Women are more than ready for the task and they always have been. Australian men are simply not ready for the task of handing over power to women.

Why else did it take so long for women to gain the right to vote? The right to be police officers and fire fighters? The right to play sport? The right to take the driver’s seat? The right to drink beer at pubs etc etc etc?

It is all so terribly lame. I do not feel that my ideas are in any way extreme. I'm not an alien and I'm not insane. I'm just a citizen of this country who expects fair and equal representation for those who rightly deserve it.

There is a distinct breed of people who for some reason persistently resist the emancipation of unjustifiably under-represented groups. Whether it is through fear or brainwashed machismo thinking – anyone who contributes to such repression will no doubt find their breed extinct in a hundred years time.

Opinionated2 ”Give it a break Mate”

Why?

Our “current load of pollies” are elected by the will of the electorate.

If you did not see merit in the person you were voted for, or comparative merit to those running, why did you vote the way your did?

I for one, would vote against any political party which used an "affirmative action" process for preselection, because I see “no merit” in such a process and thus be suspicious of the outcome of those they “pre-selected” and that is my right as a voter.

If women want to be elected, more of them should participate and stand.

“Forcing” gender based representation onto the voting electorate (as you suggest) is anti-democratic and likely, for reasons I have previously stated, to produce the less-then optimum outcome by potentially excluding the “naturally best for the job" applicant.

Your presumption to the process of preselection and blokes getting safe seats fails on the ground that, you alone don’t decide who is pre-selected. Take your complaints to the pre-selectors but hands off the process, the process works, because you don’t like the result is just too bad.

Oh, before you challenge my tolerance to women politicians. I am proud to say I voted for Margaret Thatcher in the 1970’s. Whilst she was unambiguously female, compared to Latham, Whitlam or Keating, she was more the “man” if we are to measure each on the basis of their capacity for “girlie hissing fits”.

Hasbeen, Yep affirmative action produces an inferior outcome for the sake of political correctness. It has to because that is the agenda, and the consumer / tax payer or any notion of “quality” driven service can go to hell.

From one who was there and was appraised of the alternatives, I think you would have found no shortcomings in Maggies “Meritorious” credentials.

"Women deserve to be represented by women so that Australia is seen as a truly reprentative democracy."

Opinionated, by your logic, as a male I then made a terrible mistake, voting for a female as my MP. Clearly I need to be more sexist, according to you, rather then judge her on her abilities.

I find myself in agreement with Col Rouge on the question of merit. And affirmaive action - At the same time I think the notion of Emily's list is a good thing in so far as it promotes womens profiels in these matters but it shoud have no bearing on selection at the end of the day.

There are countless worthy women out there - the pool of talent is not in question. But politics is a boys game - there are capable women who probably just dont want to play - and those that do are often marginalised. But affirmative action is not the answer to over come the problem.

Evolution, rather than any intelligent design so to speak, will bring women to the fore.

Col me old mate,

Sadly you sound like an old righty who probably can't understand the "merit" in affirmative action. The reason that men have such a head start in politics is a result of history. For many, many centuries women weren't allowed to be in politics. They were oppressed!

Finally a few women manage to fight the oppression by getting the vote and then a few others actually make it into the political ranks. Eventually you get a woman or two making it to higher levels bumping their heads on the glass ceiling. Do you believe in women having a vote Col?

Ever been held back due to your Gender Col? Do you understand the complexities of such discrimination? Was Keating there on merit?... Is Howard? ... Is Vanstone? ... Was Latham? See I know merit when I see it but if people in power are there without merit they probably can't assess merit BUT as they hold the power they can stop a persons progress through the ranks too easily. They can oppress merit!

And now you hold Poll tax Maggie up as your shining example. Wow! Wasn't she virtually thrown out of office?

Col have you voted conservative all your life?

If you refuse to vote for any party that has affirmative action as a platform then you are intent on never allowing women to fully enter politics. How will we ever know the merits of these women if they never get a chance? PLUS if that is the biggest thing that stops you changing your vote then how can you call yourself a thinking voter?

Opinionated2 “Sadly you sound like an old righty”

Would it be imprudent of me to ask if you are an old leftie?

I understand, perfectly, the merit in “AA” (Affirmative Action), not a lot to understand really - there is None.

Btw I don’t see AA as particularly a gender debate. It is a debate which transverses all and any human distinction, where one can either accept the

“best for the job”

or

“not the best for the job but deserving a break because of perceived extenuating circumstances or accident of conception”

I believe women should have the vote because they are equals to men.
I do not believe women should be given two votes to make up for historic deprivations.

Similarly, I do not believe boys should be made to wear heavy lead boots when running against girls, which is the effect on the “unaffirmed” in any “affirmative action” program.

Since you ask, whilst I may not have been held back on the basis of gender, I would suggest, without making a cause of it, I believe it probable I have previously been discriminated against by virtue of accent and school. I could get upset about it but prefer to consider the loss not my loss but the discriminating party’s loss and I am better off not associating with small minded bigots.

How can you possibly claim you know what merit is? Your posts announce you are not prepared to bring reasoned argument to the debate, only a prejudicial view which asserts AA as the only acceptable assertion.

“Maggies” demise had nothing to do with poll tax.

What has my historic voting preferences got to do with my position on affirmative action? The two issues were independent and any correlation spurious.

Me voting against AA! That was my considered choice, after I thought about it. Suggesting I have not thought about it merely confirms your prejudices and inability to recognise “Merit” in an opposing view.

Sneekepete yep, Evolution, aid by education, will ultimately prevail