Astounding rubbish. All we need now is Ludwig getting an anti-population angle in here. America is $14T in debt because they spent more than they earned and borrowed heavily off China and the interest is compounding.

I think the writer is having a go at the diversity industry, which as an industry is well meaning waste of time but probably better than having a non-diversity industry which is what we had from Federation until the 1970s.

I feel some heavy Iron John posts coming from the disaffected male divorce lobby. More power to your inner warrior or inner worrier.

Cheryl,

...make that 16.3 trillion in debt.

http://usdebtclock.org

I wonder if Cheryl ever stops to ask why it's so over whelmingly men expressing the disaffected divorce sentiments.

I suspect not, more likely those males concerns are dismissed with some stereotyping and a little misandry to keep it all ok.

Perhaps the affirmative action crowd could consider some quotas for achieving better outcomes for men following divorce. somehow I doubt that the same arguments as used to support affirmative action would be considered.

I'll start with a question, why as a single parent without a live in partner can I expect to recieve about 1/9 of the child support from my ex that I was required to pay during the period our son lived with her and her husband?

For the record, I don't particulary want their money, just a refund of the excess I was hit with.

The CS formulas are not specifically gendered, rather structured in a way that provides a very gendered outcome in a lot of cases.

R0bert

Oh Babette,
Here are some tips for how we could consider taking your views more seriously:
- don't start by telling us you can't even be bothered using a dictionary, an early warning that you are not planning on consulting any independent source that will confirm our current shared usage of words and meaning
- when you become increasingly irritated by pompous statements by CEOs, explain to us what your business qualifications are, so we can balance their knowledge and experience against yours,
- when you make a claim such as companies being the top 200 because women are not involved in the decision making of the organisation at least try to back it up with some data, or at least an argument as to how this claim is in anyway possible
- you appear to have failed to notice that the reasoning behind this is to some extent equity, but there are also very significant economic and productivity reasons to push for women in leadership
- some citation is helpful when you make outrageous claims like most households being dependant on male breadwinners, it makes me think you are living in the 1950s
- your comments about how are boys are struggling are irrelevant. I am pretty sure our boys are not struggling because we need more women in leadership. I have no doubt that we need to be concerned about why certain groups of men are faring so badly, but the men in jails are not the ones missing a gig on the board.

We do not have affirmative action in the country, apart from some very minor exceptions. We do have very uneven workplace participation amongst certain groups, and where minorities as constantly shut out of employment they have a right to ask why this is, and how they are supposed to survive.
But the CEOs are not talking about an of that. They are talking about good business. And that is what keeps a country financially stable, or not, sound business practice.

Once upon a time, there were males and females. Males protected the group and happily did their thing and babies were born and rared by the females. This situation worked well and everyone knew what their role was.

Evolution being what it is worked its magic and now there is mass confusion and bitter argument about what female and male roles are or should be.

Men marry men, lesbian women make love to a syringe to get pregnant, the battle between the sexes rages, women body builders and boxers look ever more bizarre and men very soon will perform synchronized swimming in the Olympics or perhaps speed-knitting.

Who is responsible for this calamitous situation, this attempt to force humans into unnatural, unproductive equality?

Off with her head, I say!

-There is an obvious imbalance between the number of men and women in leadership roles in both business and government.
-It is purest ignorance (And offensive) to suggest that men are somehow better leaders simply because they have testicles.
-The imbalance is unfair, inequitable and damaging to women but advantageous to men.
-Some attempt at changing that imbalance, the one that is advantageous to men, is presented as 'mysandry'.
-Balance between the genders is man hating?
-This is the level of logic we are supposed to take as a serious argument?
-Next you'll point at the sky and say "it's falling".
I'll take that statement just as seriously.

NaomiMelb,

- don't start by telling us you can't even be bothered using a dictionary

Obviously you didn't comprehend that was a dig at the recent redefining of misogyny.

- at least an argument as to how this claim is in anyway possible

I believe it is implied that simply picking the best person who applies for the job would lead to better results. If more men apply, this is definitely possible, and makes no comment on the abilities of men or women.

- there are also very significant economic and productivity reasons to push for women in leadership

Because women are better than men? What was it you were just saying about the author? If 4 men and 1 woman apply, you propose an even split will equate with a better result. So you're saying women are better than men.

- some citation is helpful when you make outrageous claims like most households being dependent on male breadwinners

I doubt it. Most households are dependent on male breadwinners. Females too. I'm pretty sure she never stated Wholly dependent.

- I am pretty sure our boys are not struggling because we need more women in leadership.

I'm sure you can comprehend what is being highlighted ie. That affirmative action is not employed in these circumstances, so why should it in this instance.

Geez, are you being totally facetious or do you just have terrible comprehension skills.

Mike,

-It is purest ignorance (And offensive) to suggest that men are somehow better leaders simply because they have testicles.

Who has presented such a case? Hyperbolic much?

-The imbalance is unfair, inequitable and damaging to women but advantageous to men.

For this to be true you must present a case that women are wanting to be CEOs in the same proportion as men. I fail to see how it is damaging to women not to be CEOs, but not damaging to men not to be primary carers.

-Some attempt at changing that imbalance, the one that is advantageous to men, is presented as 'mysandry'.
As a man I gain no advantage from other men being CEOs. It's just not in my life aspirations, regardless if I had the ability or not. Many woman probably feel the same; like me, their work life balance and family is more important.

Make one of these cases to me...

-The same amount of women as men are willing to endure a 6AM - 10PM work day, with lots of travel.

-Women are applying in similar numbers as men for all the powerful positions.

-Women should want to apply for these positions in the same proportions as men, but since they don't we should compensate for this fact by ensuring that other women less talented than these reluctant women take their place.

-It is better to have an equal representation of men and women than to have the most talented and suited employed in powerful positions.

I don't think you have much to worry about when women vastly outnumber men at university, but choose babies over boardrooms. Women are adults, and all the woman I encounter are screaming for a better work life balance, and more fulfilling challenging part time work, not to be a CEO working 6-10.

That is the job, 6-10. I accept that, and don't want a bar of it.

Good article. I too get annoyed the constant bemoaning of the income gap between men and women and lack of women in the very highest positions. It seems pretty obvious to me that the reason for this is that many if not most women are able to see the benefits in having a more balanced life, spending time with their families, working part time etc. The only thing that surprises me is how few men have taken a leaf from these womens book and followed that path themselves.
I am the only man I know who willingly works part time in order spend more time at home with my family, doing the things I enjoy. However, the down side is that my career opportunities are very limited. If your not prepared to work full time, there are few opportunities for promotion. However, I think its well worth it, and I suspect most women do too.

Thank you for articulating a topic that requires illumination, Babette.

The second wave of feminism has already achieved its goal: Equality of opportunity. This is why the 3rd wave have now invented new types of "oppression" in order to keep it relevant. Unfortunately, as you have highlighted, such an approach would see people not picked on merit but are chosen because they are a "victim".

The "Victimhood industry" is (to put in crudely) a cancer. It shifts the responsibility from oneself onto an imaginary "oppressive" structure. One no longer has to try and work hard to achieve one's aims, one now has to just cry "oppression" and this opens the gates for leniency.

The Greens, some sections of Labor, and the public service are saturated with this worldview. If the Liberals fall into this trap as well, then Australia will sink into a mire of mediocrity. The greatness that made the West what it is was created by individuals with willpower, vigour, vitality, and intellect. Take away the ingredients of what made the West such a success story and you confine it to the dustbin of history.

"The greatness that made the West what it is was created by individuals with willpower, vigour, vitality, and intellect," says Aristocrat!

They also had infinite greed, no conscience, little compassion, an exalted image of themselves. They were filled with racism, a consuming love of killing, and wanted above all else to have absolute power, etc.

David G "They also had infinite greed, no conscience, little compassion, an exalted image of themselves. They were filled with racism, a consuming love of killing, and wanted above all else to have absolute power, etc."

So did many other cultures/civilizations. European civilization just happens to be the target of anarchists, neo-Marxists and other assorted nihilists because it is currently top dog. There's nothing these people hate more than authority (unless it is them in positions of authority of course)

No Rhys, you're not the only one, I've pretty much been there every day over the last 9 years to pick up my kids from school and what's more my wife is now also self employed and working from home.
Note the language used by the gender griefers, "Affirmed", ""Empowered" etc ?
There's a difference between a strong woman and an empowered woman, a strong woman earns respect and prestige by her own agency, an empowered woman relinquishes her agency to another in exchange for prestige or favourable treatment.
An "Empowered" woman who wholly relies totally upon the affirmation and patronage of others is nothing but the embodiment of the archetypes around which feminist mythology is based, the armless Venus on her pedestal, the bird in the gilded cage or the hapless drudge of Dickensian folklore.
The public service and academia are full of "empowered" women who rely on the state as their patron, they are not strong women, strong women instinctively know they cannot and should not compete with men but accept that strong virtuous femininity and strong virtuous masculinity are always complimentary.

Aristocrat, what exactly do you mean by 'European civilization'?

The Europeans certainly weren't 'civilized' as they went out raping and plundering and occasionally fighting each other.

Currently the U.S. is the greatest raper and plunderer on planet Earth but its President has a Peace Prize.

Ironic, eh!

David G,
So give all your stuff to the Aboriginals and jump off a bridge if you feel so horrible about your history, or have you convinced yourself that you're one of those "Nice", "Progressive" Europeans? I'm convinced that progressives and Liberals are a different caste or ethnic group to normal diaspora Europeans, if not genetically Anglo Saxon they are ideological Anglophiles as the ideas of equality, liberty and the family of man are a peculiar anglo Saxon custom which the rest of us are unable to comprehend. How about we refer to you, the White Racial grievance crowd as "The English" to point out the difference between you and European Australians?

Houellebecq

The dictionary was updated to reflect current usage. If the author intends to provide her own definition, then the dictionary comment is unnecessary, and simply a wink to those who think feminists hijacked the dictionary.

-- I believe it is implied that simply picking the best person who applies for the job would lead to better results.

"This is an issue of equality, but it is also about accessing talent, improving productivity and realising economic opportunity for our businesses and country." Your assumption is incorrect, and there is significant research to back this up.

-- Most households are dependent on male breadwinners

Actually, according to ABS data, about 25%. That is not most. And unless the meaning is wholly dependent, then the argument makes no sense - you would seek to preserve the incomes of both genders.

-- That affirmative action is not employed in these circumstances, so why should it in this instance.

Because, and this was the only point of the story, businesses are more profitable where there is better gender balance. These CEOs are not redesigning society, they are concerned with business.

Interesting assumptions by many that this is about women whingeing. If you read the article, it is about CEOs acknowledging what makes a more functional business leadership. That includes improving gender balance. It is easy to say "hire the best candidate" but if they always turn out to be men, then you need to find out why that is. For the profitability of the business. CEOs are strategists, not social revolutionaries. If women are not gaining the skills to enter the highest levels of management, then there never will be female candidates to compete with the men.
Who knows? We might find out that it is because someone has to stay home with the kids, and so we end up with less capable men floating to the top, and more capable women staying at home. Surely it is in everyone's interests to have both parents involved in parenting, and in everyone's business to have the best skills running our companies.
If it were simply a matter of ability then we would not have such skewed outcomes, because as MikeIAzure notes, there is no reason to assume men just happen to make better leaders.
And Babette, I am sorry, but if that means a man does not get the job of CEO, does instead, a family still benefits. Just a different family. We have had enough corporate collapses to know that skill is important. Of course companies are going to try to find out why they only have one gender to choose from when it comes to senior positions. It would be irresponsible not to.

Imagine the outcry if women had to compete at men's level in order to make a living from tennis, hockey, basketball, athletics etc. Maybe like the army/airforce etc we could again lower the bar. The PM has set the Woman's cause back a few decades by such a terrible performance.

An interesting and very entertaining article; and with more than a grain of truth. Affirmative action in employment has been almost totally retrograde - essentially because it has been misinformed and misapplied. The target for affirmative action should be, and should always have been, equality of access to the means for acquiring skills, knowledge, wisdom and drive; in other words to appropriate education avenues. What one does with that access, is one's own business. Those who are determined can succeed; those who aspire to loaf, to leisure, and to less demanding pursuits will, or should, only succeed in those endeavours.

Certainly we still see some 'jobs for the boys' (Old School Tie brigade, family hierarchical succession, 'political' appointments, and inter-family 'favours'), but these are much in the minority in this much more competitive business world. Sometimes we also see 'jobs for the girls' - but these are mostly in politics, thankfully. These days, 'girls' who make it to managerial and executive level, lecturer, professor, magistrate or head of research, do so on pure determination and merit - and more power to them!

There should be no free rides, no free tickets to the top, no 'puppet' appointments; but then, it's an imperfect world.

Quotas and targets are an anachronism - except in access to educational and training opportunities and to healthcare - healthy body, healthy mind.

Recruitment bias remains appropriate in some sectors, purely on a productivity basis (guys should avoid jobs designing women's 'frillies', or aspiring to an all-male childcare centre.) Girls, on the other hand, appear to be equally capable, essentially, of tackling anything a guy can do? Can't immediately think of a reasonable exception - though there ought to be something?

Resources should be targeted at creating equality of opportunity; and not on cooking the books to meet some spurious PC objectives. Ability can win out - in an objective and fair playing field - to the advantage of all.

Better to accept one's capacities, predispositions and limitations than to waste one's resources and energy baying at an un-heeding moon of discontent.

They also had infinite greed, no conscience, little compassion, an exalted image of themselves. They were filled with racism, a consuming love of killing, and wanted above all else to have absolute power, etc.
David G,
Is the G for gullible ? The attributes you describe aren't the West's only. The West's other attributes are the Wet's only. They are helping & supporting others. Can you name one non-western society which has practised helping others on such a large scale as the West ?

individual, off topic but an interesting diversion. My impression is that most people are no where near the extremes decribed by David. A small minority are and were and to some extent the traits desribed are similar to those displayed by David, looking down on those from what is effectively a different time and or place and judging them on the basis of a narrow world view.

The 'others' don't matter as much as our own kind because their standards are not ours, be they natives of some far place, our own ancestors reviewed out of time or much despised bogans or some other group who its easy to pass judgement on.

There have been times when various cultures have taken self interest and rejection of the needs of the other to an extreme, I don't think that makes a case to suggest thats the norm.

Stereotyping others and viewing their actions and choices out of context just seems to lead to perpetuation of the extremes.

R0bert

NaomiMelb,

'simply a wink to those who think feminists hijacked the dictionary.'

Indeed. So you did comprehend, just pretended not to.

'Your assumption is incorrect, and there is significant research to back this up.'
I fail to see how such could be quantified. You would have to asses the abilities of women out of the game, and compare to the men whose place they would take, taking into account the cost of training and updating.

And the big one; assume there is Anything you could do to tempt them to get in the game.

My partner is pretty smart, but chooses work-life balance. So do I. She is more corporate minded, enjoys the game more, I'm anti-authoritarian so I am unsuited to the environment. Both of us could be higher in the pecking order, but she refuses to be away from the kids and I refuse to play the game and want the easy life. In short we are more competing over who gets more time with the kids, not who gets to pursue their career.

How you could possibly quantify the ifs and buts of getting more 'productivity' out of us I'll never know. It would take a complete change of workplace culture, a change I am certain would induce projectile vomiting by the supposed 'strategist' CEOs.

' you would seek to preserve the incomes of both genders.'

Not so. You would seek to preserve the income of the gender earning the most money. Mortgages have to be paid. In an ideal world the woman would be able to quickly take up the slack. Many wouldn't want to though.

'businesses are more profitable where there is better gender balance.'

Could it not be because they were lucky to find the right women in the existing structures, rather than just hire any woman they can based on a quota?

'if they always turn out to be men, then you need to find out why that is.'

Everyone knows why that is. It's called pregnancy. It's also about nature and nurture, and the proportion of women happy to sacrifice time with their kids, and the proportion of women able to find a partner who is happy to be the man behind the woman so to speak.

I don't see companies rushing to afford people the work-life balance that would enable women and men to equally parent and compete for leadership roles against people without such responsibilities or with a partner willing to take up the slack.

'We might find out that it is because someone has to stay home with the kids, and so we end up with less capable men floating to the top, and more capable women staying at home. '

I'm sure we do. But as I said, what are they really doing to change that! A quota will not change that.

'Surely it is in everyone's interests to have both parents involved in parenting, and in everyone's business to have the best skills running our companies. '

No doubt. But why would a company sacrifice immediate term profits, allow a 2 day a week manager, or even one that works 9-3, invest in the career development and nurse through a couple of people for the time in their lives when they have young kids just for another company to get the benefit of that. Surely they'd rather a good little corporate soldier who'll put in the hours, and when she leaves replace with another one.

I could see this investment working in the job for life days, but not now.

I could see this investment working in the job for life days, but not now.
Houllie,
You're right on that one. The want everything & want it now mentality of those new age females has changed the job for life days for many men.
Instead of a good woman behind every man it's now a male behind many males.
Shudder, shudder.

Instead of pretending that corporations are interested in obtaining a gender balance for its own sake at any level of their workforce – and imposing quotas in support of such pretence…

Why not reverse the imposition and impose a quota system for gender-balanced parenting?

It would target those most directly affected. Though to be fair, it may require mandatory DNA testing to establish paternity, but in the interests of gender neutrality we could pretend it's to also establish maternity.

A totally equitable system of 50-50 timeshare parenting.

Not to mention the fortune governments would save on funding child care – nor the reduced congestion without all those urban SUVs getting the little mites to and from kiddie prison or Gymbaroo.

Plus, with having to spend all that quality time with both their parents children receive an early and valuable life-lesson that you can't always get what you want.

AS a white heterosexual Christian male I think that I have become part of a new underclass that is automatically disadvantaged in any job application. Milton Friedman was highly critical of any legislation that divided people into winners and losers and this legislation is as bad as anyone can imagine. I am like a Jew in Nazi Germany or a black in Alabama (in the 1950s). Can't anyone see the fundamental injustice in this sort of legislation and the harm that it does to so many innocent people? They say that we should learn from history. Well we never learn from history.

Gadfly42
The record of women promoted is a dire warning- for example, Lawrence(WA), Kirner (Vic), Keneally (NSW)and Bligh (Q). And feminists, please do not argue they were handed a poisoned chalice, that condemns them as both stupid and incompetent.
And shareholders should fear the consequences for thir companies. Jackson would have destroyed Qantas, Lend Lease, previously one of the most successful companies, was brought to its knees, and Meredith Hellicar has inflicted eternal shame on James Hardie. Gail Kelly of Westpac seems to be one of the few exceptions.

Wm Trevor I think you are missing one thing here. The paternal instinct has only infested a small number of men, where as most women are sufferers.

About 90% of the men I know could quite happily go through life childless, & it could easily be over 50% who would prefer to do so.

It is almost amusing when she starts bitching that he doesn't do enough of the parenting, when he never wanted kids, & only went along with her desperate desire to breed in the first place, because he's a nice guy.

Start putting even more demands on these blokes, & you'll find they become less compliant in helping her achieve her goal.
You should remember the definition of pregnancy, to many blokes is "something taken seriously, that was only poked in fun". Make the consequences too onerous, & the ladies may find they run out of suckers.

It really does add insult to injury when after having a couple of years out of the work force, [& got way out of date], funded by some guy, she expects to come back as an equal of the now more skilled & experienced blokes.

thanks Babette, whilst I certainly think mysogyny is a more widespread problem than mysandry, I do think that both need to be dealt at the same time as from what I have seen, one is a cause for the other in many cirumstances.

"The paternal instinct has only infested a small number of men, where as most women are sufferers."

Can it not then be said that the business instinct has only infested a small number of women, and that's why women aren't in the top spots? Or is it sexist when done to women and no to men?

I would rather have the best candidate appointed to the board.

Francis clearly -- or perhaps, seemingly -- supports the concept of appointing a person on merit rather than any other attribute. Good. So her Endeavour Forum group will drop that nonsense about a "family wage" and fiscal favouritism of certain family types? After all, when merit is the criterion for appointment and subsequent remuneration, then fecundity is irrelevant. It is not employers' responsibility to subsidise the contraceptive failures of their workforce to the detriment of other employees.