Shaggy Dog,

It isn't that simple either.

If you look at affirmative action targets that have been in place in public services and bigger companies for decades now it is apparent that there is considerable churning of women through higher roles and the feeder paths to those positions.

'Positive' affirmative action where men are deliberately displaced and roles re-jigged along with selection criteria to give women the leg-up sort of works in the short term to get women there. However are they the right people for the job and why do they churn through jobs anyway?

To give a clue, many women who return to their work following child birth do not want their old career back. They opt for lesser responsibility for more flexibility and not just because they are hampered by home responsibilities. The evidence is tat they are making decisions for what they want personally, ie a better life. When you think about it, you might make the same choices. After all, what is a good life, a life worth living? Is it the Beamer, morning coffee with Emily's List and shoes?

Of course you could say the same thing about men, but there is something different in the make up of men and women that causes them to perceive different worth in life. Which is right? You choose, but you cannot say that 50:50 in those jobs you are talking about is what women want. Maybe some careerists who stand to gain advantage through alleged victim/discrimination status, but never all women.

Labor is big on affirmative action. That gave us Juliar Gillard.

Say no more.

OTB,
Read my post again. I only stated that with a population split of approx 50/50 one would expect a greater percentage of women. I did not say the jobs should be split 50/50 and I also stated the reasons why this could/would not happen.
Enough from me, I shall leave the field to those with far more wisdom than myself to argue the finer points of this discussion.
SD

Butch,
You are absolutely right.

Gender would not be a consideration if I were choosing persons for senior managerial positions. The persons assessed ability to do the job would be the criteria.

Shaggy Dog,

I re-read your post and my answer still seems relevant.

I am saying that number is not the measure. In fact it could be quite misleading. Because it seems that women are quite capable of making their own decisions and are doing so already. They are voting with their feet.

Have you ever considered that many women might put things other than power, prestige and conspicuous consumption first in their lives? Put the big stones in the jar first. That is the big things that really matter like spending time with ones you love and friends and being part of their lives while we can still do so. Who wants to sit in a $2million bungalow anyhow, deriving vicarious pleasure out of being an occasional aunt to children who have already grown up without your interest anyhow? Suits some and good luck to them, but it isn't the choice of many.

So when you refer to 'population' maybe you should be talking about the women who would opt for a political career. That seems to be relatively few and the few are already over-publicised and doubtless over-assisted as well.

Which goes some way to explaining how Julia Whatshername won the big prize. If that leg-up wasn't available along with the disagreeable and insulting political correctness - which women with ability must find detracts from their own accomplishments - those who want and seek to be representatives might be more inclined to come forward. For Labor they are obliged to stand in the queue behind the big swinging *bleeps* of Emily's List aren't they? How many want to do that, or are knee-capped by the Grrls in the process?

OTB,
My apologies
You are right of course.
How I could have got it so wrong I just don't know.
I shall go sit on the naughty step and contemplate the error of my ways.
SD