In her Mamamia column this week, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop writes about the importance of gender equality in the workplace — especially, in parliament.
When I was Education Minister, I learned of a “control experiment” undertaken at one of our universities. Female academics were divided into two groups – one group was part of a formal mentoring program, the other group was not.
Each group was analysed, reviewed and assessed from time to time to gauge their progress in terms of promotion, career advancement and grants funding.
After several years, the evidence was conclusive – the members of the group who were in the mentoring program had received significantly greater career success than those who were not formally mentored.
I am an avowed supporter of mentoring – both formal and informal – in terms of supporting gender equality, and the advancement of women.
My belief in the power of formal and informal mentoring processes is founded on my own personal experiences.
Throughout my political and legal career I have received invaluable advice from a number of accomplished women and men that has had a lasting impact on me. I considered them mentors, and appreciated their support.
Read more: The statistics that show why Malala is truly remarkable.
There has been a recent debate about female representation in the Federal Parliament.
I believe that it is vital for all governments to reflect the diversity in our society so that all people can feel that their interests are properly represented.
There should be a broad range of backgrounds, ethnicity and life experience among those elected to Parliament.
Some people have suggested we should aim for 30 per cent female representation. However if we were to reflect the gender balance of the Australian community, we should naturally be seeking that at least 50 per cent of the Parliament be comprised of female representatives.
Related: Julie Bishop: “Child care support is not a welfare payment.”
While significant progress towards gender equality has been made, in 2015 women remain under-represented at decision making levels in most sectors, including within our State and Federal Parliaments.
I do not support a formal quota system for achieving greater representation in Parliament. Most women wish to be selected on their merits and on the basis that they are the best person for the role, not because of their gender.
History shows that Labor’s affirmative action policy offers little protection against factional influences.
The Labor Party claims it embraces affirmative action but in practice it is invariably abandoned when a male union boss, for example, claims a seat that would otherwise be reserved for a woman.
If there were to be quotas for women, what of the many groups within society who could also lay claim to quotas based on social composition?
As the female deputy leader of the Liberal Party, I am committed to supporting and mentoring women who are interested in entering public office – local, state and federal. It is a role and a responsibility I take very seriously.
As Foreign Minister, I am also committed to tackling the under-representation of women in the Pacific. The Australian Government supports the Pacific Women Parliamentary Partnerships initiative which seeks to build links between parliamentarians and parliamentary staff, share knowledge of parliamentary systems and processes, and contribute to the ongoing development of parliamentary democracy throughout the Pacific.
A number of my female colleagues recently participated in the annual forum in Suva alongside 63 other parliamentarians from 15 jurisdictions in the region.
Related content: Why we need to celebrate more women in sport.
To help women in other nations, we must continue to take a leadership role in terms of female empowerment within our communities and within our workplaces.
All Parliamentarians share a responsibility to attract the best people available for pre-selection, and remove the barriers and hurdles that exist for talented candidates.
A diverse range of voices is needed in politics to ensure our democracy continues to thrive.
Do you support gender quotas?
Read more of the minister’s columns for Mamamia:
“A year on, we continue to grive for those aboard MH17.”
Julie Bishop explains the importance of ‘koala diplomacy’.
Thousands of Australian students are studying overseas, and Julie Bishop couldn’t be happier.
“This is what our foreign aid budget buys.”
Top Comments
Well, mentoring hasn't worked in the Liberal party. In fact, nothing has. Look at the sorry state of them, bloated by old reactionary men convincing themselves they have a cabinet full of worthy 'merit.' Meanwhile, quotas are working across Europe and Australia, wherever they are implemented, and women are at last getting in to politics.
I'm with Julie on this one. I find quotas to profoundly insulting to my integrity as a woman and a patriarchal-enforcing solution to gender representation. 'Oh look, we need more women so we don't look sexist, here you'll do! Now be grateful for all we've done for you because you're only here because it's in our interests to not look sexist.'
To paraphrase Jane Caro, many of the men in leadership positions are only there because they're men, so why not put some women in there just because they're women?
Of course, affirmative action doesn't mean that random woman is just plucked off the street and given a job, it just means that men would be excluded from the selection process. The women ultimately chosen would still be the best woman available for the job. Even if they're not the best person for the job overall, they're still changing the gender balance, disrupting the patriarchal status quo, and thus making affirmative action less necessary in the future.
"Even if they're not the best person for the job"
Says it all really!
Women decide to marry husbands who are wealthier than themselves (almost like this is one of their requirements <sarcasm>), have babies with said husbands; then, the economically rational decision they make is for them, the lower earner of the two, to bare the burden of child care. Thus, one less women who makes it to the top. When this scenario is played out over-and-over, as its is throughout the whole of western society, the aggregate result is more men in top jobs - not just because they're men, but because they have been, generally, the higher earning partner and have therefore not taken time out to raise and care for children.
Maybe, instead of settling for someone who is 'not the best person for the job', we should instead make sure women stay in business and politics past their thirties so that there is a bigger talent pool of them to choose from. Perhaps we could make it illegal for women to marry richer men? This would flip the whole script! Women can justify being the ones to work 100+hours in the office (or in parliament), men can stay home taking care of the kids and playing Xbox, and feminists can finally end their penis envy crusade! Everybody is happy!
Alas, this is not the feminist position. Feminists, for the most part, want women to be able to carry on making the same choices (marrying rich husbands, taking career breaks, working fewer hours than their male colleagues owing to child care responsibilities etc.) but to have society pick up the burden of these choices for them. How infantilising! Choices and consequences - part of being an adult, I'm afraid!
Your only suggestion for higher workforce participation for women is to "make sure" they stay in employment past their thirties. Please enlighten me, what does "making sure" entail? Have you considered that perhaps having quotas for women in leadership positions would help break down the male-dominated culture of leadership and thus "make sure" more women stay in business and politics?
Or maybe (seeing as you're obviously a fan of generalising, exaggerating and stereotyping the opinions of those you disagree with) you're just like most conservatives, who would rather pay lip service to an issue that they say they care about, without ever actually doing anything constructive about it.
The gender pay gap is the result of a difference between two averages. Averages are, by their nature, generalities. Thus, in discussing the cause of the difference between to averages, one must necessarily generalize.
This article (http://billmoyers.com/2014/... says: "Its here that the AEI fellows readily acknowledge a huge factor in the gender-gap: the biological reality is that women give birth, and the social reality is that women still bear a disproportionate share of the burden of caring for sick kids or elderly parents.When they take time off to do those things, they lose seniority and often end up looking for a new job after a period of time outside the labor force — neither of which is good for your paycheck."
Thus, on average - in general, that is - women, according to this article, bear the brunt of family care responsibilities (remember, this is a 'huge factor'). Boardroom quotas won't change the fact that your baby needs her diaper changing."[B]break[ing] down the male-dominated culture of leadership" doesn't solve the fact that your elderly mother has dementia and requires care.
So what, on average - in general, that is - can be done about this? Well, we must ask why the burden, generally, falls with women to begin with?? The reason, in general, is that women are not, in the average family, the bread winners - they earn less than their husbands, generally. Thus, the economically rational decision made by the average family, is for the woman to generally bear the brunt of the responsibility. This general difference, remember, is a 'huge factor' in the average pay/success outcome disparity. So, if women become the bread winners of their families, men will become the care givers, and women will therefore not have to sacrifice their careers. This way, we can MAKE SURE they stay in employment (or stay committed to the career ladder).
Ultimately, if you want to enforce a predetermined outcome, it requires women making different choices (marrying poorer husbands)... or having their choice removed entirely.
p.s. I hope you didn't generally find my average use of the words 'general' and 'average' too exaggerated, old chum!