Gender quotas aren’t ideology, they’re basic math

Women don’t deserve to be in positions of power because they are better than men — they deserve so because they are no better and no worse than men, writes Sarrah Le Marquand.

OF ALL the absurd and contrary observations ventured about women in politics over the years (They are cold-hearted shrews! They are far too emotional! They are bad mothers! They are barren!), one of the more nonsensical is that the world would be a nicer place with more women in power.

If only women ran the world, according to this oft-muttered platitude, there would be no more wars — or at least a lot less. It’s a theory that is at once simplistic, patronising and downright wrong.

Let the record show there is nothing innately superior about the female sex. The average woman is just as guilty of the human flaws of greed, pettiness, fury and ruthlessness as the average man.

So the suggestion that having more female leaders would somehow lead to a global Utopia is one that should be consigned to the dustbin. Women don’t deserve to be in positions of power because they are better than men — they deserve to be in positions of power because they are no better and no worse than men.

In other words, they deserve to be fairly represented in their constitutional institutions for the very same reason their male counterparts have long enjoyed: because it is their democratic right.

There is of course a flip side to the aforementioned truth that there is nothing innately superior about the female sex: there is nothing innately inferior about the female sex.

And yet you certainly wouldn’t know it in light of the ludicrous hand-wringing in response to calls for the Liberal Party to consider gender quotas as a solution to the increasingly dire proportion of women in its parliamentary ranks.

Women don’t deserve to be in positions of power because they are better than men — they deserve to be in positions of power because they are no better and no worse than men. (Pic: AAP/Mick Tsikas)

Among the hysteria from the usual suspects, most predictable has been the kneejerk insistence that the implementation of quotas would undermine the preselection of candidates on merit alone.

Indeed, we have been sternly warned time and again this past week, any proactive measures undertaken by the Liberal Party to improve its woeful gender balance would simply see female MPs and senators dismissed as “quota girls”.

I mean, seriously. Quota girls? Is that the best they can do? Who cares what a bunch of bitter and twisted gossips whisper behind the backs of those more concerned with getting on with the job of representing their constituents than with pathetic point-scoring and name-calling?

Rest assured, any woman who has held her own in any field — politics or otherwise — will be more than accustomed to dealing with tiresome barbs and lazy innuendo from threatened peers desperate to put her in her place.

So let the old guard mutter darkly about “quota girls” — trust me, the new generation of promising female talent the party could tap into will have heard far worse. It’s an annoyance, yes, but hardly grounds to abandon taking steps to rectify the Liberal Party’s pitiful female representation.

Is the fear of the schoolyard labels a few nasty types might fling around really enough to stop the powers-that-be from tackling this problem?

With women accounting for only 25 per cent of the party’s federal MPs, should the Liberal Party increase the base from which it recruits, it vastly increases its talent pool.

It’s not ideology. It’s simple mathematics.

Of Prime Minister Morrison’s Cabinet, only six of the 18 positions are held by women. (Pic: Kym Smith)

So long as you’re only drawing from one half of the population, it stands to reason that the candidates are not of the calibre they might be if they were drawn from the entire population.

Now, no disrespect to the men who have enjoyed a clear run at preselection until now (you might call them the “quota boys”), but imagine the untapped talent the Liberal Party might unearth if it broadened its criteria.

And by criteria, I mean men AND women. You know, both kinds …

To be fair, nobody actually wants quotas.

In an ideal world, there would be no need for them. Just as in an ideal world there would be no need for unsightly fences around pools or restrictive seat belts in cars.

But the numbers don’t lie. And the numbers paint an unambiguous picture of a major political party, and by extension a federal parliament, that is lagging embarrassingly behind the times.

Nice words haven’t worked. Good intentions have come to naught. Dithering over targets has achieved zilch.

It’s time for cold, hard, unfashionable results. Fixed, unapologetic quotas. No excuses.

Time’s up for hiding behind the bogus meritocracy argument — the smokescreen behind which unmeritorious male candidates have cowered for years.

It’s time to open the corridors of Parliament House to both genders.

What’s the worst that can happen? That utter anarchy descends and our elected MPs take it upon themselves to remove four consecutive prime ministers despite the clear wishes of voters to the contrary?

As if that would ever happen …

Sarrah Le Marquand is the editor-in-chief of Stellar magazine and the founding editor of RendezView.