The article is thinly veiled socialism, marxist utopia.

When someone comes into my house they can 'raise the issue' of how l should rearrange my furnishings and way of life to suit THEIR agenda. But alas, l dont have to. They have to make me. Otherwise they can just settle for the supreme impotence of eternal complaint.

Amazing really, how these types will march into someone else's domain and try to take over. Its easier to hijack something than go out and make it for yourself.

There was an article in the paper some weeks ago about so-called 'mens sheds' and a read wrote a letter complaining how they dont accomodate 'shedettes'. How typical. Set up your own shed and give yourself whatever tag of self identity obsession suits you.

If you want a 'family friendly' work place try setting up your own business and LEAD FROM THE FRONT.

No one likes a cry baby back seat driver who nags you where to go instead of getting behind the wheel of their own cars.

A business exists to make money for its owners. Get used to the idea. Its not there to accomodate the personal agenda of self obsessed employees.

If you dont like the wheel... reinvent your own.

The magnificent Mrs Bligh is off to a good start as a high flying feminist.

“Contemporary women stand on the shoulders of those who led the struggle for equality of opportunity for women in social economic, cultural and political life," she said.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au:80/articles/2007/09/13/1189276877438.html

However she then excluded all the men in her cabinet to have a women’s only photograph.

I have never heard of a male premier excluding all the women in their cabinet to have a men’s only photograph. It is also rare for a feminist organisation to have any males in it, and only rarely have I ever heard a feminist say anything positive about the male gender.

The possibility that feminists can represent both men and women if they are in government or on a board of directors is as remote as flying to the moon without a rocket.

MLK: "It would be nice to think that women who successfully climb the corporate ladder will turn around and give a hand up to others."

It's quite naive to think that the corporate elite specific exclude someone based on their gender. Board membership is a bit of an in club, and because of the older age, typically a 'boys' club. However as women take on a more 'even' proportion of management roles, they will begin to be elevated to the most senior levels. Unfortunately the roles are typically given based on 'who you know' rather than ability (and doubtfully based on gender). Expecting female corporate leaders to act favourably to other women is nothing short of extreme hypocrisy.

"...but for women it can be twice as lonely because they don’t have a female corporate culture or history to draw support from."

I find the remark that women can only seek support from other women, or that they need some sort of girls club as quite hypocritically sexist: firstly that men can't support women and secondly that women are that needy

"Feminism IS about advancing women"

Feminism was originally about advancing women in a context where they were considered lesser to men. If you make it a "women vs men" issue, a quick look at history will show you who wins.

"...do have a maddening habit of seeing women’s social struggles as being all about men..."

I think it's more that some of us realise that many issues that feminist comment on aren't specifically feminist issues. The selection of board members is an example of this, and something that many people are excluded from for reasons that have nothing to do with ability.

trade215: "A business exists to make money for its owners"

Businesses exist at the pleasure of society. For the most part they are tolerated because a market economy is beneficial to society. But should society decide otherwise it can stop certain businesses from operating.

Girls clubs can influence policy to ensure equality of opportunity: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/09/16/1189881324019.html

"The navy paid $10,000 each for the sailors, aged 25 and 32, to have cosmetic breast enlargements, newspapers have reported.

Plastic surgeon Kourosh Tavakoli, who performed the operations, said the sailors claimed the breast enlargements were necessary for mental health reasons."

Desipis, business exist because someone made or had something and someone else wanted some of it or something like it. The communist thought they could control material wealth too, and ended with the worlds largest functioning black markets and grey markets ever known. People see someone with something they don't have and immediately it's a new desire. They're afraid their doing with out. That others have more.
Some people measure themselves by others achievements and status and demand that the world furnish them likewise. Some people measure their success by what they see next door and race to accumulate. It's the bases part of human nature and will always be trumpeted by a minority.

aqvarivs, slavery existed because someone decided to use their power to force others to do their will. We don't have to sit back and accept it as inevitable. There are many 'business' that today's society attempts to limit or control ranging from complete prohibition (slave trading, drugs) to government run (police, fire), through heavy regulation (health, education) and lightly regulated (food, clothing).

I am in no way advocating a communist economy, however part of the role of a government in a capitalist economy is to regulate situations where a free market will produce poor outcomes (natural monopoly, failure of market signals, tragedy of the commons, etc). If the government/society decided appointment of board members requires regulation (on gender or otherwise), then there is nothing inherently wrong or anti-capitalist/anti-business about it.

I was simply disagreeing with trade215's comments that implied because a business's primary purpose is profit for its owners they should be able to do whatever they want, ignoring other stakeholders (employees, customers, etc) and ignoring the damage done to the wider community through unethical actions.