This is an interesting thread. To me it's just further evidence to support the idea that the world could be a very different place if it were women making the decisions!

The debate's on track. It's rigorous and wide-ranging and there's very little in the way of personal attack, which is due in part to the civility of the male posters too of course, but the thread is definitely being driven by its feminist contributors. It's good to be part of a debate where you know there's always someone else there to step in and carry the baton. Go sisters!

And brothers!

To Vanilla, Fractelle, Romany, Passy, SJF, Danielle, Miacat, sajo, TRTL, billie and anyone else I may have missed - thank you, I hope to cross your paths on other threads, not that this one is dead yet by any means!

Bronwyn,

'the idea that the world could be a very different place if it were women making the decisions!'

At the risk of attracting Vanilla's wrath again, I refute this suggestion that the world would be rosy if women were in charge. Yeah I know you said 'different', but given the tone of your post and earlier comments, I think you mean better. Especially since you go on to praise the superiority of the female posters and thank your mates for backing you up.

To me it's the same as in politics. The minor parties like the greens don't have to make the laws or do any governing, and can bang on forever about all the government's mistakes, and be as idealistic as they like, as they know full well they don't have to make any tough decisions or actually run the country. If they came into power, I think it would be a very different story.

But you go on bigging up your nurturing and compassionate and cooperative women, and attacking all those nasty individualistic, competetive, dominating and military loving males.

You say you don't hate men, which is probably true, but the way you attribute all these negative characteristics to men and positive ones to women makes you seem quite female-supremacist at least.

I agree with you whole heartedly Whitty.

I too have wonder if Bronwyn is not a female supremist?

Bronwyn “To me it's just further evidence to support the idea that the world could be a very different place if it were women making the decisions!”

If you are going to make grandstanding statements like that I would suggest you qualify them

However, Margaret Thatcher got it right when she said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

(Margaret using height as a simile for all human attributes)

Men have generally grown taller than women.

I can imagine an army run by women,

the camouflage gear would co-ordinate and “military decorations” would be crocheted.

Not that it would matter, “Sorry girls, no tank battles on Thursday, PMT is setting in.”

The arrogance of feminism is it presume we would be somewhere else, without acknowledging that where that might be may not be such a (male influenced) good place as where we presently are.

Danielle:
"A survey should be taken of the numbers of women doing tertiary Business Studies, or MBAs, or Corporate Law degrees."

According to the census data, males make up about 2/3rds of those holding postgraduate degrees in the broad field of "Management & Commerce".

"The media’s influence on women (and men) is a problem."

Yet the media is influenced by those who buy what they produce, so its a cyclical issue where consumers create demand for sexist material. If the current media stop producing then someone else will come along and fill the gap to supply the demand.

"it is the companies who employ executive women, who demand they be extremely well-dressed"

They also demand the men be extremely well dressed too. Corporate-fashion menswear isn't cheap or easy either.

"You only have to see women struggling..."

You seem to describe a situation here where the woman is trying to have both an important career focus and be the primary carer of her children. I think it illustrates the freedom women do have when they try to have it all and are able to take on more than they can handle. Interestingly the census data indicates that a higher proportion of men (33%) employed full time engaged in caring for a child compared to women (27%) employed full time.

Bronwyn:
"To me it's just further evidence to support the idea that the world could be a very different place if it were women making the decisions!"

I'd argue the world would be much the same, but women would be very different. As Whitty infers, the culture and attitudes of women have developed within their historical role of carer and nurturer, where they were sheltered from the harsh realities of the world.

Vanilla:
"society would benefit if men and women werre represented equally on the average company boards — men and women are a natural fit, and skewing things either way creates a weaker orgnanism"

Here you infer that men and women are different, yet refuse to acknowledge that such differences may make one better suited to a position than the other.

Despisis: "Here you infer that men and women are different, yet refuse to acknowledge that such differences may make one better suited to a position than the other."

Sorry? Where did I refuse to acknowledge that? As you'll know if you've read my OLO contributions, my broad philosophy is the genders have natural differences - although, of course, each individual is a hothouse of exceptions. One of my major arguments with other feminists in recent years was the obscene blackballing of Larry Summers for saying men may, as a group, be better at the sciences. As long as those exceptional women are not discouraged from achieving, I don't dispute this may be correct.

What was it I said that led you to believe that? This is my problem with these gender discussions. If you're going to tell me what I think, or what feminists think, at least put a bit of elbow grease into getting it right.

Whitty: "At the risk of attracting Vanilla's wrath again, I refute this suggestion that the world would be rosy if women were in charge."
I not wrathful, I'm depressed. This sentence would seem to suggest that you really have no clue what I think.

"I think you mean better. Especially since you go on to praise the superiority of the female posters and thank your mates for backing you up."
I know. We like and admire each other. How sexist and superior of us! We just wanted to provide a contrast to Yabby's "bitches" in the pub.

James: "I too have wonder if Bronwyn is not a female supremist?"
Really? What an odd definition of it you must have. Jeez, the name-calling. A couple of posters have suggested I think they're sexist, or even misogynist. To be honest, I do think HRS is a bit problematic, but other than that... supremacist, sexist - they're such silly, old-fashioned words.

But what would I know! We women just sit on the sidelines!

Hot tip: read the Sunday Age opinion page this week.