'There are tight networks of feminists who have played favourites, helping one another, through various government appointments for years'

onthebeach
To be fair, in the early days this was probably necessary to allow for equal opportunity. I can't see the difference though between that and the old boys networks which actively worked to keep women out of organisations and other activities.

Men never had to establish an Emily's List type organisation, they already had their own unofficial Emily's List which excluded women. (I am reminded of the Yes Minister episode when Humphrey and the Minister sought to actively put a women in as head of a civil service department to win favour and be seen as progressive, despite her obvious suitability which should have been enough, and then played insulted and outraged because she chose instead to work for the community sector where she could actually achieve stuff.)

There are more men in Senior Executive Service (SES) and heading departments than women. Personally these sorts of issues don't concern me as there are many reasons why women may not aspire to these roles as long as they have the opportunity to do so, that's what counts. In the public service, the greater concern is the unwarranted growth of the SES at the expense of workers on the ground, than gender balance (which is often ignored due to self-interest).

What I don't like is this idea that equality of equality of opportunity has to be measured by a notion of 50% or an even 50/50 split. This assumes gender assumes a more important place than other factors. There may be other reasons why there is a dominant male/female presence that has nothing to do with active gender discrimination or favouritism.

pelican, "[re favouritism in appointments] To be fair, in the early days this was probably necessary to allow for equal opportunity. I can't see the difference though between that and the old boys networks which actively worked to keep women out of organisations and other activities."

There is no excuse, no justification for cronyism. It is corruption. If anything it is more prevalent than ever. The favouritism has been raised to an art form in some agencies. It is systemic.

pelican, "Men never had to establish an Emily's List type organisation, they already had their own unofficial Emily's List which excluded women"

What utter garbage and an insult that is to men when you generalise from a few presumed instances. In fact the (previous) Public Service Board of the federal public service had tight scrutiny of appointments and selections. Appointment and promotion were tampered with for the purpose of affirmative action and devolved to heads of agencies. There were unexpected negative consequences of devolution and affirmative action.

(TBC)

(contd.)

pelican, "There are more men in Senior Executive Service (SES) and heading departments than women"

The federal public service always maintained very detailed records of staff movements, previously on its old Burroughs computer. Women always outpaced men up to the meddle management positions. They presented better in interview (gift of the gab) and had more varied experience because they changed jobs more.

Above that level knowledge and practical expertise in managing the full range and cycle of events bore heavily on promotion prospects. Men were more likely to possess those. 'Positive' affirmative action saw the criteria manipulated to put generalists in higher positions to advance women regardless. But even so, women do not like to remain for long. Their choice, self selection, not discrimination and certainly no 'glass ceiling'. For example, while women like to be advanced to be managing engineers they do not want to be one. That would be a drag.

Cohort analysis proves the opposite of what you suggest to be the case. In fact any women who is prepared to stay in the federal bureaucracy are very greatly advantaged in training opportunities, and in advancement. It is career paradise for educated middle class women.

Pelican "In the public service, the greater concern is the unwarranted growth of the SES at the expense of workers on the ground, than gender balance"

Agreed and the numbers show it for the middle management positions as well. It is a wonder who works where all claim 'people management' as their most responsible and time consuming role. it is the usual complaint of contractors that there is always a host of 'managers' who refuse to make decisions but are always demanding 'information' and 'reports', constantly hampering the contractors' work.

[quoting myself] "Women always outpaced men up to the meddle management positions"

As a previous sometimes contractor to public agencies, "(public service) meddle management" could be right. But it should be "middle management" instead.

onthebeach
"What utter garbage and an insult that is to men when you generalise from a few presumed instances"

You do yourself a disservice when you call another person's views utter garbage.

There has been positive discrimination for many groups including the disabled and Indigeous groups. It is not cronyism when there is a real need to redress the balance. That is what I meant by "in the early days" in relation to opportunities for women. You are choosing to misrepresent my words as suggesting the present day - whether on purpose or not I cannot tell.

It is a fact that men excluded women throughout history in various sections of society, you can pretend they didn't if you like but history reveals otherwise.

The boys network acted to exclude women from many aspects of society (I was not talking about the public service in that context although men do outnumber women in senior roles - I have no problem with that although I disgree that the public service has a strong merit selection process. If you have worked in the APS you would know this is not always strictly the case).

In find you very defensive and unreasonable when it comes to any criticism of men (even if only perceived) but you are quite content to kick into women without a second thought. Read your own comments on many threads and swap the genders around when reading it out. If I or any other female poster had written in such a way, you would be out guns blazing.

I'll leave you to your own thoughts but I disagree strongly with your perception that women were never disadvantaged in terms of employment opportunities. It is just plain wrong to accept cronyism for men as perfectly okay while criticising the same of some women's groups.

If you are going to be critical you need to be fair in your judgements which should be the same for both men and women. If not it is just hypocritical

pelican,

Your whole defence is based on a strawman and an adhominen. To give an example, this is what you pretend I am saying, (to quote your words),

"It is just plain wrong to accept cronyism for men as perfectly okay while criticising the same of some women's groups"

Whereas this is what I actually stated and it is there in black and white,

"There is no excuse, no justification for cronyism. It is corruption. If anything it is more prevalent than ever. The favouritism has been raised to an art form in some agencies. It is systemic".

For the rest you continue in the same vein.