?I have about as much in common with the CEO of a Fortune 500 company as I have with my cat,? Scott Adams once wrote, taking aim at the conventional feminist-left notion that an all-powerful ?patriarchy? dominates the world. The corollary of this particular conceit is that an altruistic feminist ?sisterhood? empowers women?s achievement. To this end, feminists and leftists champion female quotas for politics and business.
High-sounding sentiments, but the reality is much grubbier. From the 1960s, the left has embarked on a broad strategy known as the ?Long March through the institutions?. Inspired by influential Marxists such as Gramsci, and later Marcuse, the Long March through the institutions aims to subvert society by infiltrating institutions and professions. Quotas are just another weapon in the left?s march to hegemony.
One of the most powerful quota groups is Emily?s List. Emily?s List was founded in the US specifically to elect pro-abortion female Democrats. Its Australian branch was founded by socialist Joan Kirner, again to specifically promote ?progressive? female candidates. So far, it has bankrolled over 200 of its members into office. Its greatest triumph was undoubtedly Julia Gillard?s ascension to the prime ministership.
In business as well, quotas have been used, not to benefit women generally, but to serve a small clique of grasping power-seekers. In Norway, where the phenomenon is most advanced, it is known as the ?Golden Skirts?. When Norway passed a quota law for women on boards, a tiny clique of executive mean girls launched an immediate scramble for privilege. Within a few years, four times as many women as men held 16 board positions, and twice as many women as men held between 13 and 16 board positions.
The same phenomenon is being repeated in Australia, with a greedy clique scarfing up multiple high-power, high-paying jobs: 32 women hold three ASX 200 board positions, while only 26 men do. Four women hold four board positions, only one man did. Feminists endlessly whinge that women are supposedly shut out of boardrooms, but the truth is that a small group of self-serving women is trying to shut out everybody else. ?Experienced women trying to break into senior boardrooms have watched the club in action,? grabbing as many board seats for themselves as possible, writes Janet Albrechtsen.
Effective change for women in general has been sabotaged by a tiny group of female boardroom bandits.
In politics, the leftist mean girls gave the power-hungry game away with their spiteful reaction to Gladys Berejiklian?s stunning victory in the recent New South Wales state election.
Berejiklian?s win was truly historic: the first woman to be elected premier in Australia?s most populous state. The first time a conservative government has won a third term. Beating down near-universal predictions of defeat. ?This is a triumph of gender as it should be,? Janet Albrechtsen. ?The perfect foil for all those high-profile women in politics?talking incessantly about gender. Berejiklian has gone one better. By not talking about gender, she has become the perfect role model for women and men.?
You might have thought that, when a woman from an ethnic minority, the child of poor, immigrant parents, wins an historic election victory, feminists and leftists would be ecstatic.
Think again. The reaction across the feminist-left to Berejiklian?s win was universal disappointment and disdain.
Trenchant feminist Jane Caro whined that the result was ?depressing? and she was ?ashamed? of NSW. Dee Madigan complained that she was ?not Glad Gladys!,? and blamed the media. Lefty airhead Elizabeth Farrelly urged feminists not to vote for Berejiklian before, by a truly Farrellian twist of logic, pivoting to the Christchurch shooting and sycophantically grovelling to Jacinda Ardern.
Indeed, it is Farrelly who gave the game away most comprehensively: the ?sisterhood? is not about empowering women at all. It?s about empowering the left.
Quota activists such as Emily?s List are creatures of the left, through and through. Their agenda has much less to do with advancing women than it does for bludgeoning politics with a leftist agenda. It has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with power.