Employment Quotas

Here is the biggest hoodwink you’ve ever heard of. If you’re honestly stupid enough to believe the Feminist story they tell on “The Old Boys Network” or whatever beastly tyrannical patriarch overlord system that keeps them out of the top jobs, you really don’t even deserve to be in the discussion. Is that statement going to offend? I bloody well hope so! I’m offended by Entitled Feminist demands they should have Preferential Treatment to obtain the Top jobs without earning them the same way men have. Preferential Treatment for Gender balance is ABSOLUTE INEQUALITY!

The already decided Hard Left Social Justice Warrior Feminist will already be loading her Blunderbus to send me to the depths of hell! The Woke woman will be lining up behind her, as all good minions should. The thinking woman, with a brain of her own, will read this with at least an unlocked door to her mind to see if there’s even some legitimacy behind the opening statement. The White Ribbon, NOMAS & Meninist

Equality or Deliberate Inequality

Are we really looking for equality or just to get a leg up into the top roles such as politics and Top business management roles without earning those rights, huh? Let’s put this to the test.

If you really want equal representation in the areas you claim are Tyrannically Male Overlord dominated under the guise of equality, you are taking jobs you claim are reserved for men based on gender. If Gender parity is really your aim, let’s do it properly. It absolutely must be fair to have equal representation in all fields on endeavour.

Ladies, this is a Two Way Street

If equal representation is what you want and you want it in the interests of Equality or even Equity, logically, men must have the same right to equal representation in the following fields as a minimum.

  • Aged Care
  • Agricultural Sorting and grading
  • Animal Trainers
  • Animal Welfare workers
  • Bakers and Bakery sales
  • Bank Telling
  • Childcare
  • Compliance Officers
  • Dance
  • Dressmaking
  • Flight Attendants
  • Food sales
  • Fundraisers
  • General Clerical
  • Home Help
  • Hospitality management
  • Human Resources
  • Marine Biologists
  • Nursing
  • Optics and Optical dispensers
  • Pharmacy
  • Production, planning, and expediting clerks
  • Psychology
  • Public Relations officers
  • Receptionist positions
  • Retail
  • Social and Community management
  • Travel Agents
  • Veterinarians

It would be ludicrous to even consider only one side of a Gender Equity debate gets to decide which roles are subject to equal representation. If men are to be pushed from roles to make way for women, matched considerations are an absolute must for men. After all, if women have been forced into degrading or lesser forms of employment by this alleged oppression, men must be prepared to fill those traditional roles female employment.

Feminist Cherry Picking is Inequality

Why do Feminist groups only demand equal representation in the jobs that carry the highest power? Because they’ve learned screaming in men’s faces gets them what they want.

If you seriously want fair and equitable distribution of positions, the list of roles cannot be determined by the group unfairly demanding higher positions based on gender rather than competency and merit. If women want employment opportunity levelling, they must share the same commitment to roles Men should no longer be bound to.

If you’re demanding control of power in the interests of Gender equity, logically, Women must also be equally prepared to assume the risks, the dirty and dangerous working conditions and physically hard work traditionally born by men. It is preposterous to Cherry Pick the very best employment without full congruence where women will perform equally to men in roles such as;

  • Bitumen workers,
  • Combat,
  • Commercial diving,
  • Concreters,
  • Construction
  • Drainage,
  • Machine Technicians,
  • Motor Mechanic,
  • Oil Refinery work,
  • Roof Tilers and the like.
  • Sewage Plant attendants and technicians
  • Water Treatment Plant attendants and technicians
  • Welding,

It would be quite reasonable for Feminists to demand Top Role and political representation Gender parity once they’ve demonstrated equivalent input into these arenas. Benefits need to be earned, not snatched or demanded like a spoiled child. Gender balance is just that. Balance!

Top Role and Power position Selection Criteria

The final major flaw in the demands for Gender parity in roles such as politics and Company Top management positions is the fact these demands contradict Fairness and true Gender Equity.

Traditionally, to obtain top level management and CEO positions, incumbents first had to be suitably academically qualified. The incumbents traditionally started in lower to mid level positions, distinguishing themselves by outstanding results. Superlative results are quickly recognised creating promotion opportunities or earmarking themselves for recruitment. Selection for top roles have traditionally been based on the incumbent’s anticipated performance. Individuals and boards of directors care very little for anything outside results. In most cases, If a Breville Toaster could create the very best outcomes for the business, The CEO’s desk would have butter and jam instead of phones and pens.

Very large factors in incumbent selection has always been perceived ongoing performance, reliability and guaranteed availability on top of consistently good results. Business operation is the provision of Goods and Services to make profits. Businesses do not, nor should not care about politics except where it directly affects the ability to provide Goods and Services or make profits. In the current political environment, if a male and a female candidate were exactly evenly matched for their future potential, most would choose the female to improve their public perception but that public perception should never be at a cost. Ongoing results are paramount.

Very simply, if a female can do the job better and can guarantee the same reliability and complete focus, devoid of distraction most CEO material males offer, females will receive the appointments. Feminist Gender parity demands are just a tool to Guilt Induce the world to say they should get the roles based on a lesser standard and lesser commitment in lieu of competing fairly for the role based solely on merit.

Merit and competency are much more than numbers on a spreadsheet. Merit and competency include many aspects ranging from past performance, communication skills, attitude, guaranteed availability, anticipated length of tenure, contacts and influence, just to name a few. Using common sense, as Donald Trump says, If there’s an equal choice, choose the woman, she’ll fight harder to prove herself. Ironically, whilst most Feminists detest Donald Trump, he created entire new trends placing females in many of his most senior roles. Trump probably did more for Female executives in the construction industry than anyone else, ever.


Similar to top company positions, why should the general constituents of an area be subjugated purely so Gender parity occurs? The concept is absurd! If any female wants a seat, let her do it openly and honestly like Jacqui Lambie. Let her be elected because she’s the best choice for her constituents. This whole business of major parties sacrificing Safe Seats in order to get the female count right is sheer stupidity.

What that means to the voters in Safe seats is they will most likely not have the very best candidate selected who is the best at doing the job, they’ll have the best qualifying female. That particular female may be the best, 2nd, 5th or 12th best candidate.

Parties working the gender parity numbers game are simply buying the stupid Feminist vote by sacrificing Safe Seat representation. In Marginal Seats, in most cases, the very best candidate will be put forward to ensure the greatest possible chance to win the seat. When the seat is assured, sacrificing the seat to a lower representation standard is a very viable option.

The real irony in this arrangement is in most Safe Seats, less promises and less commitments are almost a certainty because the party’s already know they don’t have to display a lot of commitment. After being promised the least as a safe seat, you’re then not represented by the candidate who would fight the hardest to claw back commitments. It’s almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you put ideologies in front of results in the ballot box, that’s what you’re going to get. Alas, if you’re prepared to sacrifice your seat and your outcomes for the sake of saying you had a female candidate regardless of whether she was the best person, well, you deserve your losses.


If we’re going to start demanding access to the roles you want, be prepared for the same equity in the inglorious jobs too. Don’t expect males to do all the shit(sewage) work and risky jobs if you’re using Gender Bias to claim tho wonderful big money jobs. Fair needs to be across the board, not just in the jobs Feminists want for Powers’ sake.

Gender balance also means your sisters giving up jobs to males in the name of Gender balance.

In all employment, at any level, why would the best incumbent be pushed aside for Gender balance reasons? Think how you’ll feel when your sisters are pushed out of traditional female roles to make way for potentially less qualified men.

Leave a Reply