But to answer your second question, I am not worried about about her Fairfax bid, but I’ll go into that on the next post whenever I have time to write it (possibly on my flight tomorrow).

Rinehart isn’t being criticised (by individuals of ALL political persuasions) because of her ‘alpha-male’ approach.

She’s being criticised for placing her commercial prerogatives before 1) her family relations, and 2) Fairfax’s editorial charter of independence to protect the integrity its the paper.

Her case is in no way symbolic of the struggle of women to gain representation on boards; you are conflating issues.
Surely, her personal character and leadership style is completely antithetical to the cause of promoting increased levels of representation of women around boardrooms.

Surely, as a journalist, you would find her desire for 3 board positions and her reluctance to sign the Charter to be extremely concerning.

you assume that if a woman adopts the so-called traits it takes to be a leader that she will make it to the top.

No, I said that it is necessary. I never said that it is sufficient. In fact, your whole first paragraph is couched with assumptions that I had not made. I never said that it was solely the fault of women or that there were not other issues to be addressed. This is one issue, I am addressing it now — simple as that.

In my personal experience, being strong, confident, vocal as a woman when you work for/with a bunch of men doesn’t actually win you any friends and you get termed a “bitch”…

I know, hence the need to speak-out against the “bitch” term when applied to Rinehart…

Now you’re not being stereotypical there at all are you??

I think you missed the point of that whole paragraph. It was not describing how all women “actually behave”, I was constructing a stereotype. The crux of my whole argument is that these kinds of stereotypes are more circumstantial than an accurate reflection of human behaviour.

In my personal experience, being strong, confident, vocal as a woman when you work for/with a bunch of men doesn’t actually win you any friends and you get termed a “bitch” while men who act as you are merely ‘confident’, ‘alpha male types’, ‘doing what men do’ etc. – In fact I got fired from a job once by an all male board when daring to be confident/vocal – there didn’t seem to be much interest in hearing what I had to say.

Women are neurotic and emotional, they doubt themselves, they shut-down and cry when bad things happen and they panic when they are stressed. They are not confident, ambitious, persistent and aggressive. When shit hits the fan, they are the ones panicking and screaming, not the ones who take-charge

Now you’re not being stereotypical there at all are you?? There are plenty of women who ARE confident, very level headed when it comes to stress, DON’T break down and DO take charge when ‘shit hits the fan’. If you want to be taken seriously, leave out the stereotypes, because quite often a woman just CANNOT win. If you are those things I just quoted you on, then you’re not fit to lead, if you buck this so-called trend people despise you for it.

Nevertheless, when it comes to Rinehart, you still haven’t really backed up your claim that she is being vilified because she’s a woman. And again, I don’t disagree that she is being vilified by the left, and I am not saying it’s acceptable, but you can’t ignore that she is being criticised because of ideological opposition to her actions first, and the debate slides into unacceptable language thereafter. Ergo, she is not being criticised for simply being a woman. And in this I exclude Gillard and others who can be categorised in the same circumstances as Rinehart in this instance, ie they are criticised for their policy first – though not always. Whereas many women who struggle to get to the top are generally criticised for either being “too soft” or “too tough”, not because of anything that has to do with merit, or a position on a specific subject, merely for being who they are. Quite often they just can’t win. And it’s because of attitudes like what you say in your article, that women need to conform to the “male way” in order to get ahead – WHY??

And this is why Rinehart’s treatment says very little about keeping women out of the boardroom. She was born into the boardroom. Kudos to her for her immense success and achievements – lest you say that I am not recognising her success – but the reality is that she did not struggle to get to the top. Many women who DO make it onto boards, and the head of companies etc do a great job. The issue is getting to that position, that’s the struggle, that’s where women face the biggest challenges to get ahead, and Gina Rinehart has nothing to teach us about that.

**NOTE: this comment was originally in violation of the comments policy (see link at the top of the page) and was edited as a result.**