Procne, I'm of the view that while either men or women are fighting for their side and willing to dismiss issues impacting on the other gender inequality will continue. While some are willing to make the kind of generalised sexist slander against the other gender which I highlighted earlier inequality will continue. Sometimes the very things we dismiss are the things which contribute to our own concerns.

One of the reasons that women may be under represented at higher levels of the board room is interrupted careers. Not the whole story but I suspect a significant one.

The example I gave is important to some men but it also has a flow on impact for women. If gender is not the deciding factor in who's career is interupted then women with the drive to head organisations are more likely to be able minimise the impacts on their career of having children. Not much we can do about who carries the baby but after that we should be working to ensure couples can make the choices which work best for them.

With both men and women having flexible working conditions and similar access to leave to be parents couples may have better options available to them rather than being forced into the woman bearing the brunt of child raising responsibility because workplaces don't support fathers playing a more active role. A win win.

R0bert

With the risk of my head being cut off we could introduce affirmative action with Private Enterprise forcing the employment of females at the top level on the basis of sex rather than performance. We see it often enough in Government.

Perhaps the boys should drop out of this discussion - it's not about them, it's about the women who prefer to cast off their constituency once they appear to have triumphed in the cock-pit that is corporate life! Women who act in this way warrant the criticism that jocelynne made.

Biddy,
If men should “drop out”, then how can there be “gender equality”.

I think one of the 1970’s feminists summed up the real agenda when she described men as being “surplus to requirements”. Ironical how she then employed 5 men to carry out work on her recently purchased property.

It could also be the case with so many feminist groups that have very few or no men in them, and the Office of Women is a good example

But I have noticed so many feminists calling for the Office of Men, and Jocelynne Scutt is of course one of them, being so concerned about human rights and all that.

Dr. Scutt's criticism of how male-dominated corporations still operate is quite correct. In order for women to even be recognised as having achieved high status within such corporations they must always adhere to the male-dominated corporate image.

Dr. Scutt was not 'wingeing' but simply showing how corporate business still operates. In order to understand how it operates, simply change the gender from male to female and immediately one can see how power operates.

As Dr. Scutt says, the proof is of the women who do make it to the top are those who are seen as not 'rocking the boat' not bringing up women's issues or pushing that taboo phrase a 'feminist stance.' After all what has feminism to do with corporate business. Well everything actually. Irrespective women comprise more than half the global population, this little statistic is irrelevant when it comes to male-dominated and male corporate power.

The annecdotate concerning 'lower grade' women were not given the same lunch as the high-flying woman says it all. Translate this into white individuals being given a buffet of their choice with non-white individuals having to settle for sandwiches and immediately one sees there is discrimination. So it is with women who seek to enter male-dominated corporate businesses. The ethos remains the same - toe the male-dominated line or your career will fold.

One only has to change the gender of those in high power from male to female to see how it operates.

Somebody else raised the name of Gail Kelly and thats the first
person I thought of, when I read the article. Migrant, ex bank teller,
now future CEO of Westpac! Gail has clearly got what
it takes! The price of Westpac shares actually rose with the
announcement of her appointment. So much for people not trusting
women, IF they actually have ability.

Climbing the corporate ladder can be a messy business. It seems
to me that the author forgets all the men who try and fail at
the task.

People can rationalise away all sorts of things. How many women
who simply don't have what it takes, find it easier to simply
blame gender descrimination, rather then their own abilities?