What was it that we women set out to achieve so long ago I can hardly remember the detail?  Did we want to take over the world?  Did we want to make men subservient to our will?  Were we angry enough to march in the streets for our right for equality?  No to the first two and yes, to the last. 

What? I'm sure there's a chick in here somewhere… Pic: Tricia Watkinson

I remember the US author Deidre Bair telling us at a Writers’ Week that what we wanted was equality, we all had men as friends, lovers, husbands, sons, brothers, we just wanted to have the same opportunities as they had and that bitterness had no place in a brave new world. 

Well, for some it had, those most mistreated in some cultures, but for most of us women living in affluent Australia, it didn’t seem too hard to expect that we could easily settle for equality of opportunity.  So, why now, in another century ,is it still so hard to achieve that equality?

Politics is something I know about, having spent 17 years in the South Australian Parliament, so let’s take politics as an example. 

It’s a tough old world in those hallowed halls of State and Federal Parliament, so its a pretty tough breed of men and women who find themselves not only elected, but also working within the Party of their choice. South Australia has the proud record of being the first place in the world to grant the twin right to vote AND stand for Parliament. This happened in 1894, but it took SA until 1959 before two Liberal women were elected, one to the Lower House and one to the Upper House. 

We had a few more firsts in that long struggle, including a Right-wing Labor woman as Deputy Leader of the Labor Opposition (Annette Hurley) and myself as Left-wing Labor Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council. Great, we thought, we can do it in Opposition and surely we will do it when we get into Government – but no, that seems a bridge too far.
From these firsts, SA is now the only state that has not had a woman Premier.

It seems it’s been the women in South Australia who have been eased out of Cabinet - women in very marginal seats, who have lost their positions in close elections and women who have been overlooked in this latest round of promotions.   

Not only do we have no women in the top positions, but we now have some men whose religious beliefs are very much out of step with modern Australia. Personally, I think we should leave our religion or lack of it outside Parliament. Let’s just rely on our humanity, our intelligence and our common sense to guide us through these tougher times. 

It’s interesting to note that at the Federal level MPs have been asked to go and consult their communities about any proposal to allow same-sex couples to wed - I await the results with interest.

Well, guys, even the conservative Catholic church has managed to elect a women as a saint, although it did take a hundred years to do it. 

I’m too impatient to wait until long after my death to see women in the top positions in the Labor Party.  I know Premier Mike Rann does support women in Parliament - he strongly supported the Affirmative Action rule changes, and certainly strongly supported both Annette and I in our positions. 

It was a good little group, one man and two women!  He was very comfortable with that role. 

How times change. 

A whiff of real power sets the factions a’twitching, those hungry young men eager for promotion.  Let’s not forget that there are also hungry young women out there too.  And while we are about so-called generational change, whatever that means, let’s not forget that people over the age of 50 have a hell of a lot to contribute, both with history,  intelligence and a lot of life experience. 

Youth does not necessarily equate to being socially or politically progressive - some young people are born a hundred years old in their head. 

Most of the people I served with in Parliament with were pretty progressive and some great legislation was passed.  However, vigilance is ever the key to progressing social reform.  And while I’m addressing this generational and gender issue, I don’t see the Trade Union movement being very progressive here either - I seem to have seen some of those male faces around for an awfully long time.

I was honoured to have a “first” tacked to my name, but I am not a woman who wants just that “first”. I want to see many, many women take up top positions both within government and in the general community.  It seems politics is a hard road for this kind of reform in SA.

How, then do we change? 

Well, we do have an Affirmative Action rule in the ALP and this needs to be strictly adhered to.  The rule does not extend to Cabinet, and it should. Is it too much to ask that women be represented in the top positions in the ALP – that we reflect the community that has more women than men?  And don’t tell me there is a lack of talent. 

Yes, we lost women at the last election, so let’s make a concerted effort to put women into safe seats.  More than anything else, let’s finally recognise that women have so much to contribute, in all spheres of life, including politics. 

Most commented

63 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      04:49am | 24/02/11

      This is almost too easy.

      “... we all had men as friends, lovers, husbands, sons, brothers, we just wanted to have the same opportunities as they had ... so, why now, in another century, is it still so hard to achieve that equality?”

      I dunno, why?

      “Well, we do have an Affirmative Action rule in the ALP”

      Oh, I see. You don’t have equality of opportunity, because Affirmative Action means women have *more* opportunity than men.

      “... and this needs to be strictly adhered to.”

      Wait a minute, I thought you said you just wanted equal opportunity? Now you demand better opportunities than men!

      This is the essence of feminism. It claims to want equality, but in reality it demands the supremacy of women over men.

    • KH says:

      06:55am | 24/02/11

      Wow how predicatable that you would be the first comment, and again with the same boring vitriol as usual.  Thanks for that.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      08:56am | 24/02/11

      @ KH - “and again with the same boring vitriol as usual”

      Did you mean the article?

    • AF says:

      09:17am | 24/02/11

      Thing is though, KH, he’s hardly wrong. Talking about equality and then trumpeting affirmative action bullshit in the same post is certainly worth a giggle. Talking about extending affirmative action to the cabinet itself to ensure “equality of opportunity” is even more laughable.

      Erick might be spewing vitriol, but doing that is a damn sight better than actively promoting misandric policies under the auspices of fairness.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:50am | 24/02/11

      Right again, Erick.

      Women do have equality of opportunity. The fact that Carolyn Pickles spent 17 years in SA Parliament is evidence of that. The fact that the law states that women can run for parliament is evidence of that.

      The fact that no woman in the current crop has proven herself worthy to be elected and chosen is not proof that equality of opportunity doesn’t exist.

      It’s more to do with the quality of the candidate.

    • KH says:

      10:06am | 24/02/11

      AF - he is wrong.  The idea of ‘affirmative action’ is to break the cycle that prevents one group from being involved in whatever industry or area it is we are talking about.  The ‘culture’ of an organisation will largely dictate who they employ and who they promote.  Women have been excluded more often than not because they don’t fit in with the incumbent ‘culture’ - which usually involves things like golf, football, ogling women etc - it isn’t always just about ability.  The idea of affirmative action is to force the entry of the excluded group - since we are talking about gender here, to change the culture that largely excludes women, into one that is inviting to anyone.  It isn’t supposed to last forever - just long enough that the cultural change that excludes one group over another can occur.  You can still play golf - on your own time -  just not as a test of your ability to fit in and be considered the right kind of person to promote.

      I look at the management team of my company, which is all male - they go on ‘corporate golf days’, the company gets boxes at the football - it is these ‘networking’ activities that get you into the position where promotion is more likely - yet these activities are not things most women are interested in, which makes it almost impossible to get ‘in’ to the group.  So how are we supposed to get there?  Why should I force myself to feign interest in football, which I actually can’t stand?  I don’t like golf - why should I force myself to play it?  Why should I be happy to sit there and listen to derogatory comments about women that some of these guys come up with after a few drinks?  Why can’t I just be accepted for my ability, which is the equal of, if not better than, some of the males that are ‘in’?  Why can’t the activities be things that anyone can be involved in?  How would you like to have to learn about make up brands or shoe stores or some other fluffy nonsense to get ‘in’ so that you might be promoted in your job?  How about being taken to a corporate box at the netball?  Interested?  I’m guessing not - you would feel pretty frustrated too if this was the case, so try to see it from my perspective. 

      It is incredibly frustrating to find this again and again - organisation cultures that are largely geared to mens interests, making it incredibly difficult for women to make the connections that are needed to move up the ladder.  The truth is how you are perceived in the group is at least equal to, if not more important than your actual ability to do the job.  There is more to it than just this, but I feel its necessary to point out what affirmative action is supposed to be for.

    • Aasq says:

      10:09am | 24/02/11

      Wasn’t it just, KH ? Although as I’ve mentioned before, you do have to feel sorry for the poor dear. Imagine being so consumed by your hatred of women that every morning you’re jolted awake by it and need to rush to the nearest computer to vent your bile.

    • Lostie says:

      10:30am | 24/02/11

      KH:

      “yet these activities are not things most women are interested in, which makes it almost impossible to get ‘in’ to the group.”

      You’ve hit it on the head. I participate in activities that I don’t like because I want to get ahead. I know that I have to get into the group so I pretend that I share their interest (primarily shoe shopping, celebrity gossip and, increasingly, a woman’s right to be stay at home mum if they don’t want to work).

      Life is full of choices - you can choose to “play the game” or choose to be left behind. Your chromosomes don’t prevent you from playing the game - it’s a choice. I choose to put up with their crap so that I can get ahead. It’s a small price to pay. I can acknowledge that it is my interests (rather than my gender) that are at odds with the senior staff.

    • Markus says:

      10:41am | 24/02/11

      KH I think you will find that very few people have any actual interest in golf, male or female.
      Golf days are never about the golf. They are about showing that you are a team player, and are willing to do whatever it takes to succeed.

      The successful people, men and women, suck it up and use the system to their advantage.

      The unsuccessful ones sit around complaining that the whole system is unfair, and demand that the government change it to suit them.

    • Zoe says:

      10:57am | 24/02/11

      @KH, You cant presume all men like golf and football either. Might be plenty just going along with it. It can be difficult for anyone whether male or female to fit in. Even something as simple as not eating meat can be tricky when going out to a work function especially if you dont want everyone to make a big deal out of it, which they inevitably do. Same if you dont drink alcohol. (my husband for example) Theres always someone who thinks theres something wrong with those who dont drink - until they want a ride home. Thats just life no matter what sex you are. Imagine what gay people must go through. I find it odd that you think women dont like golf, sure not all do but its actually very popular amongst many women. If you think all men like sport and all women like shoes, I would suggest you go into things with a more open mind, give things a go and you might find your carreer will benefit.

    • Tim says:

      11:08am | 24/02/11

      KH,
      the things you mentioned don’t have any sexist basis.
      How is going to the footy or playing golf sexist?
      What about males who don’t like footy or play golf, are they advantaged over you too?
      OR what you are really saying is that you don’t like the culture in your company and don’t want to make sacrifices to get ahead?
      Well Boo Hoo. HTFU.
      Everyone has to sacrifice things to get ahead.
      You sound like you want things to be handed to you on a platter and if you don’t get them you’re going to whinge about discrimination and how unfair everything is. Yeah, those are really the qualities I look for in a team member who deserves promotion.
      Maybe men get ahead because they don’t go and cry everytime they don’t get things their own way?

    • Ando says:

      11:37am | 24/02/11

      KH,
      A box at the football, what a nightmare. I was offered a place in a tent at the races by my employer and I dont even like the races. 
      There will always be more men in this culture because more men aspire to reach those levels. It will never be half and half so suck it up and go and have a round of golf once a year if it helps your career.

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:06pm | 24/02/11

      KH
      Others have correctly pointed out the fallacy of your argument.

      Getting into the higher ranks is more than just ability and qualifications. It’s also about being a team player.

      If you’re not prepared to do that then you don’t deserve the job or any respect.

    • Fi says:

      07:40pm | 24/02/11

      The affirmative action rule is 35% and it’s not achieved. How the hell do you think that women have MORE opportunity?

    • Markus says:

      08:53am | 25/02/11

      @Fi, Currently, it is entirely possible for women to account for 100% of seats on merit if there was such a number of qualified, experienced candidates.
      There is no similar mandate requiring men to account for a single seat.
      That the affirmative action rule exists at all is proof that women have more opportunity.

    • TF says:

      04:54am | 24/02/11

      Enter the proxies in the SA ALP civil strife.  And anyway, prescribed “equal” representation aside, why would you want the top job? Isn’t the ascension of a woman to the premiership 10 years into a government’s life an admission of anticipated defeat?

    • KC says:

      06:14am | 24/02/11

      Are you frigging kidding me?

      The problem is that you have an affirmative action rule in the ALP. It means that no woman who gets in has respect because she’s just there to fill the quota.

      If you want more women in the roles then do the hard yards, do the lobbying, count the numbers. Have women worthy of the task and get them to run - if they are the best person for the job and they have the numbers they’ll get the job. Anything else is in your head so stop whinging and get on with it.

    • Bob says:

      06:59am | 24/02/11

      Yes - and you end up with the ALP putting up mindless dolly-birds as candidates who smile a lot, but haven’t a clue what they are talking about. An insult to the voters and symptomatic of the lack of business acumen and talent in Government at all levels at the moment. The public has lost faith in the political process and that is it, pure and simple.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      12:45pm | 24/02/11

      Well said KC. 
       
      As it happens, SA could have easily had a woman Premier after the last election and probably would have but for fake how-to-vote cards together with pork-barreling in 4 marginal seats. I’d vote for Isobel myself, frankly, but there is no way I’d vote for anyone who was parachuted into preselection just because she had tits. 
       
      I have actually voted for a few women over the years, including Claire Martin, who become Chief Minister for the NT and who I personally believed to be the most capable candidate. She got my vote because of her qualities as a community leader, her policies and probably most tellingly, her control over the parliamentary party. Not because she wore a skirt.
       
      I have to add that I spent the last few years (up to and beyond the last Federal election) living in the far NE corner of the electorate of Lalor, before heading to SA,  and did not vote for the incumbent female.

    • KC says:

      06:20am | 24/02/11

      Oh, and as for your asinine comment about the Catholic Church and saints, I have one word for you: Mary.

    • Rose says:

      07:15am | 24/02/11

      “Well, guys, even the conservative Catholic church has managed to elect a women as a saint, although it did take a hundred years to do it.” Mary isn’t the first Catholic Saint, there have been female saints for hundreds of years, and they aren’t elected, it’s not a popularity contest.

    • Tedd says:

      07:29am | 24/02/11

      quite contrary?

    • KH says:

      07:58am | 24/02/11

      Rose - yes it is.  They do it to keep the dumb masses (sorry, ‘flock’)  interested.

    • Tedd says:

      08:08am | 24/02/11

      Appointing saints is no compensation for not allowing women t have positions of leadership in the church proper.

    • James1 says:

      09:27am | 24/02/11

      Rose,

      I think KC was referring the Mary the mother of Christ.  She if very highly revered by Catholics.  As a young Catholic, we were taught two mains prayers - the Lords Prayer and the Hail Mary.  That seems like a pretty high postion in the church to me.

    • Rose says:

      03:17pm | 24/02/11

      Sorry James1, I’m pretty sure she meant Mary MacKillop, the Virgin Mary is not a Saint, she is the Mother of God, big difference. You’re right Tedd, female leadership within the Church is way overdue, but KH, grow up! Whatever you have against the churches it is pretty immature to fall back on the ‘dumb masses’ line, there are close to a billion Christians worldwide and you can’t seriously be suggesting they are all dumb. That’s the kind of insult you throw out when you have nothing of value to say.
      I don’t profess to be a practicing Catholic, and I definitely do not support all of their teachings, but I do have a healthy respect for the good work and good intentions of most of the Church leaders I encountered when I was. My problem with people who have objections to Church behaviour, tradition or teaching is that so often they either have no idea of what they are talking about, their statements are years out of date or they just fall back on insults such as ‘dumb masses.’ I have the same problem with people who slag off against any religion they are in fact clueless about.

    • Tammy Franks says:

      06:41am | 24/02/11

      Jane Lomax-Smith WAS in a safe seat in 2010 - the policies of this state government got her booted out not the backroom blokes. Then again those policies do seem driven by the backroom blokes… Coincidence?

    • Sam P says:

      08:16am | 24/02/11

      Spot on Tammy - and I note that it was a very hard working Liberal woman who won the seat. Rachel Sanderson was a nobody until about two years before when she started pounding the pavement, literally, to earn her seat.

    • TChong says:

      06:45am | 24/02/11

      Carolyn- your suggestions are the opposite to democracy, or office thru merit.
      Your brand of feminism 101 isnt about equality at all, but privelege thru gender.
      Isnt that the very issue that Feminism was born to fight?
      After re-reading this article, I think you composed this for 1 april.
      You must be having a lend.

    • Eye4anEye says:

      06:52pm | 24/02/11

      TChong I almost fainted - I agree with you smile

      also to add a few observations: Prime minister female check, Good proportion of Premiers female check, Growing proportion of females in management roles check - looks like equality is pretty much here, if you work hard for it will come. Please stop trying to turn it into a matriarchal society.

      Further observation on why women may not be doing so well professionally. I have observed a substantial proportion of women in the 20-35 age group that express no desire to enter the work force beyond some low skilled position - indeed these women are usually accompanied by a large credit card debt and a desire to attach themselves to a gentleman to “take care” of them.

      Would love a truly equal society - then everyone can get off their bums and contribute and not what we currently have where a portion of “equal” rights advocates demand equal rights without equal responsibility then abuse the system for unfair advantage

    • Al says:

      07:07am | 24/02/11

      *sigh* I’m going to ignore the earlier commenters on this piece, but I will just say, I don’t know why men take it as a personal attack when women point out that things might not be exactly fair.

      Carolyn, thank you for this! This recent ministerial reshuffle has made me so angry. Labor has abandoned many of the facets that made me a staunch Labor voter. Over recent years they’ve given me a rough trot, I still voted for them, but definitely did not enjoy it. I NEVER thought I’d vote Liberal - NEVER! But, this is the final straw. Not only are the women in the SA ministry sidelined (and possibly it could be argued are not overly good ministeral performers), but the new appointments come from a faction of the Labor Party I find very, very disturbing and far less appealing than Redmond’s politics. 

      It was reported Chloe Fox didn’t get appointed because of her family commitments. ONE CHILD. Snelling has six. But what? that’s okay, because father’s aren’t really important? All the while, Julia Gillard is criticised for having none.  It’s so frustrating, as I thought these kind of attitudes were dying out.

      You’ve pushed me Labor and I’ll be voting Liberal (argh!) the next election.

    • Tim says:

      08:38am | 24/02/11

      “I don’t know why men take it as a personal attack when women point out that things might not be exactly fair. “

      I know, preferencial treatment such as the ALP’s quota isn’t fair or equal to men. And the author specifically says all feminist’s want is equality. Why do women get so upset when men point out this simple fact?

    • lostie says:

      09:11am | 24/02/11

      Al,

      Only an idiot would appoint someone to a 24 hour job if that person had other full time obligations, or commitments that they place above the job.

      Knelling may have kids, but it is clear that he is willing to put his job above his family. Can you tell me that Fox was of the same level of commitment?

      For obvious reasons a primary care giver (whether to a child, sick partner or other family member)  will be unable to commit to the 24 hours responsibility that is a ministerial portfolio. It has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with priority.

      I don’t know about you - but when the Government is appointing a Minister I hope that they appoint someone who put their ministerial duties above every aspect of their life (whether it be time at the local sports club, family time or their love of the golf course). I don’t want a Minister who says “Yeah, I’ll review that policy change tomorrow, I’m booked in to tee off at 12” or “I can’t make that meeting, I’ve got to take little Jimmy to the school”.

      Choose your priority and live with the consequences.

    • Lucius says:

      10:03am | 24/02/11

      @Tim

      The fact is women don’t yet have equality, if they did they would be paid the same as men, not less.

    • Tim says:

      11:47am | 24/02/11

      Lucius,
      where are men paid more than women?
      It’s against the law you know.
      OH wait, you mean women who are paid less for doing different jobs or less work than their male counterparts.
      Yes, of course, let’s pay women more for doing less work than their male counterparts. That will really fix the equality balance.

    • Lucius says:

      09:04pm | 24/02/11

      Tim the fact that you are oblivious to the fact that in quite a few industries women do not have equal pay yet, just shows what an unintelligent, backward sexist little pissant you really are.

    • Tim says:

      07:59am | 25/02/11

      Ah Lucius,
      insults? Really, Is that your complete argument?
      With logical arguments like that, it’s no wonder people who support this pay gap myth struggle in the real world.

    • Lucy says:

      07:16am | 24/02/11

      Oh come clean KC.  To say that the the system of political cronyism that currently exists within the SA ALP has anything to do with merit is simply laughable.

      You really don’t expect anyone to believe that the likes of Finnigan, Snelling and Koutsantonis were granted their positions in the SA Cabinet on the basis of their meritorious service to the community, their outstanding knowledge of South Australia’s economic and social needs or their giant intellects do you?

      You know full well that they were all elected not on any basis of merit but through a quota system based simply on their membership of the conservative, religious right SDA Union.

    • Lostie says:

      08:45am | 24/02/11

      Lucy,

      While you may well be right, I note that gender is not a consideration for their selection, just having the right friends in the right places. 

      Democracy IS a popularity contest - it’s not about who would be best, but about who would be popular. Mostly because there is no “best” only “preferred by the majority”.

      If meritorious service to the community, outstanding knowledge of economic and social needs or giant intellect was required for politics no one would be in the field. People with those attributes are entrepreneurs, or in large businesses where popularity is far less important than results. Politics is the other way around.

    • Sam Bennett says:

      09:08am | 24/02/11

      @ Lucy

      I would be interested to hear who, in your opinion has better provided meritorious service to the community, has a superior knowledge of South Australia’s economic and social needs or a more giant intellect than the gentlemen you have mentioned.

      There are currently 10 members of the House of Assembly who are not and never have been ministers. Exclude the Speaker, and those who were first elected in 2010 and you are left with 6 people in the House with no experience on the executive.

      I would be fascinated to hear who of this six you think are more qualified for cabinet, when compared with Jack Snelling or Tom Koutsantonis.

    • KH says:

      08:11am | 24/02/11

      I think it would be better to talk about the general lack of competence of all governments in this country in recent years.  Political campaigns that are negative, parties giving away money to satisfy the selfish public who want to know whats in it for them, leaders who are cringeworthy, and the complete lack of vision beyond getting re elected.  It seems to me that some of the dumbest people in Australia go into politics - and their ridiculous antics aren’t exactly inspiring to anyone with a brain, no matter which gender they are.  Besides, people with that kind of intelligence can earn a much better living in private industry. 

      The coalition just thinks you need a penis to be a successful politician, and labour have too many labyrinthine factions to allow anyone who isn’t a head kicker get anywhere.  They are both pathetic really….....

    • Eye4anEye says:

      07:01pm | 24/02/11

      Coalition has a female deputy leader and several female senior figures? In fact having survived a series on leaders Julie Bishop seems to be doing rather well I’d say.

      Wouldn’t happen to be a labor supporter at all would you? (and yes I’m a Liberal voter - though I wouldn’t say supporter).

    • progressivesunite says:

      08:21am | 24/02/11

      What was that saying? We’ ll have true equality in politics when third-rate women get the top jobs….(just like the blokes)

      I love all the comments about how poor men have to get the positions thru merit and women just have to be women and take advantage of affirmative action! Firstly, as people have tried to explain…affirmative action is about bringing a less powerful group up to the level of opportunity of a more powerful group - thinking it’s about ‘special privileges’ is as stupid as saying that putting money aside for Aboriginal health is giving Aborigines ‘special privileges’!

      And, let’s not be silly and claim that men in political parties only get to good positions through talent and hard work and being ‘worthy of the task’....yeah right, no ‘jobs for the boys’ or factional power plays for them….Why shouldn’t women capitalise on one of the few paths to power open to them?

    • Markus says:

      10:06am | 24/02/11

      “affirmative action is about bringing a less powerful group up to the level of opportunity of a more powerful group”
      Shock horror, another feminist who doesn’t comprehend the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

      ” thinking it’s about ‘special privileges’ is as stupid as saying that putting money aside for Aboriginal health is giving Aborigines ‘special privileges’ “
      Specifically assigning taxpayer money to a single race of people IS giving them special privileges!

      As for your final part, factional power plays do take hard work and talent, and competency in this area is a major pre-requisite in making a career in politics.

      As much as Gillard is hated by some, she has proven extremely strong in this regard. On the other side of that coin, Peter Costello never had the fortitude to make the final grab for power at the highest level, and was ripped to shreds by the media when it was rumoured he felt he just deserved to be given the position.

      Why should we set aside positions at the highest level of government for anyone, man or woman, who was strong enough to manipulate and backstab their own way there?

    • progressivesunite says:

      10:37am | 24/02/11

      @ Markus - no, you’re the one who doesn’t understand.

      Taxpayers’ money is specifically assigned to Aboriginal health because it is in such an appalling state compared to the health of non-Aboriginal people, because of structural inequalities and poor access to health services (you’re big on ‘access’ so you should understand such a basic point). It’s about trying to redress the balance and bring Indigenous health opportunities up to the level of non-Indigenous health opportunities. This IS access, not outcome…..

      It’s the same with affirmative action in political parties - and it’s funny you should mention Julia Gillard - she benefitted from the Party’s affirmative action policy to get her seat in the first place - she’s done well for herself, owing to the equality of ACCESS she was afforded, hasn’t she….she did the rest on her own

    • Markus says:

      11:25am | 24/02/11

      I think you will find that all services would be considered appalling in rural and remote areas in comparison to urban areas.

      While government has made some attempt to address this with health services at least (ensuring overseas doctors must first work in rural areas), the reality is that those in most need of services have to move to urban areas to access these.

      Remote Aboriginal communities are receiving disproportionate levels of taxpayer support to help prop up unsustainable communities rather than being made to do the same. That is special treatment.

    • Ray says:

      03:43pm | 24/02/11

      Progressive ....unite. I’m afraid it’s you that doesn’t understand. Aboriginals deserve it women don’t. Aboriginals are in specific need women are not. Women have the guilt edged guarantees and want more of it because it is so good.

      Get orff yr arse accept that some people are better, get better outcomes, and don’t look for someone to blame. Men have done it for years competing in the workforce. They haven’t marched in claiming discrimination and demanded accelerated promotion.

      If you worked in the Federal Government you would know what affirmative action is all about. A male feels unwelcome in his own workplace, is threatened if he complains, and must persevere in the interests of his family. I am yet to recover mentally from such treatment, and have nothing but contempt for the portrayers of this injustice.

    • Ben in Canberra says:

      08:38am | 24/02/11

      “Is it too much to ask that women be represented in the top positions in the ALP”

      Kristina Kennealy, Laura Giddings, Anna Bligh, Julia Gillard, Wayne Swann…. Thre premiers, a PM and a treasurer; there are more women in the ALP than you can poke a stick at. Get over it.

    • simon says:

      08:58am | 24/02/11

      Well it’s jobs for the boys in SA, literally!! The factions choose the ministers and not many women held on to their seats after the last election!!

    • Markus says:

      09:02am | 24/02/11

      I have major concerns over your comprehension of the term ‘equality of opportunity’. You seem to have it mixed up with ‘equality of outcome’.

      Don’t fret too much, you aren’t the first women’s rights advocate, nor will you be the last, to get the two mixed up.

    • Zoe says:

      09:07am | 24/02/11

      I think a lot of people see women in politics as people who are corncerned with womens issues first and foremost. I have listened to MANY single male friends complain that they are constantly paying tax to support kids that they have never had. Women in politics are always pushing for childcare, maternity leave, etc but dont appear see things from a mans, or business owners point of view. It all seems to be centered around the young working mum. If you are an oler women, full time mum, childless or a male, I can understand that you dont feel a woman could have your best interests at heart. Having had to work so hard to get where they are, women could be seen to have blind ambition.  Men in politics have wives, daughters etc, who all influence how they think.  I’m not saying this is necessarily right but I can tell you that this is how a lot of people I know feel. And while that image is out there I dont think things will change.

    • Dan says:

      09:49am | 24/02/11

      Bligh, Gillard, Keanelly, and the country has never been worse

      Women cant lead

    • Jamesadel says:

      10:01am | 24/02/11

      1950 called, it wants its sexist ideals back

    • Zoe says:

      11:10am | 24/02/11

      As a woman, I hate to agree with Dan, but as a small business owner, he seems to be right. As a person living in the country, I’ve never seen a female politician who can be bothered venturing out this way. If there was one that seemed remotely interested she might get some support!

    • Tedd says:

      11:28am | 24/02/11

      ffs, Dan.

    • Dan says:

      12:22pm | 24/02/11

      2011 called, it wants to borrow the 1950s common sense

      Yeh its sexists no doubt about it, but its also the hard truth so i dont expect many people to accept it

    • Josh says:

      12:55pm | 24/02/11

      Sooooooo…

      You want to parachute women into safe seats because they are women? Gotta love that affirmative action…

    • Ray says:

      03:13pm | 24/02/11

      Why do women want the inside running on everything. Put in half the effort and get twice the outcome. The facts are that in main stream employment it is the blokes suffering. Higher unemployment in every State, massed in the lower unskilled jobs, poorer education (with culpable intent), and outnumbered in professional up and comers and the Federal, State, local government and institution type employment that is superannuation and conditions friendly.

      Women are where they should be without the PC leg up to compensate their shortfalls. They preach equal opportunities because you might have a mother,sister, daughter, etc and then practice discrimination against husbands, lovers, fathers, brothers, sons etc. Lovers; what a terrible term a man to provide sexual convenience.

    • Rodger the dodger says:

      09:19pm | 24/02/11

      Where have all have the woman gone?

      Bare foot ,pregnant and in the kitchen I hope Carolyn.

    • Lucy says:

      09:53pm | 24/02/11

      Nah Josh - let’s just stick with the current system that parachutes certain men into safe seats and based on their religious beliefs eh?

    • Josh says:

      11:15pm | 24/02/11

      Good call Ms Lucy smile

      To be fair though, there are no impressive politicians at the Federal level. So we can replace painfully average with painfully average. I just don’t see why gender should matter.

      But I can’t call a female politician painfully average because the Twittersphere call me sexist smile

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      12:15am | 25/02/11

      Hi Carolyn,

      I just feel that “sexism is still alive and well!!  I find most women in my place, go out work because of sheer obligations and to support the family budget alone!!  Just like my mum did when I was five years old, somehow I do not think that she was after “equal rights, pay or to making a personal statement” .  I just want to ask, after so many years of claiming that we have all that freedom to do whatever we want, “why do we still need men`s approval or permission” to become successful and happy human beings!!

      May be in a way, we are all living in a world where every thing is controlled and altered directly by the male population.  Only when we start doing most things for ourselves alone without giving a thought to what others will say or how they will react to our actions!!.  Then we might be able to claim success instead of constantly feeling as if we are failing as women in our society!!  Best regards to your editors.

    • Anggelo says:

      10:55am | 07/02/12

      Hmm, smehoow you've managed to condense the rantings of the many anti-censorship feminists (self included) into one little space. Congrats. It seems like in an effort to reclaim the Sacred Mother and Warrior Woman models, they forgot about the sacred slut, the crone (oh, just remembering that one), the lover (just remembering that one too), the maiden, the witch, and all the _other_ powerful female archetypes. It also seems like "they" (and by they I mean the pro-censorship, sex-negative variety of feminist) want to completely ignore the many male archetypes other than Big Authoritative Beard In The Sky…It seems like some of 'em just decided to mother the world to "make it safe for women"- by taking away women's freedom and range of expression. How sweet.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter