Should we have quotas for women in cabinet?

Crikey readers talk merit, Gandhi and the lack of women in cabinet.


Leave a comment

3 thoughts on “Should we have quotas for women in cabinet?

  1. Jobby

    That comment from Gerard Henderson can’t be legit – it fails to mention ‘inner city elite’, ‘University-educated latte sippers on the government teat’ or adequately laud the people of Western Sydney for their ‘authenticity’.

    Must be a fake.

  2. klewso

    It amuses me the way the ilk of the Blots on our political landscape, that make up the Cyclops Conservative commentariate – from their privileged elite sanctuary positions granted (to spruik their opinions as fact (by default of as widely published contradiction, while alternate opinion is edited/filtered out to give them a clear run to sell their sort of “justified intolerance” and dogma) by their employers to articulate and sell their views, even against PCPs and mission statements that run contrary to their actuality – like to toss the disparaging, derogatory names around from their “eeries” at those that come out in public to question their “gospel according to them”, it let’s you see into “the world – according to them”.
    But it does seem that anyone who holds a contrary opinion and can argue logically against their dogma is an “elite” – while they themselves, using their exclusive boutique positions from which to snipe at competition (for the greater voting public’s hearts and minds) are “salt of the earth pragmatists, with no agenda”?

  3. klewso

    Catch The Dum last night?
    Here were another couple of media denizen prima donnas Sheehan and Cato (do they ever countenance uncomfortable contradictory facts to the way they tell us voting punters the way world turns? I didn’t see all of it, I was channel smurfing when I trawled them, but I did tape it, to get back too) – with access to the sort of resources they have from which to hold forth – out flashing their opinions, (like rats with gold teeth?) given the opportunity to spout their “considered opinions”.
    Who else but these “professionals” have access to the resources for their sort of pontification – and heaven help anyone who has the temerity to run a contrary view to theirs in public? They’ll use those resources to denigrate such up-starts. Generate intolerance, including brand them “elites”, for the world to see, to take “appropriate action”?
    Who else can use their position to tell the world what’s right while their editors run interference for them, editing out, as if they don’t exist, alternate ideas? From behind a façade of fanciful, high-minded PCP’s and mission statements about commitment to fair and fearless dedication to publishing balanced commentary of news, as “proof” of their professionalism and impartiality – to hide their prejudice – when they are demonstrably in contravention of those expressed ideals, used more as an arras to hide their cherry-picking, one-eyed, myopic, amnesic, elitist rodent-like behaviour behind?
    There appears to be a club for such character and absolution of fault? “The Conservative Media Prima Donna Elites”?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details