What a strange little piece.

The style was presumably intended to be light-hearted ("give the tick to the chick"), but I suspect it will annoy and aggravate rather than gather support.

But maybe I'm taking it too seriously. It's probably just a bloke's idea of being snaggy, in a "youse sheilas are orright, I reckon" sort of way. The slightly sentimental waffle that comes with going home to the missus at the end of a night in the pub with the mates.

But just in case Mr Bagaric was being at least semi-serious, and not at all patronizing of "the fairer sex", there are several more aspects of this "give the girlies a fair go" approach which would need to be looked at before we take the plunge..

Are women actually prepared to step up to the plate in the sort of numbers that would make it possible?

How would we actually address the challenge of achieving the balance suggested?

Would we rely on the law of averages to get a balance in parliament, or would we divide the country into "men-only" and "women-only" constituencies, to ensure the right outcome?

If that didn't work, would we declare an election invalid if it didn't return a 50:50 split and, say, returned a 100% female parliament instead?

But hey, I'm probably taking the whole thing too seriously.

I would like to see more women in parliament but they should be able to compete equally with all other candidates. Women are just as capable but as the article points out are often hindered by the process of actually getting there. If we are serious in this then we should be changing the structure of the working environment eg. more predictable working hours, child care etc. Allocating quotas or other disciminatory mechanisms will only serve to belittle the success of women. We must be able to elect the best candidate for the role otherwise our democracy becomes a joke.

I believe that we will be seeing more and more women in government and other senior roles as men are starting to take a more equal share in child rearing duties - still a long way to go but at least things are moving in the right direction.

There are also many men who do not pursue a political career for similar reasons who would make excellent leaders.

Please do not refer to us as 'chicks' - it is insulting and completely undermines your argument that you believe women deserve respect. Or was this just an amusing little satire you dreamt up in the Boy's club? It is hardly appropriate language for someone who is the Head of a School of Law - glad I am not one of your students.

What a fabulous idea! Clearing the way for real thinkers and doers, I am all for that. I wonder at the idea that women can do it better however?? There is a highly selective process going on that removes from the running in the political candidate stacks, many very fine males as well, for all the same reasons mentioned by Mirko. In fact I would bet that clearing the way for the thinking, doing, compasionate girlz, and the thinking, doing, self interested boyz will produce an even better outcome, combining the best attributes of both genders when building leadership teams to run a Nation. Afterall, we need the highly motivated and competative male drive to compete Internationally, however tempered with the compasionate and energetic endurance of females to make it all domestically relevent.

If it means improved family and reproductive rights for men, I’m all for it. If I get to decide what happens in the home for a change, bring it on. Raising children - no problem. Housework and shopping – fine, in a minimalist sort of way.

But frankly, I can’t see it working. Men are bound to end up with too much leisure time, and be accused of enjoying themselves too much. Women on the other hand know they make better politicians then men but thanks to the paternalistic nature of social policy which they seem to want to keep, figure it is more to their benefit to stay out of the process.

The opening remarks “fact that the people who make all the important decisions come mainly from the wrong gene pool”

There is nothing wrong with male decision making capacities or capabilities. The “capacity” for “reasoned and analytical evaluation of choices” is a non-gender attribute.

Reading such a judgemental statement meant I have not bothered to read the rest of the rubbish.

“Real Men” realise “merit” is the only parameter that matters.

This bloke must be a pussy whipped nancy if he thinks such apologistic promotion of unequal values should be worthy of printing.

I don't know if women can do a better job of governing than men. I do know they are just as capable. That is just as capable of leading and just as capable of being corrupted by power as men are.

I know many men whose compassion exceeds that of many psychopathic women I have had the misfortune to encounter.

Whether or not one sex is 'better' than the other is entirely moot.

At least 50% of the population is not represented in the bulk of decision and law making. As human beings, women must be included in the policy making in business, in politics, in local government; across the entire human spectrum.

Until women achieve parity with men, we will continue to read patronising little articles like this which don't really make a positive contribution. Saying things like "women are more compassionate than men" isn't necessarily so and not the point anyway.

Mirko,

The way this is written reminds me of the Indian call centre people being taught "Aussie". I'm afraid your use of colloquialisms is extremely dated. People don't talk this way today, that was the 70's mate. The word "chicks" dates your "knowledge" considerably.

Regardless though the point you are attempting to raise holds much water.

Men have had control of the reigns for as long as history records human behaviour. With the results we all are aware of.

To me women are far more balanced in regard to political decision making, with the notable exceptions of Deanne Kelly et al. The women in government seats though have been specifically selected as airheads and represent no danger to the male incumbents who weild power. Amanda of course is an exception and, despite disliking her management intensely it is clear that management is directed from above by those same worn out old men. Without that grey man order I suspect Amanda would be a great politician.

Maybe women are too smart to tie themselves to party politics as those that do join have little power or say.

I say no to quotas and let everyone compete equally but the party system has to be broken as it is responsible for the lack of future planning and the dismal decisions made at all government levels today.

Tupperware sales will go through the roof at parliament house.

Jokes aside, yin and yang, 50/50 balance is ideal and if this happens great but if it does not through natural causes, so be it. Going along the same angle, if this is the case we should then have the correct numbers from each minority group represented and then, from each age bracket that correctly represents the population.

A trivial article realy.

If we tried to create affirmative action for women in parliament we would end up with plenty of whinging and debate, less things done, and it would be harder to progress especially on sensitive issues.

That is my opinion.

I love women by the way they are special creatures and i live with one, its just that she is the boss at home as with most 21st century relationships, i would hate for her to be calling the shots at the big house too, i would end up a lawn mowing, family visiting machine.

Women in power can be every bit as abusive as men. Given this and the fact that forcing a 50% women in power edict is NOT democracy, the eventual backlash to it will expose all the weaknesses that have kept women from equal rights throughout human history. The principal weakness which women are so coy about unveiling is that they have 3-4 times the environmental footprint that men have due to the inquenchable urge to bear children and due to their higher personal time and cost maintenances. This revelation will set the cause of equal rights for women back 100s of years.

Global economy moguls may well find marketing advantages in skewing the above outcome but that is not only undemocratic and environmentally unsustainable but everyone knows that the global economy will always be ruled by type A personality men on $1million per day bonuses. They will NEVER let a woman in to their ranks. Even if these moguls were to continue getting away with their nonsense, which is going to come to an abrupt halt with Peak oil, it would be a pyrrhic victory for women at best.

The concept of 'equal women in power' must ultimately come from democratic processes. It is rather like like a flower: you cannot force the petals to open lest you cause that flower to wilt and die.

And another thing.

The main reason global economy moguls are on outrageous $1million a day bonuses (which are so outrageous we have stopped even questioning it) is because it allows them to get laid with any woman they want.
That is the sole purpose of extravagant salaries and fame as aptly pointed out in one memorable scene in the film 'Deep Impact'.

Is that the kind of equality in society women really want to achieve?

Some of the comments so far lead me to believe that it is and some women are prepared to use whatever sex-in-the-city deceits it takes to get there. How low is that!

KAEP - I thought the posts so far were pretty much in agreement so who are you referring to with: "Some of the comments so far lead me to believe that it is and some women are prepared to use whatever sex-in-the-city deceits it takes to get there."

and your ecological footprint theory is just plain ridiculous.

"The concept of 'equal women in power' must ultimately come from democratic processes. It is rather like like a flower: you cannot force the petals to open lest you cause that flower to wilt and die." - that bit I agree with - good analogy.

This is feminism at it's worst. Affirmative action in the past has led to women being selected for various positions or awards on the basis of sex, not ability.

Bizarre...how about instead, we leave it up to the free democratic process of pre-selection and election to decide what proportion of our representatives are of each gender. I know, it's a weird idea....

Egads what tripe....at this rate of quality control, even I could get articles posted here.

As is usual - the claim appears to be that women are "equal but better", and they might need specific assistance to reach the same goals as men.

What contradictory rubbish.

Either you are stupid, or you are looking for a date.

>>....at this rate of quality control, even I could get articles posted here<<

Grey, even OLO has *some* standards.

It is not good enough to simply have a mandatory 50% of women in parliament. The Parties need to reach out and recruit more women.

Politics should be a subject at school which is mandatory, much as maths and english are, surely graduates from High School should know the rudimentory rules of philosophy of all current parties, so as they are able to cast an educated vote.

To disagree is to say citizens should not cast an educated vote, which to me, whatever party you follow, is absurd.

Alan Grey, Whitewombat, and Col Rouge - I like your comments (well...mostly your comments Col :)), you make me smile and after reading that article that is a good thing!

PS. I know chick rhymes with flick - but so does dick (which is what I tend to think people are who call me a chick!)

Scout,
How many corrupt women in power have you ever heard of?
How many corrupt men in power have you ever heard of?
My answer to the first is I can't remember any.
My answer to the second is too many to remember.

I don't think J Howard is corrupt but he certainly is not looking after our low income earners, he is certainly making things harder for them.

We need to look at the wealth of this country, but does not mean we should just look after the wealthy and forget about the middle and lower income earners. I am blessed to have my own business at the moment, and bring in a very decent wage at the moment, but if my situation changes I could be walking in someone's shoes, I would not have the negotiating skills to negotiate with a boss, I am only use to being the boss.

I agree "Chicks to rule"

They have a better reputation for honesty generally than us blokes, sorry fellow males.

More women in parliament ? Yes, for better balance. Both genders have much to offer. Present politics is still seriously imbalanced.

Mirko under-sells the positive contributions that men can make to public life, we actually do more than lift heavy things and drink a lot. In this feminist age it is popular to drag the male gender through the mud - as if Mother Nature got it all wrong.

That said, Mirko’s basic thesis is fine. Women generally possess many skills and virtues that are in short supply in politics.

I use the word ‘generally’ with good purpose. It is not a good idea to get into eulogising women as perfect. Early feminist language evoked smug female superiority, as if a female dominated society would be perfect in all respects.

Then along came Lady Baron Thatcher - the architect of a brutally exploitative global economic regime. And Madeliene Allbright. And Condolesa Rice. And Amanda Vanstone.

These women prove that, individually, female leaders can be as harshly brutal as any man. Feminism lost a lot of its smug superiority, and that was a good thing. If women work from a standpoint of gender superiority, then they would do little more than emulate the worst of male culture.

Yes, please let’s get a 50% balance in parliament, so we can get the best from the skills and attributes of both genders. But keep your feet on the ground Mirko

Well, serious or not, here's a serious suggestion.
The process for getting more women into the Parliaments can be both simple and truly democratic.
Require all political parties to stand an equal number of candidates from each sex for each constituency.
If the woman candidate gets more votes than her male partner then his votes are transferred and added to her total and vice-versa.
From there the usual election process continues.

The election would not only reflect the will of the people as to which party ruled but the gender make up preferred by the electorate.

Is Mise.

Heh Pericles...that's good to know ;)

Well a thread full of testosterone... Ms Gillard I think will prove the merit she has and is doing so already. There's a new day dawning men and ladies are going to lead.

I love people who argue merit ... they seem to forget that blokes usually didn't get there on merit either.

Are there any gender based merits to start with.

1. Men have two brains one in their head the other in their nether regions but only enough blood to service one at a time. lol

2. Women also have two brains their heart and their heads and both are serviced at the same time by the blood supply...lol

That has to be a plus!

Ah merit such a little word usually commensurate in size with the brains of people who argue it. There is an absolute need for merit but cut the crap fellas ... you're scared of women!

Now of course the old argument is always the same... feminism, equal opportunity & affirmative action got women into jobs that they weren't all qualified to do... and maybe at times that is correct... but the same has to be said about "menism" which got most of todays men into parliament without merit. How can you argue that merit is what got the men in when 50% of the population (women) were underrepresented. Were they the best person for the job when women weren't given the same opportunity? That's reverse feminism...lol The glass ceilibgf exists fellas... try being a woman, or black or disabled.

Why do women mostly get marginal seats to contest and men mostly get safe seats to contest? Merit? Nope!

Go women! We men have been running things for thousands of years and many are still thinking with their small brains not the one in their heads....lol White Australian men don't understand what it is like to be discriminated against and it appears they can't learn about it through education.

"lol White Australian men don't understand what it is like to be discriminated against and it appears they can't learn about it through education."

That is flat out brainwashed rubbish. I have been direct witness to a case when an award was given to a woman based solely on their sex and candidly broached afterwards. The other candidate was not only better in every facet, but more dedicated and more committed than the woman. This excludes cases where women have been selected because of their flirtations with their employer or potential sexual availability to their employer.

Feminism would have you believe women are the powerless victims of men. While this had some merit in earlier times, there is little use for it now. Misogynist is a word commonly thrown around by feminists, the kind of feminists or women who hate men. Anyone know what that is called? I don't.

Mirko admits that the reason women are "so grossly under-represented in politics and senior jobs" is "because they’re smart enough to know that more often than not the price to be paid for securing a high-flying position is too high."

But it is not just the process of obtaining political power that is a disincentive to family-centered women; it is also the tremendous burden such positions place on family life.

Hence, those women who are in Parliament as a group are disproportionately single, separated, divorced, remarried or childless and not that representative of the vast majority of women.

An indication of this is the fact that women MPs were more strongly supportive of abortion than male MPs in the recent RU486 vote in Federal Parliament, when opinion polls show the opposite to be the case in the wider population, i.e. women are more pro-life than men.

As quotas would give us more of the same (as the ALP has discovered), then for the sake of good government let's go the other way and push for all pre-selections in all parties to be based solely on merit.

If the system is broken, let's fix it rather than rig it.

Steel,

You were witness to "a case" where a male was discriminated against in your opinion due to gender. If women are promoted because of flirting well the men definitely are thinking with what I suggested earlier... sorry it proves my point. But a flirt may also have the skills and get there on merit.

Perhaps we should setup a scoreboard... I wonder where the most discrimination would be occuring... men discriminated against by women... or women discriminated against by men. I know which group would win!

On a radio show today it gave these stats... 10 out of 11 senior management and board members were men. It is just way too far out of whack with the rest of society. 51% of society are women!

I can imagine that women wouldn't necessarily want to be exposed to the abuse that Cheryl Kernot got. It allegedly took two to tango... but Gareth Evans got a key overseas position... Kernot didn't! Yep no discrimination there!

Good looking women will always have an advantage as do good looking men... I know I'm ugly...lol

Big Al... How can you think that will work? It hasn't in the past ... women get the cruddy seats... have a look at history. It would be lovely to think that at the branch level things worked so nicely but they don't. That is why laws are introduced to encourage change.

Next time you get together with a bunch of just your mates listen to what they say about women like Vanstone et al... not too pleasant! Now what do they say about a similarly built male... not much!

Imagine if Amanda Vanstone was in the House of Reps... would men vote for her? In the senate she has greater opportunity because she is on a Liberal Senate ticket in a certain position. Most people vote for the Libs so personalities, looks etc. don't come into it

If we are going to go this way, perhaps I should suggest on behalf of other under-represented groups that quotas be implemented.
Lets see, we have a diverse range of people born from different countries and cultures...we should have a minimum number of representatives based on percentage of the voting population each represents. AND Im a left hander....perhaps we need to address that too! At last count that means 20% of the seats need to be reserved.
For those that dont get my facietiousness, fake boosting of any group in favour of another is a) discrimination (illegal I believe) b) Highly unlikely to succeed since we may have to FORCE people to stand for elections to meet the quotas (Hardly democratic is it?) c) Doesnt reflect the political ambition of the targeted group. There is nothing stopping women nominating now yet they choose not to. I think they have already voted on this dont you? As an example look at the current lamenting regarding the fewer female candidates at the Tassie and SA elections.
Silly idea.....NEXT!

"Feminism would have you believe women are the powerless victims of men. While this had some merit in earlier times, there is little use for it now. Misogynist is a word commonly thrown around by feminists, the kind of feminists or women who hate men. Anyone know what that is called? I don't. STEEL"

The word is misandrist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=misandrist

AJNT

I understand your facietiousness but we are talking about 51% of the population... I think that is called the majority... so your fake boosting of a particular group argument doesn't apply. Was it a fake boosting when women got the vote? It was made law for a reason.. women not having a vote was inequitable & unjust.

Women have been oppressed politically for 1000's of years and deserve better representation in parliament. There is no force being applied here... it's called encouragement. If a woman can't be found for a particular reason then obviously a man would take her place... you could try a kangaroo but a man would be better....lol But all the merit based arguments are flawed from an intellectual stand point because men haven't necessarily got their through "merit". You can't have it both ways.

Now the next step in this long process is to increase women's representation within our parliamentary system.

That you say "silly Idea Next" won't make the problem go away... lol

AS lefthanders only represent 20% of the population perhaps we should put them down to stop them becoming a pressure group....only joking lol

In global politics and business, where relationships between communities, countries and leaders are formed or disposed of, here, where compassion and understanding are clearly required, why are women still overlooked as the natural sources of these delicate and necessary diplomatic qualities?

Leadership, strength of mind and even physical strength aren't exclusively masculine qualities.

Women lead as mothers and they bear children with mysterious strength. Instead of promoting our unique strengths and differences, our high-powered mental-emotional-social processes, our capacity for forgiveness, instead of placing importance on, and utilizing these attributes, we spend generations competing with men on their level. Consequently, our own expectations of ourselves, as women, are narrowed, since our uniquely feminine approach is greatly ignored as an ethically productive strategy, in a war-ridden male dominated world.

We got the vote, and that was hard enough! Slogging away at fair pay has been demoralizing. Tragically, generations of young women are instructed that in order to contribute any worth to society in business or politics, they must assume the posture and attitude of a man, especially when entering a male dominated work environment.

Affirmative action for women in governance and politics everywhere!

If you erect it they will come!

Well I guess we were right JessicaB.... All those merit based arguments fail the IQ test... Men weren't there on merit in the first place.

To those who argue the merit only line ...you see the simple things are always true... Think before you type of what might come back at you... If it is logical and simple to attack your argument then you are probably wrong.

Women are slowly but surely becoming empowered.

When it looks like there is going to be a war... sack the men and put women in charge... They will only go to war as a very last resort because they know someones sons and daughters will be killed. Their empathy will stop them jumping on the lets fight bandwagon.

Look at Georgy (War Hero) Bush and his side kick (Can I be a war hero too) Howard. Neither of them have fought in a war. But in they went boots and all and now look at the mess. Is it women who run the Muslim countries... No so muslim countries will automatically fight back.

If we don't get 50% of women in Parliament soon... they may go on strike... God what would the men do then?...lol

The Professor receives 100% for discrimination, and 0% for logic.

“come mainly from the wrong gene pool”

“While us blokes might not be that smart when it comes to the important things”

“For men politics is typically about themselves”

“blokes really are self-centred”

“Men on the other hand, are more prone to lying about themselves”

“We still have it all over the chicks when it comes to bragging, lifting heavy things and drinking lots of beer”

“whenever it comes to voting unless you’re confident that the male candidate is an absolute star, back the odds and give the tick to the chick and hope she hasn’t felt the need to think like a bloke along the way.”

Such statements are denigration and discrimination of a gender, and sympathies must go to the male students enrolled in Deakin University. But while the Professor has nothing positive to say about the male gender, he still maintains that 50% of Parliament should be made up of members of the male gender.

So there is no logic contained in the Professor’s argument, and he is simply one more University academic carrying out discrimination of the male gender.