We don't trust Abbott because he is an attack dog who only criticises (barks) but doesn't come up with any worthwhile solutions (just barks more). We have come across one too many men like that and we are looking for someone with a bit more substance,
and more intelligent, considered and enlightened argument - even if we don't agree with it! That might explain why women prefer MT and get grossly tired of Mr Abbott's false "I'm just a normal Aussie bloke" whiny cheap personal attacks. There's nothing remotely
clever about that!

I tend to agree with Best Not Say... what is with the negativity? Is that just the job of opposition? I just don't remember Rudd, Crean, Beasley et al in Labor camp being such 'no men' when in opposition...

It's funny isn't it ... all the conversations I have about politics at the moment centre around the 'Why dont we form the 'I've lost faith in labour but could never vote for Tony Abbott' party. I'd join for sure.

I thought the "progression" would have been that we can now choose...you are assuming that we would choose to keep the also patriachal title carried down from the male parent...seems just as archaic AND NO LESS LIBERATING!

At the age of 23 I got married and went with tradition. I changed my maiden name to my married name of Wiseman. I liked the new name although it took me a few months for the surname to feel a part of me. I would not have dreamt of keeping my maiden name
- it was just not the done thing and it seemed unromantic to not change my name. I used to enjoy practicing writing my new name before our wedding day! (hey, the Princess Diana style of romantic wedding was still in vogue back then). Well, seven years later
the divorce was finalised but although it didn't work out, my first husband was (and is) a fantastic man, a really beautiful person. We had many happy times, we shared many years together - I have always felt that these memories and what he brought to my life
were and continue to be worth honouring many years on. So I kept my married name. Although a secondary reason at that time, I was also busy growing my career and it was too much hassle to change it. Along came husband number 2 - this time I was 35 years old
and life was even more complicated still. It was simply too much hassle to change my surname again, and my first married name of Wiseman is what everyone knows me by professionally. I didn't keep my surname for feminist reasons, purely practical reasons. Luckily
my wonderful husband is a practical chappy himself and he never asked that I change my surname to his - too busy on his own stuff and more important things in life to worry about. But if he had felt that it was important to him to change my name, I would have
changed it. I would still change it now if he has an epiphany one day and decides after ten years of marriage that this is something that really matters to him. I would do this purely out of respect and love for him and not because of any kind of sense of
marital duty! As you can tell, I am not too attached to surnames (unless it was something really awful - my husband has a nice surname). Whilst I have strong views about the advancement of women, women having a seat at the table etc I believe that what surname
you decide to go with is a matter of personal choice and that there is a role for tradition if that is what you like. Of course, some women feel a pressure to change their surname when they don't want to - all I can do is share my experience. I am lucky that
I have never had an issue or challenge (that I am aware of) regarding my choice to keep my first married name whilst being married to hubby number 2. People see that we are comfortable with it and happy and it really does not concern me what people think of
it other than hubby. Notwithstanding that the decision to retain married surname number 1 was primarily driven from practicality, I do like the fact that I have retained something "tangible" from marriage number 1 as a way of honouring the man with whom I
shared twelve years of my adult life.

Hi Anon no I'm not assuming anything. Though it's still more common for a child to take it's father's name in Australia, I do have friends where that's not the case, so I wouldn't assume. In my situation, I decided that if my child was a boy he would take
his father's surname; if it was a girl she would take mine. It was a boy - so he has his father's surname, and my surname as a middle name. Like I said, just curious.

That's really interesting Helen, thanks for your comment. After all these years, I didn't know the story, and it's just so "you"! I remember my first marriage, I had discussed at length with my first husband that I would be keeping my name. After the marriage
(and before the divorce!) he went nuts - claiming he thought I meant I'd take his name as well as... so to keep the peace I hyphernated. It made it somewhat easier to drop his name off and just get back to mine after the divorce - but with very different circumstances
to yours, it still irks me that my early degree and professional qualifications were in that name... oh well, c'est la vie...

This is a great article. I'm currently pregnant with my first child and my partner and I have chosen (about 5 years ago) not to get married. Thus I have never had the changing name issue. However we do have the issue of choosing a surname for our child.
My partner would like our children to have my surname, he feels awkward about the usual approach of them taking his surname purely because it's tradition. I don't mind them taking his surname, they have to have one so his is as good as any. I don't mind having
a different surname to my children (some women have suggested that's a good enough reason to get married and change my name.) I think regardless of the surname our children will be smart enough to work out who their parents are. I never realised how much of
an issue it was until now, people are naturally referring to my partner as my husband because I'm pregnant, and I'm constantly being asked about surnames.

Hmmm I'm in the same boat as Helen... White is my married name to my ex-husband and it was just who I had become plus I liked the sound of it, it gave me the same surname as my kids and frankly once divorced I didn't care enough to change it. Besides the
fact that I wouldn't dream of going back to my maiden name. Now wedding discussions are happening with new man and I have been stuck in the dilemma of what to do. I have decided to go with another change... though it has been a big decision. I was concerned
about my brand that I had built based on my name however the reason for my decision is that I think it will be a good energy shift... base my name around love and not anger & resentment plus it's a good excuse to contact all my customers once the change occurs
:) Stay tuned for the re-brand!!

This debate seems to come up periodically, more so in the last few years I think. I got married 5 years ago and changed my name for three reasons. 1. I didn't really like my maiden name, anyway; 2. My father and I work in the same field and he is very
well known, so I was pleased to be able to forge my own path; 3. Coming from divorced parents, I was keen to have a symbolic sense of family to reflect the actual family we were creating. I think people are very keen to reinforce conformity to social norms.
In the end, though, it should be no one's business but your own. My mum always had a different name to me and it never occurred to me that it should be an issue. It didn't make her any less my mum! Ultimately, there are just more important issues in the world.
We need to stop trying to control women and focus on the stuff that matters!

Melissa your post is really interesting - I'm going to be interested to find out what you end up going with for the bub's name... You could be like Anna Bligh and her (now) husband... I remember reading they were together for something like 20 years before
they eventually got married (quite recently) and as they weren't married when they had their kids (and I think never expected that they would marry) they decided that they preferred a completely neutral surname to either one of their own... so that's what
they did!

Love the survey report!

Jen, you rock! I wish I had time to do the 5 grand thing, will keep up to date on your progress. You’re such an inspiration, if I ever get my social media business off the ground I’m having you address my audience of women SheEO’s, you are amazing!

thanks for the vote of confidence, Connie! You should put in an entry for the $5k... you never know your luck!

We do a census of women leaders in Ohio (US) and try to keep a pretty comprehensive list of studies such as these. You can link directly to a page listing those references at: http://www4.wittenberg.edu/news/athletics/news/2012releases/01_17.html In addition
to the Catalyst work, I would also recommend the McKinsey study, work done by the Conference Board of Canada and the Ernst & Young report (references other studies, but is recent and builds a case for the inclusion of women in organizational leadership). Roy
Adler's work is also good - long-term study on performance of public companies - and university-affiliated. Julie

Sorry - pasted wrong llink: instituteonwomen.org/central-ohio-leadership-census/ Julie

This article may also be of interest! Women in management - the power of three by Dianne Jacobs http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/When-women-sit-at-the-table-pd20110616-HV3HM?opendocument&src=idp&emcontent_leaders_management#.Twk0Qj8vNjE.facebook

Julie, Sonia - great resources, thanks for sharing! Anyone else have some suggestions?

I agree with you that initiatives to improve women's success in the workplace largely focus on the women, and changing their behaviour - ie, how to make them more like the men they compete with. Unfortunately, in large organisations, self promotion and
raising your profile is necessary at a minimum, or you are overlooked, and that is a perhaps a reflection of poor management, ie, managers who have little idea what their individual staff members actually do, or awareness of their achievements or what skills
they used to make such achievements. More needs to be done to make managers better managers, and better understand what their staff bring to the table. Perhaps this means you are more likely to be valued in smaller organisations? K

Whilst the advice you cite is worthwhile in my view (i.e. better to be assertive, get a mentor etc than not to do it) I agree that of itself it is not going to fix the problem. On the one hand, it is a complex multi-faceted issue. On the other hand, there
is no need to overcomplicate the analysis: since it is ridiculous to suggest that the highly qualified women are less talented than their male peers, then the the conclusion to be drawn from the statistics is that there is systematic bias against women. Not
sure what else you can conclude. The bias might be unintended and these days, it probably is, but that is not the point. The bias exists and it is costing business and the economy. I see first hand the talent that corporate women possess and I see how often
that talent is not fully recognised by their bosses (far too often to be a coincidence). The unnecessary wastage of this talent is a shameful loss of shareholder value. Yes, dear shareholders, I can tell you first hand that those listed companies that have
low percentages of women in leadership roles are wasting your money! It is so hard to compete for new market share, to innovate, to squeeze out extra performance and yet we see CEO's and boards sweating over these kinds of initiatives. So much effort, time
and money! And yet, the low hanging fruit is right under our noses - the global economic power of women is staggering and according to Boston Consulting is a bigger growth story than China, India, Brasil and Russia combined. Go figure. And since I get to work
within various corporations, I am quite staggered, in the face of a big increase in media commentary on gender, at how little strategic priority is given to this issue - sure it's up there on the radar along with a multitude of other priorities but I do not
hear of CEO's beating the drum on a weekly basis to capitalise on the low hanging opportunity that women present - as consumers, as buyers, as producers, as internal resources. Not one single corporate woman client of mine mentions what their CEO is saying
to address this issue. If the CEO's are saying anything, it is not filtering down to the consciousness and every day work experience of their female talent. I think boards should be questioning their CEO's a lot harder on this issue otherwise (as a general
proposition) shareholders are being poorly served. As a female consumer, I frequently experience the lost opportunity - really simple ways, companies can engage me and earn my business - big name listed companies: really quite clueless. Get it wrong (which
happens frequently) I move on to the next competitor, tell my friends, tell my acquaintances, tell my female audiences. Get it right and I am very loyal and tell everyone. So in summary, I don't see this issue being fixed any time in the next decade other
than improvement at the edges unless companies have this issue within their top 3 priorities. And if the current CEO cannot grasp this, find one that does. The destruction of shareholder value by the lost opportunity of women should be headline news!! In the
meantime, all that talent has to go somewhere. For the futurists out there, the businesses that get this right will enjoy significant competitive advantage. Keep doing what you have always done and slowly, slowly, slowly you will die on the vine. Those women
whose talent you wasted will become your competitors, will become your competitors clients, will innovate and develop new technologies/ways of doing things, they will generate and claim the white space that the economic opportunity of women represents. You
might not be seeing it right now, but that doesn't mean to say the momentum isn't there and building. So many bright qualified women, so much brainpower.... The women will continue to try to be assertive, get mentors and ultimately keep voting with their feet
- as ex employees, as consumers, as business allies and the statistics will not move other than single digit around-the-margins-change unit this issue is taken much more seriously and much more urgently. CEO's - step one, you need to hold your managers accountable
and don't listen to their excuses. At the same time, be a role model and show your managers the way - daily.

Have you ever thought about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is fundamental and all. However just imagine if you added some great graphics or video clips to give your posts more, "pop"! Your content is excellent but
with images and videos, this site could definitely be one of the greatest in its field. Wonderful blog!

To the Anon posters- wow, great insights, thanks for sharing. I'm going to post your comments in a future blog. And Ginger - thanks for the advice - will absolutely look to spice things up in 2012 - great suggestion :-)