OP, <Chris [Kenny] argues that political or ideological diversity in the media is more important than gender equality. He believes the political right does not get sufficient airtime on the public broadcaster.

Chris bemoans journalists at the ABC who "all dress in black, park (and lock) their bicycles, lament the horrors of climate change, talk down the terror threat, mock Tony Abbott, barrack for gay marriage, laud Julia Gillard, pillory Rupert Murdoch, demand open borders, scoff at national debt and encourage tax rises".>

Chris Kenny is right. The ABC is the bastion of political correctness. Where would (say) gay marriage be without Tony Jones and others beavering away to give it oxygen over all these years?

He was kind not to mention the 'Gotcha', adversarial interviewing the ABC reserves for all those it disapproves of.

Even the Grand Helmsman of China, Mao Zedong opininated "Women hold up half of the sky!" . . . . perhaps we need a 60:40 ratio of women to get some 'sense' in parliament from time to time? However don't follow the 'parliament' of the Chinese Communist Party with Chinese characteristics which really is a charade about so-claimed democracy and don't you worry about freedom of speech, the recent banning of Miss Canada from being welcome in the Miss Universe titles held in China due to her membership of outlawed China Falun Gong, nor freedom of religion [as long as it is vetted by the Party and does not disrupt the social order], continuing organ 'harvesting' from convicted and jailed Falun Gong members who are operated on while alive, etc. Just ask our leaders to encourage China to buy more iron ore then we can all hop in the open cuts and emulate an 'ostrich with its head in the sand' or a pollie or a journo with either an axe to grind and/or a 'con job' to sweep under the carpet . . .

Informed, well-expressed and interesting opinions count. The gender of the author is almost always immaterial, unless the subject matter is directly related to gender issues.

I read Judith Sloan’s views on the economy because she is a capable and articulate economist, not because she presents a female perspective on economics (and I expect she’d be horrified at the idea)

But what about the elephant in the room CitizenInitiatedAction..the gendercide of girls in China ..since we are talking about discrimination against them...Surely a graver case than that of the Canadian Beauty Queen you mentioned? From Reggie Littlejohn of www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org

"Shortly before China announced its move to a two-child policy, Chinese economist Professor Xie Zuoshi of Shejiang University, offered a controversial solution to China’s gender imbalance. Xie estimated that by the year 2020,there will be 40 million more males than females.These males, whom he terms “guanggun” or “bare branches”, will never be able to find wives or have children. Xie sees this as an economic problem with an economic solution: Allow men to share wives..Professor Xie’s proposal is an outrage and underscores the fact that the largest social experiment in the history of the world – the One-Child Policy –has resulted in an unmitigated demographic and social disaster. Xie’s proposal ignores the fact that the reason there are 30 to 40 million more males living in China than females is that the females were selectively aborted – the ultimate form of discrimination against women. Now, Xie offers a ham-handed supply and demand analysis, with women as the ‘goods’. The women who survived this ongoing gendercide epidemic are expected to be wives to several men "
If I was Sarah Russell I would be writing about this, not trying to drum up an issue of gender imbalance among the writers in The Australian !

Thanks for the comments re the imbalance of females to males. As you would know this has had long cultural underpinnings and the policies of the ruling party only exacerbated the problem. I don't agree with it but as China would intone, 'It is an internal affair'
Another 'elephant in the room' in many nations relying on China to buy their exports, particularly Australia, is that it is deemed in 'the national interest', to sell out morality for economic benefit - some may call this economic/moral prostitution . . . however it is not new. Witness also the apathetic vested 'national self interests' of Australia and the rest of the world, led by USA President John Kennedy selling out the West Papuans to be 'absorbed' into Indonesia completed with a UN sanctioned 1,200 representative voting charade of the West Papuans being 'persuaded with dire threats' that it was in their interests to vote for their nation to be taken over by our 'friendly' neighbour Indonesia. So much for ethical actions on behalf of all of our national leaders who blithely echo John Howard's comments to Alan Shock Jock Jones "Do you want to upset the 200 million Indonesians on our doorstep?" America proclaims, when it suits them, "In God We Trust!" [not firepower] . . . Show me your faith and I'll show you my action!

If gender is not all that important, imagine if the ratio operated in reverse.

That is ... if 81% women and 18% men wrote the Australian's commentary in the days after the Paris attacks.

That is ...if ALL the expert commentary on terrorism was provided by female terrorism experts, not male terrorism experts.

That is ... if 14 out of 15 letters to the editor were written by women and only 1 by a man.

That is ... if female opinions accounted for 84% of commentaries on national security (male opinions 16%), 87% on international politics (and male opinions 13%), 86% on social action and 89% on the economy (and male opinions 14% and 11% respectively).

Such an overwhelming dominance of female reporting and opinion over male reporting and opinion - roughly 8:1 - would be no cause for concern, now would it? In fact, it wouldn't deserve even being remarked on.

All that REALLY matters is the individual journalist's competence and merit, not all this silly nonsense about gender ... doesn't it? Hmmmm?