I believe most Australians are heartily sick of the pathetic performance of our federal politicians and would like to see a change in the way politicians behave. However, the change I propose is entirely different to what we usually get when we go to the polls.

Over the past few years we have witnessed lots of mudslinging and accusations of sexism that highlight the problems plaguing our politics. Men and women are different and have different leadership styles but women can only advance to become leaders in politics if they adopt male leadership methods. Women have to become better than men at what men do best if they want to become leaders. So that means we are missing out on the advantages of having women in parliament, and may as well have just all males.

Rather than have a change in leaders, I believe we need a change in the make-up of the leadership. The office of prime minister is not mentioned in our constitution. It is conventional for that title to be bestowed on the leader of the party that wins the most votes in an election. Therefore, it is possible, if the winning party so chooses, for the office of prime minister to be filled by a partnership of a female and a male with equal responsibilities and powers.

Our society is half male and half female. Our leadership should reflect that fact. 

There is a difference between male and female leadership styles even though both can be great leaders. Males and females have many common traits and skills but have some differences in needs and interests, and therefore have different views on some things.

 Australia could lead the world by being the first to have a balanced leadership team in which a male and a female have equal responsibility and equal power, even though they may agree to perform different tasks within that position.

Some advantages of co-leadership are:
Balanced leadership resulting from combining the gender leadership styles.
The glass ceiling would be destroyed because women would have a permanent role in top level management.
Women would no longer have to adopt male ways in order to succeed and would be free to explore what ‘the female leadership style’ really means.
The focus of debates would necessarily shift, from winning to seeking agreement.
Accepting the value of gender differences would greatly improve gender relationships.
Robust discussions might still occur but would seek understanding and agreement in regard to the actions to take.
Conflict resolution and gender relationship skills would be important factors in choosing leaders and would become major subjects of school curriculums.
The flow-on effect of this would be a reduction in domestic violence, longer marriages and a reduction in divorces.
Overall, there would be real cultural recognition of the equal status of men and women.

So, after all the laughter and jokes about my suggestion subside, and after expressing all the reasons why it would never work, or be accepted, think about the advantages and how it could be made to work. This is the type of leadership required for solving the enormous problems we face in this century.

Bob Myers.

People going on a journey usually know where they’re going before starting off, simply so they know which way to go. If we don’t know where we are going, how can we know when we arrive? To avoid running around aimlessly towards the equality of men and women, we first of all need to know what we mean by ‘equality.’ Otherwise, it would be like deciding to go to a city without knowing where it is.

Equality’ has many different meanings. One being that two objects are the same in every way. Obviously men and women are not the same and never will be, so if the question means, ‘Will men and women ever be the same?,’ the answer would be ‘No.’ 

Unfortunately, in the present system, many women try to be equal to men in a system designed by men to suit the interests and abilities of men. The parliamentary system and legal system reflect male thinking in that both use adversarial methods to settle disputes and make decisions and plans. A woman entering those systems has to prove herself to be at least as tough as the men in a male-oriented game. The system doesn’t change to reflect female thinking; so a woman must play like a man. In the Pygmalion stage play, Henry Higgins asks a question that sounds more like a prayer, ‘Why can’t a woman be more like a man?’ It seems that the present desire of women to be equal to men is only granting Henry’s prayer.

The best we can expect from the present system is that the decisions made will be influenced to some degree by input from women. That isn’t real equality and makes little progress towards equality. Real progress towards equality will be made when our social systems and structures change to also reflect  female thinking. I don’t know what decision making method would emerge if women were freed from submitting to the male dominated system but the adversarial system is not the only possibility. For example, Gandhi gave us the truth-seeking method that takes competition for personal power out of debating. The sole aim of truth-seeking debates is to find the most workable solution to whatever the problem is. The point I make here is that it’s just possible men and women, together, can come up with a better way than the current adversarial method.

Will men and women ever be equal? I’ve heard it said that there are no wrong questions; there are only wrong answers. This question proves this saying is false. It’s a nonsense question because men and women are already equal. The question should be, ‘Will men ever accept that men and women are equal?’ The equality of men and women is a natural truth, just like ‘Water seeks it’s own level,’ is a natural truth. Men have dominated women for centuries and came to believe male domination is natural. However, it only seems natural because the system men set up is suited to men. That is the real reason for the illusion of male superiority. 

Men can certainly do some things better than women, and it does appear to be all the important things, but again that is only because the whole system we live in is suited to what men do best. If our social, legal and parliamentary systems were set up to suit what women do best, it would appear that women are superior to men. What may answer the intent of the question is, ‘Men and women will be seen as equal when the overall system we live in, and the rules we live by, emanate from the equality of men and women.’ That is what my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness explores.

By Bob Myers.