whistler “One law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, presided over by elders, furnishes the certainty from which capitalism proceeds sustainably.”

Hmmmm… sounds positively “Spartan”, from Sparta, that is

Pericles “Your prose seems oddly other-worldly.

As well as somewhat repetetive.

Are you perhaps some kind of highly evolved cockroach, practising your English?”

could I pass you the Moriten ?

re “2009 Australian women are competent and qualified to govern in their own right.<<”

ah yes, at times like this I always fall back on a famous quote

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won. “

Margaret Thatcher, previous Prime Minister of Great Britain

Who is also famous for saying

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib. “

Pericles:

> What, in your opinion, caused them to be less than competent, and less than qualified, prior to 2009?

opportunity, eventually provided by the overwhelming weight of public opinion against the intention of the Westminster Parliament in promulgating only men's legislatures and a men's jurisdiction at law with the Constitution of Australia Act.

> You appear to be suggesting that we create different laws for men and women, and then try them in different courts.

one law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions.

> How does this move us towards "furnish[ing] the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated, sustainably."?

resolves the problem that the judgement of women and men on each other is essentially guesswork.

> Surely the approach of having separate lawmaking and law enforcement can only serve to deepen the divide between men and women.

the doctrine of the separation of powers unites its constituents.

Col Rouge:

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won. “

absent women's legislatures and a jurisdiction at law women remain under perpetual male supervision.

> Margaret Thatcher ... is also famous for saying “I owe nothing to Women's Lib. “

Margaret Thatcher, like Golda Meir and Indira Ghandi, was hand-picked by men to lead a Parliament comprised exclusively of men's legislatures to which women were invited under male supervision.

Sorry, this is just too bizarre, whistler.

Your response to my question why you perceive women to have been incompetent and unqualified prior to 2009 was "opportunity".

That's a nonsense. Women had many opportunities to be competent and qualified prior to 2009.

And please elaborate on this for me:

>>one law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions<<

Are you proposing that this law is debated separately by men and women? How does that achieve consensus? Would the differing interests keep batting it backwards and forwards forever? If not, then why not put them in the same chamber to work it out - why keep them separate?

But the second part - interpreting the same law (?) differently in a men's court and a women's court - just crazy. You cannot possibly, in a civilized country, have different judgments for men and women. That would hardly foster any sense of unity, for one thing. It is a perfect design for creating an all-out war between the sexes, though.

>>the doctrine of the separation of powers unites its constituents.<<

Not if the powers are different, they don't. Think it through. Even if the legislature were to agree on the wording of a law, allowing it to be interpreted differently in the courts divides, rather than unites.

I get the feeling I'm taking you way too seriously. Since we haven't actually moved the discussion onto any sound logical basis, I shall retire gracefully.

Thank you, though, for putting forward ideas that are so totally bizarre and impractical. That takes a special sort of courage.

'You cannot possibly, in a civilized country, have different judgments for men and women. '

Not so crazy when you look at the sentences handed out as it is...

I am not certain where this is going to lead , but it is a well know fact that men ( well most men ) have a more logical thinking process – Juxtaposition to women – who can Mutable task and excel in communications – out side of 7 odd volumes of Psychology – Psychiatry- Neurology , that is the basic premise of realised fact.
However, Women in natural chemistry have a tendency to lean heavily left, and would tend to - not pay much attention to detail and objective reasoning, but rather driven by emotion.
There are many women that can achieve very much by themselves- where it fails in theory and in practice ,- is when ability is substituted with affirmative action and Agitprop ;
I have to dispel the assumption that it is subservient, (Just ask any Husband) , and I cannot argue the mere fact that there is an abundance of male counterparts who also have no right or ability to be in positions of power; but the reasons that is; - be based on a separate issue.

Unisex apartheid sounds – hmmmm; - Like atomizing the Goose then searching for the molecules to cook.

men bossing over women is unisex apatheid?