What happened to relative bargaining between males and females with the introduction of agricultural cultivation? The bargaining power of women was to weaken. Why was this the case? Danish economist Ester Boserup (1970) distinguished between two forms of soil cultivation to prepare the ground for planting in her book, Woman's Role in Economic Development. 

The first form is the labour-intensive shifting cultivation, which uses hand-held devices such as the hoe and the digging stick. The second form is the more capital-intensive plough cultivation, which requires upper-body strength to control the plough. Consequently, the latter form of cultivation gave men a comparative advantage relative to women and led to a division of labour in which men worked in the fields while women specialised in work in and around the home. This gender-based division of labour then gave rise to a culture which codified women's place as being in the home. 

Testable predictions of this theory are that cultures based on plough cultivation are characterised by less equal beliefs about gender roles. Some recent economic studies empirically test the hypothesis that different agricultural practices influenced the historical gender division of labour, and that they also contributed to the evolution and persistence of gender norms. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/201341055912257103.html

ELIZABETH JACKSON: In Britain an age-old tradition is being challenged by an age-old institution.

Body image, topless models, and the girl guides - it's all in a day's work for our Europe correspondent, Philip Williams.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Well you've just interrupted me in the middle of my newspaper reading here.

I'm looking at the front page of the Sun newspaper. It's the most popular newspaper in the country. It's got about 3 million sales and a lot more people actually read it.

Now on the front page is a story about the Baby P killer back in jail. Let's turn the page here…
Oh! There is a woman there on page three as there always is - a little bit confronting for Australians I must say because we're not used to this - I'll tell you what she's wearing. Spangley briefs, she's got something hanging around her neck - it looks like some sort of a pendant - and that's it. She's topless, as the Page Three girls always are.

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2013/s3736367.htm

In Australia, the topless page three girl was eradicated, if my memory is correct, when the Daily Mirror merged with the Telegraph, both being  Uncle Rupe's  bread and butter, though making less and less butter for his profit margins... thus they were merged — like the Sun was absorbed by the SMH...

The 350 women who gathered at Sydney's Sofitel hotel on Tuesday to hear treasurer-in-waiting Joe Hockey deliver an address to the Executive Women Australia's inaugural leadership symposium would have been left scratching their flattened heads (from years of hitting against the glass ceiling).

I guess he thought dispensing with a prepared speech in favour of homespun tales of his great-grandmother/grandmother/mother and daughter would appeal to that feminine sympathy chromosome.
...

It also won't provide the solution for women who decide to take several years out of the workforce to raise young children until they get to school age.

And it is an expensive impost on the government. Quotas would definitely be a cheaper way to go and to contribute to a meaningful shift in corporate attitudes and behaviour.

Clearly both the government and the opposition have read the mood of the electorate on this issue and decided that either ideologically or politically ''reverse discrimination'' based on gender would not be a winner.

Hockey's solution - and it is pretty lame - is that there should be more male and female mentors helping the current and next generation of female leaders. This type of argument has been around for 30 years and statistics around female management participation have barely budged.

The female management movement has become more active but they seem to be traversing the same old ground. Lots of committees and meetings, endless studies and some high-profile advocates but minimal results.

Hockey is sufficiently ''evolved'' that he is not a supporter of entrenched gender inequality. But he is also a politician and politics comes first.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/politics-comes-first-in-gender-debate-20130430-2iqzz.html#ixzz2Rz1yfnId

-----------------------------------

See toon and story at top.... Joe Hockey is a mild misogynist in a party of strong misogynists led by a closet misogynist...

Hi Gus.

On this occasion & on this issue, we will have to disagree.

Whilst the 350 women attending the Executive Women Australia’s Inaugural Leadership Symposium (phew!) were allegedly left ‘scratching their heads’ at the failure of shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, to support the implementation of quotas in favour of women in the workplace, that left the rest of us to ponder how the phoney pursuit of gender equality will add to the real benefits that flow from the attainment of genuine workplace diversity? 

In zealously seeking to justify the introduction of quotas for the appointment of women to boards of public companies, the so-called Executive Women argue that gender equality equates to workplace diversity, when any organisation truly concerned with building & maintaining a world class culture & performance capability understands that the real value in diversity is recognising that the best in human talent can come from any place: it can be of any gender, any sexual persuasion, any religion, any colour or any race. 

The challenge for all organisations is to find ways to remove the barriers that will preclude it from recruiting the best available talent & enabling that talent to contribute to the attainment of the organisation's objectives, without feeling obliged to try & engineer faux diversity for its own sake.  

All of the successful women I have met over the years have been proud of the fact that they have achieved their success without being accorded 'special privileges' & they resent the suggestion that they need such privileges to get ahead. 

Introducing quotas is anathema to best practice & optimum performance & is a first fatal step on the road to mediocrity & failure. Merit should dictate selection & appointment, whilst performance should dictate retention – nothing-else. 

In my view, the only beneficiaries of the Executive Women Australia’s Inaugural Leadership Symposium were its organisers, who would be laughing all the way to the bank.

Cheers,

John.

Yes John

On the other side of the ledger I know many women who have been thwarted by the glass ceiling despite being far more capable than men... A few women can break through it but in general these women are few and rare in between. I know some women CEOs who have gone to the top of the tree and are making things happen cleverly and sensitively — better than men in similar position. What a quota does is enforce a statute that would make women that are as capable as men, be chosen in situation where the men would be picked first because of gender. Believe me, it happens. As you say, merit should dictate selection & appointment, whilst performance should dictate retention – nothing-else... But in 95 per cent of the cases, men will get the job even if women have equal value or better value on this score. The women who break through need to be twice as capable and smarter than men, and they need to know how to step up. 

Hi Gus.

I don't disagree with your comments about the plauing field being tilted in favour of men; particularly poor quality men.

However, my thesis is that by inytroducing quotas, we will succeed only in replacing some of the bad men with equally bad women = mediocrity.

I believe that employing the best people, regardless of gender, race, religion or any other non-business attribute, is what is best for the health of the business.

So, rather than inventing mechanisms & processes that will simply serve to move the deckchairs around, whilst not adding any real value, I believe that proactively removing the obsticles will achieve a better outcome.

In my view, this approach is good business & if shareholders & governments want to see a stronger, more equitable & higher performing economy, yjat's precisely where they'd focus their energies.

Whilst doubtless you'll think me cynical, I think that the gender equity mob are no more than rent-seekers, intent on pursuing their own interests at the expense of everyone-else.

The reality is Gus that Awstraylans have been educated that the way to get-ahead is to belong to an intersest group & if there isn't one, then create it & you'll get ahead.

Our politicians use this reality to cleverly but routinely to divide & conquer the electorate & maintain their power & privilege.

It's all a con Gus.

By the way, a great Australia Story program on Monday night, as was the 4 Corners program immediately after.

Cheers,

John.

I don't think that my friends in this group of women are "rent-seekers" trying to walk on everyone else. They just have the ability to do the job as required but never get the break — not because they are not able, but because men will be preferred first, including "inferior" men for the job... One of the major difficulty in general is to define the levels of ability and of equality in merit which should dictate selection & appointment... But the dice is heavily weighted in favour of men... Often a more capable woman can appear as a threat to men already in position and they will choose an inferior quality male that they can control better. The dynamics here are very complex and this is why having a quota that is achievable with the quality of women out there should not be a problem.

Hi Gus.

I simply can't & won't accept your arguments without some factual basis to support them.

For my part, I've been in business for 45 years. I've worked for major multinationals & have held numerous directorships. I have had direct & indirect responsibility for influencing the careers of thousands of people: men & women both. In my entire career, I have never been accused of making a selection decision that wasn't based entirely on merit. I have been responsible for the recruitment & appointment of numerous senior executives; again with both men & women being successful. I have served CEOs/MDs of bothe genders & never once did I feel that gender was an issue in our business deliberations.

I have ocasionally had to deal with complaints regarding selection decisions made by others but cannot recall a single occasion where gender was a factor.

I'm not suggesting that the world is perfect but in the world of business, where directors & senior management have a legal & financial duty to their shareholders to make the best possible decisions in the running of the business, how can an appointment of a person (woman) be justified simply by an artificial quota, if there is clearly a better candidate (male) available. If people believe that the selection process is tainted, it is open to them to appeal against the result.

As for the women that you refer to, I'm sure that they are capable, but not because they're women. Just because they are capable & women doesn't mean that there aren't other more capable people out there, including men. 

As for Julia Gillard, the primary reason that her prime ministership is so much "on the nose", including with a majority of women, is that every time she comes under criticism, she claims that it's because she is a woman. Not once have I heard Gillard argue for or defend a position without her introducing the gender card. All the women I know detest this sel-righteous, sacrosanct & dishonest behaviour; they are embarrassed by it Gus. They want a Prime Minister that they can respect; look up to - not one that is an embarrassment to both our Nation, our Parliament & our people, including women.

That Gillard's poor performance is not a function of her gender, even though she wants to use her gender as an excuse, is the real issue & if she were a man, she would have been consigned to history's garbage heap long ago. Instead, our Nation is obliged to tolerate 2nd rate leadership, consistemnty delivering 2nd rate outcomes, simply because we are too cowardly to act on the evidence & cut-down a phoney.

In my view, the Prime Minister must surely be the single most compelling reason against the introduction of quotas for women in the workplace.

No, Julia Gillard never claims she is on the nose because she is a woman... The only time she mentioned gender and misogyny was when Tony Abbott accused her of being misogynist herself by letting Petter Slipper off the hook, which she did not as she was waiting for the result of a court case or such. That is when her famous speech was delivered. She was applying the "innocent until proven guilty" concept in law that we all should be judged under... The only black mark against Slipper at that stage were judiciously leaked reports of him referring to female genitalia as whatever... And between you and me if you don't have (male) friends who have mentioned or used similar "observation" to you, you are a better man (person) that I am...

Meanwhile I still defend what I am talking about. There is a glass ceiling in all walks of life including religion. And religion my friend is one of the major source of misogyny including in business. I am not attacking your good record as a CEO... But I have known many (male) CEOs whose antics were very misogynic... and at best making sure women were always kept below "the level"... if you see see what I mean...

I accept your point of view though We will carry on disagreeing on this issue... Including the issue on the performance of Julia Gillard which so far is better than any other Prime Ministers since Chifley... My view that I share with myself and a candle...