Our thank to Martin for pointing us to this. The start of the article in the Brisbane Times:
Men may have to move aside from high-profile roles in business and government to make way for women to move in, according to the chairman of Transfield, Diane Smith-Gander.
A bill proposed by a group of Senate crossbenchers would make it compulsory for federal government boards to be at least 40 per cent female.
Ms Smith-Gander, who is also president of the Chief Executive Women group, said to reach that target, and an eventual bigger target of 50-50 representation of women on business boards and in senior roles, capable men would have to make way for capable women.
“When it comes to senior jobs and political appointments I think 50-50 representation is where we’re heading,” she said at an Australian Institute of Company Directors lunch in Melbourne on Tuesday.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Like a rachet this can only move in one direction, and it won’t end at 50 %.
This is a common ruse and simply represents the latest stop upon the way.
Having acheived it, work will begin on making the case for 60 % on some specious grounds the details of which need not detain us here, and so on.
And that’s how to boil a frog.
LikeLike
Repugnant. Disgusting. Social engineering destroying freedom.
I am fed up with these parasites.
LikeLike
I think she means capable men will have to step aside in favour of incapable women. A man has to be VERY bad to be as bad as the average woman; there are umpteen surveys out there in diverse publication consistently suggesting that something like 82% of the population prefer a male manager. Unless they are all using the same one……
LikeLike
Men are grossly under-represented in high – and low – positions in women’s groups the world over. I think that they would be much better run with an equal representation of the sexes. I call upon Ms Smith-Gander to begin the improvement by stepping down in favour of a man.
LikeLike
Always more and more of the wrong thing.
I remember two women of a certain age, who were feminists. One stated openly that she thinks men are inferior. And yet, both women (on separate occasions) had admitted that they prefer to be under a male boss than a female one. “Men are straight with you,” said one, “and women aren’t.”
This was at the time when there was a big debate on whether the Church of England should admit women priests. A church-going man I knew told me that in the church-going community, the group most opposed to the ordination of woman were women. They didn’t want another woman having that kind of authority over them.
That’s the real reason why it has to be compulsory!
LikeLike
Your comment reminds me of my mother’s funeral, conducted by a woman in priestly vestments.
My mother, who was terminally ill, had chosen the officiant when the incumbent was an old man. He died before she and the service was not what she would have wanted. The courageous and resolute feminist we cremated was as unknown to me, as the ‘vicar’ would have been unacceptable to my mother.
LikeLike
selecting people for management positions for reasons of equality rather than ability is exactly the same as when communists selected peasants (no offence) over qualified people,on the same principle. In this respect,there is no real difference between feminism and communism.
The west fought so hard to keep communism out,only to let it in through the back door,on grounds of chivalry. Should we part ways with capitalism or feminism ? So far we are parting ways with capitalism. Is it really smart and sustainable not opposing women’s uncompetitive and ultimatly disastrous ideas just because of our traditions of leniency towards women? You’ll be the judge……
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike