Why gender quotas would help Australian business

Joline says:

04:18pm | 19/10/11

This article caught my interest and I love reading all the comments. I would say that though there is prevalence in the discrimination, we cannot really make a certain rule that can stop the discrimination since almost all laws in one way or another will really interfere into one or both gender. I would love to read more history essay writing about this article.

Les says:

03:42pm | 18/12/09

The sex discrimmination tribunal is an arm of the femminist movement and men are finally beginning to wake up to this. For years men have been making concessions to appease those who strive to bring about greater gender balance whether in work place or other areas. Personally I think this inbalance is exaggerated or indeed a myth as there are numerous industries where the gender inbalance is in favour of women. Eg education and many govt departments where the majority of workers are female. Why isnt this addressed?  Looking at the workforce as a whole women represent slightly over 50% so why do women continue to winge?

Observer says:

08:24pm | 19/10/09

Don’t get me started on that biased institution called the Family Court-aka men haters inc.

Varuni says:

01:52pm | 19/10/09

Sooo…
Anyone want to explain how gender quotas would work in a brothel?

P.S. Gender quotas are a joke

Tim says:

12:30pm | 19/10/09

Jan Davis,
so who’s fault is it that men who were appointed as your successors were paid more than you? Was it:
The Company’s- for not paying you more than you were willing to accept.
The Men- For asking for and negotiating a higher salary
Yours- For not negotiating a higher salary.

As for not being appointed ahead of less qualified men, would that be in your completely unbiased objective assessment?
I have never seen a lesser qualified man appointed ahead of a more qualified woman, it just doesn’t happen.
I think your first paragraph says it all. You succeeded, but are single and childless. Do you think it would be fair if someone who has taken years off work to have children was appointed to the same level as you just because they are a woman?

claudio g says:

11:49am | 19/10/09

Nothing like a bit of reverse discrimination to get the juices flowing.  Have you ever thought that there may be other reasons why women are not getting to the top as much as they should?

Jan Davis says:

05:07pm | 17/10/09

Goodness me - what a lot of twaddle some of these comments are!
I am a multi-degree qualified professional woman who has worked at senior exec levels (CEO and board) for many years. I am single and do not have children because, for all the reasons outlined here, I did not think it was possible for me to combine a career and a family - and do both jobs well.
That being said, anyone who believes there is no gender based discrimination in the Australian corporate environment is living in lala land.
Trjn says ‘Once women stop thinking that they have to work harder to prove that they’re equal, I think there would be a much better chance of finding equality’. Oh, really?
Everything i have achieved has been on merit - and often in the face of serious obstacles. Not only do I have to be as good as any man to move forward, I have to be many times better than most. This is not something I ‘think’ - it is something I have learned from experience, time and time again.
I cannot tell you how many times I have seen a less qualified man appointed ahead of me; or been mightily peeved to see one appointed as my successor starting out on a much higher wage than I had attained after several years of experience in the role. 
A bloke can be an idiot and be lost in the scenery; when a woman fails, it is up there in lights. Perfect example - one of the previous comments pointed to women on boards who have spectacularly stuffed up. Yes, that happens. But many blokes do the same (and worse) and yet that is never used as an argument reflecting on the skills of the whole male gender.
I do not support quotas on principle. People should be judged on merit - not on gender or any other defining characteristic. But sometimes it is tough not to feel like throwing principles out the window if I follow that precept when most around me don’t.  It is hard to win in a game where the rules have been designed to keep you out.

Heléna says:

09:39pm | 16/10/09

Norway?? the same country where the Nobel Foundation is based - yeah great idea lets model ourselves on them :/

Chase Stevens says:

06:46pm | 16/10/09

So we’d move from one form of discrimination to another? Perfect sense.

MarK says:

05:46pm | 16/10/09

@Tim Chapman,

The prison example may be different but,
Sorry you cant just write it off as fasecious.
Society is the way it is becasue of an extremly complex web of factors,
Like it or not these factors can influence where you end up in life,
We all have the potential and freedom to end up in jail or be a corporate fat cat, but only people born with ovaries and a uterus can have babies

Even if you are going to be tunnel blind and soley focus on work,
There are plenty of less glamourous plain sh1thouse josb with less female representation than Executive, Board and C-level, starting with sh1t fitters and plumbers, Envinronmental technicians, garbos etc etc

Brasil says:

04:46pm | 16/10/09

Ahh the perfect example of the thinking of much of the intelligentsia (particularly, but by no means exclusively, on the left): discrimination is anything I don’t like. Let’s start with Marmalade’s comment
Q: Why is the Sex Discrimination Commissioner always a woman?
A: Because those women have had real-life, first-hand experience of sex discrimination. End of story.

Really? When was Elizabeth discriminated against (three examples should suffice)? Or is it just - to steal a line from The Castle - the vibe of the whole thing? And even if you accept that she has been discriminated against, does that mean that we should choose our other roles on the same basis? Most prisoners and indeed most criminals are male, so only a man can really understand crime and criminal thinking - sorry Christine Nixon, you should never have been appointed. Guys, don’t even bother thinking about any sort of medical career involving gynacology, breast cancer, etc - you couldn’t possibly understand any of it as well as a woman.

And why are we saying that the only “discrimination” occurs is on the basis of sex? I have no statistics to hand, but I’d be surprised if Aboriginies weren’t under represented. Let’s mandate one of them to every board. Muslims, probably under represented. We’ll have one of them too. And a Buddhist. And an Asian. And a Catholic. And a lesbian. And a transsexual. And a…

Except of course you couldn’t stop there. What sort of Muslim should we have? Well we’d need a Shiite and a Sunni and let’s have a Sufi too. Asia’s a big continent with a couple of billion people, and many of these groups are represented here,  which particular group should we choose to be represented? And what about socio-economic groups? Lower groups are undoubtedly under-represented. So are those with less education.

The fact is that the world is much, much more complex than this article would have us believe. To divide boards along the lines of “women” and “men” is to ignore (or at the very least severely underestimate) the hundreds of thousands of other ways we define ourselves. But of course if we see the world for the complex place it is, we can’t produce our simple black and white stories.

Personally I’m in favour of more diversity on boards, because more diverse groups often make better decisions. But pretending that you’ll get good outcomes by waving a magic wand and enforcing quotas is both arrogant and ignorant.

Eric says:

04:25pm | 16/10/09

This comment thread provides several excellent examples of feminist hypocrisy and selfishness.

These sexists demand quotas for women in high-paying executive jobs—but they can’t abide the thought of quotas for men in their own exclusive girl’s clubs like the “Sex Discrimination Commission”.

I’ve yet to see any feminist demand equal participation for women in the dirty, dangerous and low-paid jobs that men do. Garbage collectors, factory workers, ditch diggers—all are somehow exempt from this demand for equality. No, feminists just want the best part of the pie.

Where are the demands for male quotas in nursing, teaching and secretarial services?

Hypocrites.

Ben G says:

04:22pm | 16/10/09

“As a mother of a boy and girl, I want a future where neither of my children’s choices or ambitions in regards to work and family will be dictated by their gender.”
With that quote, I can prove you’re haven’t thought this through: Your daughter has a decent chance of getting pregnant in her 20’s and having any career plans derailed. Your son is unlikely to face such a prospect, because he doesn’t have a uterus.
You can howl at the moon that it’s not fair that women have children while men don’t, but you can’t change it.
Also, if the premise of your article is that a more diverse board would be better, then all that has to be done is get one single company in the entirety of Australia with a diverse board, and by your logic it will blow the male-dominated ones out of the water.
Thirdly, quotas? Really? Are you drunk? Did anyone read this before you were allowed to post it? It’s got to be the laziest and least thought out idea you could have come up with.

Bruce says:

04:10pm | 16/10/09

Selection of a person for any job should be based on the qualities of the person not their sex. If have 2 successfull daughters working in corporate industries, they understand its a tough world. My advice, and their approach to getting the job they want, “is to be better and tougher than your opposition”.  My daughters tell me they would be insulted if they only got the job because of their gender.

Karen says:

03:28pm | 16/10/09

We are our own worst enemy!  Women frequently alienate themselves striving for equality. Why do we feel we need to force business into hiring us to fulfil a quota - the token female.  What’s wrong with succeeding on merit? I am in the engineering business and getting ahead because I’m good! Having 2 kids stalled my career for a bit, but my husband was unable to give birth so I happily did it.  Now I have both, a great career and well adjusted family.  Stop bitching and just get out there!

Alex says:

03:03pm | 16/10/09

“Norway’s experience with the introduction of quotas for corporate boards has shown that such measures can radically alter gender equality outcomes for the better.”

So.. forcing boards to hire more women results in more women being hired by boards.  Amazing, truly amazing.

ShaneO says:

02:51pm | 16/10/09

Thanks Michelle for providing a real world example of where the problem lies. This is the real issue - the practicalities of balancing parenting with gaining the experience that gets you promoted. I imagine this is the reason women are under-represented.

How do you address it? Don’t know but quotas are not the answer - that is a lazy solution.

Michelle if you are still reading - do you feel there is a ‘boys club’ deliberately discriminating against you because of your gender? Would love to know if this really is the issue as I like to think Australia has moved on since the 70s.

Equality is Not a Sloping Table says:

02:36pm | 16/10/09

Haha Kel,
you’re funny.
So men are sexist for wanting jobs to be chosen on merit,
but females are not sexist for wanting a set amount of jobs to be put aside for them, regardless of merit?
With that kind of logic, it really is a surprise why more females like yourself haven’t been elevated to board level.

Steve Smith says:

01:47pm | 16/10/09

Marmalade “why should women having to take time off work seriously affect their careers?”

You have almost answered your question with that perfect example as to why women are misrepresented in corporate leadership roles. If you thought business minded, it makes more sense to hire a male who’s attendance will not be disrupted than a female who is more likely to have maternity leave.

haggis says:

01:25pm | 16/10/09

How many blokes have never made it to board level, and why?

sonya says:

01:06pm | 16/10/09

Elizabeth…no…just no!

kel says:

01:03pm | 16/10/09

Well said Marmalade.
I actually didnt think a quota was a good idea…. But you read comments like the ones above & realise it may take drastic action like that to achieve a fair balance.
I’d rather be idealistic and hope that people were picked on their merits, but sadly, for every good / fair guy, there’s just so many sexist ones in Australia!

davido says:

12:45pm | 16/10/09

Marmalade says- why should women having to take time off work seriously affect their careers?

Because it does! in the real world you cant just walk out on clients and expect them to welcome you back some time later. In the real world a business requires constant attention. I wonder how many of the positive comments here come from people with publicly funded jobs? I would say if you can walk out on your job then come back to it later then that role should be eliminated. Deadwood.

The hypocrisy here is astounding. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the office exist solely to discriminate! That is their job… to justify exemptions from the provisions of the Act. One might note that if you look at the office, they have only ever granted exemptions for women.

It is time for women to pull their weight in the work place. Pure and simple.

Al says:

12:43pm | 16/10/09

What everyone seems to have missed is that the whole premise of this debate is flawed.

How would having more women on a board make it any better?

A good board is made-up of experts in various areas of business or commerce or the law. This expertise is unaffected by gender.

Can someone advocating quotas or other methods to get more women on boards explain to me how this would make them function more effectively - i.e. make them more likely to successfully guide companies in achieving their financial objectives?

Adam says:

12:35pm | 16/10/09

jeez, there are some angry blokes out there! Why are you so threatened?

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:27pm | 16/10/09

Empirical evidence would suggest that imposing quotas or any other attempt at artificial manipulation to existing social structures without analysing and addressing the underlying causes is doomed to failure. Go ahead and impose quotas if you want, it’s a social experiment that that has been tried before and failed.

papachango says:

12:19pm | 16/10/09

I’m truly heartened to hear the majority oppose this ridculous, sexist and discriminatory idea of gender quotas. Elizabeth you should be ashamed of yourself for demeaning women in general, and having set the cause of feminism back by about 50 years. Your job is supposed to be to prevent gender discrimination, not to actively mandate it.
Despite the figures, I’m not convinced there’s any systematic discrimination against women at major corporate level, the ‘boys club’ is a bit of a myth. Or if it is mainly a boys club, it’s because women simply don’t want to join. They often have a different set of priorities to men and are simply not prepared to put up with the long hours and crap that you have to endure to make it to the top. There is also the biological issue of having children and taking extended maternity leave.
Of course there are exceptions, and I’ve worked with many, many career-focussed professional women, with and without children, who have no obstacles to rapid promotion through the ranks.
It’s about indiviudal choice and merit than forcing some socialist quota that you think should be right.

Michelle says:

12:04pm | 16/10/09

I don’t think quotas are the answer. I took nearly 5 years off full time work (kept my hand in by working part time gradually from 2 days a week up to 5+ days a week now) and in that time my colleagues and contacts whom I would have considered ‘equals’ but who did not incubate children (I say incubate because a lot of the men also started families in this time but it did not affect their careers and there was no societal expectation for them to spend “time at home with the kids”) I saw climb up the corporate ladder and all are in much higher positions than me. That was my ‘choice’ I took time out but now I am always going to be 5 years behind my former ‘equals’. And I bore my children relatively ‘young’ - at 31 and 32 - which is precisely the time careers are made or broken. Luckily at 36 I still have some time to ‘catch up’ but had I left it much later to return to a ‘proper career’  I would then be looking at trying to climb the corporate ladder in my mid-40s, competing against people who are 5-10 years younger than me. That is the kind of structural gender politics that prevents woman from being in the boardroom.  I also look around me and I do not see many (in fact, ANY! in my industry that I know of!)  full time working career mums with children who are relatively young, so I would guess that in Australia at least, 5 years is a relatively short ‘career break’ for most women raising children.

I don’t think quotas would help, if I were foisted into a role equivalent to where I ‘should have been’ (all things being equal and assuming I had the skills) I would in reality be 5 years behind in terms of skills/contacts/experience…how’s that going to benefit anyone?

Added to that, general every day attitudes towards working mums that we have to cope with: as an example, my son’s primary school held a Mother’s Day morning tea at 10.30am which led to a half day out of the office for me but when Father’s Day came along it was a BBQ at 6pm because the expectation was it would have to be done ‘after hours’ to accommodate the fathers’ work. School holidays/ kids sports training / helping the kids with homework/ giving balanced meals and just generally spending time with the family are all flashpoints in the every day life of a working mum. I do no deny these issues also affect working dads but in general it is the mother/female who is judged by society (most often by -amazingly - OTHER WOMEN!) for any failings. I look at the attitudes of enlightened people to my husband “you’re so lucky, he cooks sometimes!” “you’re so lucky he picks the kids up from day care one day a week!” I AM lucky compared to a lot of men he is fantastic but no one says to him “oh, you’re so lucky your wife has a full time career and earns good money AND picks the kids up 4 days a week and cooks dinner most nights!” It’s taken for granted that I will perform the later two duties

I don’t see how quotas will fix all of those things!!

Trjn says:

11:48am | 16/10/09

Sexism is a cultural problem and introducing discriminatory laws to try to counteract that will not solve anything.

If you have a workplace that’s say, 70% male, then they’d most likely have to recruit some women for future positions meaning that equally or better qualified men miss out.

That also goes the other way, if a workplace is predominantly female, equally or better qualified women will miss out on positions and I guarantee that would cause a lot more notice.

How about tackling the cultural problem where people think that the board of directors is an old boys’ club and instead highlight the women in those position to encourage other women to actually go for the positions? Once women stop thinking that they have to work harder to prove that they’re equal, I think there would be a much better chance of finding equality.

Change people’s perceptions instead of forcing them to hire based on gender instead of who is the best qualified.

AdamC says:

11:40am | 16/10/09

Australia has historically (and admirably) shied away from “affirmative action” style quota systems because, of course, they are so obviously unjust. Elizabeth’s piece, however, displays absolutely no empathy for the men who may be unfairly denied promotion if an arbitrary quota system was imposed upon private enterprise in Australia.

In addition, Elizabeth doesn’t respond to the obvious other problem with such a quota system, that it would be a further regulatory imposition by government on the private sector and individuals, with attendant compliance and operational costs.

kel says:

11:36am | 16/10/09

@ Eric
Couldn’t quite answer Tim Chapman’s question hey??
“If you have any suggestions on how to reduce the number of men who end up in jail, or an actual argument about why women should not be in work in roughly proportionate numbers, I’d be interested to hear them.”

Bit too logical for bitter tirades. Didn’t expect much there.

For the record, as a hard working woman, I actually don’t want quotas. I don’t want a job because I’m a woman, I want to get if I’m the best candidate. Regardless of my gender.
Sadly though, statistics clearly show there is a drastic under representation of women, to the point that this clearly isn’t happening in many workplaces.
This is why drastic measures are entertained in the first place.

If men were under represented the way women were, someone like Eric would be crying in a corner somewhere.

The jail arguement, is perhaps the most laughable I’ve seen on the punch though, so congrats for that!

To the good guys out there who give women a fair go, thank you!

Tim says:

11:32am | 16/10/09

Marmalade,
you have no argument so you want to cry “Sexist”.
Do you seriously think that women taking time out to have children should not affect their careers?
Here is a scenario: Two people are employed by the same company who are equally qualified and start work at the same time.
After 10 years, 1 employee has had two years off work (outside of regular leave), while the other has not.
Who is more experienced? Who should be promoted?

If you think having children and taking time off work should not affect your career you are severly deluded.
But keep playing the victim if it makes you feel better.

Andrew says:

11:28am | 16/10/09

Terrible idea and as a Male im offended at even the slightest hint of this idea being suggested, this article promotes sexism towards men and should be removed. Marmalade your a bitter joke of a person, would you like your platter handed to you in gold or silver?

Eric says:

11:22am | 16/10/09

Oh Marmalade, you are such a caricature.

You whinge on and on about inequality, but then defend the inequality in the Sex Discrimination Commission itself.

If the Sex Discrimination Commission seriously believed that quotas wre the way to go, it would apply those quotas to itself first of all. The failure to do so says all that needs to be said about that organisation.

As for taking time off not affecting careers—are you serious? A man who took several tears off at random wouldn’t be promoted to the highest echelons, and neither should a woman who does the same.

You don’t want equality. You want special privileges for one sex. And that’s just wrong.

David C says:

11:17am | 16/10/09

Can I suggest one way to achieve your gender equality would be to ban single sex schools. How can you expect one sex to accept the other equally when their formative years are spent isolated from each other. In the case of men, for most of their growing years the only women they are exposed to are teachers who are more figures of authority not peers.
Schooling together is a great first step to working together.
Positive discrimination is a bad move.

Marmalade says:

11:03am | 16/10/09

This thread of comments has proved Elizabeth’s point. Sexism is a major problem in Australian society. But like many women, sometimes I feel it’s easier to leave a pack of dickheads like most of the commenters here to chat amongst themselves.

A lack of female representation on boards is not the only problem we have. There is still massive inequality in pay and retirement savings. Discrimination against women on maternity leave etc etc etc.

And to those arguing that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner’s office should implement a quota themselves, how ridiculous. That is completely off topic and irrelevant to the issue of female representation on boards. For the record, the Sex Discrimination Commisioner is one of four members of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Of the four members, two are male and two are female.

Oh, and one more thing - why should women having to take time off work seriously affect their careers?

Bec L says:

10:58am | 16/10/09

Nice one Elizabeth. The paragraph that best sums up this debate is ’ the World Economic Forum has found that, while Australia ranks equal first for women’s educational attainment, it is fortieth in women’s workplace participation. ’ At a basic economic level we have to try to do something to fix this issue. So driving women to be better educated hasn’t worked, asking the boys to play nicely hasn’t worked,  so what other options remain but a quota system? Its a healthy debate to be had.

Carl Palmer says:

10:44am | 16/10/09

Elizabeth I will restrain myself here only because it is Friday, but the statement that “the return on our investment in the education of women is very low” I find ridiculous and offensive.

If you have talent, drive, ambition you will get to wherever you want to go. This applies to males and females. In all of the years in the workforce I have never ever heard one word uttered that would prevent an individual from climbing the corporate ladder. I would suggest the opposite – corporations look for TALENT and they don’t care if you are male OR female black or white. If you can improve their EBIT then they will embrace you and never let you go!!! This feminist line is a complete nonsense and a waste of time.

In my household I’m surrounded by 3 very talented females who not only continue to achieve but who also make a solid contribution to our society. All have university degrees and all provide a huge ROI. One was sounded out for a position on a board.

The simple fact is this, if you really really want it and are prepared to slug it out – you will get it!  Some females don’t want it but some do and like men will pay the price. 

The right person for the right job is where we need to be. Please commit the gender quotas concept to the bin.

Oh and another thing, my daughters girlfriends are also kicking arse and doing really good things. I’m proud of them all.

Tim says:

10:17am | 16/10/09

Tim Chapman,
Have you heard of children? They’re these little humans that come out of women after incubating for 9 months, requiring women to take significant time off work.
They are the primary reason why women will never be in the workplace in equal numbers to men.

@Marmalade
Q: Why are the majority of board members male?
A: Because these men have had real life, uninterrupted experience of working to the top of their field. End of Story.

Eric says:

10:07am | 16/10/09

Tim, your sexism is showing.

You favour quotas when they benefit women, but not when they disadvantage women. This is inconsistent and discriminatory.

This is typical of the feminist mindset: “Equality is good when women stand to gain, but bad when women stand to lose.”

True equality means taking on both the advantages and disadvantages. I have yet to see a feminist who actually stands for equality.

Marmalade, If equal opportunity quotas are good enough for businesses, why aren’t they good enough for the Commission itself? One rule for me, another rule for thee.

Marmalade says:

09:46am | 16/10/09

Q: Why is the Sex Discrimination Commissioner always a woman?
A: Because those women have had real-life, first-hand experience of sex discrimination. End of story.

Enforcing gender quotas on boards would be an excellent experiment - there’s no other way to fix this terrible problem at the moment.

Rob Todd says:

09:43am | 16/10/09

If the Punch’s readers are part Australia’s best conversation a few of the above performances should be relegated to the red faces segment on Hey hey its Saturday (1965).

Elizabeth made the following challenging and insightful comment:

“It is time for us to aim high and present a truly innovative plan.

I firmly believe that, instead of women working with women or women working with men, significant gains will only occur when men starting to work with men to solve this problem. After all, it is men who make the rules in business, so real change will only take place when they are invested.

And finally, once we have agreed upon what we want, then we need to put all the options and possibilities on the table.
It is time for us to aim high and present a truly innovative plan.

I firmly believe that, instead of women working with women or women working with men, significant gains will only occur when men starting to work with men to solve this problem. After all, it is men who make the rules in business, so real change will only take place when they are invested.

And finally, once we have agreed upon what we want, then we need to put all the options and possibilities on the table. “

So to those who want her job in the hands of a bloke or have “superior male logic”  are you up to the challenge? What other alternatives do you propose ?  Or will the silence on the substance remain deafening?

Michael says:

09:41am | 16/10/09

True equality is a great foundation for applied talent and diligence.  It is not the creation of government-legislated quotas and/or any other application of sexism.  It is ironic that the means you suggest is the same thing as the “glass ceiling” that you decry.

Russell says:

09:41am | 16/10/09

A sex discrimination commissioner advocating for sex discrimination, there is something inherently wrong about that situation.

Tim Chapman says:

09:31am | 16/10/09

Eric, just because Freddo has raised a fasecious example doesn’t affect the points in mine or Elizabeth’s case.

I can support women having the opportunity to participate equally in the workplace, without needing to have a woman in jail for every man.

If you have any suggestions on how to reduce the number of men who end up in jail, or an actual argument about why women should not be in work in roughly proportionate numbers, I’d be interested to hear them.

ShaneO says:

08:59am | 16/10/09

A possible reason for lack of female representation is they are acting as fulltime mothers.

Elisabeth states 50% of graduates are female which is when the majority would be in their early childless twenties. Representation drops significantly at the board level - or about the age women switch from careers to having children (don’t know the stats but I am sure it’s significant.)

Would another factor be the lack of decent child caring facilitites allowing women/mothers to move into the higher echelons? 

I don’t doubt sexism exists but at the approximately 95% level this article suggets!? The issue is much broader then that.

Glenn T says:

08:58am | 16/10/09

Goodbye Elizabeth~ need any help packing?
Maybe you could interest a few of your non-performing sisters to keep you company! Meridith Hellicar (ex-Hardies),  Elizabeth Bryan (Caltex Chair-thingy), Sue Morphett (CEO Pacific Brands) spring to mind ; just for starters of course. Lets not get started on the loyal old Labor hackesses littering the NSW Public Service!  Gender quotas are so last century Elizabeth!

Eric says:

08:58am | 16/10/09

Fine, Tim, you support quotas.

So are you going to support Freddo’s proposal for a 40% quota on women in prison?

Or do you only support *some* quotas, when they favour certain groups over others?

Hitchy says:

08:56am | 16/10/09

Ah, but isn’t ‘positive’ discrimination still discrimination?...I vote for the best ‘person’ to do the job, rather than someone filling the criteria by being the best ‘gay, whale, of indigenous descent, who is female…. etc, etc.

I can well imagine the attitude of companies ‘forced’ to accept such appointments, to the appointee….a win for business & feminism?...I think not

T.Chong says:

08:56am | 16/10/09

Freddo: the courts and whole legal system goes softer on women - prime example; teacher/ students- if a male teacher is convicted of a “sex” crime against a female student, he can at least look forward to full time custodial sentence (as he deserves)
if a female teacher does so, and convicted she would very rarely be placed in prison, may recieve community service etc   She would then appear in a womens mag,or tabloid TV, and claim she was the victim. Women have a Womens Legal Service provided by the govt. Men, who cant afford a solicitor get to plead guilty. A fair system.NOT = higher incarceration rates.

Steve Smith says:

08:53am | 16/10/09

@Tim Chapman: you’d gladly miss out on a few jobs that you deserved? LOL

What about giving your job to a transexual? Does that count? Because you really shouldn’t discriminate against a woman trapped in a man’s body either. I probably should take this topic seriously.. but I can’t.

shabangabang says:

08:42am | 16/10/09

Isn’t hiring somebody based on gender rather than skills and qualifications discrimination? Surely a sex discrimination commisioner would already know that, so why side-step it in order to write an opinion piece.

Tim Chapman says:

08:36am | 16/10/09

I think Elizabeth’s article is eminently sensible, well-evidenced and clearly argued. It is free of the hysteria to which most of the above comments have resorted.

There are really only two conclusions to draw from the evidence presented: Either women are, as a sex, inferior or there is a problem in our culture that requires going beyond eliminating structural discrimination.

As a man, I agree with the assessment that men have to take equal responsibility to address what is clearly a fault within our society’s current culture.

Quotas are an excellent idea. They are a jolt to the culture. A culture where, after a full generation of women in education, the statistics in Elizabeth’s article are a great disappointment.

Critics will point to the many positive changes that have helped women get a foothold in education and the professional world. I agree that our culture is changing, but as the results show, not quickly enough.

I also agree that quotas would not be without problems. They would result in many individual cases in which better suited men were passed over simply because of their sex. As a man, I may one-day myself lose out because of a quota system.

But even hundreds of such individual cases cannot be compared to the fact that currently half of our society are not getting the opportunity to contribute to the best of their potential.

I don’t think quotas would need to remain in place longer than a generation. I think quotas will get women where they deserve to be and then talent will keep them there.

I’d gladly miss out on a few jobs I deserved if it meant that our culture changed to the point that, in my daughter’s lifetime, women were participating proportionately across a range of occupations, and without the need for a quota system to get them there.

If we let things continue at their own pace, it will not be my daughter’s generation, but perhaps my great grand-daughter’s generation, and that’s too long to wait.

Lisa says:

08:29am | 16/10/09

Comments like those above are why I have not accepted many board positions.

Spending your time justifying your presence, despite your skills and experience, because of your gender is too tiring and ultimately ineffective. I would rather use my time more productively by running private companies (which never appear in these statistics because of their very nature).

Fight the battles you can win, is my advice.

Samuel says:

08:23am | 16/10/09

Elizabeth - it would be a good idea for you and your office to move to Norway. I’m sure the taxpayer would be happy to pay for a one-way ticket

Freddo says:

08:10am | 16/10/09

93% of the Prison Population is Male.
This is disgraceful discrimation against males.
We must bring in gender quotas to bring the prison population up to at least 40% female to represent society better.

Germaine says:

08:06am | 16/10/09

This sounds like it is merely a continuation of the demands for special treatment that women are brought up to believe is their right.  It starts pre-school with “Mummeeee, he won’t give me his toy!”, and apparently continues right up to the (female) position of Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

Women who are prepared to commit to an organisation will be treated exactly the same as anybody else.  And women who don’t want to make that commitment will be treated exactly the same as anybody else with the same attitude.

BW says:

07:48am | 16/10/09

I can’t stand positive discrimination twaddle. While we’re at it, let’s also get a quota on the number of male nurses, male primary school teachers, male receptionists and stay-at-home dads! Oh that’s right, the previous government attempted to create special scholarships for males to enter teaching but the unions and leftists howled it down. Come back when you really believe in ‘gender equality’ instead of the female victimhood syndrome.

T.Chong says:

07:39am | 16/10/09

This quota system is the physical reality of Femimism 101- women somehow bring feminime qualities to a situation, they dont. All they do is bring the qualities of that particular indivual female to the board.
Numerous studies have shown that with two similar people-family background,education and career path etc, than there is no difference in decision making or ethics, male or female.
The “special qualities” women bring are a secret only known to the angry” Wymmins study” lecturers .so common in our unis during the 1980s-90s. As recent board fiascos (eg:J.Hardy and Bonds ) show,women do not bring an elevated sense of morality.  Men and women : morally, intelluctualy,virtues and vices are the same. For every great guy, there is a great lady. For every complete stuff up male, there is a female counterpart. True equality means just that. Neither men or women have a monopoly on any part of society,good or bad.

Steve Smith says:

07:37am | 16/10/09

Gender quotas are a great idea!! But in all fairness they would have to be implemented across the whole workforce and not just the nice jobs.

So whats the quota for tradies going to be? Or is this not the type of job we need gender equality in?

John says:

07:35am | 16/10/09

I completely agree we need to address the issue of under representation of women on boards. But I do not believe that quotas are a viable option, or a realistic approach. Have a look at CAMACs report on Board Diversity, which I would note you have not referred to in your article - a bit odd I thought considering your topic. CAMAC looks at this very issue, and finds serious issues with the system of quotas for boards. CAMAC found that in Norway there was, as in Australia, only a select group of women who are actually qualified to be on boards, and thus were ending up taking on 25-35 different board positions, and you cannot expect someone who is on 35 different company or government boards to be able to constructively contribute to all of them, or really any of them due to time constraints.

What needs to be addressed is the lack of support to help women obtain the relevent training or experience to be considered for board appointments. This is the real challenge and needs to be addressed, but quotas won’t do it.

coxie says:

07:18am | 16/10/09

Eric, I’ve often wondered too: why is the ‘Sex Discrimination’ Commissioner ALWAYS a woman? My (you can guess my gender) superior logic, however, tends to the view that any other gender would be seen by the predominantly X-gene gender as discriminatory.

Toddzilla says:

07:17am | 16/10/09

No offence, Elizabeth, but you are a raving loony? Quotas are the ultimate form of sexism and discrimination. Clearly, you only received your job as part of a quota if you can’t perceive that most basic part of your job description. Quotas only serve to re-enforce stereotypes, no matter how well intentioned. For example, appoint a woman to the board for no other reason than there is a quota to fill. Pretty soon she’ll stuff up which will just emphasise in people’s minds that women weren’t up to the job in the first place. From then on all women applying for and in that role are viewed through those eyes. That discrimination against women would not occur, however, if a woman was appointed by merit and stuffed up - in that case, people will merely conclude that it is a bad appointment. No matter what the leftards think, woman in Australia have every opportunity (and sometimes more) to reach the top. To suggest otherwise is a ridiculous furphy.

dude says:

07:04am | 16/10/09

To even ask for quotas is the very sign of your own short comings. I for one wouldn’t want you any need my board, except of cause pushing a drinks trolley.

@BlokesLib says:

06:50am | 16/10/09

I read this article 3 times trying to pick up on whether it’s tongue in cheek. I believe it’s not. There are people out there who honestly believe a quota system is the way to go. Almost every week we receive correspondence from men who have had a raw deal due to gender equality rules. Particularly in government. It’s dumb. It’s destructive. It just ends up with the wrong person in the job. At the end of the day I believe in equal opportunities for both sexes. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Wayne H says:

06:00am | 16/10/09

What a joke! quotas? We got us a women running QLD and just look at the mess we are in. I don’t discriminate! Just believe in the best MAN for the job LOL I am responding tongue in cheek because that’s how I am hoping you wrote this garbage.

Elodie says:

05:59am | 16/10/09

No, if the answer is quotas you don’t know the question. In recent years there is no evidence of discrimination between men and women. This would be a massive step back for women - I’m embarrassed to read that people still peddle such nonsense. Oh, on Norway, the head of its Whale Farming organisation is a woman.

WHR says:

05:34am | 16/10/09

This can’t be serious? Quotas? We don’t live in Stalinist Russia here, that won’t fly in Australia.

Eric says:

05:05am | 16/10/09

Quotas are a form of discrimination, and Australian laws should not discriminate.

By the way, why are “Sex Discrimination Commissioners”  always female? If you believed in your own principles, you’d introduce quotas in your own office.