It never takes long when Safety is on the case in seeking a scapegoat, to show its ideology immersed in sexism and misogyny:

It has only been a few days and we already have safety crusaders on social media targeting the female Commander of the HMNZS Manawanui looking for ‘root cause’. We know that HMNZS Manawanui was Commander Gray’s first command. Ah, there we go, found a target, a female, here’s our scapegoat (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/542c2af8e4b00b7cfca08972/t/58ff87e0d2b8579e77e80882/1493141508746/Scapegoat.PDF). Scapegoating is essentially a religious activity of justification and atonement and there’s no greater religious activity than Safety. Don’t you know, Safety Saves Lives (https://safetyrisk.net/the-metaphysics-of-safety/).

We saw exactly the same sexism and misogyny in the unfolding of finding a scapegoat for the Costa Concordia disaster (https://safetyrisk.net/are-we-learning-from-accidents-book-review/).

We also know that there is no feminist ethic articulated anywhere in safety globally and that Safety proudly trots out women as objects in what it does (https://safetyrisk.net/wo-men-in-safety/). There are plenty of examples here: https://safetyrisk.net/safety-as-a-mysoginist-activity/. This also includes the so-called women in safety groups who re-present masculinist ideologies and semiotics (https://safetyrisk.net/the-wisdom-of-the-beguines-for-safety/ ) of safety in what they present. Surely, someone would seek to articulate a feminist ethic in safety? (https://safetyrisk.net/can-there-be-a-feminist-safety/; https://vimeo.com/237511120 )

When it comes to safety it seems the best thing for women is to make them sex objects or indoctrinate them with masculinist ideology so they act and speak like men. There is no greater force for masculinist ideology than zero and its love of brutalism in the name of good. When women in safety groups support zero, it is masculinism and masculinist power on full show. Nowhere in safety is there any articulation of care ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/care-ethics-and-the-ethics-of-care-in-risk/).

Without a feminist methodology and ethic, why would women want to join safety? Why develop a methodology and ethic when 5 slogans will do?

What this tragedy shows is the underbelly of safety ethics for what it is, a masculinist activity. When seeking a scapegoat, how piss weak to target a woman.

If you are interested in an ethic of risk, you can study here: https://cllr.com.au/product/an-ethic-of-risk-workshop-unit-17-elearning/

If you want to understand what a philosophy is, you can study here: https://cllr.com.au/product/philosophy-and-spor-module-23/

If you want to understand a different methodology and method from traditional safety then you can connect here: admin@spor.com.au

There is an alternative to the binary framing and priming or traditional safety, and it can be learned by simply asking a question. However, it seems that is too much to ask from this poorly mis-educated industry that thinks its worldview cannot be questioned.

 If you want to read, Are We Learning from Accidents? By Nippin Anand, you can order your copy here: https://www.amazon.com.au/Are-We-Learning-Accidents-quandary/dp/1738560309