Well written Mr Rouge, I couldn't agree with you more.

As for those who have expressed overtly sexist opinions regarding women being better suited for the role of politician, they may be correct. But this is not a good thing. It reflects poorly on the female sex. Today's politician is a subversive liar - manipulative, mendacious, smarmy, two-faced sociopath intent on self empowerment wishing to control others. And that's a pretty good description of the feminist movement too, by the way. But it's not a pretty or fair picture to paint of all women.

So surely they must be wrong.

And as for M' Tubley's opinions; an alarming example of expression that confirms my worst fears of the type of teacher that's corrupting the innocence of our children across the system daily - utterly frightening.

Lastly, for those ignorant of the history of universal suffrage in Australia, it may come as a surprise that at the same time that women got their vote, so did the majority of the nation's men too. Prior to that time only wealthy and educated land owners were considered worthy to vote. Most men didn't get to vote before that. Something of history that you'd think school teachers should know about.

"You chose a bad example. What happened to Clinton is a result of him being a floundering imbecile and a lier. In my opinion I think Hillary handled the situation much better than Bill."

Tubley, still today, Clinton is one of the most respected political figures on the world stage. His indiscretion of a bit of oral sex from an intern, would be laughed at anywhere else in the world but America.

What the whole Clinton story showed, was the 100s of millions that were spent by Starr and Co etc and the conservative movement, to try and get rid of him at any cost. In politics there seem no limits as to how low people will go, to destroy the opposition.

You might be thin skinned, but in general women are thinner skinned then men. Just compare who bursts into tears more often.

There are also good reasons why there are more male entrepreneurs then women. Anyone can become an entrepreneur if they want. Lots of women put their families above their work. Its the same with politics. Living in Canberra, away from the family, for most of the week, is not exactly something that anyone with a close family would really want.

New shop front "Male" Manequins

It seems both sides of Politics have been revamping their ministerial portfolios and this does not include representing 51% of the population of female constituants.

The reshuffle only outlines the inequality that women have gauged statistically as an ongoing problem for them and their roles in society.

As we move forward to the proposed change in legislation to our Industrial Awards, we will once again see a dilution of the issue and outcomes that consistantly support a fact that the female worker is underpaid and not respected for her abilities nor her contribution in overall profit.

This saving in its consistant form only serves to allow the management to pay themselves more than what they are worth and the value that they have given themselves.

This imbalance is also to the detriment of a Business and should be realised in the overall evaluation of useful productivity

Col, Congratulations you are almost there... but you need to address some problems with your theory.

"Do woman have equal rights with men to stand in public elections? – yes, balance". But as there is more likelihood of women getting a marginal seat and men getting a safe seat due to the way parties go about their business it is still unbalanced.

"Do men and women have the right to vote for men or women? – yes, balance" BUT again there is far more likelihood of a male being the candidate than a woman in one of Oz's major political parties - so still unbalanced.

"Do I have the right to ensure more men are elected than women? – no because such an idea is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unbalanced". And yet you are against any system that would improve the representation of 51% of the population ... that too is undemocratic, unrepresentative and unbalanced.

"Do you have the right to force men and women to vote for your preferred gender mix – no – because such an idea is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unbalanced." Gee
Tubley you must be a very powerful individual if you can force this...Ha! It's not forcing it Col... it's addressing the inbalance...

Maximus congratulations... with this line you may have shot Col in the foot "Lastly, for those ignorant of the history of universal suffrage in Australia, it may come as a surprise that at the same time that women got their vote, so did the majority of the nation's men too. Prior to that time only wealthy and educated land owners were considered worthy to vote."

And this is exactly the point we are making - the laws were changed to correct an inbalance so that all people got the vote ... It was done via acts of parliament not by a slow and gradual process of self correction. The same could easily be done to address the inbalance of women, 51% of the population, in our parliaments.

It seems there are a number of points being argued:

1. Affirmative Action is unfair as it sides with minorities – against a merit based system.

2. Women have equal opportunity and ability – so shouldn’t need assistance.

3. Merit is the only basis for advancement – so no other structure need be in place.

Addressing each:

1. Affirmative Action (AA) has been misrepresented and misunderstood. The original concept stated that when a position was to be given, based on merit, it was done with the following caveat – if two applicants are of equal merit in all areas of selection criteria and, at the end of the selection process, no differential can be made between them, except in the area of minority interest, then the position may be given to the minority applicant, with regard for a need of diversity in the workplace.

Note I use the word ‘may’. AA is not a given and only becomes applicable once the selection process is complete with no differential obvious. Surely, on this basis – diversity in the work place and all it brings – is a good reason to utilise the concepts of AA, when it applies.

2. Women, for the most part, have been recognised as being both capable and skilled enough to undertake almost all jobs ascribed to the area of men. I think it would be naïve, however, to suggest that a merit based system cannot and is not manipulated to obtaining the outcome desired by those, lets call them ‘lowbrows’, who do not yet agree with this position.

Most would also have to agree that some industries still hold back women – regardless of merit. That this happens does not mean we should automatically provide ‘a leg up’ to those cheated. But perhaps acknowledgment of the abuse, and addressing through AA, may lead to an ‘outing’ of the abuse process which may lead to a subsequent improvement in the process.

Perhaps this is the point of AA. Rather than reverting to the imposition of an ‘imbalanced system of equity’ – as some suggest AA is

Cont…

- it is to be used to highlight the times when prejudice sways decision making, rather than merit

In fairness most would have to agree that AA has been used to unfairly advance – as an appeasement – thus causing the not wholly unwarranted resistance to the concept. However, if applied in its truest meaning, this is also an abuse of AA, which should also be rightfully challenged as wrong.

3. All things being equal, merit is the only basis for advancement. However, it is safe to say that, in this world, things are rarely truly equal. It would seem that this is the point some make. If all things were equal, no one would require AA. Since they are not, the concept of AA appears to have a place, in promoting more equitable advancement environments in workplaces, while contributing to less prejudiced views of minorities.

As the concept of AA applies to ‘minorities’, I would say simply this, regarding the idea of a minority.

To be classified as a minority, one must be in the minority – that is, outnumbered. Race usually comes to mind. That women, who make up roughly, if not more than 50% of the population, this does not make them a minority. It is only when taken in context of the work place demographic that they become such.

Until recent times (circa 30 years ago) women were not actively choosing to work and build careers. Such a dramatic social change actually takes time – both for the effects of the women’s choice to take part and for the attitudes of some men to adjust to being less prejudiced and open.

This also applies to a world that grants people the ability to move almost at will. Attitudes to ‘foreign’ peoples, which come with built-in prejudices, will also require a term of adjustment.

I do not say that this should not already have been achieved. However the human race is, well, only human and may take longer than could perhaps be reasonably expected.

Please, be patient and try to help rather than be divisive.