Because that would mean that out of a population of 22 million, they can’t find more than one woman who can chair a committee on the big stuff.

yeah Helen, i cared too; i thought it was an unforced error; and i thought it was highly embarrassing for Labor. geez, did Kevin really think the gender imbalance wouldn’t stick out like a sore thumb? to say ‘oh no, it’s got to be purely merit based!’ but then only find ONE female worthy is unimaginative and insulting.

Back on topic, the other Shaun C rudely refuses to get it in the Saturday paper today. Shorter Carney: I’m a white male and I refuse to understand why non-white non-males would be so pathetic as to complain about non-inclusion in the heads of various consultancy committees, so I’ll just bag them! (AKA: refusing to listen; so what else is new in politics?)

As to the inclusion of more women as MPs and heading portfolios: Yes, we get it. but we also know the Labor party is an unregenerate old beast in some of its rightwing remnant back-eddies, and there are some characters that still won’t get the non-white non-male thing unless constantly prodded. They can’t just sit back and say “well, we appointed Penny Wong and Julia Gillard so you can all just STFU and go away and we can just rest on our laurels, inclusion-wise, forever.”

If so more here. If not, cool…and again, pardon the OT. Could contain myself and wait for a general thread…mwah-hah-hah…

the Whitlam, Hawke/Keating & Cain-Kirner govs were much better incubators of social change via community participation. Don’t get me started on the Bracks-Brumby contempt for commoners. I’m deeply involved in public housing issues – all of the consecutive ministers, Pike, Broad & Wynne refuse to meet with public tenants on any issue, unless it’s simply for a gratuitous photo opp.

As for dear Cate, apart from the Arts & the fashion industry, she doesn’t even cut it as a spokeswoman for working mums, in the sense that she would be travelling the world with an army of nannies and personal lackeys. I don’t mean to be unkind, but she’s a multi-million $$$ earning film star, for god’s sake!

What do you mean ‘part’? That’s all there is left of my brain nowadays…and the ‘Art’ bit’s struggling under the strain.

The point of the list was that none of those things should matter. Like gender (unless the matter is gender centric)

I shall retreat my normal life now

Exactly. They’re saying that in everything except the “creative” arts, women have no ability to meet the requirements and are not respected. And “appropriate connections”; that’s a whole topic in itself about how social elites replicate themselves with others just like them, no?

In a population of approximately 22 million, you don’t find that somewhat shocking? And you know, it’s not like I’m Robinson Crusoe here. Many more prominent and worthy people than yours truly have commented about it in the media in the last few days. Also, for someone whose line was “who cares?”, you seem incredibly … invested… in this thread. I don’t think I’ve ever received so many comments from the same commenter for one post. Why the passionate defence of something you profess not to care about?

I wonder whether it’s fair to take this as a demonstration of the governments attitude to women. Are any country folk included? Any unionists? any royalists (to truly mix the metaphors)? Any immigrants? Any Christians? Any parents? Any gays? Any PhD’s? any (ex) street kids?

I find this list disingenuous. Women constitute slightly more than 50% of the population and including members of these groups would not preclude making the representative a woman. (As they say, women are the only category where people speak of over 50% as a “minority” group.)