I have a problem with this article.
Basically, various factions are up in arms that there is only one woman (Cate Blanchett) amongst the ten people selected to head a steering committee for Kevin Rudd’s 2020 summit.
My problem is this; nowhere in this article does it suggest that there are better qualified, or more experienced women who could have taken on the job of one of the steering committees. If that was the case, and we could demonstrate that there were better women for the job whom had simply been overlooked because they were women, I’d be annoyed as well. But I haven’t seen anyone, anywhere able to say that’s the case.
I hate this ratio thing. If 50% of the population is women, we should have equal representation on the steering committee heads, right?
Wrong. We should without a shadow of a doubt have equal opportunity to representation amongst the members of that committee. But I, personally, would want steering those commitees the best person for the job, regardless of gender and how many other woman are amongst the leaders. If we’re going to get anything out of this summit, shouldn’t we have the “best and brightest” as has been suggested, and not just the most politically correct mix? I don’t want token women steering these committees. And that’s what we become if we are selected purely because we are women, and not because of our expertise. If there are better-qualified men, and they don’t get the job because they are men, how is that not sexism too?
If we start choosing people on the basis of sex, race or religion, and engineer these committees to have ratios that we find acceptable in terms of political correctness, it ceases to be a meeting of minds, and becomes a meeting for PR purposes. Simple. If those nine men and one woman are the best for the job, so be it.
Couldn't get out of a one room building
13 hours ago