Clarissa Bye: Woke culture is silencing the very democracy Western civilisation is built upon

Our parliament and justice systems are built on being adversarial— so to cry victim in the face of robust debate or cross-examination undermines our society, writes Clarissa Bye.

My husband once had to undergo a psychological work profile in a management job he had.

When he brought the results home, I read the booklet and laughed in agreement.

They had highlighted several things about him that he swore were wrong.

It said he gave more weight to “the factual objective side of things”, which might disregard other people’s feelings. He was action orientated, a perfectionist, competitive and didn’t seek approval from others.

The idea of seeking approval from others is an interesting issue.

According to Canadian psychologist and author Dr Jordan Peterson, who is visiting Australia later this month, the trait of “agreeableness” is one of five main traits that can be measured.

Visiting author and psychologist Dr Jordan Peterson. Picture: Getty Images.

The others are conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism and openness to experience. He breaks them up into more sophisticated qualities, but they are the broad brush “aspects” of personalities.

Curious about his personality test, I paid $US10 and did one myself.

My “agreeableness” was scored at 74 per cent; apparently the mean percentile for women is 61.5 per cent and for men it’s just 38.5 per cent.

While it can be associated with being kind, nurturing, compliant, or conciliatory it’s also described as “naively trusting”. And as a result of their “tendency to avoid conflict”, people high on this often “dissemble and hide what they think”.

Dr Peterson says highly agreeable women can end up being exploited in modern workplaces, particularly if they are overly conscientious.

They hate conflict and don’t complain. He runs assertiveness training with such women, who have to develop the courage to confront issues, face conflict and ask for pay rises.

The mean percentile for agreeable women is 61.5 per cent and for men it’s just 38.5 per cent..

On the other hand, being disagreeable is associated with being straightforward and stubborn and those people can come across as harsh, dominant or blunt, and not care about other people’s opinions.

But you know where you stand. And if combined with a high intellect, they can be very successful and single-minded at what they do.

Author Malcolm Gladwell, who cites Apple founder Steve Jobs as “disagreeable”, notes such people aren’t necessarily obnoxious; they just don’t require the approval of others. Thomas Edison has been cited as a “disagreeable” genius.

Importantly, disagreeable people are not afraid to speak their mind.

Which is a trait sorely needed in these days of woke correctness and group think.

And especially, I think, for women, who are more susceptible to conforming - and enforcing conformity - in the name of the “sisterhood” and “we ought to be better than this”.

Lawyer Katherine Deves came under ferocious attack from the sisterhood when she ran for the seat of Warringah at the last Federal election.

Liberal candidate Katherine Deves. Picture: Justin Lloyd.

She had been blunt in her objections to surgically removing children’s breasts and penises.

In the increasingly woke world we find ourselves in, the tag “divisive” is attached to your name if you speak your mind honestly.

In parliament, forceful, mocking or robust debate is being rebranded as “bullying”, which is a totally different kettle of fish.

Bullying means ongoing verbal or physical attacks, and often with a power imbalance. It’s redefining the term to use it just to describe an insult.

Yet Liberal MP Michelle Landry held a press conference last month to complain that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had “bullied her”, and she was ‘distressed” and “humiliated”.

In fact the PM had mocked Opposition Leader Peter Dutton about his knowledge of geography in Queensland.

How can you possibly be fit for a job as an MP if you cry victim like that?

Liberal Member for Capricornia Michelle Landry with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Sussan Ley and Coalition women during a press conference accusing the PM of “bullying”. Picture: NCA NewsWire

In our legal system, there’s a push now to argue that if you make serious allegations against fellow citizens, such as rape, you shouldn’t be subjected to robust cross-examination.

Our entire justice and parliamentary systems are based on the idea of robust argument - an adversarial system.

It is built into their DNA.

Stifling debate under the guise of being “kind” to victims, or not wanting to “offend” people, undermines the foundations of our society.

I’ve just finished a book by Professor Peter Murphy, called Civic Justice, which traces the origins of justice and civic society.

He explains that conflict was seen as a stimulus to excellence in Ancient Greece.

Under the Ionian and later Greek civilisations, public events were staged in the agora, or town square so disputes could be contested in front of other citizens.

“The court in the city involved a public contest - an adversarial engagement - with plaintiff and defendant arguing, and others sitting in judgment on the excellence of the case of the contending parties.”

Conflict was also found in the sporting field, among philosophers, or even in contests between singers, dramatists and potters in the agora.

Professor Murphy says it created a paradoxical union of contending forces, a surprising synthesis.

Author and academic Professor Peter Murphy.

“Conflict is a stimulus to excellence,” he says.

“The best, the most skilled, the ones who excel can receive the sanction of their respective publics.”

It’s no coincidence the Greeks invented the Olympic Games.

But we’re starting to see more people in our modern workforces - particularly the public service - being selected for “inclusivity”, not intelligence or ability, but for being agreeable and conforming.

A recent essay published on the independent Substack essay platform made the case that conscientious and agreeable “Head Girls” have taken over many institutions.

“There’s nothing wrong with Head Girls, when their worst tendencies are counterbalanced by a sufficient number of disagreeable, intelligent, and less conformist colleagues,” the author, who goes by the pseudonym Eugyppius, argues.

“When they become the predominant personality type in newsrooms, faculties and government offices, though, you start to have serious problems.

“Then, your schools and your media organisations come to be dominated by committees and meetings, by the avoidance of open conflict, by the constant erection of and sheltering within consensus positions, and by preference cascades kicked off by clamorous organised minorities.”

A statue of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, in Athens - in Ancient Greek times even the philosophers were involved in public displays of contests of ideas.

Perhaps our high schools should make debating -where you have to learn to argue the other side - a compulsory skill for all students.

And ensure there’s an appreciation of the deep liberal tradition that enabled Western civilisation to flourish - not despite, but because of the many disagreeable geniuses along the way.