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)