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.