{"id":48972,"date":"2019-07-09T15:44:08","date_gmt":"2019-07-09T05:44:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=48972"},"modified":"2019-07-10T09:49:50","modified_gmt":"2019-07-09T23:49:50","slug":"stark-gender-divide-hampers-australian-strategic-policymaking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/stark-gender-divide-hampers-australian-strategic-policymaking\/","title":{"rendered":"Stark gender divide hampers Australian strategic policymaking\u00a0\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

There are few things more ridiculous than an all-male panel (\u2018manel\u2019), committee or decision-making body. Aside from some very rare exceptions, why they continue to exist today is completely beyond me<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Ambassador to the US Joe Hockey\u2019s 2018 \u2018mateship patrons<\/a>\u2019\u2014all white men, most of a particular demographic\u2014was a particularly egregious example of manel madness and a stark reminder that we still have a long way to go.<\/p>\n

The problem with situations like this is two-fold. First, the lack of \u2018mateship patron\u2019 diversity\u2014across virtually all indicators by which it can be measured\u2014was appalling (the inclusion of NBA player Matthew Dellavedova could have been characterised as an inspired choice were it not for the fact Australia\u2019s Olympic medal\u2013winning female basketballers completely dominate in the WNBA<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Second, decisions of this kind make one wonder about the quality of other decisions being made. How could decision-makers not see the all-male \u2018mateship patrons\u2019 as such an obviously bad idea? The thing is, many would\u2014including, in this case, many within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. But for whatever reason, their views weren\u2019t heard or taken into account. Not bringing a diverse set of experiences to the table is simply poor strategic decision-making.<\/p>\n

And while only one example, this highlights precisely why diversity is so important.<\/p>\n

No matter the occasion, we want to end up with the best possible decisions being made. And we especially want to end up with the best outcomes when it comes to Australia\u2019s place in the world. The effective conduct of international relations across the spectrum of diplomacy, trade, defence and intelligence requires analytical, operational and problem-solving skills. There is plenty of evidence to show that gender-balanced workforces are more efficient, effective and innovative. We also know they produce a broader range of ideas and have more diverse experiences, leading to greater productivity and better decision-making.<\/p>\n

So why is Australia still failing to take advantage of both men and women in international relations?<\/p>\n

In a report out today, Foreign territory: women in international relations<\/a><\/em>, my colleagues from the Lowy Institute and I found that women remain shut out of many of the sector\u2019s most influential roles, decision-making bodies and policy-setting activities.<\/p>\n

The analysis, which was based on a lengthy and complicated process of collecting data from a 20-year period, took place from 2016\u20132018 and found three stark divides:<\/p>\n