'Nicola is wise to get out of the male dominated political world, '

hopefully the PM will catch such wisdom Susie. Just goes to show the sisterhood are never satisfied. At least the destruction of their reign and emasculated males is evident for all to see and it ain't a pretty picture. Hopefully Wayne Swan will also catch a little of the 'wisdom ' Susie mentions before the country ends up with any more major blunders.

suzie, that was crap. If you and Poirot agree on a point is it the old girls club taking over the discussion? On what basis does the claim rest that professiinal feminists don't do as some of you want to believe they do somehow become anti-female?

If there was a mens group in parliment specifically devoted to furthering the interests of men in parliment would that be an object of suspucion? Remembering that Emilies list existed at a period when the only every level of government covering my home was headed by women despite their being more men in two of the three levels that people get to vote on.

Just for some context on politics being dominated by men
- I had/have a female mayor
- I had a female state premier - currently male
- I had/have a female state governor
- I had/have a female prime ministor
- I have/had a female governor general
- I have/had a female head of state

If politics is currently dominated by men its not exactly showing in who gets the top jobs. Men do outnumber women at state and federal levels in seats occupied, no so sure about council levels. Thats probably a lot more to with choices people are willing to make about work life balance than any male domination. Its my understanding that women voters outnumber male voters, I don't think any of the major parties stop women joining or standing for seats. Eg the claims of male domination are another of those convenient misrepresentations that don't really tell the story.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Thanks for the list that you've given us -
in your attempt of showing us that some women
do reach top positions. I wonder though what percentage
of women overall occupy high-paying positions,
that is, the high-level executive, managerial,
or administrative jobs, and why do men and women
who do similar jobs today still have different titles and
pay scales. For example the male becomes an
"administrative assistant" whereas the female,
merely an "executive secretary."

How many women are
there on seats on boards of the nation's leading
corporations. Is corporate leadership no longer
a kind of old-boy network. Are you stating that
there aren't still many men who feel a woman should
be at home, or in bed, or having babies - rather
than hiring, firing, and ordering men around.

Take a look at some of the posts on Nicola Roxon's
resignation. They're real eye-openers. Would a male
Prime Minister have been attacked on some of the
issues that our PM has been - like her religion,
her single status, her appearance, the fact that
she does not have children, and so on?

As Dennis Pryor pointed out in his booklet, "Political
Pryorities," on women in politics:

"Under the guise of 'useful experience' women are given
every opportunity to stand for unwinnable seats at
elections. Those who get into Parliament find it difficult
to become Ministers or to get into Cabinet. In spite
of incessant rhetoric about equal opportunity the mass
of male Parliamentarians find it difficult to equate women
with positions of power. Many talented women are now
seeking to enter politics via influential positions in the
public service, where discrimination is waning, rather than
through the tedious and hypocritical process of
preselection and elections."

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but we're
talking about what the norm is, not the exceptions.

Lexi how about a response taking the list in context as a response to Suzies claims of a male dominated political world and further to her dog whistle about old boys club taking over the discussion and anti-female comments seemingly because I responded to a single post by anti. Tired old sexist tactics.:-)

If you really want to ask those questions put them in some context, maybe ask about the amount of child support paid be either gender when they are not the prime carer (and use the same rules of choice etc as used to justify the earlier questions). Ask about some other metrics which are not so convenient? The professional feminists are very good at highlighting anything that can be painted as disadvantage for women, massively unwilling to address any structural advantage.

The feminism that writes the reports and studies which get used in framing laws is not the "just about equality" thing that some of you cling to, its a nasty dishonest web of lies and half truths with a strong anti male focusdetermined to create specific advantage for a particular version of female whe it can. Generally at the expense of anyone who does not share its vision, male or female. A refusal by some to examine the evidence and a tactic of claiming that those who object are anti-female does not make it different.

R0bert

Personally I would rather there be a humanitarian approach to policy than gender specific based policy. In the early days there was good reason for positive discrimination but too many commenators relate lack of female participation in some spheres to discrimination while ignoring other factors. This only diminishes the cause.

Women do experience prejudice in some quarters and there are injustices but these are experienced by both men and women usually in different ways.

My beef is really with what sometimes (I stress 'sometimes') can be seen as a fascist approach to feminism ie. that women must conform to a universally agreed standard on what it means to be a feminist. I am old enough to remember when the feminism of the 70s was about choice.

The pendulum has swung now in the opposite direction. One example of this was watching Q&A many moons ago - I cannot remember who it was - a woman on the panel made some comment about 'who would want to stay at home with children anyway'.

Suse
Women can be hard on women. Much of it is defence mechanism ie. 'this is my choice so the fact that other people don't make the same choices means they are implying my choice is wrong.' A bit like debates about religion. :)

Anti
I can't remember why you chose to be silent but you shouldn't. OLO participants will often disagree but don't you find people are looking for the same things. And it is natural for people to see things in a particular way from the view of their gender experiences. All anyone can do is try to see things from another POV.

RObert
You always strike me as someone who tries to see things from many angles. I did not take your comments as anti-female.

As for political entitlements I guess that is a whole other subject.

These are sobering posts by Pelican. I agree with the sentiments expressed. Who cannot when there are so many examples of the baby being thrown out with the bath water.