# 2020 panel - women and multi-cultural groups under represented



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

*Businesswomen question 2020 panel mix*

Updated 3 hours 8 minutes ago 


Cate Blanchett is the only woman named as part of the 10-member panel that will choose people to attend the 2020 summit. (AFP: Timothy A Clary)


Actress Cate Blanchett is the only woman named as part of the Government-appointed 10-member panel that will choose people to attend the summit in April.

The chairwoman of Harris Farm Markets, Katherine Harris, says it is a lopsided board that will only be able to represent half of the population.

"It's not just that we're not getting different points of view but it's also that we're not getting role models," she said.

"All the young women coming out of school and at universities - they look up at this group of the supposedly 1,000 great thinkers in Australia and nine out of 10 of them are all men."

Ms Harris says she expected more from Mr Rudd.

"He's got his successful wife. He understands that most women are not actually at home looking after the grandchildren or the children, they've unfortunately got lots of other jobs as well. And this just ... is just such a shock."

Executive director of lobby group Women on Boards, Claire Braund, fears an under-representation of women on the summit leadership group will also lead to too many men and not enough women among the 1,000 summit delegates.

"This sends a message to young people, to future leaders that women are not equal, not good enough, not on our government's radar and not going to be considered," she said.

"I have to ask the question when I saw this list, why is it that the top 11 people, the first in the class, don't include at least one woman of substance in the areas of science, economics, health, rural affairs, governance, sustainability? Is there not one other woman with the qualifications and experience who can join Cate Blanchett and assume a leadership role in this important summit?

"How are we going to bring women, 51 per cent of the population, into this critical discussion that we're having about Australia's future?

The other 10 members are all men and from Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, apart from Aboriginal surgeon, Kelvin Kong.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/26/2172724.htm


----------



## doctorj (26 February 2008)

Why is the gender of this appointments committee important?
Surely the skills of those they appoint is more important than what is (or isn't) hanging between their legs?  

Another media beat up.  What happened to real journalism? Even 60 Minutes is full of celeb interviews these days.


----------



## ZacR (26 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> *Businesswomen question 2020 panel mix*
> 
> Updated 3 hours 8 minutes ago
> 
> ...




I think Ms. Harris has made a very public error on this one.

For whatever reason she apparently thinks that women are as intelligent as men.

Obviously this is not true.

Now, don't get too excited - I wholeheartedly agree that women are EQUAL. However, they do not quite compare in the intelligence stakes.

Out of all the prominent inventors, pioneers, theorists etc etc - how many were female ?

Newton, Eintsein, Eddison, Gates, Buffett, Darwin, Adler, Strauss etc etc - where are the ladies among those names ??

*Ducks for cover*


----------



## Sean K (26 February 2008)

This is a serious conference, they're not talking about hairspray, or tampons. 

Children make up about 30% of the population, I didn't hear them crying out.

I'm surprised gays and lesbians haven't demanded representation though. That's about 70% of the population right now. 

Now, who else can I make angry....

Oh, those Muslims, how were they represented? We have the 'Anglican Everywhere' on the panel!! 

Damn surprised the Australian of the Year hasn't been selected, we probably needed a theme song. 

And where are The Wiggles!!!


Oh, hang on, there's going to be 100 on the panel. So, perhaps the balance will sort itself out. 

Julia, Prospector and Grace for the panel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## chops_a_must (26 February 2008)

I guess without women there, it wont just be a talk/ bitch fest after all!


----------



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

Hi Kennas

I hazard a guess that you make all the decisions in your household.


:nosympath:


Good luck, if it works for you and yours.

Not for everyone.

cheers


PS: Must be nice to be a white, anglo-saxon male (NOT)!


----------



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

Doctor



> Why is the gender of this appointments committee important?




Obviously the male ego at work.

"An analysis of some 30 studies by British researcher Adrian Furnham, a professor of psychology at University College London, shows that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ."

However, the researcher reports that the male ego is often larger than his actual IQ with men overestimating their IQ. Women tend to underplay their intelligence, while men overstate it.


----------



## doctorj (26 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> Obviously the male ego at work.



_Obviously._

In case sarcasm isn't oozing out of your screen right now, do me a favour and pretend.

There's no causality in what you're suggesting and a group of only 10 people isn't significant enough to draw any conclusions from.  I'd be very surprised if the gender spread in the larger group they appoint isn't more even.


----------



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

Dear Doctor

Yes. Larger group likely to be more representative, one would hope. There would probably be a greater chance of that if the panel was more representative.


Talk to the females in your life (preferrably a cross section) and see if they think it is a media beatup or there is reason to be concerned about issues of inequality, discrimination etc.

Maybe they can enlighten you a tad.

:girl:

PS: I wonder how you would react if the panel consisted of one male!


----------



## doctorj (26 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> Talk to the females in your life (preferrably a cross section) and see if they think it is a media beatup



Isn't the selection of a group of people based on gender (to ensure an exactly even split, you'd need to select people with gender as a relevant input) nearly the exact definition of discrimination - the very thing you're claiming to be upset about? 



moneymajix said:


> or there is reason to be concerned about issues of inequality, discrimination etc.



Assuming the members of the committee were selected randomly from the Australian population and assuming that is made up of exactly 50/50 males and females, the probability that the committee was made up of half males and half females was LESS THAN 25%.

Could you then argue that a committee that ended up being half and half was evidence in itself of sexual descrimination?


----------



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

Dear Doctor

You're not too scared to talk to those women?
I suspect you have an inkling as to what they might say!

I did not mention any set figures re the panel in terms of gender breakup: 
50-50, 40-60 or whatever, as it is not of most importance.

The greater issue is inclusion of the talents of all types of Australians in the decision-making process. Kennas mentioned some of these groups in his post.  

We are going to get a greater variety of questions and hopefuly better solutions, if a diversity of people are included in decsion-making.


Secondly, the inference one could make from the current composition of the panel is that women and people from ethnic groups make up less than ten pecent of Australia's best and brightest. I don't believe that for a second.


You can play around with figures, if you like. Maybe, that is something some men are inclined to do. It is very simplistic, imo. Maybe some women and men take into account other issues. Pretty insulting too, to those who make up those groups which would be over 50% of this society.



PS: Re your initial mention of the media. 
There are very few worthwhile investigative journalists. 
You have to search them out. 
60 minutes - I would treat it and similar programs as entertainment or worse.


----------



## doctorj (26 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> The greater issue is inclusion of the talents of all types of Australians in the decision-making process. Kennas mentioned some of these groups in his post.



I hate to break it to you, Kennas was taking the p!ss.  There is no greater issue here.  You're making a mountain out of what is statistically a molehill.  It'd be worth revisiting when the wider group is selected, but until then, it is meaningless.



moneymajix said:


> Secondly, the inference one could make from the current composition of the panel is that women and people from ethnic groups make up less than ten pecent of Australia's best and brightest. I don't believe that for a second.



Just as well you don't believe it, because if you did, the inference would be quite flawed. 



moneymajix said:


> You can play around with figures, if you like. Maybe, that is something some men are inclined to do. It is very simplistic, imo. Maybe some women and men take into account other issues.



Yea, why ruin a good story with the truth


----------



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

Dear Doctor,



> I hate to break it to you, Kennas was taking the p!ss.





I know. Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

Dear Doctor 



> You're making a mountain out of what is statistically a molehill. It'd be worth revisiting when the wider group is selected, but until then, it is meaningless.




Molehill to you. Mountain to someone else.

If you can't become part of the decision-making process because you belong to a particular group, then how disempowering is that?


Do you think some of the old boys will be asking other old boys to join the larger group?


Who do these people know and mix with?


People tend to employ people who are LIKE THEM!
(see research in the area of Recruitment).



You focus on figures. I am focusing on equity and diversity.


----------



## rub92me (26 February 2008)

Dear girls and boys. I think everyone is jumping to conclusions a bit here. Reading the article it says the panel of 10 that will make the choice of 1,000 smarties has only one woman in it. Why would that mean that all the 9 man in that panel will only choose male smarty-pants and Cate will choose only female smarty-panties?  
On another note I think they're going to struggle to find 1,000 really smart people in the whole of Australia anyway, but that's another topic : 
On another note again: Irony is more a male thing apparently. Someone did a study on it; a humourless woman.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2008)

If we consider the proportion of women in leading positions in Australia, whether political, business, academe etc., then the ratio of 1 in 10 as with this panel is probably more or less representative.

I heard Ms Harris with this comment on 'PM' this evening and my only thought was "I wonder what especially qualifies Cate Blanchett as an actor to be on such an august panel?"  The gender balance didn't cross my mind.


----------



## chops_a_must (26 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> You can play around with figures, if you like. Maybe, that is something some men are inclined to do. It is very simplistic, imo. Maybe some women and men take into account other issues. Pretty insulting too, to those who make up those groups which would be over 50% of this society.




Way to shoot your own argument in the foot...

I love the way minority groups... and in particular feminists, put forth the notion that issues from a certain group, can only be represented by that particular group.

Rather sexist and discriminatory wouldn't you think?

Believing that males cannot present female issues, or vice versa, is inherently sexist. And it may have precluded the fact that a lot of men actually are true feminists. (I'd say there is more of them these days then actual female feminists fwiw.)


----------



## dhukka (26 February 2008)

Julia said:


> I heard Ms Harris with this comment on 'PM' this evening and my only thought was "I wonder what especially qualifies Cate Blanchett as an actor to be on such an august panel?"  The gender balance didn't cross my mind.




That was my thought as well. She's an actress for Christs sake, what the hell is she doing on there? Why don't they just yank 10 people off the street and ask them?


----------



## moneymajix (26 February 2008)

Chops



> I love the way minority groups... and in particular feminists, put forth the notion that issues from a certain group, can only be represented by that particular group.




Fine. Let's change the panel to all female with a token male.


:badass:



> I guess without women there, it wont just be a talk/ bitch fest after all!




Btw, would you mention the the comments in your first post on this thread to your grandmother, mother, wife, sister, daughter (assuming you are a male)?
Issues?


Dismayed.

Not a lot of love in the room.


----------



## doctorj (26 February 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> I love the way minority groups... and in particular feminists, put forth the notion that issues from a certain group, can only be represented by that particular group.



All men are inherently sexist, didn't you take high school English?


----------



## chops_a_must (26 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> Chops
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Really wouldn't make a difference in my mind.

The problem is, and most feminists I've spoken to agree, that it is not the males that have problems with appointed/ elected women, it's other women themselves.

Study after study has shown that women vote/ prefer to be led and managed by males. Males, believe it or not, don't have as much of a problem with it. Strange but true. It's why there aren't more female politicians. And it's why political parties don't use more female candidates, because the studies show, it is not a very successful strategy...



moneymajix said:


> Btw, would you mention the the comments in your first post on this thread to your grandmother, mother, wife, sister, daughter (assuming you are a male)?
> Issues?
> 
> Dismayed.



I was being sarcastic obviously...

But yeah, I do say things like that to the women in my family. And they take it with a laugh. When you do grow up in a family of rabbid feminists, you do have to give some back... in a comedic way of course...


----------



## chops_a_must (26 February 2008)

doctorj said:


> All men are inherently sexist, didn't you take high school English?




I thought it was just the fat feminist Ms Lovatt who peddled such rubbish!

"We're oppressed!"

"No, the only thing that is oppressed here is the elastic in your clothing, you obese monolith!"


p.s. male education standards are now appalling. The sky is falling!


----------



## moneymajix (27 February 2008)

Chops



> Really wouldn't make a difference in my mind.




Cool.




> I was being sarcastic obviously...
> 
> But yeah, I do say things like that to the women in my family. And they take it with a laugh. When you do grow up in a family of rabbid feminists, you do have to give some back... in a comedic way of course...




I am sure they think it is funny! 


Say no more.


:walker:

NOW, how many females on the ASF moderating panel?
None?

:engel:

PS: I know some lovely men who aren't sexist. 
Maybe there are comfortable with their own masculinity/femininity?
Not sure they have appeared on this thread yet.


----------



## doctorj (27 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> NOW, how many females on the ASF moderating panel?



I know Joe considers himself an expert on women. Many long years of exhaustive research


----------



## moneymajix (27 February 2008)

> I know Joe considers himself an expert on women. Many long years of exhaustive research







BTW, how many?


----------



## doctorj (27 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> BTW, how many?



Women? You'll have to ask Joe.


----------



## Joe Blow (27 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> NOW, how many females on the ASF moderating panel?




Many have applied but none have successfully completed the humiliating yet hilarious initiation rituals... 



doctorj said:


> I know Joe considers himself an expert on women. Many long years of exhaustive research




Exhaustive being the key word there.  



moneymajix said:


> BTW, how many?




Too many! Now I'm old, embittered and cranky... at 38! :


----------



## Timmy (27 February 2008)

Julia said:


> I heard Ms Harris with this comment on 'PM' this evening and my only thought was "I wonder what especially qualifies Cate Blanchett as an actor to be on such an august panel?"  The gender balance didn't cross my mind.




I am very surprised this seems to have slipped through too...good luck to her and all...but really...an actor????

"OK, stand over here.  Now, when its your turn, you say this..."  
And if you do it well you can be on the panel!



How about Russell Crowe as special advisor on telecommunications?
Mel Gibson on religious affairs?
Shame Tom is not still with Nic he could become an Aussie and advise on mental health issues.


----------



## moneymajix (27 February 2008)

Dear Joe



> Many have applied but none have successfully completed the humiliating yet hilarious initiation rituals...




At this point in time, I can't say I am surprised you have no female moderators.

You have outdone HC because they do!

He, he.

:luigi:


----------



## Nyden (27 February 2008)

On the subject of 'ego' on page 1, this is actually pretty important.

Ego plays a large role in life, & it may be one of the driving forces behind histories most brilliant people (of whom are mostly male); perhaps women are more content with life; whilst men, & their ego's - are always attempting to change / better it.


----------



## moneymajix (27 February 2008)

Hi Nyden



> whilst men, & their ego's - are always attempting to change / better it.





That might be why "ethnics" did not gain a spot on the panel. 
Maybe they can't change things for the better.


----------



## rub92me (27 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> Dear Joe
> At this point in time, I can't say I am surprised you have no female moderators.
> You have outdone HC because they do!
> 
> ...



And look at what a brilliant and well moderated site HC is compared to ASF as a result of participation of female moderators!  Keep digging.


----------



## Prospector (27 February 2008)

kennas said:


> This is a serious conference, they're not talking about hairspray, or tampons.
> 
> Children make up about 30% of the population, I didn't hear them crying out.
> 
> ...




The last line saved ya Kennas!



dhukka said:


> That was my thought as well. She's an actress for Christs sake, what the hell is she doing on there? Why don't they just yank 10 people off the street and ask them?




Hey, Cate was Queen of England, wasn't she


----------



## moneymajix (27 February 2008)

> And look at what a brilliant and well moderated site HC is compared to ASF as a result of participation of female moderators!




Some people here seem to love bagging HC. 

How come they seem intimately aware of what goes on there?

Hmmm... Is that hypocrytical?



Anyway, come on guys, let's have some fun with NESB (non-English speaking background) Aussies and residents. 

I know some of you must like curries.


----------



## kivvygosh (27 February 2008)

Interesting discussion over here, wink wink.


----------



## moneymajix (27 February 2008)

Kivvy

Crikey!  Great find. 




Putting AussieBlokesShareForums (ABSF) on the map in the wider media.


----------



## rub92me (27 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> Kivvy
> Crikey!  Great find.
> Putting AussieBlokesShareForums (ABSF) on the map in the wider media.




Yep, lack of perspective and sense of humour appear to be spreading. Progress indeed. 



moneymajix said:


> Some people here seem to love bagging HC.
> How come they seem intimately aware of what goes on there?
> Hmmm... Is that hypocrytical?




Your argument again makes no logical sense. Why would bagging HC imply intimate awareness? You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. (p.s. Now you're probably getting upset because I called it a weather man instead of a weather person). And why would it be hypocritical to be aware of something and critique it??


----------



## moneymajix (27 February 2008)

*Mate, mate, mate... jobs for the boys*

Hi Rub

At this time of night, what can I say?
No one 's "listening" anyway.

This thread is hilarious.

You are right about everything.

Boys Rule.

I trust you are happy. Sleep tight.


Night, night.


PS: As for sense of humour. Do you think this is funny?



> CIA Test
> 
> 
> The CIA had an opening for an assassin. After all of the background checks, interviews, and testing were done there were three finalists...Two men and a woman.
> ...





__________________


----------



## rub92me (27 February 2008)

moneymajix said:


> Hi Rub
> 
> At this time of night, what can I say?
> This thread is hilarious.
> ...



Well, the joke saved you. That's quite funny. No need to patronise though. We can agree to disagree. No peeing contest intended or implied from my perspective.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 February 2008)

I can tell you, if you go to see Blanchett in "Elizabeth - the Golden Age",  you'd say she's worth 9 blokes anyways.

wowo - she is fantastic.

I dare them to let her dress as QE1 and chair the meeting


----------



## Spaghetti (28 February 2008)

Any good organisation exploits the talents of it's employees whether they are men or women, old or young, fat or thin, white or not. It is apparent in Australia that young white males get the good jobs based on a boys club mentality and not for any other reason. 

Little wonder we have few truly global companies built on brains and expertise rather than digging up dirt like lucky dogs.

We are suffering a shortage of labour, in one sense, from an inability to exploit our human resource effectively.

Even Julia Gillard has had the "Sex appeal" rubbish trotted out already....same as so many women before her in politics.

If it is true that these men were the only ones with the expertise to choose those to represent our views it only serves to highlight a huge shortcoming in our society.

We can be a redneck, backward, sexist, ageist, racist country but for many women it is just too hard to try and compete on un-level playing fields.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 February 2008)

I can tell you, if you go to see Blanchett in "Elizabeth - the Golden Age",  you'd say she's worth 9 blokes anyways.

wowo - she is fantastic.

I dare them to let her dress as QE1 and chair the meeting 

:topic
there are many fantastic moments in that movie. One I liked ...  she asks her astrologer what's the buzz - he replies that he sees one country declining and another gaining strength - (Spain is about to attack England right)

 and then she asks will England be OK (or something like that) - and he replies  "for that I must consult a different chart". - and he places his hands gently under her chin and stares into her eyes - and continues something about "that depends on your strength etc "  - ripper yarn boris !

PS If anyone sees the movie and remembers those words better than I have - maybe they could set me straight on the actual conversation lol - but that's approx right


----------



## moneymajix (19 March 2008)

*Re: 2020 panel - women*

Know your Limits

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU



Gits

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FNmBauXYzgc&feature=related


----------



## Julia (1 April 2008)

Crikey.com's view of the 2020 Summit is pretty much spot on imo:



> When the 2020 summit was announced we assumed that the participants were likely to be a mixture of academics, business reps, unionists, church types and community group leaders, with maybe a celebrity or two thrown in. As it turns out, we underestimated the number of celebrities massively.
> 
> Whether the summit is a pointless political stunt, as some of us think, or a sinister, undemocratic event privileging elites and technocrats over ordinary punters, as some others believe, it's hard to avoid the impression that it will be a colossal exercise in groupthink. It's like the Lateline Christmas party without Tony Jones.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prospector (2 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Crikey.com's view of the 2020 Summit is pretty much spot on imo:
> If these people are "the best and the brightest", take them outside their comfort zones and get them talking without the same scripts they've been using for years. We might see genuinely new ideas or new approaches presented by people not locked into the comfort of groupthink, but forced to use their brains to grapple with something new.




Can't have that - what are you thinking Julia!   Creativity, innovation and Government in the one sentence?  Shame on you - ultimate paradox!


----------

