So this snippet in the AFR caught my eye (emphasis added):
During her keynote address to the Business Council of Australia’s recent annual dinner, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said that she was looking forward to seeing a healthier flow of women up to the top leadership roles in business, “where I’m sure that in a couple of years’ time I won’t still find myself meeting with boards where the only other woman is serving food”. In saying this, the PM would have observed about 95 per cent of the BCA dinner attendees were white Caucasian males, with very few women present. Although the catering staff serving the food did seem to be about half male and female. One of the few women CEOs attending told me that the event made her feel like an imposter who didn’t belong in a room of Australia’s leading CEOs and Chairmen.
My first thought was that if anyone is so busy wondering about their gender they’re probably not thinking too much about the shareholders. I’m quite sure that if the shareholders are happy with their returns that they couldn’t care less about the management of the firm, or the gender distribution of the board.
If she got there on the back of a gender-quota then she certainly is an imposter and her feelings are warranted.
ar
4 Dec 12 at 9:45 am
When Gillard came to power, six of the top dozen positions in the land were held by women.
Queen
Prime Minister
Govenor General
GG NSW
Premier NSW
Premier Qld
Not bad for a sexist society!
Hoddle Boulevard
4 Dec 12 at 9:46 am
ar – I’d be surprised if there was much (any?) quota driven appointments at that level. Which makes the comment even more surprising. Did she really mean it? Was she just being polite? Saying what was expected? A person at that level (actually) suffering from that sort of self-doubt isn’t going to be very good at her job.
Sinclair Davidson
4 Dec 12 at 9:49 am
Don’t you just love the way the left have ditched their former obsession with ‘merit’ and reverted to victimology and tokenism?
Gee, I wonder, why?
The harshest critics of women I’ve encountered in my life have been women.
They’ve been well placed to pass judgement, one must say.
Rabz
4 Dec 12 at 9:52 am
I’d be worried if I were Steadman as Gillard seems to be constantly thinking of ‘mussels’.
dover_beach
4 Dec 12 at 9:53 am
Juila Gillard, of Emily’s List fame, wanting her little group to infiltrate the private sector “in a couple of years” after she and all of her equally opportuned Labor ex-MP’s find they can’t get a crust anywhere else?
On the other hand, there’s the whole “wreck capitalism” aspect to her and her ilk.
Supplice
4 Dec 12 at 10:00 am
Tokenism does not provide the “beneficiaries” relief from their insecurities.
Token
4 Dec 12 at 10:03 am
Bligh, Kirner, Keneally, Lawrence, Gillard, Roxon, Bryce, Milne…
Good.
C.L.
4 Dec 12 at 10:04 am
Much less their inadequacies…
Rabz
4 Dec 12 at 10:05 am
White Caucasian males built the greatest civilisation in human history, by the way.
Without it, women – who contributed virtually nothing to its technical and philosophical hallmarks – would still be gathering berries and dying in childbirth more often than not.
C.L.
4 Dec 12 at 10:08 am
Quite a put down to catering staff, male and female, who take pride in their work, have qualifications to do so, and working at a dinner where the PM is present would be a prized job for catering staff. They would have to be right up to scratch.
How condescending to be put down as just “serving food”.
candy
4 Dec 12 at 10:12 am
Good point, Candy.
Do you think Gillard could do that waitress’s job?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlIRu1l33VA&feature=fvsr
A food server is a useful person. Gillard isn’t.
C.L.
4 Dec 12 at 10:15 am
Substitute “voters” for “shareholders” and you’ve described Gillard perfectly.
Milton von Smith
4 Dec 12 at 10:15 am
Serving food is better than ripping off orphans and widows and fucking up the economy.
.
4 Dec 12 at 10:19 am
And yet the favourite target of Gillard’s (and her supporters’) invective against greedy CEOs is… Gina Rinehart. Fucking hypocrite.
perturbed
4 Dec 12 at 10:25 am
Which one is that? I’m pretty sure most of them were built on the subjugation and/or extermination of people who weren’t white Caucasian males.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 10:25 am
Strike me pink:
Is your company still struggling despite gender parity at board level?
Skip to 1:40.
lotocoti
4 Dec 12 at 10:25 am
Fuck off, MOnty, you worthless quisling troll.
perturbed
4 Dec 12 at 10:25 am
What complete tosh. I was at that dinner and there were plenty of women there. And in the vast majority of ASX 100 companies, at least one woman and sometimes more sit on the boards.
Get over it, everyone. Compete on merit, not gender.
Judith Sloan
4 Dec 12 at 10:26 am
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 10:30 am
You were also “pretty sure” that Peter Slipper would return to the Speaker’s chair in triumph.
C.L.
4 Dec 12 at 10:32 am
Good.
C.L.
4 Dec 12 at 10:33 am
Indeed. Happens a lot…
Get a grip. If you believe you’re a fraud/imposter of skills then why would you even apply for the top jobs? Wonder how many women actually want the jobs at the big end? How many actually apply? Why is this even about gender and not merit?
Gab
4 Dec 12 at 10:35 am
How many female directors have you got M0nty in your company?
What other minorities are being excluded from your male policy of excluding the victims of society?
Token
4 Dec 12 at 10:35 am
Personally I’m shocked at the lack of one legged Aboriginals in senior management and believe with fervour that a legal quota of those appointments should be dependant on that characteristic… not those dreaded patriarchal constructs, competence and talent.
Alfonso
4 Dec 12 at 10:35 am
Yes complete tosh. With competition and margins so tight, what company can afford to descriminate?
The PM would not say it if she did not see a vote in it. Part of the building of constituencies via victimhood the Left is playing globally.
Token
4 Dec 12 at 10:38 am
Aaaaahahahahahaha, nice try Token. I am a sole trader.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 10:41 am
It’s always amusing to see the left tie itself in knots, on the on hand portraying capitalist bosses in stovepipe hats as intrinsically evil, and then complaining that not enough of these monsters are women.
Reminds me of Woody Allen’s joke about two Jewish women in a restaurant: “This food is terrible!” says one. “Yeah, and they don’t give you much either” says the other.
HH
4 Dec 12 at 10:42 am
But there is only one Judith Sloan!
Sinclair Davidson
4 Dec 12 at 10:44 am
So … no women?
Sinclair Davidson
4 Dec 12 at 10:44 am
Whaaaat? That would mean our PM is lying… It couldn’t be!
ar
4 Dec 12 at 10:46 am
I’m an equal opportunity discriminator in denying board positions to both men and women, Sinc.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 10:46 am
Why does it not occur to people that maybe the number of women who want to make it to board level, and have the skills and background, just aren’t as equal in supply as the men? Getting to that level takes a lot of dedication and hard work over a long period.
Nobody discusses the gender anamolies in other industries, it’s always about executive level positions. Unless there is specific evidence of people being passed over due to gender, then it’s just a case of the outcomes reflecting the inputs. This is a tiny group of people in proportion to the workforce, and a very specialized role. Why not a study on gender imbalance in neurosurgery, or airline pilots, or any other specialized field?
brc
4 Dec 12 at 10:47 am
So you conform to the male stereotypes outlined by the PM in her speech.
Shame on you for your efforts ensuring wymmyn remain unrepresented at the decision making level.
Token
4 Dec 12 at 10:47 am
I can assure you, Token, that women make a lot of decisions for me in my house.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 10:49 am
It’s good that you listen to your mother, monty.
Gab
4 Dec 12 at 10:49 am
Good news M0nty
It makes a happy home.
So are you telling people some good news and confronting the 40yo virgin canard?
Token
4 Dec 12 at 10:55 am
Token, it makes me laugh the way people carry on with that meme. Far be it from me to interrupt their mistake.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 10:59 am
Anyway, back to the topic of this post… well said BRC.
Gab
4 Dec 12 at 11:03 am
In the real world the twin demands for “flexibility” and then equality at the executive level (which requires extraordinary sacrifice) can never be met.
I know it is not PC, but has there ever been stats on the # of men v women who actively state they do not seek the top rungs as they value a balanced life more?
Token
4 Dec 12 at 11:05 am
Just imagine the improvements missed by Raytheon Industries by not having gender equity in engineering and design.
(Apart from ordnance singing Soft Kitty at detonation, obviously.)
lotocoti
4 Dec 12 at 11:06 am
This sexism stuff is pretty outdated. Young girls today are brought up and educated at school with the encouragement that they can achieve whatever they want to.
I’m not sure who Ms Gillard is referring to in this matter, it seems pointless and 20 years out of date.
candy
4 Dec 12 at 11:08 am
Elizabeth Nosworthy
- Chair of Commander Communications = Bankrupted
- Chair of Babcock and Brown = Bankrupted
- Chair 2020 summit of sustainability, climate change and water = gone nowhere
- Director Ventracor = Bankrupted
- Chair of the Queensland Water Commission before the Brisbane floods. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/dont-be-irresponsible-qwc/2008/02/07/1202233989111.html
Max
4 Dec 12 at 11:14 am
Unfortunately it is a crutch for those who wish to excuse their own failing through the cloak of victimhood.
Too many times across may career I’ve actuall heard women who lose competitions for positions based upon hard work and talent trot out claims of a “Men’s Club”.
Having worked with the relevant candidates over a number of years it was clear the correct decision was made, yet the lazy and inept needed an excuse to run to so they could avoid facing the fact they needed to change to move forward.
Token
4 Dec 12 at 11:16 am
Gillard has set the feminist cause or at least the perception of womens rights back two decades. Playing the victim card in such a caustic scheming manner may cause employers/boards to think twice before engaging them, particularly those to very high profile positions. Thanks for nothing Julia, you selfish slapper!
Oblique
4 Dec 12 at 11:20 am
Funnily enough, every job (bar the first job) I held has always been in male dominated sectors. My gender was never a factor.
Gab
4 Dec 12 at 11:23 am
But, but, but. You are a man running a company. Where is the gender balance?
Sinclair Davidson
4 Dec 12 at 11:24 am
The reason that there are so few women at the top of the corporate food chain is down to two simple reasons.
1. They take fewer risks with their assets and careers; and
2. They work fewer hours than men (which also largely explains income disparity).
There are many more men prepared to work 6.5 day weeks, 7AM at work, 10PM home for 20 years than there are women, who don’t define their worth by what they do in the same way men do.
Over time the net effect of men who work all those extra hours and take risks that they learn from (especially when they fail) significantly increases their chances of ending up at the top when compared to others who don’t put in the effort – both men and women.
As an example, one could wonder why there are so many fewer women surgeons than male surgeons when men and women do equally well in their studies and graduate in roughly equal numbers? What you see is that women are choosing roles that have defined 9-5 work hours while men choose roles that are harder and thus more financially rewarding even though it involves many more hours. This explains why there are so many female radiographers, for example. It’s not discrimination it’s self selection.
At the end of the day society is better served having the people who’ve done the 20 years of 7AM-10PM, 6.5 days per week work at the top of its organisations than having politically connected women, gays, Aborigines or any other so-called disadvantaged group.
Jack Lacton
4 Dec 12 at 11:26 am
I work at an ASX 200 company and we have a woman on the board. She got there on merit, due to her outstanding track record. No need for quotas.
My sister, a Gen X’er like myself, was brought up to believe that she could have any job she wanted if she did the hard yards. She’s now a very successful stock broker and highly educated.
Many of the women I’ve worked with have gone on to have very successful careers, including one who is a chief executive of a fairly large company. None of the successful women I know play the victim card. They all got there due to their own efforts.
tbh
4 Dec 12 at 11:30 am
Instapundit picks up on another group that are descriminated from the executive level of organisation.
It is a disgrace, I tells which only popular mechanics has been big enough to address…
Token
4 Dec 12 at 11:30 am
Something I’ve noticed about the gender-feminists is that they don’t even bother claiming ‘equality’ anymore. Now it’s always ‘diversity’. Not merit, not equality, not ability just ‘diversity’.
I see they are very vocal about women’s quotas etc for directors roles but you never see them claiming diversity in other areas of life. No ones demanding quotas in the mines, the waste collection industry, or even the trades.
The way this mob carry on you’d think that males are all guaranteed high paying top jobs and for some inexplicable reason 99% of males just turn it down to do their preferred lower paid manual labour.
I was reading this gem yesterday (Changing the rules > The experiences of female lawyers in Victoria [VIC humans rights commission]) where they actually claim (page 43) that paying people based on billable hours has “…led to the embedding of systemic disadvantage for women in the profession”. So apparently paying people based on how much work they do – regardless of gender – is now evidence of discrimination against women.
Why is that I get the impression that modern feminism has simply become, “whatever women want is their right to have and everyone else’s responsibility to give”. Oh and consequences and possibility are not considered relevant considerations/limitations.
Luke
4 Dec 12 at 11:34 am
Technically it’s not a company. I just work for myself. I am 100% male, personally, but I apologise to no one for this.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 11:36 am
” But, but, but. You are a man running a company. Where is the gender balance?”
His mum still makes his packed lunch, cleans his bedroom and does his washing and ironing, surely this counts?
harrys on the boat
4 Dec 12 at 11:40 am
What?? When you could be creating job opportunities for women? What sort of selfish git are you?
Sinclair Davidson
4 Dec 12 at 11:46 am
The one that allows a snivvelling self hating beta male like you to run a “fantasy football” website yet still live a life of slothful leisure while never having to worry about who is going to shoulder you as a burden in your old age while making beta male snarky remarks about “subjugation and extermination” before stuffing another doughnut in your mouth.
That one.
twostix
4 Dec 12 at 11:51 am
To appease Sinc, just treat yourself to a female assistant or secretary, m0nts. And in true Emily Lister style recruit the one with the biggest tits.
harrys on the boat
4 Dec 12 at 11:52 am
You’re all class, harry.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 11:54 am
Julia Gillard, law partner – S&G: sacked.
Julia Gillard, chairman – Australia: bankrupted.
C.L.
4 Dec 12 at 11:55 am
In the words of a great Scotsman: I’m giving her all she’s got, Captain!
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 11:56 am
Thats the spirit. Never stop believing.
Infidel tiger
4 Dec 12 at 11:56 am
LOL – that is good. I’m going to use that line.
Sinclair Davidson
4 Dec 12 at 12:04 pm
You missed one:
Julia Gillard, President of AUS – collapsed.
Rabz
4 Dec 12 at 12:05 pm
Just a wild guess, but could this possibly be that the vast majority of competent, professional women aren’t prepared to put up with the long hours and family sacrifices that go with these top-level jobs, rather than simply systemic geneder-based discrimination?
Of course the Emily’s listers may argue that it’s still discrimination, and large businesses should make their CEO and Board positions more family friendly, but back to reality….
My experience in large corporates over several years has been that in the entry to middle management there’s about as many men as women, and that competence depends on the individual, not their gender. But by the time people get into junior-middle management i.e. in their early -mid 30s, many women have kids and take extended maternity leave, and when they come back to a similar role they have less desire to go up the ladder, usually because of insane travel and work hour commitments. They’ve also got less years of experience due to career breaks. So if the Emily’s listers what to even up numbers, rather than crticising the management of big companies, they’ll need to convince their sisters to be more career and less family focussed, and persuade the blokes to be more Mr Dad types.
I’ve also seen a bit of subtle reverse discrimination. Because there are so few women who are both willing to completely sacrifice family life and highly competent, when you get one or two they tend to get promoted to senior management very quickly. Often they’re more ruthless than the men.
papachango
4 Dec 12 at 12:06 pm
it would explain the non-executive director roles too. More family friendly.
papachango
4 Dec 12 at 12:08 pm
“where I’m sure that in a couple of years’ time I won’t still find myself meeting with boards where the only other woman is serving food”.
Odds on in a couple of years she won’t be in a position to meet anyone of note at all, let alone boards. She’ll be mainly talking to Tim.
MACK1
4 Dec 12 at 12:10 pm
Tell that to Big Joe.
Sleetmute
4 Dec 12 at 12:13 pm
How many women do you see in economics or engineering lectures?
How many lawyers (and we know women enrol more in law than they do in the above, and it is a pathway to management) end up practising as public lawyers or as retained legal advisers?
How many men end up as hairdressers, child carers or florists?
The world won’t change to the vision the Emily Listers have until people simply act the way they think they should.
What people choose to make them happy is what is right for them.
Gillard should learn that some people also like their jobs in hospitality, and it can be a great career towards building levels of wealth she will never control.
.
4 Dec 12 at 12:19 pm
A great summary. I asked for stats as it is clear the population of men v women with the necessary experience, time to commit to the work and ability to travel makes it statistically more likely that men make it to an executive position.
Give it time as the # of talented women with the necessary experience rises and we’ll see 10-40% of boards given to women.
Token
4 Dec 12 at 12:45 pm
Shut up monty
http://www.outrightusa.org/joomla25/about-us
Why is the LP and Outright against government funding of AIDS research and service agencies?
The answer to this is very closely tied to the fact of government over-taxation and of government bureaucratic waste.
FACT: Any time middle-men are added into any transaction, prices go up. The more middle-men involved the higher prices go.
FACT: According to the government’s own GAO reports between 60% and 80% of every dollar given to ANY department or agency of the federal government goes to pay for its overhead, salaries, and all the other expenses of its existence. Only an average of about 30% of each dollar actually gets used for the purpose stated.
FACT: We are a generous community. It has been proven time and time again that we give to projects and causes we are concerned about.
Think about this:
If you want to give one dollar to AIDS research, which way is better? OR, which way benefits the research more?
1 – through taxation — only 20 or 40 cents goes to fund research after the government takes its cut.
2 – through United Way — about 60 cents goes to fund research after UW and the middleman charity takes their cuts.
3 – through a charity funding research — about 80 cents goes to the research.
4 – directly to the research institution — close to 100 percent goes to fund research.
No One Wastes More than the federal government!
.
4 Dec 12 at 12:51 pm
Sorry, wrong thread.
.
4 Dec 12 at 12:51 pm
It’s like that joke:
Feminist: There should be more women doing maths and science.
Interlocutor: Are you doing maths and science?
Feminist: Shit no. It’s boring and full of nerds.
Dangph
4 Dec 12 at 12:52 pm
Why don’t feminists take their victimhood and war on women meme to other parts of the world where there is real discrimination?
Oblique
4 Dec 12 at 1:01 pm
Years ago it did feel a bit lonely being the only rep of the female tribe at various business gatherings even tho I was never a humourless feminist.
I thought these days the numbers would have evened up a bit.
Viva
4 Dec 12 at 1:13 pm
The only boards she’ll be meeting with in a couple of years time will be disciplinary ones.
Craig Mc
4 Dec 12 at 1:25 pm
papachino- your analysis is completely spot on. Children do not bring themselves up and most women I know want to be there for them while still pursuing a career.
Judith Sloan
4 Dec 12 at 1:32 pm
What percentage of sole traders are women? I suspect it’s a pretty low percentage. I would love to see some stats to prove / disprove my theory.
If I’m right, why is that? Is sexism so rife within our society that women won’t even hire themselves?
Sole trader stats, I believe, would be a fairly good proxy for how many women would want directorships.
BM
4 Dec 12 at 1:34 pm
@ Judith: There are alos some (many?), like my wife, want to be there for the kids whilst not pursuing a career.
Each one like her reduces the pool of available feminine talent that can rise to the top of the business world.
BM
4 Dec 12 at 1:40 pm
Very true that women are under represented in the upper echelons of business due to their unwillingness to submit to the demands of that level. I chose a few years ago to move back to a technical role from a lower level management role, and never regretted it. I didnt like the hours, the pressure, etc. I also have very specialist skills that I wanted to keep using, and they were no longer being used. Now as a mother, I am glad I made the choice. I work a standard 40 hour week and have time for my kids. Better that than the 50 plus hours I was working as a manager. I sleep better at night too.
I do beleive that if the number of women appointees to boards and executive positions is expressed as a percentage of possible candidates rather than the entire workforce, that they probably are fairly well represented.
dianeh
4 Dec 12 at 2:22 pm
…unless they foolishly join a union or choose to use unionised employees. In which case she’ll either set up a fund to shake down the employer, or turn a blind eye when the union management shag their way through the money. Then, sooner or later, someone like Ms Gillard will control their wealth.
brc
4 Dec 12 at 2:39 pm
Money rules all.
What idiot of a boss would pay more for a man if he could get a woman with the same abilities and pay her less?
Liberalism is a disease.. it’s shocking how the “women earn less for the same job” theory is accepted as fact the world over.
Quotas eh? How about we enforce quotas to ensure 99% of workplace deaths are not male? 50-50 sounds fair.
Or school teachers? Kindy teachers? Nah that wouldn’t work.. as the media tells us, every male is a potential pedo. Can’t let them near the kids, even on planes.
James X Leftie
4 Dec 12 at 2:49 pm
MACK 1, perhaps she wants quotas for women on Parole Boards.
Toiling Mass
4 Dec 12 at 2:51 pm
Why were Facebook, Twitter, Ebay, Paypal, Megaupload, and 99% of recent megacorps all started by men?
I know… SEXISM!!!!
James X Leftie
4 Dec 12 at 2:52 pm
I can’t believe the left carry on with this twaddle AT THE SAME TIME they tell us we should be less focused on money.
“I’m a CEO because I love my job”
Bullshit.
.
4 Dec 12 at 2:56 pm
You missed another one:
Julia Gillard, silent partner AWU WRA – went gangbusters for a while before it was able to cease business with all partners receiving a profit.
jupes
4 Dec 12 at 3:00 pm
As it is with the armed forces as well. This is what drove the decision to allow women into combat positions.
Smith and his cronies didn’t give a moment’s thought to combat capability, it was all about getting women into the top positions.
Smith even backed a recommendation by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to ‘fast track’ women into command positions in the infantry. Supposedly this will ensure the men respect women more. Yea right.
Can you imagine if they had let a sex discrimination commissioner like the current idiot loose on the Second AIF in WW2? We’d all be speaking Japanese.
We are led by numpties.
jupes
4 Dec 12 at 3:11 pm
Not equivalent, I know. But…
I’m trying to find that on the ABS site now.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 3:27 pm
If I read this spreadsheet right, there were 597,847 + 180,747 male full time sole traders (full time plus part time) and 181,944 + 255,211 females in 2011. This makes for an overall ratio of 64% male, 36% female.
m0nty
4 Dec 12 at 3:35 pm
It’s anecdotal observation only, but amongst the younger women of my acquaintance, online businesses which they can run from home have made it easier for them to be there for the fsmily and earn an income free of the hassles of travelling to a workplace and working for someone else. I know I would have done exactly that when my kids were small.
Megan
4 Dec 12 at 3:46 pm
Megan, I would have thought the exact same thing. I can only see more of this kind of thing occurring in the future, either in the form of sole trading, telecommuting and/or contracting. I already know several women who do this and many more who want to (Mrs TBH included).
tbh
4 Dec 12 at 3:51 pm
A lot of sole traders are plumbers, painters and decorators, taxi drivers, physical professions that women don’t generally engage in anyway. I don’t see that changing much.
candy
4 Dec 12 at 3:52 pm
And m0nty, thanks for bringing the data.
tbh
4 Dec 12 at 3:52 pm
As a matter of interest, how many housewives do you think would call up an electrician if it was a woman?
I live where a few tradies work on their own eschewing the IR laws and all the ATO fuss of employing an offsider or apprentice, fit out their vans ,advertise locally ,and off they go. There is no woman sole trader tradie locally that I’ve ever heard of!
Jazza
4 Dec 12 at 4:02 pm
Thanks Monty. Well, prima facie that suggests that women are half as likely to want to run a business than men. Far from a perfect proxy, but it does show a clear disparity in desire / participation between genders.
BM
4 Dec 12 at 4:13 pm
Close to 60 per cent of federal public servants are female.This gender inequality must be addressed and quota system for hiring males implemented.
Gab
4 Dec 12 at 4:17 pm
Fuck me. I am all for women serving in combat positions based on merit. That proposal that Smith backed was of course nuts.
.
4 Dec 12 at 4:32 pm
Sadly, physical fitness requirements for females in the ADF are lower than for males.
Gab
4 Dec 12 at 4:41 pm
Clearly it isn’t about actual equality, is it?
.
4 Dec 12 at 4:42 pm
nope and neither is it about merit.
Gab
4 Dec 12 at 4:43 pm
First two USMC female line infantry officer candidates just failed …..one day and two days into the 6 weeker.
Seems the 100lb loads a bit much for the sisters on rough ground.
Suck it up.
Smith will solve that prob by dropping the standards.
Alfonso
4 Dec 12 at 4:46 pm
You left out makeup artists, beauticians, hairdressers, pet groomers, dog walkers, babysitters, bookkeepers, cake decorators and whatever the latest craze in alternative health care is.
If you think there aren’t many women running sole trader businesses because they aren’t plumbers, well, your just not thinking straight.
brc
4 Dec 12 at 4:48 pm
Sinclair – I think you are being a bit harsh on m0nty’s gender issue.
I really think m0nty is female – after reading “his” many posts, I have come to the assumption that m0nty either has one or is one…..
Mr T
4 Dec 12 at 4:53 pm
Meg Whitman ran eBay for 10 years and grew it from a 30 person company into a 20 billion behemoth with 27,000 staff. She now heads up Hewlett Packard.
brc
4 Dec 12 at 4:59 pm
This is a commonly held belief however it is wrong, will never work and will destroy the Australian army as an effective combat force.
To be effective in combat requires male bonding. Putting a female in the mix will destroy that bonding no matter how physically fit she is (the proposed standard is a physical test).
You can have an equity culture or you can have a combat culture. Not both. No amount of feminist theory will change that.
jupes
4 Dec 12 at 5:00 pm
No doubt. He will use Comcare to back him up.
jupes
4 Dec 12 at 5:01 pm
There are nothing like enough women in the slammer. They are grossly under-represented and equity demands we have more even if we have to modify standards to get them there. I demand a quota!
DrBeauGan
4 Dec 12 at 5:02 pm
You base this on what?
.
4 Dec 12 at 5:04 pm
Jupes, wipe your mouth out.
Even now the wymmyns movement is planning to destroy the last of the all men only institutions (done in their Wymmyn’s only gyms and during their Wymmyn’s only swim sessions).
Token
4 Dec 12 at 5:04 pm
The take home from that story should be the groundbreaking attempt by the government to introduce reform. Instead the focus is on one idiot Tweeter.
Abu Chowdah
4 Dec 12 at 5:11 pm
I have experienced both male bonding and equity culture.
I also spoke to Blind Freddy about it.
jupes
4 Dec 12 at 5:14 pm
The USAF disagrees.
.
4 Dec 12 at 5:46 pm
Just enough time to load the ute with baked beans, bottled water and shotgun shells before the APS press-gang arrives.
Dr Faustus
4 Dec 12 at 5:50 pm
Meanwhile, The Slapper (had to borrow it, I love it) has just rewarded the deplorable Anna Bligh for her triumph in running Qld into the ground during a resources boom with a seat on the Board of Medicare. You go girls!
Tracey
4 Dec 12 at 6:19 pm
There is a difference between sitting in a cockpit and assaulting dug in enemy positions.
Nevertheless, pandering to feminist theory is one of the reasons the US can’t win wars anymore.
jupes
4 Dec 12 at 6:20 pm
Tracey it’s not as if there are any successful women or men in the ALP, so the inept get rewarded. It’s the ALP way.
Gab
4 Dec 12 at 6:25 pm
You’re spot on Gab. I lost a bet on this. My money was on her landing some useless high falutin’ job with NBN Co.
Tracey
4 Dec 12 at 6:30 pm
Gab, in Queensland it’s above 68% of the public servants are female. When I was at the DPC awards a couple of years back (when Anna was Premier) this was met with thunderous applause and cheers from the 90% female audience.
Apparently this was still a sign women were being oppressed becasue males made up a larger percentage of the top pay bracket. Nothing was said about males making up an even larger percentage of the lowest paid bracket (mostly Qbuild employees).
I think it’s still the most current ‘state of the service’ for the Queensland public service.
Luke
4 Dec 12 at 7:49 pm
I wonder how mOnty as been an owner-operator?
Tintarella di Luna
4 Dec 12 at 8:06 pm
“If you think there aren’t many women running sole trader businesses because they aren’t plumbers, well, your just not thinking straight.”
I know that, I’m a sole trader myself, just sayin’ there’s lots of physical jobs that women will never be attracted to and one can’t make them take those sort of jobs up for “equity”.
candy
4 Dec 12 at 8:14 pm
The USAF is arguably the most successful military force in the world.
It’s different to being a grunt but having fire and forget missiles launched at you with no armour plating and very large warheads and your fuel plus your own payload is a whole different type of bravery.
.
4 Dec 12 at 8:54 pm
And yet the Taliban remain undefeated after over 10 years of war. Go figure.
jupes
4 Dec 12 at 9:05 pm
Karzai has pleaded that the coalition ground forces should get reduced close air support. They acceded.
Go figure.
.
4 Dec 12 at 9:31 pm
Women are already in combat in sit down jobs.
This isn’t about A10 drivers its about infantry in a different universe where you don’t get home nights like the USAF.
Weak links are going to get good men killed in the cause of feminist ideology. So, sweetie better be able to carry 60lbs on a good day .,..water, kit, ammo, body armour and a SAW ( she won’t be ever carrying a SAW? Ah, I thought not). She also better be able to fireman carry a 180lb wounded Marine on her back for the move to safety ….. bullshit on a stick.
Alfonso
5 Dec 12 at 12:57 am
And yet the Taliban remain undefeated after over 10 years of war. Go figure.
What’s there to figure? Never underestimate the capability of a greasy guerrilla militiaman with a couple of hundred dollars worth of RPG when he’s got conviction, let alone when he’s willing to die for his cause.
John Mc
5 Dec 12 at 5:07 am
let alone when he’s willing to die for his cause.
And, unlike his Western opponents, doesn’t have to sweat about how many women and children he kills getting there.
Every one they capture should be executed and his corpse defiled and dumped in a village square somewhere.
perturbed
5 Dec 12 at 6:52 am
Your terms of reference are bollocks. You’re assessing an air force on its inability to maintain an occupation? That is not the role or forte of the USAF. When it comes to bombing the ever-loving shit out of tribesmen, the USAF is unsurpassed.
Concede that or be doomed to be classified a clown for ever more.
Abu Chowdah
5 Dec 12 at 8:02 am
I concede nothing and you can classify me however you like.
My original point was that women in combat positions will destroy the Australian army as an effective fighting force.
Dot reckoned they should be allowed in based on merit. I disagreed and he brought up the USAF, “arguably the most successful military force in the world”. Well to me, success on the battlefield means victory. I wasn’t saying that the USAF should “maintain an occupation”. I was pointing out that it can’t be too successful if victory can’t be gained against bunch of Afghan tribesmen. On the other hand back in the day, they were very successful against the Japanese. Maybe he should use another adjective to describe the current USAF.
jupes
5 Dec 12 at 9:23 am
Don’t overestimate them either.
Man to man they aren’t a match for coalition troops. Hence their main weapons are IEDs and suicide bombers. The reason they are still there is because we don’t have the will to go after them. Too many lawyers involved. Too much international law. Too much political correctness.
The US has the most powerful military in the world but hasn’t the will to use it effectively. And as far as Australia is concerned, it’s far more important to place women in combat positions than it is to defeat the enemy.
We have lost the plot.
jupes
5 Dec 12 at 9:33 am
No doubt.
But the problem is much larger than just physical ability. It’s the baggage that comes with it. Consider the extra problems commanders have to deal with e.g. sexual harassment, fraternization, equity complaints, privacy issues, pregnancy, double standards etc. How does any of that increase combat capability FFS?
This is all about getting women into senior positions. The majority of women who will join the infantry will be officers. They won’t be considered tough enough to play football with the men, but they will be leading them into combat.
The key to winning in combat is to esprit de corps. The men have to bond as a team with every member pulling their weight. If they don’t, there are methods to pull them into line. They won’t be able to do this with women.
The ADF used to exist to win wars. Now it exists as the forefront of political correctness.
jupes
5 Dec 12 at 9:58 am
“extra problems commanders have to deal with e.g. sexual harassment, fraternization, equity complaints, privacy issues, pregnancy, double standards etc”
Correct, but unquantifiable except in retrospect, so not an argument that can be easily demonstrated. Once women are in line combat roles it will be near impossible to undo, the Army will pretend /change standards to keep Govt social ideologues happy.
The deficiencies of women are physical and easily demonstrated during training.
That’s what anyone opposed to this stupidity needs to hang their hat on. The rest is accurate but speculation.
Alfonso
5 Dec 12 at 11:03 am
No, karzai ratfucked his own allies with respect to interdiction and close air support. He requested that the level of operations be wound down because it made him look bad.
See above.
Just do it on merit, 1/200 soldiers is perhaps a woman and the number is so low it isn’t a big deal.
The point the feministas would have to make wouldn’t be based on equality, but on privilege and they’d be ignored.
Look at perhaps the Caracal regiment of the IDF. Do they make exceptions? I’m thinking they would be less inclined to given the proximity to a real firefight.
From what I’ve seen they screen the women to see if they’re up to it and take the men on an as is basis.
.
5 Dec 12 at 11:11 am
Stop being a Emily’s Lister, Dot.
Women don’t belong in combat.
It isn’t even about physical ability (which they don’t have).
It’s about decency.
Plus, there are many ways women can serve militarily – as nurses, for example.
C.L.
5 Dec 12 at 11:26 am
???
Do you think women should be cops or firefighters too?
.
5 Dec 12 at 11:28 am
Speaking of the US Air Force… “Say It With Teal”
Distinguishing leadership in the military ought to be about military leadership – inspiration, initiative, mission accomplishment – not prevention. A good leader will do the right thing about all of the stupid human problems that come with a military. Dealing with sexual assault in the ranks isn’t a specialized-training problem, it’s a straight-on leadership problem; it goes to the character of the leaders and the command environment. It’s not a triumph to prevent it, or punish it; it’s a failure if you don’t.
Unless the Air Force starts putting aiguillettes on students who’ve gotten training in alcohol-abuse counseling or domestic-violence counseling – and I hope it doesn’t – the teal rope doesn’t fit with the other distinguishing aiguillettes as a leadership marker. Those markers should be reserved for leadership in the military mission or morale-enhancement (e.g., the black rope for student activity teams).
Yes.
sdog
5 Dec 12 at 11:31 am
Any man who would let a woman serve on the frontline should be shot.
Infidel Tiger
5 Dec 12 at 11:32 am
Most certainly not. Except in the clerical pool or domestic violence and rape counselling.
Infidel Tiger
5 Dec 12 at 11:34 am
No.
C.L.
5 Dec 12 at 11:34 am
I can just see someone like Gillard on the front line. Every time someone’d try and pull her up for something she’d go on a 30-minute screech about MISOGYNEEEE!!
sdog
5 Dec 12 at 11:36 am
I’d parachute the Emily’s List Squadron into Afghanistan.
Infidel Tiger
5 Dec 12 at 11:38 am
Penny Wong. Someone fucking meows at her and it’s a fucking National Emergency. Send her.
sdog
5 Dec 12 at 11:41 am
My problem is I am an idealist and I will get co-opted and ratfucked by the likes of Gillard.
That Hot Air article is saddening. The point is made in the comments that any sexual abuse case is used as a mallet to smash the military, from the left wing, feminist point of view.
Another comment notes that half of the accusations are false.
Harassment is a dubious ball of uncertainty. Most decent men and women with normal sexual relations or attitudes can arguably be accused of “harassment” of some kind as the definition is so vague.
The fact you’d want to burden the military with this crap is a sure sign you don’t care about its fortunes.
.
5 Dec 12 at 11:48 am
Where’s that excruciating youtube video of the Emily’s Listers rocking out? Oh yeah, they’d be a big hit with the Tally Band.
sdog
5 Dec 12 at 11:48 am
Yes.
Yes.
sdog
5 Dec 12 at 11:50 am
So we agree. Most infuriating is that the US agreed to their own neutering.
Oh but it is. Especially for the men serving with, or more likely, under the command of that woman.
We agree again. However this statement contradicts the one above it.
jupes
5 Dec 12 at 12:53 pm
No it doesn’t. You are presuming, perhaps correctly, that merit will be abandoned.
.
5 Dec 12 at 12:54 pm
Not always so, there will always be a woman who is physically fit enough to pass the training. And that is precisely the problem. The army has set a physical standard to join the infantry. Women will pass. It will start next year.
Correct on both counts. Which is why the army required a leader with balls to stop this crap when they had the chance. The ADF hierarchy failed them miserably. They didn’t even try.
jupes
5 Dec 12 at 1:02 pm
Dot, your house is burning down and your three year old daughter needs a firefighter to lift a heavy beam to save her life.
Wanna man or a woman on scene?
C.L.
5 Dec 12 at 1:05 pm
One of us has a comprehension problem.
My point is that regardless of merit, women should not be allowed to serve in combat positions.
Your point below supports my point:
And I agree that merit will be abandoned. If it hasn’t been already that is. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner recommended that women should be fast tracked into leadership positions in combat roles i.e. get promoted faster than their male colleagues. Not surprisingly Smith agreed.
Apparently having women in leadership roles in combat units will guarantee respect from the troops and lead to less sexual harassment. Genius. Idiots like me always thought that the more women in units the greater the chance of sexual harassment.
jupes
5 Dec 12 at 1:14 pm
See jupes you actually back up my point at 1.02 in your first para.
My family will probably die regardless as it is my preference to live away from civilisation.
I’d like it if they can bench, squat and deadlift [health lift] four plates a side at a minimum with a thick grip (two plates a side min for shoulder press [press]) and be able to do bodyweight exercises like wide grip pull ups, muscle outs and rope climbing.
Very few women could do this. It becomes irrelevant if objectivity is maintained.
.
5 Dec 12 at 1:26 pm
Seriously, what part of regardless of merit do you not understand?
jupes
5 Dec 12 at 1:33 pm
That’s your opinion.
.
5 Dec 12 at 2:18 pm
Well….I’m not sure what sort of halfarsed fitness is required for line infantry officer candidates in Australia but no woman in the US has been able to come near the USMC line combat officer physical standards.
The left will get the military it wants…all just part of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire…don’t take it personally, there is no way back.
Alfonso
5 Dec 12 at 2:36 pm
That’s my point, just don’t drop the standards. Ignore the feminists.
.
5 Dec 12 at 2:46 pm
Women can be very brave and very good soldiers, police or firies, or other ‘masculine’ things, as long as we have roles that recognise we are women, not men.
I’m with jupes and CL and IT and some others on this.
The crux is that we are women, have women’s internal body organs (strain more easily, different musculature etc.), and most importantly, we have female hormones softening and motivating us in ways that aren’t always obvious, nor always useful in a male context, nor always pleasant and tradtionally ‘feminine’ (they can make us very nasty, that is contextual; men get nasty in different ways). Our brains are female, they think female. There IS a difference and in hand-to-hand combat this difference matters (in the Boardroom it may well be useful, constructive, destructive, or not important – again it’s contextual, and comes down to the general idea of character, regardless of gender).
On a bit of a sliding scale, all men are hairy apes. My own Hairy Ape is Irish in nature as well as birth, and he does male things sometimes to the point of stupidity. The male bonding thing too is so real, as jupes recognises.
We were walking up to Wineglass Beach lookout on the Freycinet Peninsula in Tassie recently, and I stopped in a quiet spot to remove my bra which was digging in. At the same time a posse of older guys came around the rock below. Lizzie, says Da Hairy Ape, first you lose the map, then you spill your water bottle, and now you give dese poor old guys a quick heart attack ‘cos dey are already puffin’ …
They didn’t see nuffink, says Eliza to Prof Higgins.
Dey didn’t need to see, Lizzie, says da Ape sagely.
I am a man, he says, I know what dey’re t’inkin. Dese old guys were doing good till they saw you.
Interferes with male group bonding or something like that, is what he meant.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
5 Dec 12 at 3:24 pm
The prevailing leftist meme these days is that anyone should be able to do any role, but since they have a view that our “forces” should be more peacekeepers, social workers and builders than actual soldiers, they will complain every time things get untidy.
So we get women on ships where they shouldn’t be, women in harm’s way where in time they’ll be shot or used as hostages to good propaganda effect by those whose Rules Of Engagment (ROE) owe nothing to the UN’s fantasies.
First they want the women in there, then they want the men to behave like women. And nobody anywhere must get hurt, particularly so-called “civilians”.
Give me a break!
blogstrop
5 Dec 12 at 3:37 pm
Lizzie, aye. The women who served in uniform in World War II were braver than any USAF pilot dropping things on people from the stratosphere. They were braver than me. One of the things that irks and disgusts me is the notion that women serving in the military are just now being given an opportunity to shine as exemplars of courage.
C.L.
5 Dec 12 at 4:54 pm
There were indeed female nurses and spies that put up with brutal oppression or straight up terror and stared it down.
I think we’re better off not comparing braveries.
“Are cops braver than firefighters?” I wouldn’t even answer.
Every time you turn on a warplane the bloody thing can blow up.
When you are being chased by a big missile locked onto you doing Mach 4 with a 200 kg warhead and you have no armour plating with low outside air pressure, carrying thousands of pounds of fuel and munitions, you don’t have many friends.
.
5 Dec 12 at 5:08 pm
Tally-oh, old boy. How often does that happen in the 21st century?
You have an ejector suit.
C.L.
5 Dec 12 at 10:35 pm