"The government remains committed to a 40 per cent representation of women on government boards by 2015"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-face-mandatory-reporting-in-bid-to-boost-gender-equality/story-fn59niix-1226018435720

Why?

Well because the vast majority of inventions are made by men.

Then men develop a business based on their inventions.

Then men erect the buildings to house the business.

Then women want to be on the board of directors to run the business.

Why?

Well because they are not as good as men in communication, and about 75% of women want a male boss.

Poirot

From what I have seen, women are drinking alcohol, because they want to be intoxicated.

So why do they want to be intoxicated?

As I have attempted to explain to the "established failure" Squeers, quite considerable numbers of people no longer drink, because they are required to have 0.0 blood alcohol content in their bloodstream, or they lose their jobs.

They don't drink, so why do women drink?

There are brands of beer available that have nearly 0% alcohol content, but women don't normally drink beer.

So it will probably be left to a male to find a drink for women with 0% alcohol, and something they won't whinge, whine or complain about.

BTW. Does Camille Paglig know about risk assessment. If not, don't bother reading any more of her stuff, because its a waste of reading time.

Feminists by focusing on the negatives of male female relationships create a culture of suspiscion and fear.

Often female representation on company boards or in politics are used as evidence of inequality, however it is my understanding that many of those who are in such positions display characteristics of sociopathic and psychopathic personalities.

JamesH,

Anyone male or female who focuses only on the negatives of male-female relationships does a disservice. That's a human trait that some people of both sexes are equally guilty of. Infantile finger-pointing doesn't achieve anything constructive. As for constantly blaming "feminists?" That's like referring to the 1950s "John Wayne" image of American manhood. Today it has less and less appeal to both sexes. In today's society there are many alternative lifestyles and roles that are acceptable for both men and women. Our society is individualistic and highly open to change and experimentation, and men and women can explore a wide variety of possible roles. At least that's been my experience.

Bettina Ardnt wrote
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-women-arent-getting-it-in-the-boardroom-or-the-bedroom-20110308-1bmic.html

<In the lively debate about quotas, one obstacle to women's progress was conveniently overlooked.

While it is obviously true that the pointy end of the corporate world remains a boys' club that shuts out many talented women, there's also solid evidence that part of the problem is women's fear of rejection.

Few women are adept at the relentless self-promotion required to make it to the top of the corporate world. Most women are really bad at asking for what they want>

I think that Susan Faludi was a perceptive woman, who knew that eventually men would begin to question and then challange feminist propaganda, so she wrote backlash in an attempt I assume to try and counteract what many men would eventually do.

There was also another who was perceptive, I can picture her, but not the name at present, some of her material uncovered some interesting directions to explore, that she missed totally or maybe ignored because they would go in a direction that did not support the feminist direction of the time.

In the binary system of human interaction there is much that is bearly perceptable and difficult to measure or to even observe.

For decades the glass ceiling was created as an explanation of why women weren't on boards excetera, when the reality was that many women failed to even to attempt to reach for the lofty heights.

JamesH,

Many women may have failed to reach the "lofty heights," but at the same time there have been many who did try and are still trying. In corporate and other workplaces, women may find themselves promoted - up to a point. Why do women stop short of the top? Because they're not game to go higher? Or don't want to, as you claim? Not so.
There is strong evidence that employers perceive women as less able than men, and simply don't take them as serious candidates for promotion. Another reason is the perception by some employers of women's "traditional" family responsibilities which may affect their careers. Many employers consider pregnancy and child raising (dropping out of the labour market for periods at a time) as a risk not worth taking when it comes to promotions. There's also a kind of "old-boys" network (there is not an "old-girl" network to speak of). There are still many men who feel a woman should be at home, rather than hiring, firing, and ordering men around. There are many complex reasons for why things happen as they do. However, one thing is clear. Women in Australia do have trouble rising to the top. The few that have are a minority in comparison to the number of female graduates entering the professions. Of the country's leading coporations how many have female chief executives, how many of these corporations have a woman executive on the "fast track" to the CEO's job? This pattern is repeated throughout the economy. Women may make up a large percentage of the work force with the necessary qualifications and required experience - but they are a very small percentage of senior executives. And that as Joe Hockey stated on "Q and A" last week - has got to change. You see he has a daughter, and he'd like to see her have all options open to her as he would for any of his children. And that's how it should be - for both males and females.