Political Parties Gender Balance

Here's a situation where facts & common sense go out the window & the Post Modernist Marxists and other fact free Letfists drop the trolley and let loose with things that make no sense but support their ideology...which is damaged with nonsense.

I'm told women make up 50% of the population (slightly more I think) therefore 50% of MPs & Senators should be women.

Why?

I'm told because that's fair & equal and right. Because its a moral issue...but life isn't like that.
Here's why expanded.

1. Why is it the real push for quotas or equal gender representation is only in very high paying white collar jobs. In Parliament, in the Senate, in Media organisations in front of the camera, on Blue Chip Company Boards, in successful company's CEO positions?
2. Why is gender equality not sought in plumbing? In roadworks, truck driving, shearing, fishing, oil rig workers, tyre fitters, mechanics. How come the "equality" doesn't apply here with companies forced to employ 50:50, that is on the basis of gender first, merit second?
3.  What about female dominated workplaces? Is there outrage at the low number of men working in teaching, child care, nursing, retail, dress making? Do we enforce a quota on them or boycott places with single digit man percentages? Are they lacking equality, is it a Woman's Club, are men deliberately & unfairly excluded on the basis of the gender?
4. What do we do where the pool of candidates in one gender is extremely low but we need to employ a large number of people? Open a new school, there are 120 teaching positions, various admin roles, maintenance, gardeners etc. Number of applicants comes in as 98% women but we need 50:50?
   Say there's total 200 staff for easy figures, with the lower number in one gender pool and assuming you want the best people for the job to be the best school you have a very big problem. If you want the very best in their field, the say top 20% performers then with a large female pool you have better chances, but with a very low male pool you may be inclined to take whoever you can get if gender balance is a priority. You've just prevented your school from being the best it can be. You had to employ some sub standard applicants because you need "gender balance".
5. How big are the pools in any job? We don't know. If 8 people run for pre-selection & only one is a woman should she get the job because you need gender balance? If there was 4 men & 4 women is it toss of the coin or a woman might have to get it in order to get a 50:50 amongst all the electorates or what? Looking at each of the two major parties, we don't know the gender make up of applicants for pre-selection, we don't know the gender make up of the pool of potential candidates.
6. I'm still waiting to see if there's an instance of a person getting a job because they were man or woman because or if there is case of someone not getting the job if they're man or woman. Would that be unfair?  I think it patently would be wrong.
   Yet with quotas, that's exactly what happens, someone gets a job because of their gender and someone misses out because of their gender.

This is why we need equal opportunity and not bypass everything and go to equal outcome. We don't do this for all industries so why do it for one...which is in the public limelight, is highly paid & can possess or access power & control? And that might be it, "The Struggle".
There is no effort nor struggle to get 50:50 women train drivers or east/west truck drivers. The pool of candidates is probably not 50:50 with the same number of "top 10% operators" in the field. In many case using a quota either by stealth or by forced design means a loss of work standards because one gender has so few people in the pool to choose from.

I know a few retired female shearers who, 20 years after retiring can probably still shear better, faster, quicker than a very young me could at my peak. They would get the job over me because its equal opportunity and if you don't have the best shearers you can get, you're losing money and possibly losing the occasional shed. I wouldn't get a job. That's life. But if you're a contractor running 2 teams, 4 or 5 shearers in one team I don't think half the shearers will be female. Can't be. They need the fastest & cleanest shearers they can find and gender is irrelevant. The pay is the same & its productivity based so there's no pay inequality. Well there might be, men might on average earn more than women do in shearing. But on average male shearers might shear between 30 and 50 sheep a day more...who knows but you get paid what you earn. It might be the other way round, the few women who shear might be really damn good & shear a few more on average...they get paid for what they earn so gender equality doesn't apply. Want it? Earn it.

These are some of the many faults within Gender Equality, if approached too casually it will remain an inequality & may even backfire on women...and men. Why is gender an equality measure without also using left handedness as an equality measure. Why aren't we using red headedness as a measure?
You'd think the most fairest way of employing is to do it without taking gender into account, make it genderless. Apparently not because there are those that push for equal outcomes not the fairest way of equal opportunity.

It must be equal opportunity and if only 2% of applicants in a field are male or female...that's life.
If an employer selects the best people for the job...that's life.

Do you really think that a company is going to pick a sub standard man over a much better qualified and capable woman when there's performance, efficiencies, profit, shareholder returns and money at stake? Seriously?

When there's a 50:50 split in the respective pools and they all display equal average skills and profit potential well then we can expect to see close to equal gender outcomes, but that's not life.
Its a socialist dream and against the conservative ideal of "Want it? Earn it"

Until then this is a hijacked issue by social justice warriors who need "The Struggle" perhaps to elevate themselves in a new fighting hierarchy. Do we regulate society so stay at home parent households is 50% men and 50% women?

Going straight to the outcome gives a result to the crafty & conniving. It denies choice and creates false guilt and in some industries will gravely lessen productivity.

The Struggle seems to be more about power & control. Otherwise there'd be a fight to have 50:50 gender balance in the taxi industry.

In the meantime if less than average ability women go into positions of the political parties, or truck driving jobs to make up the numbers accusations of token women or quota queen will arise. Amongst those who'll no doubt cop it are people who are less than capable and sadly also those who are well & truly capable. That's an equal outcome of false criticism I'm not pleased with.

Can a woman do the job of a man? Yes, if she can do the job better. Can a man do a job better than a woman? Yes, if he can do the job better. It's about employing the best people for the job, not who's gender aligns with a twisted PC commitment.