I don't support AA - I believe totally in merit based appointment; so it is my view that gender is an irrelevant consideration in the selection of a National leader.

However, this article does prompt me to ask why our elected members should reflect the national demographic? Aren't we all 'Australian'? Shouldn't our elected members be there to serve all their consistuants, irrespective of any secondary identifier? Strange, because I'm sure a woman can represent my interests in Canberra just as well as any man - it's her ideology and vision that I'm actually voting for.

We elect those who share our own ideology or vision for Australia, or rather, we elect the candidate from the party whose ideology or vision we share. Their gender is for most of us, irrelevant.

Brett concludes his essay stating: Despite the quotas and the pledges, what is it about party politics in Australia that prevents women from rising to the top? It’s long overdue that both major parties addressed this very question."

There probably is bias, and if so evolution and education wil fix it - eventually.

But thinking strategically, achieving a parliamentary gender balance or getting a female PM is a low priority.

More important is to address the ecological carrying capacity of this planet we live on - and our pollies still seem unable to govern beyond a single electoral cycle. Like Ludwig, I'm more interested in seeing a leader with the skills to educate the nation in embracing scientifically based approach to environmental sustainability.

Whether they are male or female doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

Opinionated2,

Thanks for your support of my opinion and your valuable input to the forum. Keep up the good work. One thing though, I'm actually a bloke. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Kind Regards
Tubs

Opinionated2, thanks for informing me that glass is transparent :)

All the women of merit that I know, have said to me that they have never even noticed glass ceilings. But then women of merit would go straight through them.

IMHO the AA issue is more an issue for women who think that they have merit, but thats not how others perceive them. Self delusion is a common human foible.

Yabs,

A 'rough and tough game', 'need a thick skin', not 'much good having people who break out in tears, when the going gets rough', a 'lot of women can't handle that'? I sincerely hope you were joking.

As a primary school teacher, I work in a female-dominated profession (mainly because most blokes I know don't have the balls to take it on). The women I work with are extremely good at what they do. It's not an easy thing working in oversized classrooms and dealing with out of control children and their equally abusive parents (who love blaming poor grades on anything but their own child).

Yes, I've never seen any female teachers break down and cry, quite the opposite. The standard of professionalism is outstanding. My best colleagues are females. I welcome you to spend a couple of days working in a classroom and see if you still have the same opinion on the resilience levels of females.

Nursing is another female oriented profession, a heart-wrenching job to see the things that nurses must see on a daily basis.

I reckon if women can handle these two professions then politics should be a breeze, shame the powers-to-be won't see it that way.

Tubley, your experience, teachers and favouritism, is void, it has nothing to do with merit but models and reflects “affirmative action toward teachers pets”.

How you decide to “do things” in your classroom is up to you (provided you follow the curriculum) and is completely alien to how business works (we do not have rotating corporate planners or general managers but people supposedly employed on their merits to be do the best job they can).

Your criticism of your peers, should probably be taken up with them, I am sure your insightful suggestions will be welcomed from a profession committed to honesty and fair-play in the education of the young.

As for “insults”, avoid serving up what I will, obviously, slap back at you and you will find there are no “insults”.

Yabby and similarly there are a lot more female nurses. However, you and I would not recommend we implement a program of “affirmative action” to get more men in to that role.

Seeker – yes and bugger the discontinuity and inefficiency impacts and training curves and costs for all these sops to PC and AA.

Opinionated2

“Tubley seems to have you beaten... you won't answer her,”

Responses to tubley are constrained only by the posting rules of this forum.
And “her” ! I do understand how you could be confused.

As for “women can do better than a man”.

Then let them, nothing I have suggested will hold them back, Merit is Merit, and is blind to gender, colour race of religion.

As one very able and competent woman said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

When ladies “have it in them to do so”, with all the other competencies they have, according to Opinionated2, they will run the country and will not need to skew the playing field with AA to do it.

Pedant Yep – If it is not on Merit, then there is no merit.

Tubley We all make choices, most blokes choose to do other things than hanging around with children

Yabby

Let’s talk about pregnancy and motherhood – things that I am eternally grateful that I will never have to experience first hand. They are in fact, the hardest jobs in the world.

Women are designed tough to handle such extreme stressors – something that makes the pressures of politics look microscopically small.

Please think about this.

Tubs.

And Col,

My statement is not void - your whole post is.