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.