Come on Helen love, why don't you bring out some of your big guns.

You can prove that women are just as good at ripping off the poor peasants, when they get to run a bank, at least. So there's one thing they are OK at.

Then there are all those examples in the public service, & politics.

Then again perhaps not. They have not made great ministers, directors of public enterprises, or magistrates, have they? Hay they can be funny. Remember that water commissioner, caught trying to hide behind a column a while back?

Well then, there's all those state premiers, & even a PM to show off isn't there?

Whoops, perhaps not them either. Not one of them has been anything but an unmitigated catastrophe.

Back to the drawing board then love. You'll have to find some arguments not so easily shot down, won't you? Perhaps you could get someone like Singo to do it for you, takes a man sometimes I'm afraid.

Great post Rhian, it's a pity that articles like this allow the nuts on both sides to come out of the floorboards.

Hasbeen one can only assume you 12 year old trolling with that post.

Rhian

The byline to the article says: 'As employees women are superior so why after decades of debate is gender equality in the workplace still elusive.'

Yet, Helen Conway's actual words in the artice were:

'The surprise is that so few CEOs are acting on this economic logic. And that, after decades of debate, gender equality in the workplace is still elusive.'

Spot the difference?

Usually the OLO byline is to include a DIRECT quote from an article to give the reader an idea of what the article is about. Whoever wrote this byline has deleted the first half of Conway's quote and, I suspect deliberately, substituted this fatuously provocative wording.

Yet nowhere does the article ever make any statement or argument that even remotely refers to women as being 'superior' employees to men. The article is based entirely on statistics and reasoned arguments that reveal there is still a distinct gender gap in earning capacity - one that is proving stubbornly difficult to close.

I would very much like to know who wrote this deliberately deceitful byline, why it was written, and more importantly, who ultimately approved it.

There are no absolutes when it comes to male or female behaviours, only individuals who will be judged on their own merit.

The reason why 'outcomes' have not translated into the workforce is for many reasons often too narrowly confined to gender inequities.

Women are still by far more likely to stay at home for longer with young children and are thus are more likely to put a halt (permanently or temporarily) to career aspirations. Some women and men don't want 'careers' finding contentment in other pursuits including the home, voluntary work as well as paid work. Wearing a suit to work does not mean success to everyone. To many men and women work is a means to and end in reducing debt as well as an opportunity for satisfaction.

It is not progressive when there are pressures that would attempt to dictate everybody should fall into a pre-determined lifestyle.

This is political much more than it is gender determined and is based around a preconceived mindset of 'contribution' mainly around the confines of economics as opposed to other social perspectives.

Statements that infer women to be superior in the workforce is the same nonsense dished out in the past about female wantings, failings and limited abilities. Many of these assumptions are culturally based and are proven ridiculous over time. In both cases they are self-serving and are not rooted in reality.

There is a cultural pressure, subtle and overt, that some needing to justify their positions in the bureaucracy by spinning out the same old lines. There is great room for some creative and lateral thinking here particularly in relation to workforce and home as they affect both men and women (and children).

Rather governments defining the worth of choices (through biased and targeted policies) why not a flexible framework which provides options. Women and men are quite able to make the choices they consider most important in sharing work/life/home responsibilities in whichever way they see fit.

There are so many inaccuracies in this article I shan't waste my time responding to them. The only way to deal with this level of propaganda and indoctrination is to keep voting out Labor governments.