will be predominately women. Therefore, we would expect that lifestyle choices and behaviours that appeal to highly agreeable people will attract more women than men, and vice versa. In the case of comparing men and women’s heights, we might expect that the majority of the tallest people in a population will be men, and the majority of the shortest people will be women. Population-level analyses are legitimate when studying population-level phenomena, such as men’s higher risk of social-isolation (on average), or women’s higher proclivity for careers in teaching and nursing (on average).

There are many other areas of personality and interest in which men and women differ (see extensive reference list at end of this article). The most pertinent finding is that when assessing interests, women seem to be more oriented towards ‘people’ and men more oriented towards ‘things’ (sexism alone will not explain the over-representation of men in the field of engineering). These differences, among others, are largely consistent across cultures, and many have been linked to exposure to prenatal testosterone in the womb. They are not merely ‘imposed’ upon us after birth. Crucially, men and women’s interests and personalities diverge more extremely in cultures where women and men’s opportunities are equal and traditional gender roles are minimised (Costa et. Al 2001, Schmidtt et al. 2008). This is a formidable blow to proponents of the social-constructionist outlook on gender norms, who would surely expect men and women to converge towards a homogenous ‘middle ground’ when liberated from the restrictions of societal norms. When you eliminate the influence of ‘nurture’ (culture), the influence of ‘nature’ (biology) maximises. If innate differences did not exist between men and women, then the freest men and women on earth would become more and more like each other. It is not so. We are so prone to construct sentences like; “There is an unequal representation of men and women in an industry, therefore, sexism!” The research suggests a different interpretation; “There is an unequal representation of men and women in an industry, therefore, freedom!”

It is of the utmost importance to recognise that men and women differ in personality and interests, because these factors lead individuals to make certain choices and/or engage in certain behaviour. When attempting to understand discrimination upon the basis of gender in certain populations, the impact of choices made by men and women must be taken into account before the discrepancies in gender representation are attributed to unfair discrimination or systemic oppression. Understanding the role of personality, interests, and choices allows for an accurate understanding of what distribution of male and female representation ought to be aimed at as an ideal in any population. If women are more likely to desire a job in nursing, then we must not assume that the over-representation of women in nursing is attributable to nothing other than unfair discrimination or systemic oppression against men.

Without controlling for these differences, all instances where genders are not represented equally will be attributed to unfair discrimination or systemic oppression, thereby ensnaring leaders within that population in allegations that bring their moral credibility into disrepute. A devastating example of this problematic approach being exposed is the Australian Government behavioural economics team’s failure to discover evidence of unconscious bias in favour of white males in the hiring practices of the public sector. A study conducted by this team found that unconscious bias actually worked to the advantage of female, indigenous and minority applicants (Australian Government, 2017), a result that counters the popular political narrative that speaks to the systemic oppression of these groups. In the case of the Australian music industry, it would be no surprise if some of the gender discrepancy was attributable to discrimination, but it is highly unlikely that discrimination accounts for the entire discrepancy, or enough of the discrepancy to warrant the drastic policies adopted in response to APRA AMCOS’s research report.

To take a previous example, to assume that all court judges are biased against men, due to the over-representation of men in corrective institutions, without providing evidence to support one’s case, would be an unjustifiable allegation. This would be an instantiation of the ‘correlation equals causation’ logical fallacy, in assuming that because there is a correlation between being male and being incarcerated, that people are incarcerated because they are male. That is, the cause of their incarceration is falsely assumed to be their gender. In actual fact there is a third factor - criminal behaviour - which correlates with being male (and with low levels of trait agreeableness) , and that factor is the cause of their incarceration. There are undoubtably some judges that are indeed biased against men, and aspects of our legal system that treat men unfairly, but one of the explanations as to why men are over-represented in prison populations is that men commit more crimes than women. Recognising this fact is an informal example of controlling for the role of personality and behaviour, before assessing the role of unfair discrimination or systemic oppression. After controlling for the differences in levels of criminal activity, one might be able to accurately assess the severity of the problem of anti-male bias in the justice system.

The ‘correlation equals causation’ fallacy is a regular mis-step in reasoning around gender representation (Haidt, 2016). Research methodologies that deliberately avoid this mistake often come up with surprising results. In the maths-intensive science fields Ceci & Williams (2011) found that women’s under-representation could not be attributed to unfair discrimination, but rather to “differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed.” The infamous ‘wage gap’ suffers similarly under scrutiny. The American Association of University Women found that the wage gap collapses to only 6.6 cents when factoring in the difference in career choices that women and men make. The U.S department of labour (2009) drew a similar conclusion after an analysis of fifty peer reviewed studies. We can, of course, have an argument about whether 6.6 cents is too great of a difference. Perhaps it is. But in order to make progress on the matter we must first accurately diagnose the problem. It is imperative to acknowledge the impact of individuals’ choices, which are impacted by personality traits and interests, which differ between men and women on average. According to researcher Claudia Goldin, women tend to desire jobs with greater flexibility of working hours (Dubner 2016). This divergence can be attributed to the impact of care-giving obligations on women. Again, there is room for debate as to whether it is fair that women tend to be more involved in care-giving obligations than men, but once again, that conversation would require that we first acknowledge the actual nature of the problem. The role that choices play is particularly salient in light of the fact that women and men diverge more extremely both in personality and interests in countries where traditional gender roles are most minimised, and equality of opportunity is maximised (Schmitt et al 2008, Costa et al 2001, Lippa 2010.), as previously discussed.

The APRA research report claims that gender disparate outcomes in both pay and representation are impacted by “gendered norms associated with both music genres and technologies that shape career choices presented to aspiring and active composers” (p.2). Ignoring the word ‘choices’ here, and without presenting the necessary evidence, the APRA AMCOS research report exudes an allegiance to the the social-constructionist view on gender, claiming that technology, which is associated with composition is ‘highly gendered as masculine’ (p. 3). As explained above, the literature does not support the claim that we as a society are responsible for arbitrarily ‘gendering’ certain areas of interest, but rather shows that differences in men and women’s interests, personalities and abilities are replicated across cultures and unresponsive to increased opportunities for women. As one participant in the APRA AMCOS study put it “Women make different life choices than men. This is a demonstrable fact” (p. 19). It’s too bad that APRA AMCOS's response is utterly dismissive of this fact, as well as the opinion of women who want to retain the right to compete in the existing condition; “I’d rather compete with the men as well, I think we’re all going to do it together” (p.20). Indeed, according to the report, most interviewees understood any differential treatment, be it disadvantageous or advantageous, to be “morally suspect” (p. 20). To introduce quotas, is by definition, to define people by their gender and treat them according to that differentiation.

For further evidence of gender differences in interests that might impact gender representation in the Australian screen composing industry, we should look no further than the following sentences, taken directly from the APRA AMCOS research report itself:

"We also found that far fewer women than men are enrolling in higher education courses related to screen composition” (Strong, C. 2017)

and

“all staff also reported that low numbers of female students were broadly reflective of application rates…or uptakes of [composition] electives” (p. 55 of the research report).

According to the authors, “this trend is concerning, and should be monitored” (p. viii).

Ought we not consider just how many nanny-like interventions an industry, which prides itself and depends on the self-determination of individuals, could sustain before people were deterred from participating? The researcher Catherine Strong writes that: “The enrolment rate appears to be related to the wider issue of women’s relationship with technology, as many of the courses related to screen composition were tech-focused” (2017). This seems to be an example of differing interests between men and women impacting their ultimate career trajectories. It is no more indicative of unfair discrimination or systemic oppression than the over-representation of men in video-gaming culture, or the over-representation of women in the consumer base of Sephora. Yet again, the research report fails to justify the response from APRA AMCOS. Do we want institutions ‘correcting’ for a lack of female interest in a certain niche discipline? Does that not undermine the freedom of the individual to pursue his/her or their own path? Such an enterprise might be considered justified if, and only if, it could be irrefutably proven that unfair discrimination or systemic oppression was the only reason for women’s under-representation in the discipline.

Compatibility with certain jobs is dependent upon personality traits as well as interests, and the research report points to factors that are in unacknowledged agreement with the existing literature on gender disparate outcomes in personality testing. “Men were more likely to 'self-teach’, and to take on jobs requiring a skill-set they did not currently have, suggesting a level of self-confidence and willingness to take risks that women did not display to nearly the same degree” (p. vi). This finding is in keeping with the finding that men are, on average, higher in assertiveness (Costa et al, 2001) and lower in levels of risk aversion. If we hypothesised that a career in screen composing required one to be in the highest percentiles of assertiveness and lowest percentiles of risk aversion, then it follows that the majority of candidates in that group will be men, because at that end of the spectrum, the population is male-dominated. It would be reasonable to hypothesise that assertiveness and low levels of risk aversion are essential personality traits for survival in the screen composing industry, given that ‘Career Development Opportunities’ and ‘Sustainability of Work’ (p. 69-71) were the top two areas that participants identified as barriers to success. This is only a hypothesis, one of many that could be tested with further research on how gender differences in interest and personality relate to disparate outcomes in career paths. Corrective measures taken to end the gender disparity in the music industry should not be implemented without first establishing the role that personality, interests and choices play in individuals' career trajectories. Given that men as a group are implicated in the assumption of guilt in regards to systemic oppression in the music industry, the burden of proof is on the accusers to find the ‘smoking gun’.

The authors commit a particularly egregious offence when they apply the social-constructionist viewpoint to motherhood and other care-giving roles, which is perhaps the most salient factor that leads to gender disparate outcomes in career paths. “Our society, in short, still expects women to put others first ” (p. 3). The report is supportive of efforts to minimise the disruptive nature of motherhood, and sympathetic with the idea that such a life event ought not to be accompanied by a great career sacrifice. Some women reported being discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or motherhood (p. 15). An unspoken, and unpopular truth is that discrimination is not always unfair. The medical, attentional, and financial resources required to ensure safe pregnancies and child-birth are a monumental demand on those involved in such an ordeal. Such a life event, and the years following, is in fact quite likely to impact one’s capacity to work on deadlines. To minimise the sacrificial nature of motherhood, and perpetuate the narrative that one can simultaneously prioritise career building and family, is positively anti-woman, and not, as one might infer from the response to the report, a win for female empowerment.

Many who claim that gender is a social construct claim that it is so because of the biological ramifications of women and men evolving to meet the imposing demands of societies over millennia of human existence. Gender roles are therefore constructed over millennia, rather than being present-day phenomena. This is undoubtedly true, and so we should expect that attributes constructed by evolution are far deeper than our superficially constructed societal norms. As established by the research above, it is clear that if you tried to raise the next generation of humans as genderless, the girls would still, on average, tilt towards interests and personality traits that have historically been more typical of girls, and vice versa. There would of course be exceptions, as there are to every trend, but demanding that all children grow up androgynous would not make those children ‘freer’.

Acknowledging biological differences between populations is sometimes referred to pejoratively as ‘biological essentialism’. One can not deny that biological essentialism has been recruited as a justification for much evil. Far-right, fascist philosophies such as Nazism and white supremacy could be accused of being biologically essentialist, despite the fact that they perpetuate incorrect facts about biology. But the far-left also believes in defining people by their race, gender and other immutable traits, and far-left philosophy led to the deaths of over a hundred million in the 20th century. Rather than being motivated by biological observations, the far-left is motivated by observations of power structures, wealth distribution, and societal norms. They too would have it that your race and gender dictate the way you ought to be treated. Both the far-right and the far-left hold collectivist mentalities, and both undermine the individual at the expense of the group. Rather than biological essentialism on the right, or intersectional analysis on the left, it is the collectivism of these philosophies that make them similarly problematic. The portrayal of the white man as the archetypal enemy of progress and equality, possessing inherited ‘privilege’ at the expense of everyone else, is dangerous. Stereotyping and reducing people to merely their skin colour and gender is always a step in the wrong direction. Individual bigots ought to be held accountable, on a case-by-case basis, for the harm that they have inflicted on their victims. But this never gives us the right to tar all members of one identity group with the same brush.

But we can have our cake and eat it too. Happily, it is indeed possible to acknowledge biological differences between populations (such as men and women), without subscribing to collectivist philosophy. In many ways, we would benefit from being able to transcend our biology, but defining people by their gender or race, such as reprimanding ‘white men’ for their exploitation of the rest of us, is not a clever or productive way to achieve this. Here is the vital point: population-level analysis, such as mapping differences between men and women’s interests and personality, must only be used to explain phenomena at the level of the population, such as trends in career choice and accurately estimating the overall effects of discrimination. Population-level analyses do not necessarily justify policies and attitudes that encroach on the freedom of the individual, and can be dangerous and regressive when applied in this way. Each person has a right to be considered on their own terms, regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, or any other immutable trait. This includes forming judgements about both a person's assets, and their shortcomings. That is why we must not collectively punish or reward all members of a gender group for the results of a population-level analysis by enforcing equality of outcome standards. Similarly, when population-level analyses are used to establish population-level phenomena, such as the severity of systemic oppression within an industry, they must take into account existing knowledge on other factors that might impact disparate outcomes between these populations.

Conclusion

After examining the research cited, APRA AMCOS’s initiatives resemble the smothering of a hypothetical fire with an industry-wide blanket, justified by small amount of smoke emanating from a tiny portion of the industry that is being viewed through a magnifying glass by self-proclaimed firefighters who have not yet proven themselves capable of accurately locating flames, let alone extinguishing them.

You need not suffocate the entire city in the effort to undermine the work of a few pyromaniacs.

There are many ways to help women that don’t involve policies oriented towards equal outcomes. Not all solutions are suitable to all disciplines. For example, blind auditions have closed the opportunity gap for orchestral musicians, yet as a member of staff in a leading Australian jazz program has pointed out to me, this strategy could never work for jazz music, where a candidate’s interaction and communication skills are essential criteria. Specific solutions for specific disciplines, rather than industry-wide, all-encompassing measures, are what’s needed to continue to ensure equality of opportunity for all. Unfortunately, enforcing equal outcomes on any population is antithetical to the freedoms of individuals within that population. This is a particularly excruciating problem in a creative industry which needs empowered, self-determined and courageous individuals to survive. Is it not possible that in such a scene, diversity of thought is more important than diversity of gender, race, sexuality or ethnicity? If you believe that diversity of thought is contingent upon diversity of identity groups, then are you not committing a transgression against the people you purport to help, by assuming that the contents of their minds are determined by their immutable traits?

To those with authority on such matters I beg of you, please consider what has been historically sacrificed in societies where people have been forced to kow-tow to equality of outcome initiatives, and individuals are reduced to being representatives of their gender, race, or other immutable traits. Please don’t introduce measures that affect all men, when all men are not complicit in the harmful acts of a tiny minority. Similarly, don’t assign victim status to all women by denying them the right to compete in the same territory as everyone, to nobly navigate the boundaries of stereotypes and associations that all have to contend with, and to emerge victorious through the merits of their own work. Please don’t assume that intervening to correct the unconscious biases that you detect in others is likely to have the outcome that you intend. Please refrain from drawing premature conclusions from inconclusive research to satisfy your ideological and politically motivated opinions. Please don’t ignore the mountains of scientific research that substantiate the role that choices and preferences play in the divergent career outcomes of men and women. Please don’t perpetuate social-constructionist views on gender as if they are the undisputed truth, when the scientific literature suggests otherwise. One of the recommendations in the research report is to persist with ongoing research on women and music-making. Perhaps this recommendation ought to be acted upon before asking the entire music industry to participate in initiatives aimed at progressing towards equal outcomes.

Frankly, I think the Australian music industry has far more urgent matters than the disparate representation of genders to attend to. There are problems that we leave unsolved at our peril, and yet the distraction of endlessly demanding more rights and opportunities will likely see us reaching for an impossible Utopia until it’s too late to change course. Many of us, myself included, have not been able to monetise our craft by any other means than teaching it to the next generation or falling back on government funds. An effort to rectify this problem may be assisted by shifting the focus onto developing a strong and deep relationship with one's audience, or by enhancing our computer literacy, educating young musicians to code, and understanding the emergence of cryptocurrencies and other potential internet-based remedies for the harsh realities of selling digital goods online. Our obsession with accruing more rights and opportunities causes us to rely heavily government institutions who use use tax payer money to fund art forms that are in many ways failing to interest, or engage the tax payers. A politically correct fog of disillusion clouds our judgement, perpetually feeding our anxieties about whether, given our ‘privileged and irrelevant’ status as Australians, we really have the right to express an outrageous or controversial thought on any topic. In evading our responsibilities to deeply connect with other members of the human race through our art, we gain a certain mock freedom in that we are no longer beholden to a consumer. An existence that is so reliant on self-determined creativity, yet lacking in meaningful exchanges with an audience, is a recipe for resentment and frustration.

If the most compelling place for an artist in our world is a place where they can engage with the public, reflect on their culture, and make some sense out of the particular type chaos that is making a mess of their world at the time, then how do we go about putting a foot in that terrain? Music education (I cannot speak for other forms of arts education) too often resembles trade school, divorced from the relevant philosophical, historical, and cultural knowledge that might produce in its students a sense of having ‘something to say’, and not merely the tools required to say it. Conversely, those who graduate from music performance programs are prone to believe that it is the uncultured, philistine wider society that they inhabit that absolves them of all responsibility for their predicament. We have obscured the notion of meritocracy and the devastating reality that we too operate within a free market system that is subject to the unforgiving forces of demand and supply. An obsession with diversity and equity is a dangerous distraction from what actually threatens our industry. It’s time for us to show gratitude for our endless privileges and rights, by not taking our miraculous Australian freedom for granted. We ought to begin by shouldering some proportionate responsibilities and working towards guaranteeing the longevity and sustainability of our industry, as well as our capacity to be well and happy in doing so.

References

Arndt, B. (2017a) ‘Bettina Arndt - Sexual consent courses should teach ‘don’t get raped’ as well as ‘don’t rape’ Youtube video, retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCenq50fDPc&t=22s

Arndt, B. (2017 b) ‘Sexual Consent - yes, no, maybe’ article retrieved from: http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/sexual-consent-yes-no-maybe/

Arnnt, B (2017 c). ‘Bettina Arndt on Monstrous Lies about Domestic Violence’. Youtube Video, retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1-I8AttyDc

Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2017). REPORT: Unconscious bias in Australian Public Services Shortlisting Processes. Article retrieved from: https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/domestic-policy/report-unconscious-bias-australian-public-services-shortlisting-processes

Australian Human Rights Commission (2017). Change the course: National report on sexual assault and sexual harassment at Australian universities. Report retrieved from: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/AHRC_2017_ChangeTheCourse_UniversityReport.pdf

Bihagen, E., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2000). Culture consumption in Sweden: The stability of gender differences. Poetics, 27(5-6), 327-349.

Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Klick, J., Mellers, B., Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2009). Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 567.

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women's under-representation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157-3162.

Coate, S. & Loury, G. C, (1993) Will Affirmative-Actiom Policies Eliminate Negative Stereotypes? The American Economic Review. Vol. 83, No. 5

Costa,Paul T.,,Jr, Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322-331

Damore, J. (2017) Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber: How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion. Retrieved from: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

Del Giudice, M., Booth, T., & Irwing, P. (2012). The distance between Mars and Venus: Measuring global sex differences in personality. PloS one, 7(1), e29265.

Dubner, Stephen J., Gittleson, Kim (2016) "What are Gender Barriers Made Of - Freakonomics Radio?" [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from http://freakonomics.com/podcast/gender-barriers/

Dubner, Stephen J. (2016) “The Truth Story of the Gender Pay Gap -Freakonomics Radio” [audio podcast]. Retrieved from: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Fieldler, K., Messner, C., Bluemke, M., (2006) Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Haidt, J., & Jussim, L. (2016). Hard truths about race on campus. Wall Street Journal.

Gravitahn. 2016. Blind Pursuit of Equal OUTCOME leads to an “Abomination of Justice” - Jonathan Haidt. Youtube video, retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNaT52QYYA

Kennedy, R. (1985). Persuasion and distrust: A comment on the affirmative action debate. Harv. L. Rev., 99, 1327

Lippa, R. A. (2010). Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why?. Social and personality psychology compass, 4(11), 1098-1110.

Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1997). Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in 37 nations. The Journal of social psychology, 137(3), 369-373.

Mueller, G., & Plug, E. (2006). Estimating the effect of personality on male and female earnings. ILR Review, 60(1), 3-22.

Prager U (2016). Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College? Youtube video. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0mzqL50I-w

Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(1), 168.

Schmitt, D. P., Long, A. E., McPhearson, A., O'Brien, K., Remmert, B., & Shah, S. H. (2016). Personality and gender differences in global perspective. International Journal of Psychology.

Sommers, C. H. (2015) Do Men Need to Check Their Privilege? Factual Feminist. American Enterprise Institute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRsYwu8uD4I

Sommers, C. H. (2014) The gender wage gap uses bogus statistics. Factual Feminist. American Enterprise Institute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRsYwu8uD4I

Strong, C., Cannizzo, F. (2017). Australian Women Screen Composers: Career Barriers and Pathways. RMIT, Melbourne.

Strong C. (2017) Why are there so few women screen composers? The Conversation: Music Matters retrieved from http://theconversation.com/why-are-there-so-few-women-screen-composers-81689#comment_1368632 August 2017

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality. Intelligence, 48, 137-151.

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests.

Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., Moghaddam, F. M., & Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 16(2), 254-262.

Taylor, D. M., Ruggiero, K. M., & Louis, W. R. (1996). Personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Towards a two-factor explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 28(3), 193.

Dion, K. L., & Kawakami, K. (1996). Ethnicity and perceived discrimination in Toronto: Another look at the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 28(3), 203.

Thomas, R. R. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard business review, 68(2), 107-117.

Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology, 2