Julia Gillard Insults Women PDF Print E-mail

Last Tuesday was International Women’s Day and this year the celebrations were overshadowed by a debate on introducing quotas to boost the number of women in senior management roles.  The debate was sparked by our female Governor General, Quentin Bryce and then quickly picked up and reinforced by our female Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

The discussions raged all day and were reported extensively by the Australian media.  Now, I don’t doubt for one minute that there is an “old boys” network in many Australian institutions – including business, government and some church denominations.  But can anyone spot the inconsistency here?  The debate was ignited by the two most powerful people in our nation – the Prime Minister and the Governor General – both of them WOMEN!

To set quotas is to insult women.  It suggests that women are not good enough to make it on their own merits.  It suggests the very thing that women have been fighting against for the last 150 years starting with the Suffragettes in 1865 when women were viewed as “too emotional and could not think as logically as men.”  It also suggests that Australia doesn’t yet recognise the equality and value of women when reality proves that the opposite is true.

In fact female leadership is at an unprecedented level in Australia with two female premiers as well (at least at the time of writing) – and how many of us have been totally inspired by the amazing leadership demonstrated by Anna Bligh during the recent Queensland floods?

I understand that sometimes affirmative action needs to be introduced when there has been a history of discrimination based on race, colour, religion or gender.  I am not convinced that setting quotas is the answer though, and I strongly doubt that it is necessary in Australia where people of various backgrounds are seen actively involved in all walks of life based on their merits – the fact that they are the best person for the job regardless of their gender, their faith or the colour of their skin.

Trackback(0)
Comments (4)Add Comment
...
written by pearl wesley, March 16, 2011
i agree with what my pastor rob buckingham says i have been at bayside since 1994 and have heard and learnt a great deal through pastor robs's teachings in God's word of truth,we are suppose to follow the way of the Lord Jesus teachings they are good and truthful and shows great love for one and all.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
...
written by Peter K, March 16, 2011
The Worlds first Feminist.

Hi Rob I read your current blog with interest, the history of the human race and Christian church is repleat with circumstances of unfair the treatment of women. Interestingly in his revealing book, How Christianity Changed the World bysmilies/cheesy.gifr. Alvin J. Schmidt, he mentions that 85% of adult church attendees were women in the early church, so women had a central role in creating the foundation stone our faith has today.

When asking who the worlds first feminist is, often the answer comes back to Germain Greer who became a lightning rod in the early 70's with her critically acclaimed book The Female Eunuch, or indeed "The Suffragettes in the late 19th century.

If we go back 6000 years or so and we open up in Genesis 2:20-25 we read the creation of Eve from man's body an equal yet different. move forward 4000 years and we end up in John 12:3-11 we read the story of Mary Magdelen.

Mary was less than a pig according to the custom of the day, a town prostitute who was treated as a recepticle, no value and contemptable men would use and snear at her. Yet Jesus looked into her broken fleshy heart and saw the baby that once was innocent, a young girl who laughed and skipped with youthful flair, a women created in his image, against the tide of opinions and customs of the day Jesus accepted Mary's gift of sorrow and restored her to the glory that belonged to Eve.

Like Eve he fashioned clothing for her, not of animal skin to cover mere nakedness, but a cloak of glory a white garment suitable for all who will stand before God the Father. In the days of old, the Israelites came before the the High Priests with an offering, these Nazarene Priests only examined the purity of the Lamb that was to be sacrificed.

Jesus stood before the snearing crowd and His Father and said examine me!! Yes Christ was and is the first feminist because he lifts up his creation to her rightful place.

I can follow a Christ like that.

Cheers Peter Karaoglanis
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by RAdams, June 04, 2011
If only the world (& Australia) did operate so fairly and promote women according to their merit. If this were the case, the discussion about quotas would be irrelevant.

However the stats speak for themselves:

A report by the Australian Institute of Company Directors says that Women make up just 10.1 per cent of directors on the boards of the top 200 companies on the ASX.

Two years ago, a census commissioned by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency showed that figure was 8.3 per cent. As well, women held only 8 per cent of key executive management positions and just 4.1 per cent of line manager roles which are considered feeders to the top echelons.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executiv...z1OJ6ihBr1

The 2010 Australian Census of Women in Leadership shows that compared with the US, New Zealand, Britain, Canada and South Africa, Australia has the lowest percentage of women in senior positions.

The discussion about quotas is not an insult to women and is not about giving women an 'artificial' advantage to prop up a lack of merit. It is recognising that the system is not providing equal opportunities and therfore needs a 'systems-targetted' solution to change this.

Is an imposed 'quota' approach the best way to do that...? Well thats a matter of debate...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by DB, September 14, 2011
Appointment should always be based on merit as boards exist to serve a company, not those that sit on it.

It is probably unfashionable to say it but part of the explanation for the gender imbalance could be that there simply aren't as many women as men who aspire to these top positions and/or have managed to obtain the relevant qualifications/skills/experience required to perform at the top level in these very demanding roles.

If there is actual gender based discrimination against women going on it should be dealt with ruthlessly. What we certainly shouldn't be doing is simply handing these roles to a noisy group of under-qualified people who meet the criteria of a quota but otherwise based on merit would not be considered as this also amounts to gender based discrimination and will result in under-performance.

I think Julia Gillard is an excellent example of someone who is in their role simply because she is the best person for the job, no quota required.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0

Write comment
quote
bold
italicize
underline
strike
url
image
quote
quote
smile
wink
laugh
grin
angry
sad
shocked
cool
tongue
kiss
cry
smaller | bigger

busy