Conversation between Gary Johns (former federal Minister for the ALP) and David Maywald (author of The Relentless War on Masculinity)
How does Australia achieve balance in gender relations?
Conversation between Gary Johns (former federal Minister, ALP Member for Petrie from 1987-1996, he was aligned to the Labor Right like Paul Keating, Commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not for profits Commission, author, and Chair of Close the Gap Research) and David Maywald (author of The Relentless War on Masculinity, and advocate for men and boys):
- Gary differentiates between two aspects of gender in society: contemporary gender relations that facilitate equality and fairness for relationships between men and women (which has changed for the better during the last few decades); while at the same time our society has also seen an over-reach with an excess of being favourable towards females. He does see the “pendulum” as having swung too far.
- The institutions and laws such as discrimination acts that were intended to be temporary (for empowerment of girls and women) should now be closed down. Australian law explicitly allows “special measures” intended to achieve equality (a legal basis often used to justify sex-targeted programs). He argues for taking down the governmental barriers, which have become obstacles to equality. He says “There are no barriers for women to succeed, so we should remove all governmental barriers.”
- He opposes the setting up of new institutions for men (in order to address disparities), such as a Minister for Men. Keeping the institutions that entrench excessive female empowerment in addition to new male institutions would cause more harm than good.
- There are clearly both cultural and policy aspects to the changes that we’ve seen in society and women’s empowerment.
- He has a positive outlook, calling Australia a “brilliant society and a wonderful country”.
- Focus on supporting people to have equal and fair relationships, through the ups and downs of life. Reorienting from trauma to healing, and from victimhood to agency.
Commentary and potential implications from this discussion:
- The institutions, agencies and laws that we currently have were designed for addressing challenges of decades past, which are no longer present. Much of the funding of institutions gets captured by a small group of people in the upper-middle-class, and this value never gets distributed to the intended beneficiaries.
- Advocates for men and boys may be disappointed by the lack of a Minister for Men being appointed (while the UK has seen the establishment of the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys in May 2025).
- The current vested interests in the pro-female industry will likely feel threatened, by discontinuation of their taxpayer-funded programs and services. Any discontinuation of agencies, programs and funding is likely to prompt intense lobbying and hard-fought opposition (with a sympathetic media and highly co-ordinated female empowerment movement).
- Possible options for closing down would be abolishing the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (which requires a misleading metric of “gender pay gap” to be disclosed by large employers), elimination of Ministers for Women, curtailment of “special measures” in discrimination law (with hard sunset clauses and stronger evidence tests), winding down of Offices for Women (or transition to sex-neutral missions), elimination of quota-based targets for further empowering women, removal of “gender-based violence” narratives, reduced focus on programs for artificially boosting females in STEM and other fields, pivoting from sex-based discrimination towards needs-based advancement, broader service delivery to genuinely meet the needs of male victims, and correcting the hugely lopsided funding in areas of service delivery/research/capacity building (such as medical research, education, and healthcare).
- A recent parallel from Canada... Speaking at the G20 summit, Prime Minister Mark Carney stunned the elite gathering when he announced his government was terminating its “feminist foreign policy”. Canada’s foreign policy has been widely criticised for its lack of substance, in some cases consisting of little more than adding superfluous chapters on gender equality to trade agreements.