to think you would be appointed to the board because you were a woman .........

the leader of Westpac is there on her performance.
anything less is dishonest




Quote:

GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce has advocated the introduction of quotas to ensure more women are appointed as directors on the boards of Australian companies. In comments that could reignite claims that she has crossed the line between her vice-regal role and politics, Ms Bryce said she believed affirmative action might be the only way to break the stranglehold of the ''old boys' network'' on Australian business. ''I believe the old boys' network is a powerful one,'' she said. ''No one gives up power and privilege willingly, do they?'' Advertisement: Story continues below Senior Labor and Liberal figures last night backed her view. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change. Appearing on the ABC's Q&A, Mr Hockey suggested a quota of 30 per cent would be reasonable. Status of Women Minister Kate Ellis said the government would hold a audit in 18 months to gauge whether the number of women on boards had increased, and would take action if needed. Quotas were a last resort, but the government was leaving this option open. Last year, women made up just 3 per cent of chief executives of the top 200 companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, and 8.4 per cent of board members. More than 100 of the top 200 companies had no women on their boards. Ms Bryce - for decades a leading light in the Australian women's movement - said that while women had made huge progress since she became aware of widespread discrimination as a young barrister in the 1960s, progress had slowed, particularly at the highest levels. Speaking to The Age on the eve of International Women's Day, Ms Bryce said: ''I think there's a very clear recognition and understanding that the progress of women in business at the very highest decision-making levels is too slow. ''This is a discussion that's going on in every country around the world. ''And a very interesting debate that surrounds it is about whether affirmative action should be taken… to take some positive steps to see that women are better represented on boards and at the highest decision-making levels. I support affirmative action. I support special measures when you need it.'' Asked to elaborate, Ms Bryce said: ''One of the things that is being discussed in Australia now … is whether or not there should be quotas for the representation of women on boards, and there are women who support that and there are others who don't … I believe that in certain circumstances quotas are a valid measure.'' The Governor-General said such a proposal ''sounds like a very radical notion, but it's not''. She said there were many examples of such action around the world, citing ''education in the US'', where the national government had forced states to accept African Americans in the school system, and legislation in various countries to get more women in parliament. Later in the interview, the Governor-General amended her definition of what should be done to reduce male domination to ''setting goals and targets''. ''The Australian way of affirmative action is setting goals and recognising discrimination and lack of opportunity and deciding to take action and setting some goals and targets. I guess I prefer that language to talking about quotas,'' she said. Ms Bryce will spend International Women's Day at events dedicated to women who have worked and fought for the advancement of women.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gg-calls-for-female-quotas-20110307-1bl80.html

Yes it has to go on performance, but in reality - it's often the women who do the work behind the scenes for the Board and the CEO - yet the men take the credit for it.

I'm not sure if most of these women care that much though - sometimes the pressure of being at the top isn't worth the money or the prestige.

There are women of course who do want all this, but their numbers are probably not as prolific as their male peers.


Quote:

''And a very interesting debate that surrounds it is about whether affirmative action should be taken… to take some positive steps to see that women are better represented on boards and at the highest decision-making levels. I support affirmative action. I support special measures when you need it.''

Well we've got a woman PM and two women premiers. Although it's wonderful that Australia is finally recognising that women are just as capable as men - it's still resented. Australia is still a sexist nation, although it's definitely improving.

Quote:

Advertisement: Story continues below Senior Labor and Liberal figures last night backed her view. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change. Appearing on the ABC's Q&A, Mr Hockey suggested a quota of 30 per cent would be reasonable.

Why 30%? Why not 50% if true bs equality is to be forced?

I suppose 30% is the figure that parliamentarians have come up with in order to secure their fair share of votes; and even then, they strategically place the ladies (of lesser cabinet) in a position to conjure an illusion of there being more females than there actually are. ...They are the ones nodding in background during question time, ya can't miss 'em.

So why gloss over the facts? To be a true asshole, ordinarily you should be male.
There's no room for the touchy feely stuff at the high end of business. You must be prepared to rape and destroy your fellow man. You must be prepared to fund wars and have total disregard for the long term future. That's what big business is all about.

It's of little wonder that only 3% of women have the "wrong stuff" ..and thankfully so.

Well we've got a woman PM and two women premiers. Although it's wonderful that Australia is finally recognising that women are just as capable as men - it's still resented. Australia is still a sexist nation, although it's definitely improving.

- Mantra

I agree Mantra!

Prime Minister of Aust - woman

Premier of NSW - woman

Governor General of Oz - woman

Governor of NSW - woman

Governor of QLD - woman

Premier of QLD - woman

Premier of Tas - woman


At some stage .. ALL men WILL wake up and finally realize .. women are capable and talented HUMAN BEINGS .. who can do anything they CHOOSE to apply their minds to.

One final comment .. I've always found that denial can be an issue for insecure people. Wonder why that is?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 10:45am:

Well we've got a woman PM and two women premiers. Although it's wonderful that Australia is finally recognising that women are just as capable as men - it's still resented. Australia is still a sexist nation, although it's definitely improving. - Mantra I agree Mantra! Prime Minister of Aust - woman Premier of NSW - woman Governor General of Oz - woman Governor of NSW - woman Governor of QLD - woman Premier of QLD - woman Premier of Tas - woman At some stage .. ALL men will wake up and finally realize .. we're capable and talented HUMAN BEINGS .. who can do anything we put our minds to. One final comment .. I've always found that denial can be an issue for insecure people.

A nice idea, but ultimately, not one grounded in reality.

If I 'put my mind to' being the fastest man, or strongest man in the world, it still wouldn't be enough.  

At some stage .. ALL men WILL wake up and finally realize .. women are capable and talented HUMAN BEINGS .. who can do anything they CHOOSE to apply their minds to.

One final comment .. I've always found that denial can be an issue for insecure people. Wonder why that is?

- Me (a few moments earlier)

I forgot to mention .. there are MANY secure and enlightened MEN  who understand and agree with what I've stated above.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 10:56am:

At some stage .. ALL men WILL wake up and finally realize .. women are capable and talented HUMAN BEINGS .. who can do anything they CHOOSE to apply their minds to. One final comment .. I've always found that denial can be an issue for insecure people. Wonder why that is? - Me (a few moments earlier) I forgot to mention .. there are many secure and enlightened men out there who understand and agree with what I've stated above.

If I choose to apply my mind to becoming preganant, could I do it?  

...or does my physiological make up have some bearing on the success of my endeavours?



Quote:

The current Olympic records in men's 56 kilogram weightlifting, 56 kilogram-snatch and 56 kilogram-clean and jerk events are held by Halil Mutlu of Turkey. The records were made in the 2000 Sydney Summer Games. He lifted a weight of 305.0 kilogram in the 56 kilogram event. In the 56 kilogram-snatch and 56 kilogram-clean and jerk, Mutlu lifted 137.5 kilogram and 167.5 kilogram, respectively. Yanqing Chen of China is the holder of the current Olympic record in women's 58 kilogram weightlifting event. The weight lifted by her in 2004 Athens Summer Games was 237.5 kilograms. She also holds the Olympic record for 58 kilogram-snatch event. In the event, she lifted 107.5 kilogram.

See the point I'm making - we can try as hard as we can, but we are still bound by the limits of our physiology.  Physical feats are easily demonstrated, but that is not to say other aspects of our being do not have similar limitations.

If I choose to apply my mind to becoming preganant, could I do it?  

- WESLEY

Pregnant you mean? You .. being a man getting pregnant? Was that your point?

Yes you're right .. there are some things men aren't capable of.

Women are aware of this/have been aware of this for some time.

You have only just realised this? Better late than never I suppose.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

If I choose to apply my mind to becoming preganant, could I do it?   - WESLEY Pregnant you mean? You .. being a man getting pregnant? Was that your point? Yes you're right .. there are some things men aren't capable of. Women are aware of this/have been aware of this for some time. You have only just realised this? Better late than never I suppose.

Yes, and so it follows that there are also some things women aren't capable of....doesn't it?

A nice idea, but ultimately, not one grounded in reality.

If I 'put my mind to' being the fastest man, or strongest man in the world, it still wouldn't be enough.

- Wesley

So YOU choose to give up on reaching a goal before even trying.

That's your personal decision.

The fact remains .. if a PERSON (male/female) person puts their mind to achieve a goal .. they will do whatever they can to get there. It's called TRYING.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

A nice idea, but ultimately, not one grounded in reality. If I 'put my mind to' being the fastest man, or strongest man in the world, it still wouldn't be enough. - Wesley So YOU choose to give up on reaching a goal before even trying. That's your personal decision. The fact remains .. if a PERSON (male/female) person puts their mind to achieve a goal .. they will do whatever they can to get there. It's called TRYING.

Of course people should try their best - but if/when they fall short, they should also take ownership of it, rather than blaming it on a misogynistic conspiracy to keep women subservient.

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change.

- from the OP

How humiliating for men .. to see one of their own coming forward to recommend FORCED change because men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change .. themselves.

Prime Minister of Aust - woman

Governor General of Aust - woman

Premier of NSW - woman

Governor of NSW - woman


Very inspirational! Behind every great woman is an even greater woman IMO!

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

Prime Minister of Aust - woman Governor General of Aust - woman Premier of NSW - woman Governor of NSW - woman Very inspirational! Behind every great woman is an even greater woman IMO!

weeeeeel if you really wanna play that game...

President of US - Man
PM of China - Man
PM of England - Man
President of France - Man
PM of Italy - Man
PM of Canada - man
PM of NZ - man
PM of Japan - Man

I could go on and on and on...but what would be the point?

Well actually .. the difficult point (which interestingly enough you've been avoiding/denying all throughout this topic) .. is this:

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change - from the OP


This topic is ever so humiliating for some men. Why? Because a MAN has come forward to recommend FORCED CHANGE in a statement which essentially acknowledges that men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves.

Great topic Sprint! If anything it's made my day!

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 12:31pm:

Well actually .. the difficult point (which interestingly enough you've been avoiding/denying all throughout this topic) .. is this: Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change - from the OP This topic is ever so humiliating for some men. Why? Because a MAN has come forward to recommend FORCED CHANGE in a statement which essentially acknowledges that men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves. Great topic Sprint! If anything it's made my day!

Why would it be humiliating to see a politican pandering for the womans vote?  
And the difficult point (which interestingly enough you've been avoiding/denying all throughout this topic) is this:

If women can do anything just as well as any man, why would punitive measures be necessary?  Surely their merit would speak for itself?

There's a lot to be said for time travellers .. given a few turn up from the Dark Ages in topics like this .. from time to time.

Oh and Wesley .. I notice you're still struggling with change. Think of it like sh.it .. it happens.

Well this topic is going nowhere.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 7^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

to think you would be appointed to the board because you were a woman ......... the leader of Westpac is there on her performance. anything less is dishonest Quote: GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce has advocated the introduction of quotas to ensure more women are appointed as directors on the boards of Australian companies. In comments that could reignite claims that she has crossed the line between her vice-regal role and politics, Ms Bryce said she believed affirmative action might be the only way to break the stranglehold of the ''old boys' network'' on Australian business. ''I believe the old boys' network is a powerful one,'' she said. ''No one gives up power and privilege willingly, do they?'' Advertisement: Story continues below Senior Labor and Liberal figures last night backed her view. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change. Appearing on the ABC's Q&A, Mr Hockey suggested a quota of 30 per cent would be reasonable. Status of Women Minister Kate Ellis said the government would hold a audit in 18 months to gauge whether the number of women on boards had increased, and would take action if needed. Quotas were a last resort, but the government was leaving this option open. Last year, women made up just 3 per cent of chief executives of the top 200 companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, and 8.4 per cent of board members. More than 100 of the top 200 companies had no women on their boards. Ms Bryce - for decades a leading light in the Australian women's movement - said that while women had made huge progress since she became aware of widespread discrimination as a young barrister in the 1960s, progress had slowed, particularly at the highest levels. Speaking to The Age on the eve of International Women's Day, Ms Bryce said: ''I think there's a very clear recognition and understanding that the progress of women in business at the very highest decision-making levels is too slow. ''This is a discussion that's going on in every country around the world. ''And a very interesting debate that surrounds it is about whether affirmative action should be taken… to take some positive steps to see that women are better represented on boards and at the highest decision-making levels. I support affirmative action. I support special measures when you need it.'' Asked to elaborate, Ms Bryce said: ''One of the things that is being discussed in Australia now … is whether or not there should be quotas for the representation of women on boards, and there are women who support that and there are others who don't … I believe that in certain circumstances quotas are a valid measure.'' The Governor-General said such a proposal ''sounds like a very radical notion, but it's not''. She said there were many examples of such action around the world, citing ''education in the US'', where the national government had forced states to accept African Americans in the school system, and legislation in various countries to get more women in parliament. Later in the interview, the Governor-General amended her definition of what should be done to reduce male domination to ''setting goals and targets''. ''The Australian way of affirmative action is setting goals and recognising discrimination and lack of opportunity and deciding to take action and setting some goals and targets. I guess I prefer that language to talking about quotas,'' she said. Ms Bryce will spend International Women's Day at events dedicated to women who have worked and fought for the advancement of women. http://www.theage.com.au/national/gg-calls-for-female-quotas-20110307-1bl80.html

Clearly they didn't take into consideration her "performance" at St George.

mantra wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 6:38am:

Yes it has to go on performance, but in reality - it's often the women who do the work behind the scenes for the Board and the CEO - yet the men take the credit for it. I'm not sure if most of these women care that much though - sometimes the pressure of being at the top isn't worth the money or the prestige. There are women of course who do want all this, but their numbers are probably not as prolific as their male peers. Quote: ''And a very interesting debate that surrounds it is about whether affirmative action should be taken… to take some positive steps to see that women are better represented on boards and at the highest decision-making levels. I support affirmative action. I support special measures when you need it.'' Well we've got a woman PM and two women premiers. Although it's wonderful that Australia is finally recognising that women are just as capable as men - it's still resented. Australia is still a sexist nation, although it's definitely improving.

Do you think, as opposed to widespread sexism, they are resented because all three of them couldn't organise a fugg in a brothel?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 12:31pm:

Well actually .. the difficult point (which interestingly enough you've been avoiding/denying all throughout this topic) .. is this: Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change - from the OP http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/brown/highlight.gifThis topic is ever so humiliating for some men. Why? Because a MAN has come forward to recommend FORCED CHANGE in a statement which essentially acknowledges that men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves. Great topic Sprint! If anything it's made my day!

Could he be shamelessly buying a few female votes?  Dog knows there will be a significant section of the public that won't vote Gizzard purely based on the contents of her underpants next time around.

Could he be shamelessly buying a few female votes?

- qikvtec

Ok .. let's look at what you've stated a little more closely.

It is the job of a politician to BUY votes. Let's not pretend otherwise. The politician who made the comment was a MALE!

So .. tell me again .. why is the comment humiliating FOR WOMEN?

Here it is again:

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change


If anything .. this is ever so humiliating for some men. Why? Because a MAN has come forward to recommend FORCED CHANGE in a statement which essentially acknowledges that men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves.

Just remember .. a MAN made that statement.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

Could he be shamelessly buying a few female votes? - qikvtec Ok .. let's look at what you've stated a little more closely. It is the job of a politician to BUY votes. Let's not pretend otherwise. The politician who made the comment was a MALE! So .. tell me again .. why is the comment humiliating FOR WOMEN? Here it is again: Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change If anything .. this is ever so humiliating for some men. Why? Because a MAN has come forward to recommend FORCED CHANGE in a statement which essentially acknowledges that men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves. Just remember .. a MAN made that statement.

Yes, with the intention of buying the female vote.  Why would it be humiliating for anyone, except Joe Hockey?

Irrespective of the intention (which can only be speculated upon) .. the actual comments of this MALE politician .. humiliates MEN!

He's recommended FORCED CHANGE in a statement which essentially acknowledges that men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves.

You're obviously having trouble dealing with it Wesley. Give it some time .. you'll get there.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 4:44pm:

Irrespective of the intention (which can only be speculated upon) .. the actual comments of this MALE politician .. humiliates MEN!

Does it?  Erm...OK.  If you say so.

If I SAY so ?? No no no!!

I'm only commenting on what another MALE SAID!!

So again - why would what Joe Hockey said be humiliating to anyone, except possibly Joe Hockey?

I can understand the title 'humiliating for women' as it implies that females can't get into positions of power on their own merit, and need legislation to force their way in, qualified or not.

But humiliating for men?  How so?

GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce has advocated the introduction of quotas to ensure more women are appointed as directors on the boards of Australian companies.

In comments that could reignite claims that she has crossed the line between her vice-regal role and politics, Ms Bryce said she believed affirmative action might be the only way to break the stranglehold of the ''old boys' network'' on Australian business.

''I believe the old boys' network is a powerful one,'' she said. ''No one gives up power and privilege willingly, do they?''

Senior Labor and Liberal figures last night backed her view. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change.

- extract from the OP

It's a credit to those senior Labor and Liberal figures who have the honesty and insight to back Australia's Governor General in acknowledging the existence of the old boys' network which effectively functions to lock women out. Very few women are able to break through it .. and so many capable and competent women miss out on a/c of such an anachronistic patriarchal hegemonic system.

It's encouraging to see this level of awareness, acknowledgement and commitment in breaking down these types of barriers so as to give those women who are suitably qualified  .. a chance and an opportunity to prove themselves.

And it's a humiliating indictment on some men when there is a cry for FORCED CHANGE BY MEN.

Humiliating for whom exactly? Those men who are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves .. and who need to be TOLD through legislative changes.  

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 5:18pm:

GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce has advocated the introduction of quotas to ensure more women are appointed as directors on the boards of Australian companies. In comments that could reignite claims that she has crossed the line between her vice-regal role and politics, Ms Bryce said she believed affirmative action might be the only way to break the stranglehold of the ''old boys' network'' on Australian business. ''I believe the old boys' network is a powerful one,'' she said. ''No one gives up power and privilege willingly, do they?'' Senior Labor and Liberal figures last night backed her view. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change. - extract from the OP It's a credit to those senior Labor and Liberal figures who have the honesty and insight to back Australia's Governor General in acknowledging the existence of the old boys' network which effectively functions to lock women out.

How did the Governor General get her gig, if not for her connections, or as she terms it, the 'old boys network'?

Fancy answering how it's humiliating to men anytime soon Lisa?

Wesley .. simply refer to any of my previous posts.

One last comment .. your apparent denial issues are beyond the scope of this topic.

what a cop out.   :D

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 5:18pm:

GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce has advocated the introduction of quotas to ensure more women are appointed as directors on the boards of Australian companies. In comments that could reignite claims that she has crossed the line between her vice-regal role and politics, Ms Bryce said she believed affirmative action might be the only way to break the stranglehold of the ''old boys' network'' on Australian business. ''I believe the old boys' network is a powerful one,'' she said. ''No one gives up power and privilege willingly, do they?'' Senior Labor and Liberal figures last night backed her view. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change. - extract from the OP It's a credit to those senior Labor and Liberal figures who have the honesty and insight to back Australia's Governor General in acknowledging the existence of the old boys' network which effectively functions to lock women out. Very few women are able to break through it .. and so many capable and competent women miss out on a/c of such an anachronistic patriarchal hegemonic system. It's encouraging to see this level of awareness, acknowledgement and commitment in breaking down these types of barriers so as to give those women who are suitably qualified  .. a chance and an opportunity to prove themselves. And it's a humiliating indictment on some men when there is a cry for FORCED CHANGE BY MEN. Humiliating for whom exactly? Those men who are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves .. and who need to be TOLD through legislative changes.

That's a cop out Wesley?

Hmmm .. like I said .. dealing with your denial issues is beyond the scope of this topic.

I wish you well with all that.

Mean time .. CHANGE IS ON THE WAY (whether you like it or not .. whether you choose to ignore it or not).

*WHOOOOSH*

Hear that?  It's the sound of it all going right over your head.

;D ;D ;D

In other words .. you've got nothing.

sighs ..

Finally .. many thanks to Sprint for posting this topic. You've made my day :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 6:14pm:

In other words .. you've got nothing. sighs ..

There comes a time in every womans life, when vague, vapid, meaningless expressions of disapproval and thinly veiled insults are not enough, and an argument of substance is required.  

That time is now Lisa.  

an argument of substance is required.  

- Wesley

Oh I agree. Which brings me to  this question --> When are YOU going to put one forward Wesley? Thus far .. you've offered nothing.

Unfortunately .. irrespective of any (pseudo) argument you think you can put forward .. the fact remains .. an acknowledgement from BOTH sides of politics for the need to change the status quo HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

You just need to deal with it. That is the challenge for you.

Mean time .. we're all moving on and up without you lol :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

Could he be shamelessly buying a few female votes? - qikvtec Ok .. let's look at what you've stated a little more closely. It is the job of a politician to BUY votes. Let's not pretend otherwise. The politician who made the comment was a MALE! So .. tell me again .. why is the comment humiliating FOR WOMEN? Here it is again: Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change If anything .. this is ever so humiliating for some men. Why? Because a MAN has come forward to recommend FORCED CHANGE in a statement which essentially acknowledges that men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves. Just remember .. a MAN made that statement.

I'm sorry if merely replying to the thread implied that I thought it was humiliating for women; I couldn't disagree more.

I agree that it is humiliating to men if all men associate Hockey as being "one of their own", as told by Enid Blyton, aka Lisa, the fictional storyteller.
But Hockey is not one of "My own". OMG, where did that come from?
That fatass simpleton vote scrounger has less to do with me than a piece of fungus on a log.
I associate myself with many many more females before Mr. Joe "fatass" Hockey. That guy is a complete charlatan.

qikvtec wrote on Mar 8^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 8th, 2011 at 4:24pm: Could he be shamelessly buying a few female votes? - qikvtec Ok .. let's look at what you've stated a little more closely. It is the job of a politician to BUY votes. Let's not pretend otherwise. The politician who made the comment was a MALE! So .. tell me again .. why is the comment humiliating FOR WOMEN? Here it is again: Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change If anything .. this is ever so humiliating for some men. Why? Because a MAN has come forward to recommend FORCED CHANGE in a statement which essentially acknowledges that men are too slow to wake up and see the urgent need for change themselves. Just remember .. a MAN made that statement. I'm sorry if merely replying to the thread implied that I thought it was humiliating for women; I couldn't disagree more.

Maybe 5% of people might see it as humiliating, another 5% see it as a major victory.

But the other 90% will see it for what it is - a cheap throwaway comment from a pollie aimed at swaying a couple of voters.  

These affirmative action programs, whether they be for gender, race, class, ethnicity, gays, or whatever other group, make a mockery of the principles liberal democracy supposedly stands upon. It sweeps away the notion of the importance of the individual over the group, in fact, it reverse it and places groups over individual merit.

The attempted abolition of a meritocracy via affirmative action is a euphemism for revenge against what is higher. The unskilled envy what the skilled possess.

Instead of knuckling down and disciplining yourself to be the best you can at what ever endeavour you want to be good at, the cunning will invent phrases like "affirmative action" as short cut to topple what is higher.

The perpetuation of a "victim-mentality" has to cease. People need to take responsibiity for their actions.

Quote:

The perpetuation of a "victim-mentality" has to cease. People need to take responsibiity for their actions.

Yes, the "white male caucasian" has become the victim by default of having no claims to victimhood.

Unfortunately, the "white male caucasian" was born perfect in the eyes all others who aren't white and who aren't male.
It's all so easy if you are born white and male. Opportunities for success come knocking on the door every single day of the year  ::)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 9^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

These affirmative action programs, whether they be for gender, race, class, ethnicity, gays, or whatever other group, make a mockery of the principles liberal democracy supposedly stands upon. It sweeps away the notion of the importance of the individual over the group, in fact, it reverse it and places groups over individual merit. The attempted abolition of a meritocracy via affirmative action is a euphemism for revenge against what is higher. The unskilled envy what the skilled possess. Instead of knuckling down and disciplining yourself to be the best you can at what ever endeavour you want to be good at, the cunning will invent phrases like "affirmative action" as short cut to topple what is higher.

In short .. you're a male who finds equality threatening because you know damn well that these interventionist policies exist so as to engender EQUITY .. WITHOUT WHICH EQUALITY CANNOT EXIST!

Duh!

Amadd wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 7:14am:

Quote: The perpetuation of a "victim-mentality" has to cease. People need to take responsibiity for their actions. Yes, the "white male caucasian" has become the victim by default by having no claims to victimhood. Unfortunately, the "white male caucasian" was born perfect in the eyes all others who aren't white and who aren't male. It's all so easy if you are born white and male. Opportunities for success come knocking on the door every single day of the year  ::)

Amadd .. stop talking s.hit .. it doesn't suit you. Oh and read my previous reply .. it applies to you too!

IF ANYTHING is humiliating in this topic .. it CAN ONLY BE the pure unadulterated bovine faecal matter I've seen posted by some men.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 11:46am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 9th, 2011 at 12:07pm: These affirmative action programs, whether they be for gender, race, class, ethnicity, gays, or whatever other group, make a mockery of the principles liberal democracy supposedly stands upon. It sweeps away the notion of the importance of the individual over the group, in fact, it reverse it and places groups over individual merit. The attempted abolition of a meritocracy via affirmative action is a euphemism for revenge against what is higher. The unskilled envy what the skilled possess. Instead of knuckling down and disciplining yourself to be the best you can at what ever endeavour you want to be good at, the cunning will invent phrases like "affirmative action" as short cut to topple what is higher. In short .. you're a male who finds equality threatening because you know damn well that these interventionist policies exist so as to engender EQUITY .. WITHOUT WHICH EQUALITY CANNOT EXIST! Duh!

Nice way to put words in my mouth.

Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 11:46am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 9th, 2011 at 12:07pm: These affirmative action programs, whether they be for gender, race, class, ethnicity, gays, or whatever other group, make a mockery of the principles liberal democracy supposedly stands upon. It sweeps away the notion of the importance of the individual over the group, in fact, it reverse it and places groups over individual merit. The attempted abolition of a meritocracy via affirmative action is a euphemism for revenge against what is higher. The unskilled envy what the skilled possess. Instead of knuckling down and disciplining yourself to be the best you can at what ever endeavour you want to be good at, the cunning will invent phrases like "affirmative action" as short cut to topple what is higher. In short .. you're a male who finds equality threatening because you know damn well that these interventionist policies exist so as to engender EQUITY .. WITHOUT WHICH EQUALITY CANNOT EXIST! Duh! Nice way to put words in my mouth. Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job?

Excuse me .. I've done what??? Put words in YOUR ignorant mouth???

Or have I merely commented on the ignorant state of your mouth???

Actually .. make that the ignorant state of your mouth given its pathetic state of convenient denial.

Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job?

- Time

How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question.

After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days.

Ever thought of a career in politics Lisa?

You can evade questions like the best of 'em.  

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? - Time How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question. After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days.

Well??? I haven't got all day you know.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:02pm: Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? - Time How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question. After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days. Well??? I haven't got all day you know.

Lol. You come across as possessing the intelligence of a 4 year old, and the emotions of a 2 year old.

Enjoy your immaturity.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 3:13pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:27pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:02pm: Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? - Time How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question. After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days. Well??? I haven't got all day you know. Lol. You come across as possessing the intelligence of a 4 year old, and the emotions of a 2 year old. Enjoy your immaturity.

In short .. you've realized that YOU cornered yourself. Now run along and play and don't interrupt adults when they're trying to have a discussion in future.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 3:56pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 3:13pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:27pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:02pm: Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? - Time How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question. After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days. Well??? I haven't got all day you know. Lol. You come across as possessing the intelligence of a 4 year old, and the emotions of a 2 year old. Enjoy your immaturity. In short .. you've realized that YOU cornered yourself. Now run along and play and don't interrupt adults when they're trying to have a discussion in future.

BWHAHAHAHAHA.   Okay.

Ohhhh the irony!

Well .. answer the question then Time (instead of appearing and disappearing like a ghost and saying nothing but boo)!

Oh and you probably should know .. I am ready to respond to whatever answer you think you've got.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

Well .. answer the question then Time (instead of appearing and disappearing like a ghost and saying nothing but boo)! Oh and you probably should know .. I am ready to respond to whatever answer you think you've got.

While you're waiting, theres 4 pages of questions you've avoided answerign already.  Maybe get cracking on those first?

Quote:

Amadd .. stop talking s.hit .. it doesn't suit you. Oh and read my previous reply .. it applies to you too!

Hmm...feisty! I like it  :)


Quote:

In short .. you're a male who finds equality threatening because you know damn well that these interventionist policies exist so as to engender EQUITY .. WITHOUT WHICH EQUALITY CANNOT EXIST! Duh!

International women's day has passed Lisa. It's time to try to be sensible again.

For one, as long as people are created with differences, there will never be equality.
Do you hear anybody whining about inequality because black men tend to be better at different sports than white men?
I'd love to win a gold medal at the olympics, but even if I were offered a handicap which allowed me to win one, I would not take it.

You on the other hand, seem to be quite happy to usurp whatever you can get your greedy hands on.

Quote:

In short .. you're a male who finds equality threatening because you know damn well that these interventionist policies exist so as to engender EQUITY .. WITHOUT WHICH EQUALITY CANNOT EXIST! Duh!

Why the hostility Lisa? If you've lived 40 years you must know by now that men and women don't share identical views.

You're not going to change that by getting angry.

Personally I'm glad that men think differently and it's OK for males to be sexist occasionally - I know I can be that way myself if I'm annoyed about something. You are being sexist also Lisa with those denigrating comments to Wesley & Time.

Admittedly the glass ceiling thingy in principle irks me - but it will eventually break altogether. Even if we've missed out on the experience - our daughters and grand-daughters won't.

Hmm...feisty! I like it

- Amadd

LOL!

Damn .. I forgot about that :P

International women's day has passed Lisa. It's time to try to be sensible again.

For one, as long as people are created with differences, there will never be equality.

- Amadd

Men and women ARE EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT AMADD! You  seem to think these are mutually exclusive for some strange reason.

You on the other hand, seem to be quite happy to usurp whatever you can get your greedy hands on.

- Amadd

You as in ...you (singular) or you (plural ie women)???

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:

You on the other hand, seem to be quite happy to usurp whatever you can get your greedy hands on. - Amadd You as in ...???

you as in....you

:D :D :D

... wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 5:23pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 4:29pm: You on the other hand, seem to be quite happy to usurp whatever you can get your greedy hands on. - Amadd You as in ...??? you as in....you :D :D :D

Yes that is just you singularly as opposed to yous, ewes, you lot or y'all.
Just as Hockey is he or him, and not me, we or us.

YOUR ignorance is MY bliss then. Simple :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:27pm:

International women's day has passed Lisa. It's time to try to be sensible again. For one, as long as people are created with differences, there will never be equality. - Amadd Men and women ARE EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT AMADD! You  seem to think these are mutually exclusive for some strange reason.

Actually .. I was wondering why you would ever think that Amadd.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

Well .. answer the question then Time (instead of appearing and disappearing like a ghost and saying nothing but boo)! Oh and you probably should know .. I am ready to respond to whatever answer you think you've got.

You haven't asked me a question. You've made a number of statements, but no questions.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? - Time How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question. After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days.

Well? Are you/can you/will you? Or not. Thus far you have only avoided answering. Why is that I wonder?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 9:38am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:02pm: Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? - Time How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question. After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days. Well? Are you/can you/will you? Or not. Thus far you have only avoided answering. Why is that I wonder?

I've already answered my own question.

How about you have a crack at it instead of avoiding it?

Where?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 10:00am:

Where?

Lol. If you don't know what my answer was then why all the rage?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 10:02am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 10:00am: Where? Lol. If you don't know what my answer was then why all the rage?

Man up FFS! And stop acting like a little baby.

WHERE DID YOU ANSWER YOUR SIMPLE QUESTION?

Thus far all you've succeeded in proving to me is that you're proficient in avoiding and evading the issue .. in typical churlish manner.

time - lisa refuses to answer questions


Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 9:38am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 2:02pm: Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? - Time How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question. After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days. Well? Are you/can you/will you? Or not. Thus far you have only avoided answering. Why is that I wonder?

Bored again Sprint? Nothing much happening over in Spirituality these days eh?

Still .. it's ever so nice to see you following me around (and commenting on my posts to others) .. like a little puppy. How humiliating indeed!

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 6:41pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10th, 2011 at 4:27pm: International women's day has passed Lisa. It's time to try to be sensible again. For one, as long as people are created with differences, there will never be equality. - Amadd Men and women ARE EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT AMADD! You seem to think these are mutually exclusive for some strange reason. Actually .. I was wondering why you would ever think that Amadd.

Actually.. I think that because I enjoy the differences. It would be a boring old world without them.
I'm all for collaborating differences for a common aim. The net result should be more attractive for all. But maybe I'm off with the fairies a bit there.

Do you somehow get the impression that I don't think that women should be allowed to vote or something?
All that I am saying is that is that people are different, and with differences come inequalities.
Not only are people different, but certain genetics will more often than not dictate which field or discipline somebody might excel at in relation to the rest of the population.

It's all well and good for me to say that black men tend to be good athletes and tend to have large appendages, but if I say that black men tend to be not so good in other areas, then the racist finger is pointing my way.
I'm not sorry for generalising in the least because it's virtually impossible to know every person's strengths and weaknesses.

From my perspective, it is very humiliating for women's movements to assume that bs laws should be donated to become what they have invisaged to be.
The opportunities are all there, just do it if you want to and if you are able.iii

Lisa, you're all about control. I can see it a mile away.

Get over it. If you can't, then seek professional help.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 12:09am:

Bored again Sprint? Nothing much happening over in Spirituality these days eh? Still .. it's ever so nice to see you following me around (and commenting on my posts to others) .. like a little puppy. How humiliating indeed!

Don't do a Mel and insinuate people are trolling Lisa if they comment on a thread. Those sort of accusations restrict members from even posting.

You don't answer questions and most of the time you make little sense.

Mantra .. do you think you could please cease following me around for the sole purpose of commenting on who I post to and how?

It's getting tiresome ... esp after a number of weeks of you doing this and me ignoring you in the (vain) hope you will get the message.

I am asking nicely (this time).

Thanks in advance.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11^th, 2011 at 10:41pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 10:02am: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 10:00am: Where? Lol. If you don't know what my answer was then why all the rage? Man up FFS! And stop acting like a little baby. WHERE DID YOU ANSWER YOUR SIMPLE QUESTION? Thus far all you've succeeded in proving to me is that you're proficient in avoiding and evading the issue .. in typical churlish manner.

Back to the topic ..

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:58am:

Mantra .. do you think you could please cease following me around for the sole purpose of commenting on who I post to and how? It's getting tiresome ... esp after a number of weeks of you doing this and me ignoring you in the (vain) hope you will get the message. I am asking nicely (this time).

Is that a threat?

Are you saying I can't post in any thread where you post? That's pretty restricting, considering you post in most of the threads here. I find you quite abusive actually Lisa, although you pretend to be otherwise.

You are very transparent and you're in no position to tell members where they should or shouldn't post. I'm ignoring your request - unless you're the moderator of this sub-forum and then you can ban me.

Sprintcyclist started this thread and I responded. You are the one trolling.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:59am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 10:02am: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 11th, 2011 at 10:00am: Where? Lol. If you don't know what my answer was then why all the rage? Man up FFS! And stop acting like a little baby. WHERE DID YOU ANSWER YOUR SIMPLE QUESTION? Thus far all you've succeeded in proving to me is that you're proficient in avoiding and evading the issue .. in typical churlish manner. Back to the topic ..

Honestly, do you realize how silly you look?
Your anger directed at me is because you know the answer.

Like I said .. you're avoiding/evading as per usual. Why? Because you CANNOT answer the question .. and you haven't thus far.

Next!

mantra wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 12th, 2011 at 7:58am: Mantra .. do you think you could please cease following me around for the sole purpose of commenting on who I post to and how? It's getting tiresome ... esp after a number of weeks of you doing this and me ignoring you in the (vain) hope you will get the message. I am asking nicely (this time). Is that a threat? Are you saying I can't post in any thread where you post? That's pretty restricting, considering you post in most of the threads here. I find you quite abusive actually Lisa, although you pretend to be otherwise. You are very transparent and you're in no position to tell members where they should or shouldn't post. I'm ignoring your request - unless you're the moderator of this sub-forum and then you can ban me. Sprintcyclist started this thread and I responded. You are the one trolling.

Ok .. it looks like you still don't get it. Here goes.

Mantra sod off and get off my case. I'm fracking sick to death of you following me around like an old bat talking s.hit of the highest order day in day out.

I've been ignoring you thus far hoping to God you'll get the message that I don't like you following me around like a bad smell for the sole purpose of throwing appraisals at my posts which are directed at others.

Is that clear enough for you? If not ... believe you me I can make it even clearer for you. I've got a lot of experience in making my position very clear if I have to.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 9:42am:

Like I said .. you're avoiding/evading as per usual. Why? Because you CANNOT answer the question .. and you haven't thus far. Next!

Child, I posted this on page 3:


Quote:

These affirmative action programs, whether they be for gender, race, class, ethnicity, gays, or whatever other group, make a mockery of the principles liberal democracy supposedly stands upon. It sweeps away the notion of the importance of the individual over the group, in fact, it reverse it and places groups over individual merit. The attempted abolition of a meritocracy via affirmative action is a euphemism for revenge against what is higher. The unskilled envy what the skilled possess. Instead of knuckling down and disciplining yourself to be the best you can at what ever endeavour you want to be good at, the cunning will invent phrases like "affirmative action" as short cut to topple what is higher.

The question you claimed I haven't answered, which was a question I posted, was stated on page 4:


Quote:

Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job?

The answer to my own question is clearly on page 3.

Enjoy your immaturity!

Sighs

I asked you to answer YOUR question to me.

You still haven't.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 10^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

Answer this simple question: Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? - Time How about YOU answer your simple question first. And believe you me .. it is indeed a very simple question. After that .. I look forward to having you for lunch. I don't suffer fools lightly these days.

Here it is .. go on .. answer it.

Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job?

Which is it? The former or the latter?

I am assuming you will choose the latter. Am I right?

C'mon .. this isn't meant to be difficult. But you seem frightened to choose for some reason lol :P

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 9:46am:

Ok .. it looks like you still don't get it. Here goes. Mantra sod off and get off my case. I'm fracking sick to death of you following me around like an old bat talking s.hit of the highest order day in day out. I've been ignoring you thus far hoping to God you'll get the message that I don't like you following me around like a bad smell for the sole purpose of throwing appraisals at my posts which are directed at others. Is that clear enough for you? If not ... believe you me I can make it even clearer for you. I've got a lot of experience in making my position very clear if I have to.

You're a nutcase Lisa and from what others have said here - you've got a reputation carried over from previous boards. You disrupted this thread with your nonsense and it's going totally around in circles.

It started off as a good topic which could have provided some interesting views - instead you've trashed it - as you do most threads you post on.

I will make a formal complaint about you if you keep up with the repeated threats and abuse to anyone whose view you disagree with.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? Which is it? The former or the latter? I am assuming you will choose the latter. Am I right? C'mon .. this isn't meant to be difficult. But you seem frightened to choose for some reason lol :P

Do you mean to tell me you don't have the intellectual capacity to decipher this?


Quote:

These affirmative action programs, whether they be for gender, race, class, ethnicity, gays, or whatever other group, make a mockery of the principles liberal democracy supposedly stands upon. It sweeps away the notion of the importance of the individual over the group, in fact, it reverse it and places groups over individual merit. The attempted abolition of a meritocracy via affirmative action is a euphemism for revenge against what is higher. The unskilled envy what the skilled possess. Instead of knuckling down and disciplining yourself to be the best you can at what ever endeavour you want to be good at, the cunning will invent phrases like "affirmative action" as short cut to topple what is higher.

Read my previous post Time .. it's isn't all that hard is it?

Oh and Mantra .. seriously SOD OFF. I'm not interested in you interrupting my conversations with others .. anymore! Ya dig?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

Do you believe you ought to get a job because you are female or because you have the appropriate skills for the job? Which is it? The former or the latter? I am assuming you will choose the latter. Am I right? C'mon .. this isn't meant to be difficult. But you seem frightened to choose for some reason lol :P

You posed the question .. I merely threw it back at you to see how you will answer it.

i was sure there was a topic here somewhere.


now it's just a woman into self-humiliation.
thrash it lisa

Umm........... Lisa, on more than one occasion, and on many grounds, in this Thread, you have have made an absolute tit of yourself.  You need to read what Time posted.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 7^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

to think you would be appointed to the board because you were a woman ......... the leader of Westpac is there on her performance. anything less is dishonest Quote: GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce has advocated the introduction of quotas to ensure more women are appointed as directors on the boards of Australian companies. In comments that could reignite claims that she has crossed the line between her vice-regal role and politics, Ms Bryce said she believed affirmative action might be the only way to break the stranglehold of the ''old boys' network'' on Australian business. ''I believe the old boys' network is a powerful one,'' she said. ''No one gives up power and privilege willingly, do they?'' Advertisement: Story continues below Senior Labor and Liberal figures last night backed her view. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said the failure of big business to appoint women directors had reached the point where Parliament should consider ''punitive measures'' to force change. Appearing on the ABC's Q&A, Mr Hockey suggested a quota of 30 per cent would be reasonable. Status of Women Minister Kate Ellis said the government would hold a audit in 18 months to gauge whether the number of women on boards had increased, and would take action if needed. Quotas were a last resort, but the government was leaving this option open. Last year, women made up just 3 per cent of chief executives of the top 200 companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, and 8.4 per cent of board members. More than 100 of the top 200 companies had no women on their boards. Ms Bryce - for decades a leading light in the Australian women's movement - said that while women had made huge progress since she became aware of widespread discrimination as a young barrister in the 1960s, progress had slowed, particularly at the highest levels. Speaking to The Age on the eve of International Women's Day, Ms Bryce said: ''I think there's a very clear recognition and understanding that the progress of women in business at the very highest decision-making levels is too slow. ''This is a discussion that's going on in every country around the world. ''And a very interesting debate that surrounds it is about whether affirmative action should be taken… to take some positive steps to see that women are better represented on boards and at the highest decision-making levels. I support affirmative action. I support special measures when you need it.'' Asked to elaborate, Ms Bryce said: ''One of the things that is being discussed in Australia now … is whether or not there should be quotas for the representation of women on boards, and there are women who support that and there are others who don't … I believe that in certain circumstances quotas are a valid measure.'' The Governor-General said such a proposal ''sounds like a very radical notion, but it's not''. She said there were many examples of such action around the world, citing ''education in the US'', where the national government had forced states to accept African Americans in the school system, and legislation in various countries to get more women in parliament. Later in the interview, the Governor-General amended her definition of what should be done to reduce male domination to ''setting goals and targets''. ''The Australian way of affirmative action is setting goals and recognising discrimination and lack of opportunity and deciding to take action and setting some goals and targets. I guess I prefer that language to talking about quotas,'' she said. Ms Bryce will spend International Women's Day at events dedicated to women who have worked and fought for the advancement of women. http://www.theage.com.au/national/gg-calls-for-female-quotas-20110307-1bl80.html

Looks like that the GG is advocating for the 'casting couch' to be implemented