Australia is run by men - what does that say about us?

[sudodds]

Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men. This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.

Nup, I don't buy it. I think to suggest that just because females are "instinctually maternal" they are more inclined to prefer maternal jobs is a massive generalisation and oversimplification of the deeply interconnected role of nature and nurture. Today especially, so many women are choosing not to have children - whether that be for career reasons, or because they really just don't want to. "The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates between 2023 and 2029, there will be more people in a relationship living without children than families with kids."(Source. This suggests that females may in fact not be "instinctually maternal" but instead that the level of social conditioning in recent years, which conflates womanhood with motherhood, has decreased.

As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing.

And I, as a female, couldn't care less whether i have kids or not. I'm not trying to suggest that you are wrong or "brainwashed" for your feelings - just trying to suggest that maybe wanting to have kids isn't such an innate thing.

And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).

Nursing and Early education are notoriously underpaid, and lack social power in comparison to politics and financial fields that are dominated by men (not in anyway trying to diminish the importance of the work individuals within these occupations do). This is not a fair comparison.

[brenden]

Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men.

What is the definition of a maternal job? One where you care for people? I think a lot of people get into politics because they care for humanity, and they want to help improve our society for everyone and improve the lives of everyone around them. If there are such things as "maternal jobs", I don't see how politics doesn't come under this classification. Women dominate fields like marketing, accounting, law, veterinary science, administration, tax agents, and plenty more. Why didn't those women choose nursing or early learning if they so strongly prefer maternal jobs?

This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.

Woah woah woah. Hold up a second - even if your first claim is true, the conclusion does not follow from that claim. It's a huge leap to go from "females in our species usually care for the children" to then "females would prefer a maternal job". Firstly, you can't make a logical jump from habit to preference. They might correlate but it is logically incorrect  to say that "Brenden usually wakes up at around 7am, therefore he prefers to work in the morning". Not true. I wake up at 7am because I have to in order to keep my job. I prefer to work in the night.

Secondly, if something is instinctual, it would be more consistent across our entire species.

The definition of instinct:

an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli.

If someone is innate, fixed, and in response to stimuli, you would expect virtually 99% of people to do it. I.e., fight or flight is an instinct.

If women had such a prominent "maternal instinct", then nursing wouldn't just be 90% women. 90% of women would be nurses (if nursing is the height of being maternal, of course).

I think your argument in this area is not logically or factually acceptable.

As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing. It's something I know I would enjoy.
In my household, both my parents cook the food and take care of the children, so I've certainly been raised in a very 'equal' family. Therefore my upbringing has certainly not influenced me at all. I, like men, have a choice, as to whether or not I want to go into politics, or whether I prefer doing a job at all, or whether I would prefer being a stay at home mum and raising children. I personally would prefer to work because I want to be a doctor and I wouldn't feel right not pulling my own weight around the house - but being a stay at home mum isn't a bad thing. My mum is a stay at home mum and chose to do so. She has a Masters in Botany and could easily have gotten a job but she didn't want to leave her children at home while my dad and her went off to work. So, it was of her own choice that she decided not to work. No one told her that because she's a woman, she can't get a job. She simply decided to. No oppression here. In fact, she loves it and I recently asked her, would you have rather worked? And she said, no, I wouldn't change it for the world, because raising children is the most rewarding thing she could ever do.

Okay. Whilst I'm glad it sounds like you have fantastic parents and a great mum, that story featured a sample size of 2, against a population of like, ~12million in Australia, and 3.5billion in the world. Your preferences and the preferences of your mum have literally zero impact on the discussion of whether or not women are inherently wired a particular way.

And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).

Even if choice were the only factor (which it isn't), it would be a problem because:

our choices aren't made in a vacuum. They are a byproduct of our lives.

Some women in other parts of the world might want to have their genitals mutilated and actively make that choice. If then we see a [hypothetical] society where 55% of the women have experienced FGM, and did so of their own volition, we don't turn around and say "this is not a sexist situation, and there is nothing wrong here, because this resultant society has been created by choice!"

Everything comes down to choice, but the fact remains that people make choices for a reason. Even if it's true that women aren't going into politics out of pure 'choice', that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the situation. We need to be asking ourselves why so many men are making that choice, and so many women aren't.

For the record, I also think it's rubbish that men are dominated by women in the fields you mentioned... Just goes to show that stupid concepts of gender are impacting on everyone

[peterpiper]

@gemini You misread patriciarose's post. The point they were trying to get at was the subconscious roles societal expectations can have on an individual's choice of career. It's not so much a person directly telling them not to choose a career because of their gender, but their identity in conforming to society and society's hold on past ideologies. I think if we are to talk about gender, identity and social issues, we cannot deny history and what it can tell us. The victorian era, the renaissance and other past periods did not come about merely because humans decided to paint the Sistene Chapel; and that out of the blue, humans picked up a brush and decided that it was going to be genetically imprinted into our DNA sequence because of our ancestral inclination to create. What we do is overwhelmingly informed by multi-generational characteristics that have evolved by our continual conversation with the past. And I don't think it's wise to deny its resonance in today's society, because choice in itself is a very social engagement that involves verbal and non-verbal feedback (subconsciously or consciously). While I understand that your mother had chose quite happily to enter motherhood, that doesn't really tell us anything about there being a connection between biological instinct and career choice, other than that it was something that happened. And what exactly does this say for us to deny the active influence of societal pressures and expectations? I think your example tells us very little.

To expand: Madison Ave wouldn't have been such a big deal if it weren't for the fact that humans make decisions on the basis of anything but what they're biologically *instinctually programmed to do.

EDIT: replaced biological with instinctual for clarification.

[Joseph41]

Imo, it says pretty plainly that sexism still exists in a pretty large way in our society.

I think you're right!

We also need to take into account choice. No female that I know of is being told 'you can't be prime minister because you're female.' There is nothing stopping me from striving to become prime minister; I simply don't want to. Remember, 50-50 levels of male and female in all jobs is not something we should strive for. What we should encourage people to do is do what they enjoy, and if more males happen to be in positions of government, so be it. We can't force women to do jobs they don't want to do for the sake of 'equality'.

Sure - we definitely need to account for choice. But I don't think you can suggest that sexism - conscious or otherwise - doesn't play a part based solely on your own experiences. It's great you don't know anybody is being told they can't be Prime Minister, but that's not what I'm contending. There are very many females in Australia. What I'm saying is that at least some of them are being dissuaded to pursue a political career as a result of their gender. Not inherently, but because of the way they're treated - and because of the way society considers them.

It doesn't have to be explicit. I'd imagine (no statistics for this particular point) very few females are explicitly being told they can't be Prime Minister, but it doesn't follow that they're not being treated differently in other ways. I don't think we need an exact 50/50 split. I do think we need a more balanced approach to who is considered a suitable candidate for a particular job or profession.

There's nothing indicating that females are inherently discriminated against in politics. Maybe they just aren't into political jobs as much as men?

You can't force women to do jobs they don't like just for the sake of making 1:1 ratio of males to females in any job. In fact, it could be considered sexist as you are favouring less qualified females over more qualified males for the sake of 'equality'.

Maybe they just aren't into political jobs? Even if true (I'm unconvinced), why do you think that might be? I feel it's dangerous suggesting there's nothing supporting the notion that females are discriminated against in politics. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "inherently discriminated"; could you elaborate on this? Am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

And to be clear, I'm not advocating we employ female politicians "for the sake of it", and I didn't suggest that anywhere in my opening post. I think it starts a lot earlier than that. What I am arguing is that society dissuades females from a career in politics in ways it does not for males.

Have you taken a step back and wondered why women aren't as interested in political jobs? There may not be any structural barriers but the toxic culture in politics (starting from student politics level, where many politicians from), inherent sexism (eg. Julia Gillard) and general attitude that women aren't fit to tackle issues regarding the economy and international relationships, discourage women from pursuing politics.

I think this is a good post. Politics is often construed as a "masculine" domain not fit for female involvement.

Well what I'm saying is that if you take personal prejudices aside, which can be apparent in any job, I can't see anything suggesting that Australia's political system is inherently favouring females. The article about the university's club doesn't indicate anything about Australia's political system itself, just personal sexism. The fact of the matter is that women in politics is going to always be lower than men simply because women aren't as interested in it as men. So the numbers in OP does not suggest anything in my opinion. The only way to boost numbers to have a 50-50 is either by forcing them (bad idea as already mentioned) or providing greater incentives for women to join a certain field ( such as engineering) which I disagree with as it is sexist since less qualified women are given places over more qualified men for the sake of equality.

I agree - Australia's political system is definitely not inherently favouring females (was this a typo, or am I interpreting this incorrectly?).

That's an absolutely mammoth call about men in politics always going to outnumber women in politics "because women aren't as interested in it as men". To me, that seems like an overly simplistic argument - and one centred far too tightly on what we know today. And even then, I think the idea that males are more interested than females in politics is very heavily flawed. Even if true, I firmly believe the way we consider each gender plays a big and very significant role.

Why don't you think the numbers in my opening post mean anything? Surely they're an indication of something - are you contending they simply reflect interest in politics?

I agree that Julia Gillard had to put up with snide, 'gendered' remarks that no male PMs were forced to endure. However, this does not detract from my criticisms of her (namely that she ran a dysfunctional government with record-low approval ratings). Sure, she faced difficult circumstances (a hung parliament and the ghost of K Rudd), but ultimately she just couldn't govern effectively imho.

It seems to be the case that 'sexism' against female politicians is often used to explain away their failings to a large extent. This was the case with Gillard, as well as Hillary Clinton. However, this analysis is seldom applied to politicians of the Right. The fact that Marine Le Pen would have been the first female president of France barely rated a mention during the French campaign (unlike Clinton's, in which you couldn't escape hearing slogans like 'I'm with her'). Additionally, Pauline Hanson has been similarly attacked in a sexist manner (was originally named the 'witch from Ipswich'), yet this is seemingly glossed over in the prevailing political/media discourse in Australia. To my mind, feminists need to be more consistent when discussing issues pertaining to gender equality. Whether they are actually fond of the female politicians in question should be irrelevant.   

On the broader issue of female representation in Australian politics, I don't see an issue with endeavouring to achieve a 50-50 target. As the Parliament is supposed to represent the people, it should reflect the composition of Australia's population accurately. However, in other industries, I think that gender composition is rather unimportant (for instance, I couldn't care less that a majority of Veterinarians are female, or that a majority of barristers are male- I just want a decent service from the professional in question).   

Why don't you think Gillard could govern effectively, out of interest? What are you basing that on?

I agree that women on both ends of the political spectrum are affected by this - I don't think I've contended otherwise. Gillard was simply the most pertinent example in my mind, considering her previous position and prominence in Australian society.

You're not mutilating someone by deciding that as a woman you don't want to be a politician.

Indeed, but that wasn't the argument - and to suggest it was is a very big stretch.

Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men. This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.
As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing. It's something I know I would enjoy.
In my household, both my parents cook the food and take care of the children, so I've certainly been raised in a very 'equal' family. Therefore my upbringing has certainly not influenced me at all. I, like men, have a choice, as to whether or not I want to go into politics, or whether I prefer doing a job at all, or whether I would prefer being a stay at home mum and raising children. I personally would prefer to work because I want to be a doctor and I wouldn't feel right not pulling my own weight around the house - but being a stay at home mum isn't a bad thing. My mum is a stay at home mum and chose to do so. She has a Masters in Botany and could easily have gotten a job but she didn't want to leave her children at home while my dad and her went off to work. So, it was of her own choice that she decided not to work. No one told her that because she's a woman, she can't get a job. She simply decided to. No oppression here. In fact, she loves it and I recently asked her, would you have rather worked? And she said, no, I wouldn't change it for the world, because raising children is the most rewarding thing she could ever do.

And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).

So you were told (I'm guessing your female, from your username) that because you're a girl you can't aspire to certain fields? Wow, that's harsh. Whoever said that to you is wrong. Certainly no one I know has ever told a female that before. Or a man, for that matter. Sorry that happened to you.

Okay I get how you could say misogynistic but give me a quote where Donald Trump said anything against gay people - he literally said, and I quote, 'I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the hateful foreign ideologies.'

I would love some evidence for the suggestion that "instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men". And I think Brenden touched on this, but it's illogical to jump from "females are the ones who usually care for children" to "females prefer maternal jobs". Prevalence by no means indicates preference, and I think that's an extremely important point here. (EDIT: On reflection this is almost exactly what Brenden said, too lol - my bad.)

Brenden summed up almost my precise thoughts on the rest of this post.

okay gonna say something controversial...(haven't properly read the comments and soz for messy grammar)

as a female, non-feminist, I think the way gillard was treated as PM was disgusting (soz for my extreme language).

Out of interest, why do you not identify with feminism (genuinely curious)?

[appleandbee]

The reason why there are gender quotas in a few areas, is because competency or perceptions of it at least, are subconsciously influenced by gender as well as race. The fact is that voters perceive men to be more 'politician-like' because men in politics is considered to be mainstream and are considered to be more competent at serious issues like the economy and international relations. The majority of voters do not scrutinize, fact-check or read policy analysis, and as a result rely on subconscious biases on who appears to be competent and look like a politician (I am willing to say Marine Le Pen and Pauline Hanson did suffer from voters subconscious biases as well).

The way that gender quotas/race quotas for Indigenous Australians work is two-fold, first is that they expose the public to female and Indigenous politicians and show that females and indigenous people are capable of discussing important economical and societal issues, changing people's mindsets on what is mainstream or who looks like a politician. Over-time, when competent female and indigenous politicians in society are considered mainstream and voters are more willing to vote females into parliament, quotas are no longer required. The second part is that, it encourages more competent women to enter politics because they see that the system is actively doing something to increase female participation as well as because they don't have to face the subconscious biases of voters. Quotas do not promote mediocrity as the quotas aren't large enough to accommodate incompetent people but rather to bring the competent few into the mainstream. The type of women that would enter politics under a model would be those that already has an interest in policy and society, through avenues such journalism, civil service, think-tanks or academia but didn't  enter politics because of society's sub-conscious biases, toxic culture in political parties (which would prevent them from being nominated/pre-selected even before they entered the voting booth) as well as a lack of belief in their own selves (as a result of gender socialization). When there are many competent women entering politics and voters willing to vote for them, quotas are no longer required.

As it was mentioned before about why there aren't quotas for men in childcare and primary education, the reason is that there aren't any barriers to men entering such fields if they wanted to compared to women in the corporate sector (employers' bias) and politics (voters and political party bias). More men should be encourage to enter those fields but there is nothing to stop them from doing so if they want to, whereas women do face barriers in climbing the corporate ladder and being elected to parliament.

as a female, non-feminist,

Just out of curiosity, why are you a non-feminist?

[patriciarose]

So you were told (I'm guessing your female, from your username) that because you're a girl you can't aspire to certain fields? Wow, that's harsh. Whoever said that to you is wrong. Certainly no one I know has ever told a female that before. Or a man, for that matter. Sorry that happened to you.

Okay I get how you could say misogynistic but give me a quote where Donald Trump said anything against gay people - he literally said, and I quote, 'I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the hateful foreign ideologies.'

yup, female (: you too, right? i feel like i should probably know that by now oops, sorry haha.

i've been told verbally once, yes, but i was more going for the whole societal conformity thing that people have covered above (:

okay i know you said quote singular but there are sO many personal favourites so! aside from like, the fact that his vp is pence (who is super big on conversion theraphy which def doesn't ruin lives or anything nope):
that time he insinuated men can be turned gay because of the women they were previously dating
"i'm against gay marriage" which i? am not going to break down any further tbh
on overruling the marriage equality decision
and my personal favourite, which i don't have a source for because i have saved since i've kind of passed the dying stage and it makes me laugh tbqh: “It’s like in golf. A lot of people — I don’t want this to sound trivial — but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive. It’s weird. You see these great players with these really long putters, because they can’t sink three-footers anymore. And, I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.” because gay people should not marry and recieve the benefits that come with that which everyone else gets since they're basically mismatched golf clubs. but hey at least some of them are his super fabulous friends, amiright? which, like, bye tbh.

but getting back on topic oops, i've been told verbally once, yes – primary school was an interesting time lmao – but i was more going for the whole societal conformity thing. but peterpiper said it better than i could have a couple posts up! (thanks) (:

if any of that sounded sarcastic it was @the quotes, not you (:

[zhen]

In my opinion the fact that the country is run by men is more due to the societal gender stereotypes than this idea that everyone is actively discriminating against women. I feel like these gender stereotypes that men should be strong leaders and the breadwinner of the family and women should care for the children is the main reason why men dominate politics. These characteristics which people expect of politicians are the qualities which society expects men to contain. I just feel like these gender stereotypes play a huge role in the differences between the number of males and females in certain fields. In my opinion, if we want to create a completely equal society, I think that we have to rid society of these gender stereotypes and roles.

[EEEEEEP]

Malcolm Turnbull is the 29th Prime Minister of Australia. He's the 28th male Prime Minister of Australia.

The one female - Julia Gillard - was (at least IMO) incredibly unfairly lambasted during her time as Prime Minister. She was criticised for appearance, clothing choices and voice in a way that no male Prime Minister ever would be. There was great emphasis on her home life. Like very, very many female politicians, she suffered from the "double bind": if she had kids, she'd be construed as uncommitted to her profession; if she didn't, she'd be construed as too ambitious and career-driven.

It's a consistent thing, and it's still happening.

We want female politicians to remain "feminine" in a historically and stereotypically "masculine" domain - but not too feminine, because that would apparently be unsuitable for the role.

After the 2016 election, women made up 32 per cent of Parliament (source). For the Liberal Party, the figure was just 21%.

Is Australia, deep down, still a patriarchal society? What are our collective views about the place of women in contemporary Australian society?

While Julia Gillard was treated poorly (so was tony abott), I'd say that the place of women in contemporary society is valued.

(WHAT blasphemy).. hold on let me finish.

 There is conflation of equality and sameness. And it's an error all too easily made if your starting point is that the sexes are "really" the same and that apparent differences are mere artifacts of sexist socialization.

In society, women and men dominate different areas of occupations and areas. Women, being the things that deal with empathy and men being the jobs that hard, dirty and somewhat isolated.

Nursing, for example, is currently 90% female.
Construction , for example, is currently 90% Male

P.S. We could "easily" say that in industries, males or females are discriminating against the other sex... but that would be an over simplification of how the world works and it would strip people of their free will in making decisions

 It becomes logical to explain this as the result not of discrimination but of  choice.

Well, it shouldn’t be suspect. Because the sexes do differ—and in ways that, on average, make a notable difference to their distribution in today's workplace.

[sudodds]

While Julia Gillard was treated poorly (so was tony abott), I'd say that the place of women in contemporary society is valued.

The difference between the poor treatment of Gillard and Abbott though was that a lot of the hate she received was directly tied to her status as a woman. Comments in regards to her appearance, her lack of children, her partner, the clothes she wore etc. etc. Abbott hardly ever, if at all, received these sorts of comments, his hate was usually connected to his own (imo) buffoonery ("no one is the suppository of all wisdom" ~ potentially my favourite quote, and sums him up perfectly.)

There is conflation of equality and sameness. And it's an error all too easily made if your starting point is that the sexes are "really" the same and that apparent differences are mere artifacts of sexist socialization.

In society, women and men dominate different areas of occupations and areas. Women, being the things that deal with empathy and men being the jobs that hard, dirty and somewhat isolated.

Nursing, for example, is currently 90% female.
Construction , for example, is currently 90% Male

 It becomes logical to explain this as the result not of discrimination but of  choice.

Well, it shouldn’t be suspect. Because the sexes do differ—and in ways that, on average, make a notable difference to their distribution in today's workplace.

Though I do agree that it is important not to conflate the two, as others have expressed throughout this thread I think saying that it is purely choice is an oversimplification (as is it to suggest that it is purely discrimination mind). Our choices are directly impacted by our socio-philosophical/political landscape, and also our personal context. I went to an all-girls school, and I was talking to one of my old teachers about this recently. According to him, girls at my school were a lot more assertive, and had, as he put it "higher aspirations" (politics, law, engineering etc.) than he noted within girls at the two co-ed schools that he taught at (of course he was speaking very generally here). He hypothesises that as we had never had to deal with competition/comparison with male students, we, by extension never were put in a position to consider ourselves inferior or of lesser value (not trying to suggest that this is something that happens at all co-ed schools, and there are definitely other problems with single-sex schools that I haven't touched on). A survey was conducted at my school to see what the most popular career aspirations were - Law, Communications and Heath/Science (particularly psychiatry).

Defs gotta consider concepts like the "glass ceiling" as well. In the film industry (other industries as well, however as this is my goal I know more about this than other ones), gender based discrimination is undeniably an issue. Like its not "oh well - I guess more men want to be directors," - female directors, no matter how good, almost always get stuck in the "indie" cycle, whereas one good indie can project a male director into blockbusters just like that. I'm studying media arts right now and I'd venture a guess that 70% of the students are girls, so I really don't believe the myth that girls just aren't "choosing" to be directors - and I'm sure this is the case in many other industries (and I think it works both ways too! I can imagine it is harder for men to get jobs in childcare for example).

[brenden]

In my opinion the fact that the country is run by men is more due to the societal gender stereotypes than this idea that everyone is actively discriminating against women. I feel like these gender stereotypes that men should be strong leaders and the breadwinner of the family and women should care for the children is the main reason why men dominate politics. These characteristics which people expect of politicians are the qualities which society expects men to contain. I just feel like these gender stereotypes play a huge role in the differences between the number of males and females in certain fields. In my opinion, if we want to create a completely equal society, I think that we have to rid society of these gender stereotypes and roles.

I honestly think this is a really insightful post.

Gender expectations and all of that jazz impacts everyone. Like, obviously I think a lot of what's wrong with our politics is to do with discriminating against women, but that certainly doesn't imply that gendered expectations of men aren't also contributing to society's state of affairs, and an equitable society absolutely needs both sexes to be free of the rubbish that's put on them.

[de]

She was criticised for appearance, clothing choices and voice in a way that no male Prime Minister ever would be.

To be fair, she did have a *really* annoying voice... 😜

[elysepopplewell]

i think the fact that Tony Abbott was literally the Minister for Women for a period of time says it all.

Remember when he said the abolition of the carbon tax was his greatest achievement as Minister for Women? Yeah. Yeah...

[Joseph41]

Remember when he said the abolition of the carbon tax was his greatest achievement as Minister for Women? Yeah. Yeah...

Women doing the ironing were jumping with joy all over the country.

EDIT: Heavy sarcasm here, just to be clear.

[elysepopplewell]

At this stage, all I want to say has been said. There are so many parts of our legal system that I desire change in (in relation to abortion, marriage equality, "revenge porn", sexual assault), and I do consider how different it would be if the cabinet were 50/50. Put aside the reason why these people are here or how they got there, the experience of men and women in society is completely different (and different again based on sexuality, class, etc), and the response to different concerns will be influenced by gendered discourse. When the amendments to the legislation pertaining to abortion was proposed, and then knocked back, in NSW last week, I couldn't help but be reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine says, "if men could get abortions you'd be able to get them at an ATM." Not to make the discussion about abortion - but rather the reality that the legal and political systems were created by men, in the greatest interest of men. Undoubtably this is changing (hello Gough Whitlam and no fault divorce in the 1970s, legend), but I do wonder if it would all change faster with more women in parliament.

My local member, Susan Templeman, is incredible in my opinion. But even more outstanding, is Emma Hassar, the member for the district next to mine. I'm completely blissed that I have two strong, female leaders in what is otherwise typically conservative (for loss of a better word) area.

[sudodds]

At this stage, all I want to say has been said. There are so many parts of our legal system that I desire change in (in relation to abortion, marriage equality, "revenge porn", sexual assault), and I do consider how different it would be if the cabinet were 50/50. Put aside the reason why these people are here or how they got there, the experience of men and women in society is completely different (and different again based on sexuality, class, etc), and the response to different concerns will be influenced by gendered discourse. When the amendments to the legislation pertaining to abortion was proposed, and then knocked back, in NSW last week, I couldn't help but be reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine says, "if men could get abortions you'd be able to get them at an ATM." Not to make the discussion about abortion - but rather the reality that the legal and political systems were created by men, in the greatest interest of men. Undoubtably this is changing (hello Gough Whitlam and no fault divorce in the 1970s, legend), but I do wonder if it would all change faster with more women in parliament.

My local member, Susan Templeman, is incredible in my opinion. But even more outstanding, is Emma Hassar, the member for the district next to mine. I'm completely blissed that I have two strong, female leaders in what is otherwise typically conservative (for loss of a better word) area.

Yeah this raises a good point - politics isn't just another occupation. Politicians can have a significant impact on our lives through their decisions, so you actually do need equal representation. Even if the only people that "choose" to be politicians are men, you still need women (and other minority groups) to be properly represented, or you risk misrepresentation in issues that matter to that group - i.e. they don't get a say.