Women can be on boards.

Governments can also withdraw funding from organizations that have minimal or no representation of men, or exclude men because they are male.

Governments can withdraw funding from teachers training colleges that have less than say 40% male trainee teachers (and on average teachers training colleges have about 20% male trainee teachers).

Governments can withdraw funding from universities that do not equally advertise their courses for male and female students.

Governments can withdraw all funding from universities that do not have equal numbers of men and women on their equity committees.

No political party should receive any taxpayer funding if they do not have a policy for men as well as women.

Government spending on men and women should also be equal, and a major investigation be held into the obvious gender biases in both the family law courts and the normal legal courts.

Governments can also introduce gender vilification legislation to remove feminists from society that denigrate the male gender (as a big stick).

The list can continue.

Has there ever been a more intolerant and self-deluded group than feminists? I especially love this line:

"The legislation attracted extensive and vociferous criticism from business, just like children throwing tantrums when forced to do something they don't want to do."

So if arguing for policies you prefer and resisting ones you object to are the hallmarks of a child - what does that make you Kellie? The most spoilt brat in Australia?

What is wrong with women that they need Governments to enact laws to get them into positions? Why do companies have to be bullied into having a certain percentage of women on their management boards?

Has it something to do with this author, Kellie Tranter, who thinks it’s OK for governments to ‘punish’ naughty companies who don’t employ women, just because they are women, and then complains when the companies behave “…just like children throwing tantrums when forced to do something they don’t want to do”?

Come on girls. Stick up for yourselves. Or are you really so incompetent that you can’t get jobs without preferential treatment by thuggish governments interfering with firms’ hiring processes?

I hope any women on Boards prove to be more competent than the pathetic performance of most of our women judges in this nation.

This is the destructiveness i'm talking about with feminism, that lies at the rotten core. It's absolutely outrageous that someone can make such a contradictory statement and have it pass for an intellectual argument or debate (let alone make a law). Feminists of course do not care what is a rational argument no matter how intelligent they are.

I've said before they are working away at our government behind the scenes (much like the religious) and here is evidence of it. In Australia we have a discriminatory Federal Office for Women and Federal Minister for Women's Interests. Both must be abolished. Or the word People inserted to replace "Women". Or a Office for Men and Federal Minister for Men's Interests has to be created.

Dadgum femin-eests. Only board a woman should be on is the one that goes with the iron.

HRS,

I like your list.

After 40 years of tantrums by feminists, I think we still have a long way to go before we reach equality. When I walk into a doctor's surgery and am not bombarded by posters asking if I have had my papsmear, had my check for breastcancer and HRS therepy. If I can walk in and find a men's magazine rather than Cleo, Women'S Day and what not, then I might feel like my health is valued too, and going to the doctor's is ok.

But the real yardstick will be when feminsts chuck their tantrums about the difficult and dangerous jobs men do. Take the war in Iraq for example. More than 3000 US soldiers have been killed, probably 95% of them men. When feminists jump up and down and say why aren't women getting blown up at the same rate as men then we really might have achieved equality.

dane
"why aren't women getting blown up at the same rate as men?"
BECAUSE WE ARE IDIOTS!
Why men live less years than women?
BECAUSE WE ARE IDIOTS AND DO NOT CARE OUR SELVES!
Why men students are minority in European Universities?
BECAUSE WE ARE IDIOTS AND WE THINK WE WOULD HAVE OUR PRIVILEGES FOR EVER!
Why women have a second sift at home?
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ENOUGH MATURE TO UNDERTAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES!
Why mainly women care the children?
BECAUSE WE DO NOT LEARNED TO BE GOOD, RESPONSIBLE FATHERS!
Why women work mainly part time or in low paid jobs?
BECAUSE WE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN!
What can we do for real equality between men and women?
PROGRESSIVE MEN KNOW WHAT TO DO! THE PROBLEM IS MAINLY WITH CONSERVATIVES! USE YOUR BRAIN!

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Wow, what a daring proposal. And arch conservative Spain even sees the merit!

In Australia it would cause much gnashing of teeth. How else to reward good mates with a few nice little places on boards of companies? What to do with ex pollies and ex CEO's? There are only so many ambassadorships that can be offered.

The men who offered their anti women opinions on this thread are of course entitled to their opinions. Different opinions are welcome, it allows the examination of one owns opinion. The fact that no non-emotive argument could be used for an opposing opinion, even though it appears to be enacted in Norway for purely economic reasons, doesn't do anything except support the dire need for more women on company boards.

Don't worry boys. It's unlikely that any of you would miss out on a spot on any board, even an ironing board. Some ability to articulate and handling very hot items (the iron) without burning oneself is a minimum requirement.

Yes, what we need is lots more women in management, in private industry.

Then it would be like the public service. Havent you noticed how much more efficent it is, than private industry. Thats because affirmative action has shoved lots of ladies up to their 10 level of incompetence.
The health department springs to mind.

Industrial management may even become as good as our water commission. Now, wouldn't that be great?

There could be a very good reason why females have never (or almost never) ruled in any society throughout history (of *all* types). Think about it a little. Defying the natural order may have terrible consequences.

Lots of interesting comments from some males.

The same males who squeal blue murder that Domestic Violence awareness campaigns focus on men being the main perpetrators of physical violence. How do you propose females are kept in their place if you can't slap them around a bit and create legal and religious laws based on the very things that make a person a female?

The reason Steel, that women rarely ruled in any society, has to do with physical power being translated into legal power. It has nothing to do with brains. That little myth has been laid to rest.

Female entrance to high end university courses, from medicine to law is outstripping male entrance from Australia to Iran.

Well said, Antonios and Yvonne.

The disgruntled boys in this discussion should do some homework to learn something from the research that has been done in this area.
You can start by paying attention to what Kellie Tranter says,
“…the group of companies with the highest representation of women on their top management teams performed better financially than the group with the lowest female representation.”

There is a reason why companies do better when there is a good male-female balance in all functions. Yes, it's all about an even balance, nobody is suggesting that companies should get rid of males altogether.
BOTH sexes are necessary for a company to perform best.
Companies that have a much greater concentration of females would do better to balance their staff out with more males, as well.

A professor at the Swiss Institute for Management Development (IMD) explains why sex diversity works: Males and females behave differently because of their social-cultural, biological and neurological differences.
For example, men are often more task-oriented and competitive and focus on results, while women often have more feeling for context and are especially good at interpersonal relations.

Each individual approach has its own pros and cons, but when both converge, the company has access to superior qualities such as more innovation and creativity, which results in a better performance.

Notice that the women don't deny that they need special treatment or positive discrimination to get the jobs. It follows, with a few exeptions, that they cannot compete.

For starters, Mr Right's argument contradicts HRS's constant bleatings about how hard done by men are. If indeed it's about being able to compete, then HRS, clearly men can't. Mr Right's argument appears to be 'suck it up.' Perhaps you should take his advice.

(Dang, I told myself I wouldn't respond to HRS's hysterical anti-feminism, but I just couldn't help myself this time).

yvonne makes a good argument about the tone of the responses here. Honestly, just calm down and take a few deep breaths.

I'm a bit torn on this issue, and I haven't really decided how supportive I am. I'm not really keen on forcing companies to have women on boards, but I do understand the merit in this argument.

The point is, the male culture is entrenched. Women are less likely to get on boards even when they are more qualified and capable.

Ideally, yes Mr Right, they should get in there on merit and yes, theoretically companies who select the best will perform the best.

But despite all that, it's still entrenched, and many companies aren't selecting women even though they would perhaps perform better. If they're performing reasonably well with a majority of men, why would they decide to take a chance with women, even if they could do better.

I wouldn't mind seeing some experimentation here - if a few companies voluntarily took the lead and put in these policies, and we were able to observe the results.

Anything which does not rely on merit is not going to produce the best outcomes.

Affirmative action, racism and nepotism have a lot in common,

nepotism favours family connections,
racism favours racist connections
affirmative action favours some other “subgroup” connection.

Personally, I believe only in merit.

A joint stock company has its voting rights allotted to the people who own it and who risk their investment funds in it, not the general public nor the state.

The share holders alone should elect the directors they see as being best for the job, based on “Merit” and not on any sense of proportionality of sub-group.

When I go for a job or contract, I expect to get it ONLY because I am the most suited to fulfill it.

Celevia “Companies that have a much greater concentration of females would do better to balance their staff out with more males, as well.”

Then, obviously those companies who adopt such practices will put perform those who do not. However, it is a matter for the owners, the “takers of the commercial risk” (shareholders) to decide, not some third party, regardless of their academic credentials or merit.

In my businesses, I decide on gender mix, racial mix, skills mix, age mix etc. because I own the shares and I bear the risk.

ASymeonakis
“BECAUSE WE ARE IDIOTS AND DO NOT CARE OUR SELVES!” . .
“BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ENOUGH MATURE TO UNDERTAKE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES!”
“BECAUSE WE DO NOT LEARNED TO BE GOOD, RESPONSIBLE FATHERS!
“BECAUSE WE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN!”

I am not sure exactly why you are so self-deprecating and inferior but let me assure you

You use of the term “WE” is not universally inclusive.

You do not speak for me, you speak only for yourself.

I find it offensive that you presume to speak for more than just yourself. Please desist forthwith.

I live alone,
I “CARE FOR MYSELF”

I pay my taxes, obey the law and ask my daughters,
“I AM MATURE ENOUGH TO SHOULDER MY RESPONSIBILITIES AND BE A GOOD RESPONSIBLE FATHER”

I DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NO ONES "MERIT"

TRTL
Thanks for your balanced view. You made me giggle when you pointed out these contradicting arguments : ) Very entertaining, it complements the good glass of red I’m indulging in.
Your idea of experimentation is an excellent one. Bring it on! The results abroad recommend gender diversity for better results and I have no reason to believe why companies in Australia wouldn’t benefit just as much.

The CEW (Chief Executive Women is an organisation of women leaders in Australia. They developed a kit to encourage and promote the effective use of female talent by Australian businesses, government, and the community.
http://www.cew.org.au/pages/kit/documents/ExecutiveSummaryBrochureMay08_000.pdf

There seems to be a problem with retention of women more than with hiring them, and this is mainly due to the male dominated culture that women feel excluded from.
More gender balance is said to prevent this kind of culture.
I believe that paid parental leave will also help female retention.

Col,
”Affirmative action, racism and nepotism have a lot in common,
nepotism favours family connections,
racism favours racist connections
affirmative action favours some other “subgroup” connection.”
True, but don't forget…
sexism favours male connections.

“Personally, I believe only in merit.”
I find merit of uttermost importance, too- but I believe that nepotism and sexism have something in common in the way that sexism shows favouritism in the workplace towards men.
A lot of female talent -and merit- is being unutilised because of sexism in the workplace.

However, like TRTL, I feel uneasy when there’s talk about actually forcing companies to have women on board. I’m more in favour of (first) educating and encouraging companies to pay attention to the merit of women and the merit of maintaining gender diversity.

If you’ve read my reply to TRTL, and have a look at the link provided, you’ll get the general idea what I mean by ‘encouraging’ companies.

”I DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NO ONES "MERIT" “
That’s too funny :) and I’m glad that you don’t discriminate against anyone’s merit.
Unfortunately, other business owners do.

"You made me giggle when you pointed out these contradicting arguments : )"

Men aren't asking for discriminatory laws. That's a big difference and to pretend otherwise is inaccurate.

l do so enjoy the refreshingly original and child-like imagination of one who projects their social utopia and workers paradise on the back of scandanavian quasi-communist sates.

With any luck this sort of thing will lead to the commodification of elitest cliches, then these folks can start complaining about how they have become undervalued.

Personally, l dont care what gender a bunch of self-serving, blowharding corporate baord members happen to be. Somehow l doubt it change their habit of front loading the books so thatthey can get their phat bonuses. These types of folks are great at justifying and denying their self-interest. Attributes that women, at the very least, match men in.

ps. no person worth their salt, ever, in the history of herstory, accepted such nonsense as 'political quotas.' Then again, there arent many people on boards worth even a grain of salt.

In my naive youth I was all in favour of feminism and its goals. Time has put a stop to that as I see that females have no more to offer than males; in fact, I see an almost stupid sense of entitlement amongst gen-X/Y females. DOWN WITH FEMALE CHAUVINIST SOWS!!

In European Union
“Gender equality is a fundamental right, a common value of the EU, and
a necessary condition for the achievement of the EU objectives of growth,employment and social cohesion.”

“Equal participation of women and men is a crucial factor for lasting
development and symbolizes the level of political maturity of societies:while democracy requires equal rights for women, this in turn guarantees democracy.

THE PRINCIPLE OF AN EQUAL VOICE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY IS THE CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY

On average, the management boards of the largest companies listed on the national stock exchange of EU Member States include just one woman representative for every nine men, the share of women increasing marginally from just under 8% in 2003 to a little over 10% in 2007. The Scandinavian countries tend to do better than average - Norway has by far the highest share with more than 34% women in corporate boards, followed by Sweden with just under 24%.
European Commission’s Roadmap for equality between women and men
(2006-2010) includes the promotion of equal representation of women and men in decision-making as one of six priority areas for action.

Across Europe men account for nearly 90% of the board members of leading companies and there has been very little improvement
over recent years.A noteworthy exception is Norway, where the government has taken positive action to redress the imbalance by imposing gender parity on the board membership of both public and private companies (minimum 40% women)

trade215
"scandanavian quasi-communist sates"
Do you try to promote communists or you do not know what is communism?

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis “Gender equality is a fundamental right, a common value of the EU, and a necessary condition for the achievement of the EU objectives of growth,employment and social cohesion . . . Across Europe men account for nearly 90% of the board members of leading companies and there has been very little improvement over recent years. A noteworthy exception is Norway,”

Equality of opportunity or outcome?

I suspect the EU are talking about opportunity, only a moron thinks you can ever force equality of outcome and that is what you are measuring, equality of outcome, the usual drivel of the affirmative action sentimentalists, as they drag us from eminence into mediocrity, all in the name of equality.

There is a general discussions thread currently running on this very topic, I note your contribution to that thread is absent.

That not withstanding, in referencing the EU to matters concerning Norway, i find your post quite humorous (but i have a particularly warped sense of humour)

I must point out to you, ASymeonakis that Norway has another notable exception.

Norway is not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome or any of the ratifying and expanding treaties which are prerequisite for EU Membership up to and including the treaty of Lisbon, which the good old Irish have just torpedoed.

I suggest you learn something about stuff before you post, rather than parroting the jingles.

I can see the merits for company boards having equal representation of men and women, though I'm no fan of affirmative action for any purposes. I really think this is totally unnecessary. Women are entering Tertiary study at much higher numbers than men, so it's only a matter of time before women far out number men in all positions of power.

Regardless of this I think in the Norwegian case, why are we so sure all women really want is to be CEO of a company. How do we know we aren't promoting women in this instance from a smaller pool of women even interested in the roles, thereby reducing the talent pool.

For instance, say if 40% of women would like to be CEO, and 60% of men would, and we have a population of 100 people and 10 CEO positions. Are we to promote the top 5 women and 5 men to CEO, effectively taking the top 12.5% of women and the top 8.33% of men? That is surely not as optimal as the top 10% of men and the top 10% of women?

Now you may say, we should 'make' women interested in this role in life, because it's just gender stereotypes at work here. If so, why are we not interested in socially engineering society to do the same for men not interested in being nurses and teachers and stay at home fathers for instance?

What are the men supposed to do while we as a society promote the idea for all women to do traditional male roles while at the same time never promote any men to take on the majority female roles.

Finally, why do either. Why not let people decide what roles they would like for themselves and allow equal OPPORTUNITY for all to do as they wish?

Yvonne,
'..How do you propose females are kept in their place if you can't slap them around a bit ...'
I really think that's quite offensive of you to assert anyone upset about the one-sided government approach to DV just wants to hit women.

Col Rouge
"I note your contribution to that thread is absent."
I am busy!

1. Mainly I refer to EU.
2. To Scandinavian countries "scandanavian quasi-communist sates"trade215
3. To Europe, "Across Europe....A noteworthy exception is Norway", Why did you write "Norway is not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome", "I suggest you learn something about stuff before you post"
Col Rouge
I know you as CONSERVATIVE BUT fair man, what is this?

I AM VERY BUSY

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"the company has access to superior qualities such as more innovation and creativity, which results in a better performance."

I've worked in a number of factories, and I can not think of a single item in any factory that was invented or designed by a female.

I also tend to think that it would be better if there was greater worker representation on boards, rather than the gender prejuiced feminist notion that there should be positive discrimination of women.

There are now too many professional board members who rove from one company board to another, without ever actually working in the company, or getting their hands dirty.

A quick straw poll of the women in the office that I work in shows no interest in this as a policy idea. The comments back are exactly those which have been tossed around before: tokenism, the preference of appointments being based on merit etc.

So if women in general aren't interested in this as a policy, why would we put it in?

Steel,
“Men aren't asking for discriminatory laws.”
Firstly, applying your logic to race discrimination, your argument would look like this:
“White people aren’t asking for discriminatory laws.”
Secondly, it depends on their sexuality. Homosexual and transgender men DO ask for laws to protect them from discrimination.
Last, women speak out for equal rights, not special rights.

Trado,
“Personally, l dont care what gender a bunch of self-serving, blowharding corporate baord members happen to be.”
Cool. As long as female and male self-serving, blowharding corporate board members have equal opportunities.

Johnno,
“DOWN WITH FEMALE CHAUVINIST SOWS!!”
Did you say Oink?
This little piggy went to market
This little piggy stayed at home…
Female chauvinist sows should have equal rights to male chauvinist boars. All little piggies should have the opportunity to go to market.

UsualSuspect
You made a few good points.
We don’t need a society where women do all the care-giving but one that offers equal job opportunities for both men and women and where both also share responsibilities at home. Traditions have mostly adversely affected women but to some extend, also men.
The biggest problem in Australia is not so much the unwillingness of companies to hire women for the higher position, but the retention. The link I provided before explains more.

Celivia,

'...this is mainly due to the male dominated culture that women feel excluded from.'
How do you measure this? Golf days? Do women not play golf? Should they not?
This attitude always amuses me. I never hear anybody saying men are excluded from the home as all the daytime TV is geared towards women's taste. More men would be happier as stay at home carers if they could watch something other than Oprah and soaps.

'We don’t need a society where women do all the care-giving but one that offers equal job opportunities for both men and women and where both also share responsibilities at home. '
We have equal job opportunities, and sex-discrimination laws exist. It's for couples to decide for themselves who takes on greater responsibility of caring for children. Believe it or not, it's often the women who prefer to do this more rewarding job, rather than the nine to five slog, or 7 to 7 as it is these days.

But since you're into social engineering to get women into the workplace and to the highest positions of power, why don't we do the same for men in the home.

Why don't we have a government initiative to hand custody to all men in divorces, as men are under-represented in the role of primary carer?

With nurses and teachers, and the armed forces and university, we can legislate equal numbers of women and men must be obtained in 5 years. Maybe we can pay male teachers and nurses more, that would be a good incentive. See I never hear of affirmitive action to allow males an easier transition into traditional female roles.

Usual suspect.

I wouldnt have anything against a mandated paid paternity leave, even if there was no corresponding paid maternity leave. Obviously it would have to kick-in after breastfeeding had ceased, but would be very beneficial for most men to grasp just how demanding baby-care really is. It may result in more men being willing to be the stayhome parent for longer too.

If paying more at least initially get more men into nursing and teaching, I dont see that this is a bad thing either. In the long run salaries should align, but shorter-term incentives have their merits. The same process for women on boards would work - get them onto the boards, but they stay there on their own merits.

Of course there has been plenty of good discussion on either side, and both sides have at least some merit. Personally, I need no-one's help, although having an open-minded CEO has assisted me in my rise up the ladder. The opening dimwitted comments though goes to show that there is some need at least for the promotion of equal opportunity (yes Col, I believe that outcomes should be left to work themselves out). In my personal and professional capacity I still see some bigotted views out there, that might put the brakes on a young female who is not highly confident of herself and abilities. Usually these (generally older, but not always so) men maintain highly patronising approaches, until they realise I have just shown up their lack of knowledge in a particular area. Age is teaching me to be a little kinder and less gloating about such occurrences, so that the balance of power doesnt swing in the other direction.

US,
Neither my husband nor I switched on the TV in the daytime when at home with the kids. Do you think it’s a good role model for children to watch their vegged-out parents in front of a TV during the day? There’s far too much to do involving the care of children, including cooking healthy meals, doing mental and physical activities with the children, providing a clean environment…
Otherwise, get a DVD.

How do I measure male-dominated culture?
There has been research, e.g. CEW pointed out that this is one of the reasons for capable women walking out the door. Microsoft Australia also monitors the reasons why capable women leave.
It’s general knowledge that patriarchal structures can exclude and oppress women- it happens, albeit not everywhere.
Men as a group have a lot of power especially if they are in the vast majority.
Women can experience more obstacles than men such as lack of support, no cooperation or access to a network and information.
It’s not the only problem, of course.
Sometimes women leave too hastily rather than discussing problems at work.

I feel you’re trivialising the problem- and trivialising problems that women experience is another ‘power’ thing men do. It happens in workplaces, too, and women walk off the job.

The problem with ‘traditional’ male and female roles is that throughout history it was believed moral to subordinate males over females, and therefore work associated with masculinity has been given more value than the work to do with femininity. That’s why plumbers are valued more and get paid a good rate, and a childcare worker gets peanuts.

CountryGal,
Ideally there should be parental leave. Juggling childcare and work can put strain on parents and flexibility of use of parental leave is a must. Both fathers and mothers should get the benefit from working and caring for their children if they both want to fulfill a caring role.
Why should men be paid more than women for doing the same job? If the work is undervalued there should be a wage increase for the work, not the gender.

Celivia,

I was joking about the TV. What I was illustrating is the stupidity of saying that men being men and enjoying male persuits around the workplace is discriminating against women. As I said, women can play golf too.

'Men as a group have a lot of power especially if they are in the vast majority'
So you are saying men all have the same goal to overpower women? That naturally a large group of men will look to marginalise females?

'trivialising problems that women experience is another ‘power’ thing men do. It happens in workplaces, too, and women walk off the job.
'
See that is the problem. Men more than likely trivialise each other's problems, but women want to be treated specially. Instead of understanding the way heirachical struggles work in the workplace, subordinate women should be pampered, while a subordinate man accepts his position in the pecking order. If men cant hack it, they're a sook, if women cant hack it they're oppressed.

' That’s why plumbers are valued more and get paid a good rate, and a childcare worker gets peanuts.
'
Plumbers get good money because not enough people really want to unblock toilets. It's simple supply and demand.

'Why should men be paid more than women for doing the same job?...'
I think Country girl wants to break down the barriers to men being full time carer, much in the same way as this Norwegian effort wants to break down the barriers to women in boardrooms.

So you support this idea for women but not for men?

How many men dont stay at home because their wife wants to, and someone has to earn the money? How many men dont stay at home because they earn more money, and most women choose to marry up, so for most couples this is the case? Then there's the oppression from women in the home, deciding what constitutes 'clean' and how often cleaning must be done! Telling their husbands what to do and how it must be done and when it must be done!

continued..

It works both ways you see. Women need to encourage and assist men into the home if they want to be so accommodated for in the workplace. If more men are primary carers, there'll be more women CEOs!

So you must shame all the women who marry up, or who choose not to bother persuing a career as they know they can find a man to support them financially, or else pay men more than women to stay at home.
Families that want the man to stay at home will then not be sacrificing the higher earner's salary, hence only paying paternity leave will make it more attractive for men stay at home.

Then men will be closer to their children and gain greater access to them in divorce.

See all this would never happen, because no matter what women say, they WANT to keep control of the domestic side of things. They have a pretty good deal, and currently a lot more choices in their role in family life than men do. That's why all this glass ceiling rubbish is a furphy. Women CHOOSE to bring up the children, and they get first dibs. If they sacrifice 80 hour a week CEO jobs to do so is not men's fault.

US,
I’m not saying that women are being discriminated against when men enjoy their persuit, or that there’s a conspiracy to overpower women, or that men, as individuals, necessarily discriminate against women.

The point I’m trying to get at is that the SYSTEM that values traditional masculine qualities over traditional feminine qualities is failing.
A system that enhances masculine qualities and rejects and diminishes feminine ones is imbalanced.
If there can be more of a balance of both sets of qualities, then a larger range of people are able to cope within the workplace- not just ones who thrive on a domination system.

You say, “subordinate women should be pampered, while a subordinate man accepts his position in the pecking order.”
People who stand up for their right to communicate in the workplace are being pampered? Or does that apply to women only?
Don’t you think that men are being oppressed, too, in workplaces where they can’t even talk about their problems without being called a sook?
No freedom of expression in the workplace as part of a male-dominated system is something we should accept?
Why should women accept the same things as men do if they don’t agree?

“If men cant hack it, they're a sook, if women cant hack it they're oppressed.”
Being listened to in case of problems or concerns is essential and respectful.
I don’t think that men are sooks when they express problems- do you?
Women generally recognise when they’re being oppressed and will talk about their feelings whether others want to hear it or not. Otherwise, they walk away from the workplace. And that harms professional women as well as workplaces.

Perhaps men should stand up more for their rights, too.
Why would it be acceptable to have something you say trivialised? Are you not a valuable worker? You should demand attention for your work-related problems.
Uncaring, impersonal attitudes in workplaces are a product of male-domination systems. Such workplace is an environment in where bullies can thrive.

The fact that men accept their situation doesn’t mean that they’re helping to support a healthy workplace.