The issue goes deeper than what Mary has described about the gender imbalance amongst MPs. Although a look at raw numbers for their staff suggests that there is a majority of females this is misleading. Electorate office staff comprises many more females than males and have traditionally been lower paid (that has changed recently) and are seen by many as in less responsible positions (incorrectly so in my view).

When we look at ministerial staff and the 21% proportion allocated to the Opposition, we have to consider the portfolio (and its perceived ‘importance’ is as you describe for the MPs) and then the specific levels and roles.

Here the position is little better, if at all, to the gender imbalance of MPs. Worse in some respects as, in the Opposition at least (where I can draw on my own experience), there is greater potential and actual nepotism based on factional or tribal alliances - to the detriment of talent and capability. A little perversely perhaps, the result is that the female advisers are mostly chosen for superior skills and abilities, while too many of the male advisers would not get their position (or at that level) on merit alone.

My experience over more than 5 years is that the level of capability, experience and skills of the female advisers is measurably and significantly better than their male counterparts, but they are generally paid less, in the ‘softer’ portfolios and have to fight much harder to be heard. The reasons need a longer and more considered essay, but the what I outlined above reinforces this research.

We need to reinvigorate our efforts to ensure that the 52% female majority of our population gets 50% of our political representatives - Australia will remain the poorer in so many ways until we do.

SteveB,

the only way at present to get a 50% representation of women into politics is to rig the electoral system.

Politicans are voted in or out by the members to the electorate, the members of the electorate last time I looked also included female voters.

I suppose we could always bring back conscription and press the female gender into service as a politican.

There should be no quotas on getting women into anything. To achieve real change takes generations - trying to push things along faster just results in the reverse happening: women get in based on quotas, not skills. The idea is to achieve promotion on merit, not to discriminate against men (by excluding them from quotas). Yes, perhaps this means that women will need to put up with some more inequality for the time being. But in the longer term, those in charge will come to realise that they themselves are in a better position for employing the most talented person, no matter what their gender (or race for that matter). And if the one in charge is too dumb to realise this..... buggered if I want to work for that person anyway!!

The gender mix of parliament should only be determined by

The preferences of the electorate to choose who will represent them, based on the merit of the individuals promoting themselves for election, regardless of their gender.

All the rest is bunkum, the delusions and the petty jealousy which emanates from spiteful and retarded thinking and which will ultimately produce the stunted and mediocre outcomes associated with all affirmative action strategies.

For myself, I voted for Margaret Thatcher and thought she had balls of steel when it came to dealing with Labour Unions and the USSR and of course the Argentinians. It is a pity more men and women are not more like her.

She is famously quoted for saying

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib.”

She is also credited with

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won. “

That “rights” might have been achieved does not imply that all women are sufficiently resourceful or skilled to exercise them, hence fewer of them will stand for parliament and fewer will be elected.

Dearest Margaret did not see men as different to women, she saw only people, regardless of gender. When more of us view the world with Margaret’s wisdom (her gender, political and economic values), then we will all be better off.

One of her best quotes is pertinent here it is

“The woman's mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world, but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities.”

A “human” world – not a “feminised” one.

If women don't run for office they cannot be judged on their merit nor their skills, nor their personal charisma and all the other little attributes the public will "see" while making their decision who will best represent them. Lets not manufacture victims that didn't even show up to be counted. Nicolas Sarkozy was elected by a noticeable majority, including the female vote. Not Segolene Royal. Did women let down their side? And what of the men who voted for Segolene Royal? Damn turncoats.
The only place for sex in politics is in chambers with the whip. :-)
Snap. Ohhh! Segoleeeene

The fight for women's rights may largely be won, but the fight for women's equality has a long way to go.

The fight for women's rights was largely in the public sphere. The struggle for equality goes on in the private sphere as well. We still do 85% of the housework - no matter what hours we work outside the home. It is still expected that childcare falls largely to the woman - both in terms of caring for children at home, and in paying for childcare if we want to go back to work. Little wonder increasing numbers of middle class women are chosing not to return to work - why would they want to, when they have to work the "second shift" as well?

The problem is more complex than quotas - and FAR more complex than the simplistic suggestion that the reason why we don't have more women in parliament is because women have chosen not to "take up" our rights.

It's naive to suggest that in the long run "people those in charge will come to realise that they themselves are in a better position for employing the most talented person". If we don't find ways to change the culture that makes it extremely difficult for women to hold a top job and have a family - as acknowledged recently by Julia Gillard - we are never going to have a proportionate representation in politics, no matter how talented "people in charge" recognise we are.

Translation. Author isnt concerned about 'gendered' nature of parliament. She's concerned about which gender is driving it. No doubt flipping the gender roles would be to her liking.

Identity politics has no place in a mature and secure democracy. Its the stuff of insecirity and its a pity that it persists. There are much bigger fish to fry than the superficial identities of politicians. Who cares what their race, religion, sex, social or economic markers are. They're all irrelevant to the merit of ones actions.

In any event, so what if the dominant class defines culture. Its ironic that a white, middle class, blue-eyed is complaining about the cultural limitations of the entrenched power apparatus.

She's complaining about the lack of childcare facilites (a personal matter) in ones place of employment.

Have been hearing this complaint a bit lately, yet not one of these women is prepared to break some new ground, start a new business, provide a subsidised workplace and PAY for it (before passing the buck onto the consumer in higher prices). They always want to pass the buck. A quality amongst politicians that cleary transcends gender identity hangups.

This is thinly veiled marxist rhetoric, using business to socially re-engineer society so that the employer pays to care for/raise the workers children. Afterall, the family is the posterboy of male domination/patriarchial hegomony of women, thus, undermine that and the power of men will supossedly wither. Outsourcing childcare is a fundamental lever in challenging the ultimate power of society, namely the family unit. Marx recognised this, which is why he said that women are the primary oppressed class in society.

The implication is that class-based dominationth limits or compromises outcomes. Well, duh, its politics... its the art of compromise.

If it aint broke...

Rebekka, yep damn near impossible to hold a top job and have young kids. I dont dispute that. I am constantly trying to make my employer understand that right at the moment I dont want higher pay, longer hours, more responsibility. My family needs to take priority for a while. Then, I'll jump back in the rat race properly.

Its a matter for personal organisation more than anything. I honestly believe that any family with two high-flyers is doomed to failure. SOMEONE needs to nuture the family unit, take the kids to daycare/school, help with homework. Goodness, the housework can be outsourced, so thats hardly a concern. But 1 parent needs to take a backseat at least while the kids are young. Thats a personal thing for each family to work out. In some families, Dad cuts back, in most families it is Mum that does. That's just what is worked out. Doesnt mean that there is discrimination or the like, just that that's the way it is. Looking for problems where there are none will just make you an unhappy person.

The author says that "In the past, research has suggested that when more women entered parliament there would be a change in the policy making processes as well as more socially progressive policy"

This is stereotyping identity politics of the worse kind. Who cares what gender a politician is when the great majority of important political issues they have to deal with affect men and women, girls and boys. How smug to assume that women would be more socially progressive. Does the experience of women in political leadership overseas suggest a softer or more feminine approach from women – Golda Meir, Benazir Bhuto, Margaret Thatcher, Condie Rice?

No-one should get a place on an important policy committee simply because of their gender, or their race, age or any other demographic label.

Surely, by identifying some interests, attitudes and areas of expertise as characteristically feminine, views such as the author’s act to reinforce the “gendered organisational processes and practices” that supposeldy inhibit female political participation.

"damn near impossible to hold a top job and have young kids."

You mean damn near impossible for a WOMAN to hold a top job and have kids. Men manage it.

"Its a matter for personal organisation more than anything."

It's not just a matter for personal organisation. Society misses out because it's women who largely end up doing the unpaid work and therefore opt out of paid work. We have acute skills shortages. Women end up with far less superannuation than men - and particularly given divorce rates, we're going to end up with a lot of women who are unable to support themselves. This is a massive concern with an aging population. These are only a couple of examples of the issues.

"SOMEONE needs to nuture the family unit, take the kids to daycare/school, help with homework."

We should be encouraging SHARED responsiblity for these things through good public policy - not expecting one parent to do it all.

"But 1 parent needs to take a backseat ... Thats a personal thing for each family to work out."

Again, it's not just personal. The way it's worked out is affected by public policy, and affects our society. It's too easy, and too simple, to say this is a "personal" matter, and pretend the public and private spheres can be so easily separated - they can't be.

"In some families, Dad cuts back, in most families it is Mum that does. That's just what is worked out. Doesnt mean that there is discrimination or the like, just that that's the way it is."

And that springs from the fact that in most families the men are getting paid more, so it "makes sense" for mum to stay home. And that itself wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that women still get paid, on average, only 85% of what men do for the same job?

"Looking for problems where there are none will just make you an unhappy person."

Ignoring gender inequality where there clearly is some might not make *you* unhappy, but doesn't help anyone either.

Rebekka “but the fight for women's equality has a long way to go”

Define “Equality” ?

“Rights” can be legislated for.

Issues of “Equality” are subjective and emotional. Ones sense of “equality” is dependent upon ones self worth and the parameters against which you measure your relative standing.

Plenty of males know they are not “equal” due to physical stamina, intellectual prowess and social position.

A lot of people stand in the grandstand every week watching their non-equals parade around chasing a football and earning an unequal amount of reward.

Complaining about the differences which generates the “Inequality” which you ascribe to being a particularly “feminine” issue, is to ignore the patent fact that all people are “unequal” and hence, in elections, we can readily choose between them.

“We still do 85% of the housework”

Not in my household. I live alone and do 100% of my housework (occasionally).

Next you will be suggesting stay-at-home mums should be paid $150,000 pa for their services – well all you need to do is find someone who, in a competitive market place, will pay that amount and you will be happy

“no matter how talented "people in charge" recognise we are.”

In regard to “parliamentary representation”, the people “in charge” are those who get to cast the vote. Selling yourself to the electorate is as arduous for the male as it is the female.

Well said trade215

I’ve had a look at the equity department of QUT. I counted 14 females and 4 males. This was actually surprising, as I have seen a number of universities with no males at all employed in their equity departments.

And of course we have the situation where 4 out of 5 teachers in primary schools are female, and almost 80% of trainee teachers are female.

This now makes me concerned when university academics start calling for more equity in government.

It would be interesting to know how women would run government. Some actual policies would be good to know.

Hey any women who want to have a go and stand up for your community just go to www.tapp.org.au

from there send me an email.

Theres oppertunity if you want.

stuart

www.tapp.org.au

Rebekka, "We should be encouraging SHARED responsiblity for these things through good public policy - not expecting one parent to do it all." - spot on.

Unions and equality advocates still seem to be pushing for maternity leave with much more vigor than parental leave.

From what I've seen there is a massive shift underway in regard to acceptance of the idea of stay at home dads. Men are beginning to understand that the responsibility to provide need not outweigh the responsibility and opportunity for hands on parenting.

Dads are well represented doing the picks ups at my sons out of school hours care.

As for the 85% figure you mention I've seen similar before but when you dig a bit deeper you find that it is often selective. Traditional male jobs around the home are generally excluded (yard work, repairs etc), commute time is often excluded. Like most things the authors of those kind of studies put the spin they want on them. Other studies suggest that men do a greater total of work (paid and unpaid) - pick your preferred view and there will be a study to support it.

R0bert

I'm with Rhian on this one.

Some female politicians are right up there with Bill Heffernan when it comes to issues concerning women.

They're privileged positions in life has made them blind to empathy for those less privileged.

Yes, our country is under the control of a small group of tired, old, white men.

Where are the minorities? Yes there are a few but they don't represent our society. Look at the Cabinet, and Caucus.

JamesH is very naive. You have to be preselected to get elected mate. Who picks those people? Not the public, the Parties do. Every seat has women vying for preselection but they don't get a chance, especially the talented ones. They might actually challenge the tired, old, white men who cling to power with every ounce of their beings. For what? In the end, money of course.

Country Gal. If you have two high flyers in the family there is no family, just like you say.

Of course you can take advantage of the child care rebates aimed at these people, the people with high incomes. But you don't see those kids you had do you?

To those who bang on about women having to stay home to look after their kids, they don't. If they have a partner that is. Father's do the job just as well and are doing so in increasing numbers.

Those who decry women's roles in politics do think about it. Only those who obey orders get the nod. Full stop. Remember Amanda, that saviour of women's rights and now, spaghetti futures. Not exactly a champion of anything but Howard's policies was she?

You want equal representation for women in Parliament?
Simple.
Require all parties to field two candidates for each seat.
One female, one male (or equal multiples thereof).

Count the votes together to see which party wins.
Count the individual votes for the candidates to see which one takes office.
Be Democratic...Let the voters decide.

Has anyone stopped to ask the question of Why, as more and more females get involved in everything, and take on roles of power, the more and more strife is about the place?

What is the correlation between womens power and irrational behaviours in society. What is the correlation between womens control of say the health sector, and the abissmal statistics related to all things Health?

I suggest this would make a great thesis topic for someone in Higher Education (though good luck getting it approved in that female dominated sector), and is probaly one not tackled presently.

Other questions to be asked is just how much of the power positions on offer, are currently controlled by the feminist movement? What would be the result -socioecoomic- in a services economy, if (when) females became the dominant power in parliament? What will the male population be left to do in a martriarchal country/world order? Would warfare become a gender based occasion?

Should women be allowed proportional power?

Gadget, you may think that the Qld public service is a real disaster, after years of affirmative action has filled the halls of power with incompetent labor ladies.
Male public servants are promoted only to their first or second level of incompetence, but most of these ladies have made it to their 5Th or 6th now.

It may be bad, but you had better hang on, one look at NSW, where its been going on for longer, shows how bad its likely to get.

Does Beattie want to be replaced by a woman because he knows she will stuff up so badly, that his failure will appear less in retrospect?

R0bert, I'm afraid you are pretty much spot on the money. Pick a view then find a study to support it. Yes, it would appear that travel times and traditional outside jobs are often excluded from the unpaid work count. Also, watch that the 85% is not skewed by those mothers/wives that choose to stay at home. Really to be fair, we should only count working parents to determine whether unpaid work is equally shared.

Rebekka, it IS a personal matter. Dont denigrate women by insinuating that they cant choose nor negotiate. Yes there are plenty of oldschool views out there, from both men and women (eg my mother-in-law refuses to get a cleaner because she considers it "her" job), but you dont have to listen to them. If you take an outsiders views on your shoulders of course you are going to be unhappy. You need to negotiate issues with your partner. The more women choose not to have kids because they cant have a career too, the more men will be forced to play a larger care role if they want kids (and there are plenty of men out there that do want kids - its not an exclusively female desire).

When it comes to divorce and superannuation, court orders will require that super is split 50:50, so doesnt matter that husband's balance is higher initially. its then up to the woman to provide for herself after that.

Personally I choose to both work and be my childs primary carer (out of work hours). Why? Because I'm better at it, not because I'm female but because I am prepared to lay the boundaries that kids need, whereas my husband gives in. Financially we both contribute to the household running costs (in ordinary times), which includes the cost of childcare.

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.
Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

Aqvarivus

That quote from Margaret Thatcher pretty much sums up what I said in my previous post.

if we settled the major questions by referendum, and/or direct election of ministers, the question of gender imbalance would disappear. it's called democracy.

DEMOS, all the "major questions" have been answered and laws and practices in place. That a few feminist question why women don't rule the world, and suggest by inference that if they do not it is a conspiracy by men to subjugate women is tired feminist propaganda. That this type of behavior is rejected by most women should be conformation that thinking women are not going to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. I posted France's Segolene Royal as example whom women rejected as their leader and elected a man, Nicolas Sarkozy, by a noticeable margin of the female vote.

As for this nonsense that women will by their participation soften the world. Ha! There is already studies that show that as women achieve wealth and career position they are less inclined to be soft on any subject. Women are becoming a large part of the politically conservative strata.

Countrygal, I am not suggesting it ISN'T a personal matter, or that women can't make choices - I'm saying it isn't ONLY a personal matter.

And Robert, that 85% figure is for unpaid work in totality, not just indoor housework, and it's from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, not just some study. I agree with you about the parental leave though - good point.

And of course it's not true of EVERY household, to those who commented that they do less or more than this - it's an AVERAGE. It's certainly not true in my own household - I do way less than 50% - just as it's not true that all women earn less than all men. The point is, when you're looking at something that's a social phenomenon, you need to look at the whole of society, not just at your own set of circumstances.

The fight for women's rights may largely be won, but the fight for women's equality has a long way to go.

The fight for women's rights was largely in the public sphere. The struggle for equality goes on in the private sphere as well. We still do 85% of the housework - no matter what hours we work outside the home.

Posted by Rebekka, Tuesday, 8 May 2007 1:19:19 PM

Megan Daum (SMH) wrote; "If you're one of those women for whom the only hobby more satisfying than aromatherapy wreath-making is complaining about how men don't work hard enough, I'm afraid your lament licence has just been revoked."

"A new study by researchers in Germany, Belgium and the US asked participants in 25 countries to keep track of how they spent their days. Time was divided into four categories: market work (work that earns money), home work (housework and child care), tertiary time (eating, sleeping and other biological necessities) and leisure.

In affluent countries, men averaged 5.2 hours of market work and 2.7 hours of home work a day. Women averaged 3.4 hours of market work and 4.5 hours of home work. That means that the average total working hours for men each day was 7.9. As for women, it was, uh, 7.9 hours."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/why-a-womans-work-is-never-done/2007/05/09/1178390393820.html

Warren Farrell pointed out in one of his books how the data in research can be and is skewed to support a particular view point. He pointed out, that time spent travelling was often ignored in 'f.......' research.

But then who cares about intellectual honesty and facts when it comes to dissing on men and trying to make them feel guilty.

JamesH, Australian research clearly shows that how much work outside the home women do makes no difference to how much housework they do, or how much housework their partners do.

I don't say this to "make men feel guilty". I say it because it's true and because it partly explains why women are dropping out of the workforce in increasing numbers when they have kids. Of course it's not all men's fault - women contribute to this issue as well.

Why would you want to work when you're going to be responsible for the child care and the housework on top of that? Why wouldn't you choose to stay home, if you have the option?

But given that we spend money on educating women, and that we are facing skills shortages, and the problems of an aging population and not enough taxpayers, it's a no-brainer to say we need to encourage women back into the workforce. And this involves, among other things, having women in policy-setting positions. It also involved developing social policies to address the issues that are stopping women from getting back into the workforce.

I was working on commentary on the Federal Budget on Tuesday night (actually Wednesday morning, technically), when one of the men I was working with questioned why we were including any commentary on the child care measures in the Budget. Who cares? was his opinion. I asked him whether he didn't think any of our readers might have kids, and be paying for child care for them. He seemed to think it was completely insignificant - and he HAS kids. But like many men, his wife is obviously responsible for organising that side of things.

And like many people who aren't directly responsible for something, he didn't see it as important. Perhaps with more women in Parliament, the issues that are largely affecting women might be seen as more vital.

Rebekka, which ABS study are you refering to? The ones I've seen suggest a close correlation of overall work time (but generally indicating women doing slightly more)

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/DE84427EFEB3834BCA2568A9001393BD?OpenDocument

"The time spent by men and women was similar for necessary time activities and free time activities. Men spent almost twice as much time, on average, as women on contracted time activities (19% compared with 11%), while women spent nearly twice as much time as men on committed time activities (21% compared with 12%) (table 1). "

Also the Hilda survey http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/statreport/statreport2005.pdf
"The HILDA Survey data confirms previous findings that women still do the majority of housework. However, looking at the total of time spent at work, commuting to and from work, doing household chores and doing outdoor tasks, the total number of hours men and women spend in work related activities (paid and unpaid work) is very similar around 60 hours per week. Table 2 focuses on couples where both partners were working full-time at the time of their 2003 interview."

And
"Regardless of labour force status, more than half the men said they do their fair share of domestic jobs. Only 3.9% of men who were working full time said they did much less than their fair share of housework, compared to around 6% of men who were unemployed, not in the labour force, or working part-time.

It was much more common for women to say that they did more than their fair share of domestic chores, with 51.9% of women saying they did a bit more or much more than their fair share, and 33.3% of women who worked full-time saying that they did much more than their fair share."

Good point about our own experiences not necessarily being the norm by the way.
R0bert

l wounder how many men respond to these surveys.

Most of the proceeds of paid work goes into supporting a household (of other people), possibly making it effectively unpaid. Thats a deliberate twist of apparent, tho weak, logic to illustrate the manner in which things can be spun to validate an agenda. Set up and define the terms in ways useful to agenda. For example, the thing is defined in monetary terms (paid) as opposed to compensation (goods and services received). Compensation received (by those in unpaid work) is being paid for (by those in paid employ).

Work in the household might be 'unpaid' but its not uncompensated. Bills gotta be paid, else there will be no household in which to do unpaid work.

The whole thing is skewed by a scorecard mentaility. A bit like politics.

Another interesting aspect is who defines work and how do they set the standard/paramaters. The usual bone of contention l hear in these complaints amongst my cohorts is that the men dont do enuff of it to acceptable standards and that women do too much of it to an unneccary standard. Usually the man thinks the woman (unecessarily) does too much of it therefore doesnt value the extra bit. Sort of like someone coming to my house and mowing my lawn every 2 weeks instead of me doing it once a month, then complaining l dont pull my weight and handing me the bill. A man could busy himself doing stuff he deems necessary but that his partner doesnt, like spending the whole weekend preening his orchid collection (garden must be maintained) or tweaking and detailing a car. Thats an easy game to play. Essentially futile tho.

Its a personal control issue as much as anything else.

Women still do most of the housework (including working mums) and men still do most of the bread winning (including domesticated ones). Not much has changed there after 40 yrs of womens lib. Both sexes are equally complicit. Maybe most people actually prefer it that way. l dont, l do it all on my own.

But surely the point of the article is not who does the most housework? The "my gender's more put upon than your gender argument" is never going to get any of us anywhere.

For me, the base line is this; women's experience of the world is different from mens. Different, but neither more important nor less important. The trouble with the institutions where most of the decisions that affect all of us are made is that they are largely run by men. Bright men, some of them, well intentioned men, some of them, with perfectly valid views of the world. But, they cannot see the world as women see it, and so, without female voices raised to explain the way a particular decision may affect the female half of the world, we can get overlooked - and,sometimes, particularly in the past, we suffered because of it. I have told this story many times, but it is the best example I have found of how the female viewpoint can get lost, without a woman present at the table.
In the early days of Tel Aviv, a serial rapist was terrorising what was then a fairly small town. The Isreali cabinet discussed the problem and it was suggested a curfew be imposed to keep all the women and girls indoors after a certain time - to "protect" them. Golda Mier was the only woman minister at the time. She agreed with the curfew but made the point that as it was clearly a man doing the raping, it should be the men and boys who were subject to the curfew. A deathly hush greeted her response and the men quickly agreed a curfew was a terrible idea.
Even those with the best of intentions - of any gender - when they have no access to alternative voices can make very repressive decisions without ever meaning to. That's why we need women at every decision making table. It ain't about ruling the world, or governing men, its about putting our point of view.

Ena.
Is being female a political policy?

No one should vote anyone into a position of power unless they know their policies. It’s too late learning about their policies after they have been voted into power.

Voting a woman into power just because she is female, is basically voting someone into power without knowing their policies, (and history shows that this is a very dangerous thing to do).

There is also enormous gender inequity in the education system, but I rarely hear academics mentioning this. So its all rather suspicious.

Compare the salaries in the education system and politics, the law and business. Men don't go into education, by and large, because they can earn scads more money elsewhere, not because women keep them out. Why would women choose to dominate all the lowest paid professions? They dominate them because men -with exceptions, obviously - are not interested in them. Women take the options that are open to them, apart from a few exceptional women who get to the top, and they often make a considerable sacrifice, like deciding not to have children, a choice few men have to make.
Perhaps we will only have real equality when there are as many mediocre women in positions of power as there are mediocre men.
As for voting for people specifically because of gender, isn't that what we've been doing with men for hundreds of years? I vote for people who I believe will represent me, often they are women. Few of them actually get in, though - they rarely get selected for the safe seats.

Ena
It is extremely interesting that because there are many more women than men in most areas of education, academics have rarely spoken about the need to have more men in education.

I have long since stopped listening to rhetoric from politicians or would be politicians. Now I like to see clear cut policies that are written out, and I want to know exactly how they are going to spend my money.

You have suggested that women will offer an “alternative” voice, and I have heard other women say that not having more female politicians is a loss of “talent” and so on. To me that is not much more than rhetoric, and I wouldn’t vote for anyone just because they say they will give an “alternative voice”, or because they say that they have “potential talent”.

I need to see their policies, and need to know how they are going to spend my money.

If a woman or a man wants someone to vote for them just because they are a woman or a man, they would come last in my choice of candidates.

I could never vote for a woman. Only another man could ever understand my needs as a citizen and as a male. If a woman was elected she would be solely focused on women dominating men and we men would be further marginalized in society. You know, just like what all men do to women as soon as they are elected to office.

I've always found the housework argument a little spurious. Recent surveys showing an equal amount of work between the sexes don't surprise me. I also think women do far too much unnecessary housework- just quoting personal experience here but I’m sure I’m not the only one- I’ve been in a situation where I did an equal amount of housework as an ex-girlfriend, but she later listed all the tasks we did where she would diminish what I did and exaggerate what she did. It didn’t matter that in some cases she had simply redone my own work, or that she had been doing housework all night because she couldn't sleep, and then expected me to somehow catch up. An uncle of mine had a divorce with a woman who would vacuum the house twice a day, and give him grief for not doing enough housework. I think women need to look at why they find it necessary to have everything sparkling. Not saying men aren’t ever lazy, (my dad discovered just how much housework is required after his divorce,) but the housework argument can definitely be used as a tool for control and manipulation.