The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Smart democracy

Smart democracy

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
I'd like to propose that a better system of democracy than the one we have now would comprise both a men and a women's legislature, which would be presided over by elders. There would also be courts of women's and men's jurisdiction. Comments?
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 26 March 2009 9:31:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That doesn't seem like a good idea to me, hard to say why though, beyond the fact that democracy was meant to be inclusive, not divisive. Where would you draw the lines? Would you then not be open to other groups demanding separate courts and legislatures? Where would the gay community fit? I can just imagine the laws and decisions a little "queen" would suffer under in a system like that! In a clash of intent, who would win? How would you pick the "Elders"? How would appeals work, against a decision of the Elders? I could see a gradual process of antagonism developing under such a system too, between the two genders, hardly conducive to overall happiness. Just my opinion.
Posted by Maximillion, Thursday, 26 March 2009 1:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
absent!
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 26 March 2009 2:45:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear whistler,

I don't know how relevant this website
will be to what you have in mind, but
I came across it while scrawling the web:

http://2mf.net/archive3.htm

It looked interesting.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 26 March 2009 6:03:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasn't this topic been done to death already?
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 26 March 2009 6:24:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, pelican. Been there, done that.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2522

I'm surprised OLO's giving him another run at it so soon.

Yawn.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 26 March 2009 8:03:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi,Im in support of Whister and wat he has to say about a smart democracy.As it does sound complicated and far fetched if u really think about it,it makes alot of sense just will take alot of reorganising the system and change for a better and fairer then happier future for the people.:)
Posted by Princessunicorn, Friday, 27 March 2009 10:43:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh no, not again, please.

>>...a better system of democracy than the one we have now would comprise both a men and a women's legislature, which would be presided over by elders. There would also be courts of women's and men's jurisdiction<<

Unfortunately, as we discovered the last time, there is absolutely nothing behind the slogans.

You can ask why we need it. You can ask how it will be put together. You can ask what form will it all take, and who will be asked to decide upon it.

You can ask an infinity of why, how, what and who questions.

There is no answer beyond "absent..."

>>Absent any argument of substance to the contrary, an Australian solution, with provision for women's legislatures, remains the more equitable option for sustanable economic management...<<

>>...absent provision for women's legislatures, women are not free...<<

>>...absent women's legislatures, women, individually, are absolved, in perpetuity, of all blame...<<

>>...absent women's legislatures, regulators do what men's legislatures tell them to do...<<

>>...absent provision for women's legislatures, men's legislatures, which allow women entry under male supervision, supervise the people, thus all women remain under male supervision<<

Actual arguments for the proposition have so far, I'm afraid, been conspicuously...

...absent.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 27 March 2009 1:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I have to agree that defining women's roles in society as seperate to men's is not a move for greater individual freedom but a return to sexual discrimination.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 27 March 2009 2:58:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps a different system is needed although I am not sure if having different legislature for men and women is good idea. It seems that having to separate system would lead to even greater divisions between the sexes than is already present. And how would one legislature influence the other? What about anti-discrimination laws work if the women’s parliament says that for example centre-fold posters are to be banned out right but the men’s say it ok as long as it is in a private place? Further, what would happen if we had two systems of courts? Could not a woman in a women’s court elicit sympathy by acting emotional. Sociopaths are very good at playing on peoples sympathies to get what they want whether your a man or a woman. How would the family court work? Who would preside over it? To which court would a person who has undergone gender re-assignment report or could they choose? No, there are too many potentials for problems and too little to be gained by such a system.

However I believe that a Hybrid of the Athenian, Spartan current models might do well. From the Athenians a one person one vote rule, no giving votes to others if you do not have enough for yourself. From the Current model keep our system of voting and terms in office and from the Spartans have the ministers stand before the people to be judged after their term, however unlike the Spartans have jail terms instead of beheadings. I believe that the prospect of doing time after your term in office if you don't pull your weight or just buy votes, etc. may actually see pollies doing their job. Which is after all representing us and not themselves in government.
Posted by Arthur N, Friday, 27 March 2009 3:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Princessunicorn, fairness does produce happiness!

There's no shortage of unhappy corks bobbing around on the ocean of male privilege. As Foxy has pointed out elsewhere, the majority are men.

Thanks also Pericles for the reminder that the absence of women's legislatures is a massive problem for democracy, as I've concluded on many occasions in response to concerns raised on this forum.

Philo, women's and men's roles are not different, each can be legislators, doctors, truck drivers or whatever they want. It's women and men themselves that are different, they have different life experience and bring different points of view to a complementary society. Sexual discrimination is both the source and the outcome of the prohibition on women's legislatures.

Maximillion, thank you for your concerns. In answer, democracy is divisive without the inclusion of women's legislatures. Moreover, women and men are the primary components of society. That's where the line is drawn. Achieve equity between women and men and all else follows, gay women and gay men included.

How would you pick the Elders, by popular election, parliamentary appointment or some other method? Ultimately that's a decision which should be made by agrreement between a women's caucus and a men's caucus at a constitutional convention.

How would appeals work, against a decision of the Elders? How do appeals against the decision of Governor-Generals work under the current version of democracy with male privilege? Again, a matter for a women's caucus and a men's caucus to negotiate.

The anatgonism between the genders when male privilege rules is certainly not conducive to overall happiness, and its the men who are overall unhappiest!
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 28 March 2009 5:23:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arthur N, a women's legislature and a men's legislature would make law by agreement. Law interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions eliminates the guesswork about what might be on the mind of the opposite gender. The family court would focus on the child, male or female, where the focus should be. Gender reassignment is negotiated as to whether a person may be accepted as male or female. Elders have a role to resolve disputes over gender. The problems are not that many and aren't that difficult to resolve yet the happiness dividend derived from fairness is massive, especially for men.

The accountability of politicians is also a feature when fairness is at the forefront of democracy.

As Princessunicorn suggests, "it does sound complicated and far fetched if u really think about it, it makes alot of sense just will take alot of reorganising the system and change for a better and fairer then happier future for the people.:)".
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 28 March 2009 5:24:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Whistler, but, despite your femnist declarations (democracy is divisive without the inclusion of women's legislatures,Achieve equity between women and men and all else follows, gay women and gay men included.) I find myself in agreement with Pericles. And as for your final statement,"The anatgonism between the genders when male privilege rules is certainly not conducive to overall happiness, and its the men who are overall unhappiest!" , well, until the femnist excesses came along, I don't think there actually WAS much antagonism. I'm not saying that all were happy, or that society didn't need to change, we did, and have, but the fire in the gender dispute nowadays seems to stem from the blanket blaming of all the ills of the world on the males that is the hallmark of the femnazi's. Any wonder that a lot of men are unhappy? Constant unfounded abuse can get under anyone's skin
Posted by Maximillion, Saturday, 28 March 2009 9:55:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximillion, thanks again for your comments. With respect, you have every right to support a democracy in which women are second-class citizens under perpetual male supervision. In which violence against women is endemic despite anti-discrimination legislation now 30 years old [http://2mf.net/news158.htm], indicating a basic fault in the Constitution. In which sex crimes against women and children are common. In which women get paid less on average because jobs men prefer pay more. In which law is made and delivered overwhelmingly by men. In which minority groups are routinely discriminated against, First Australians on average live something like 20 years or so less than members of introduced communities, religious wars are intractable, greed reigns whilst legislatures in which women and men bargain individually are useless. In which men struggle under the burden of incessantly supervising women, compromising their health and leaving little time to parent their children. In which gender wars are ubiquitous, from ruthless patriarchy to so called feminazism, without relief. In which populations perish through tragic incompetence with negotiation skills, in which management stumbles from crisis to crisis with no prospect of sustainability, in which the environment has been so abused a catastrophic global crisis has emerged. In which the world we are passing on to our children is festering with calamity. In which crime is endemic, courts using judgement based on guesswork produce weird judgements and honesty, decency and humanity take second place to narcissism and neglect.
I suspect most Australian's don't. Most Australians would consider an equitable democracy a better option.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 28 March 2009 2:08:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, you merely demonstrate the exact point I was making, blaming all men for all the ills of the world.
However, I'll try and respond to a few of your points.
Pt 1:
Constant male supervision? Can't see how that works, since the media and courts are always on the side of the PC brigade, and men are regularly lambasted, just as you have done here.
Endemic violence against women? Hardly,(in Australia) and there’s so much violence against men, by women, that is never reported or acted on, especially emotional violence. How that links to a Constitutional fault I just can’t see.
Sex crimes are common? Again, a fallacy when you compare the statistics, and another example of tarring all men with the same brush.
Women’s average pay? True enough, but since you’ve had decades to do something about it, and laws are in place and being enforced, it would appear to be a reflection of the choices women make, not the Constitution.
Men making and delivering laws? Also true, but I’d turn it around and ask why so few women seem interested in pursuing a career in those fields, those that do seem to have few problems succeeding.
Posted by Maximillion, Saturday, 28 March 2009 3:35:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pt II
Discrimination against minorities? It exists, always has, but most of what you call discrimination is a side-effect of them being a minority in a democracy, they, like the rest of us, must go with the majority, we can’t all have everything exactly the way we’d prefer.
As for the First Immigrants, most of their problems these days are self-inflicted, blaming men is spurious reasoning at best. They receive far more funding and support per head than any other group, but waste it. They choose to live in remote and/or degrading conditions, no-one forces them to, and those that try to improve are dragged down by the rest, not Caucasian males.
The rest of your post is Femnist cant, and has little relationship to the world as most see it. I have a 22yr old, well educated, independent daughter, and she and her friends find that outlook a joke these days, still fighting a battle long won. Exaggeration and accusation do your cause no favours with them, and interpreting everything through one out-moded set of coloured-glasses merely makes you look foolish to them. I LISTEN to them, do you? Or do you Tell them, and try to re-educate them to your way of thinking? Is it any wonder that your view is losing support so rapidly amongst the young, we have taught them to think for themselves, to not follow an ideology blindly, exactly what the Femnist Movement set out to achieve.
Posted by Maximillion, Saturday, 28 March 2009 5:29:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximillion, once more thank you.
Respectfully, you're talking to a bloke, [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCYlv6AUdMY ] so your theory I blame myself is nuts.
Neither am I pu**ywhipped, as has been posited elsewhere outside this forum.
My first concern is men, because I am one. It's a subject I know.
You, and Foxy, if you will allow, have made me see what damage supervising women does to men.
I'll be sure to take that thought to my next men's group.
You are so right so called feminazism is having a heinous effect.
Typical male couldn't see that about my own kind.
All the bad stuff I mentioned ... I hate mentioning bad stuff, I tend to assume its ok to talk about equity without having to reel out examples of inequity ... is examples of inequity.
Each has in common ... drum roll ... the primary components ... trumpets ... you guessed it ... a choral crescendo ... women and men ... tra la!
Achieve equity between women and men and all else follows.
I'll cherry pick your excellent other comments in my next post.
again sincerely, thanks.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 28 March 2009 10:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And I'm sorry too Whistler, I have re-read my posts, and nowhere do I say you're female. I speak of femnists, femnazis, and femnist ideology, that is all. I see no reason why a male can't be as misguided as a female, it's human, it happens all the time. I will assume your telling the truth, and say this, that as you're so intensely pro femnist-ideology, and so blinded by your Faith, "there's none so blind as those who will not see", that I am glad my daughter and most other young women I meet DO laugh at you all, it gives me hope for our combined future.
And your closing words,"Achieve equity between women and men and all else follows.", well, if that's not the Declaration of Faith of an extremist I don't know what is! No single answer will solve everything, life and the world is far too complicated for that.
May god save us all from "ists", of any ilk or flavour.
Posted by Maximillion, Saturday, 28 March 2009 10:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximillion:"May god save us all from "ists", of any ilk or flavour.

amen
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 29 March 2009 5:46:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Maximillion,

I apologise if I misrepresented your approach. I was concerned as to whom is the 'you've' you referred when you suggested:
"Women’s average pay? True enough, but since you’ve had decades to do something about it ...".
I guess I assumed you would be of the view that women have been at the forefront of the campaign for equal pay for women.

With respect, my 'cant' has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feminism, you're completely off the mark there and i'm suprised your concern overwhems your contributions to the extent it does. My 'cant' is about the provision of equity. In particular about the provision of an equitable democracy. Feminism simply brought the possibility of discussion about the provision of an equitable democracy to the fore.

Discrimination against women is the focus of the pursuit of equity because therein lies the solution. Yes, men are discriminated against , subjected to violence, ripped off, violated, abused and whatever else you'd like to name. But since its the refusal of men to cede power over women to a women's legislature, men are bringing discrimination upon themselves, myself included. So where do your sympathies lie, with the victims of discrimination imposed by others or the victims of self-imposed discrimination? More importantly, with respect, where is your solution.

Have you considered the best way to stop women henpecking men about achieving equality might be for women to achieve equality, with provision, for instance, of a women's legislature.

(1/3)
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 29 March 2009 12:48:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constant male supervision? ... men supervise women because Australia's Constitution mandates they do. A constitution sets down basic rules by which a community lives. No woman spoke or voted on the Act of Parliament which became the Constitution of Australia. It was enacted entirely on the doctrine that men supervise women absolutely and this is the doctrine by which Australian society proceeds today. There is, of course, provision to change the Constitution to remove this doctrine through referendum on provision of a women's legislature.

Endemic violence against women? ... as the link I posted earlier explains, since the introduction of anti-discrimination laws 30 years ago, statistical evidence suggests "the possibility of no drop, or even of an increase" in violence against women. The laws don't work, the Constitution is necessarily at fault.

Sex crimes are common? ... yes, paedophile rings proliferate, abusing both boys and girls, rape is intractable, whole sections of prisons are set aside for convicted sex offenders, DOCS spends enormous resouces detecting sex crimes and supervising released sex offenders ... there I go talking about the bad stuff again! ... yet the appearance of sex crimes in Austalian indigenous mythology over 50 millennia is almost non-existent.

Women’s average pay? ... since women don't receive equal pay on average because men supervise the valuation of jobs and pay themselves more for the jobs they prefer doing, remuneration laws obviously don't work and the Consitution, again, is necessarily at fault. Jobs which women overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, prefer, nursing and child-minding come to mind, are far less rewarded than finance speculation or camel driving, for instance, because men prefer finance speculation and camel driving over nursing and child-minding.

(2/3)
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 29 March 2009 1:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Men making and delivering laws? ... Irregardless of how many women make and interpret law, they do so under male supervision, they do what men expect them to do or they don't get a run. The women who succeed as lawmakers are the women who accept the indignity of male supervision, and they have achieved magnificently. However, in no way are these women repesentative of all women. Neither are men who enjoy a good punchup representative of all men.

Discrimination against minorities? ... minorities are comprised of women and men and neither are a tangible minority. What I call discrimination is a side-effect in all minority groups of women being disempowered in a democracy which prohibits a women's legislature.

As for the First Immigrants? ... with respect, it's a bit silly to argue indigenous disadvantage is caused by anything other than ruthless, ongoing discrimination perpetrated by introdcued Australians. It was only seventeen years ago introduced law recognised indigenous prior occupation of Australia, for goodness sakes. And even then there was a scramble by government to discriminate against this recognition.

Many First Australians may well live in squalor, but who will save introduced Australians from social squalour, endemic crime, sexual violence, greed, corruption, government impotence and legal incompetence? ... all the stuff First Austalians already living in squalor have to suffer after their organisational structure of women's and men's business was outlawed and their livelihoods removed and replaced with a dependence on gender dysfunction, the source of all discrimination.

As to whether First Australians are first introduced Australian in inconclusive. I think it was Alan Thorne who suggested homo sapiens sapiens (us) emerged from homo sapiens in several regions around the globe including Australia. I recall no mention in Australian indigenous mythology, when I completed a BA in Aboriginal Studies and tutored in Aboriginal Studies at UNSW, of ancestors coming from elsewhere, although some communities recognise prior occupation of their homelands by ancestors from a previous ecological era, as with the Bradshaw figures in the Kimberley, WA.

Again, thanks for your comments. I trust my replies are as considered.

(3/3)
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 29 March 2009 2:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,
It is pointless making discriminating differences based in sexuality for the law to administer. Justice applies equally to persons irrespective of sex, race, religion or nationality or any observeable difference. We already live in a democratic society under democratic governance, where diverse inclusiveness is paramount.

Your proposal is just a hot air fest. Please identify real injustices that currently occur in laws or its administration, and how they could be improved. Or in your proposal - how sexual identity causes injustice. It appears you have an underlying hang up about maleness and femaleness. Democracy means freedom for all within the law that is meant to accomodate the unity of difference for all persons.

Give us an actual case. Not a gab fest from your immagination. There seems to be something unhealthy in your personal immagination that is prompting this proposal
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 29 March 2009 4:05:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Philo.
Whistler, "Discrimination against women is the focus of the pursuit of equity because therein lies the solution".
I rest my case, if that's not one-eyed femnist cant I don't know what is.
While I respect your right to your own view, and to post same here, I feel there's little point in discussing things further, you're coloured glasses effectively mean we'll never even be able to reach a common definition of the problems, let alone any solutions.
I feel we, as a society, should focus on real problems, real battles, not continue digging around on an old battlefield looking for slain enemies to mutilate, which is how I see your ranting. You should get out more, talk to the young women who are living the life of the old femnist dream, and listen to them with an open mind, you just might learn something new.
Posted by Maximillion, Sunday, 29 March 2009 4:30:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Philo.
I've already indicated that neither anti-discrimination laws nor remuneration laws work.
case in point:

"In Australia one in two women will be physically assaulted at some point in their lives and one in three women will be sexually assaulted. We also know that by the time a girl turns 18 there is a one in four chance she will have experienced rape or another form of sexual assault. To put that figure in context we also know that men in prison have a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted, suggesting that when it comes to rape, what young women endure in their everyday lives would for men be considered prison conditions ( http://2mf.net/news158.htm ).

The Constitution is demonstrably at fault with regard to gender, ethnicity, sexual preference and the economy.
my underlying hangup is about equity for women as well as men.
sexual identity certainly caused injustice when women were prohibited from the Parliament which enacted the Constitution by which Australians live today.
unhealthy in my personal imagination?
my family gifted me with the arts if that's what you mean. ( http://2mf.net/philip.htm )
thanks for your comment. :)

Maximillion, thanks for the conjecture but you know nothing about me or who are my family and friends. I wonder why you would make such judgement?

if "discrimination against women is the focus of the pursuit of equity because therein lies the solution" constitutes 'one-eyed femnist', then does "its the refusal of men to cede power over women to a women's legislature, men are bringing discrimination upon themselves, myself included" constitute one-eyed masculanist?

with respect, can you also please tell me something, do you include the $1.5 billion intervention which has identified something like three children at risk from relatives, as Aborigines wasting money?
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 29 March 2009 11:49:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to Whistler, read my previous post. we don't even live on the same planet, let alone speak the same language.
To paraphrase a popular movie..."Move along there, nothing of interest here"
Posted by Maximillion, Monday, 30 March 2009 12:09:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,
How would women's court make a difference to rape? Rape is a criminal offense wether committed on a man or woman and there are laws currently that prosecute. What do you want that is different? - perhaps women judges that feel more lienient towards imprisoning men who from driving passion push respectful sexual boundaries?

You said, ""In Australia one in two women will be physically assaulted at some point in their lives and one in three women will be sexually assaulted. We also know that by the time a girl turns 18 there is a one in four chance she will have experienced rape or another form of sexual assault."

It is not the Governments, legislature or the courts that will stop criminal offences. The fact we need such institutions is because crime exists. It is rather cultural values and education of attitudes that change social behaviours.

The problem you see is not dealing with criminals after they offend it is motivating culturally accepted behaviours. If we lived in a civilised crime free society we would need no criminal laws, Police and courts to administer them. The proble is not the laws or their administration it is the problems that is the nature of sinful man. The answer lies in dealing with the spirit, heart and values held individually in society.

Have you personally been raped? Have you a good mixed group of both males and females peers with whom you relate
Posted by Philo, Monday, 30 March 2009 7:24:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Philo,

"Many people believe that rape is a sexual act. Although rape involves sexual acts, it is motivated by the desire for power and control over another person rather than by sexual attraction or the desire for sexual gratification. In other words, rape is a crime of violence." [ http://www.apex.net.au/~samssa/rape.html ]

Rape works when women and men boss over each other, to control the other.
Same-sex rape is practice.
The Constitution of Australia mandates rape.
Rape doesn't work when women and men are their own bosses, it doesn't happen.
A potential male offender will achieve nothing by seeking power and control over a woman who is not answerable to men.
This is the evidence of Australian indigenous tradition.
A constitution with provision for a women's legislature and a men's legislature eliminates rape.
Does this resolve your concern?

With respect, Maximillion, if you don't consider it's a real problem in Australia that "by the time a girl turns 18 there is a one in four chance she will have experienced rape or another form of sexual assault", then we surely do live on different planets. I apologise for interrupting your perfect world.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 30 March 2009 2:36:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, there you go again, seeing things through your own warped view and putting words in my mouth. I have nowhere said the world's perfect, or that we don't have problems, just that your view of it is alien to me. I look at the evidence and seek answers that are real, not Ideological clap-trap. Just look at your blatantly ridiculous statements above; the constitution mandates rape? rape won't happen if we change the constitution? Rape didn't happen in indigenous society? and best of all, same sex rape is practise?
I re-iterate-
I feel there's little point in discussing things further, you're coloured glasses effectively mean we'll never even be able to reach a common definition of the problems, let alone any solutions.
Posted by Maximillion, Monday, 30 March 2009 4:35:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oops, sorry, I was giggling too hard.
Posted by Maximillion, Monday, 30 March 2009 4:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximillion, you've already said there's little point in discussing things further, thank you.
you're contribution has been splendid.
may Philo and I now resume our conversation?
Posted by whistler, Monday, 30 March 2009 6:06:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No you may not! So, now you're going to stop are you? Why such a meaningless question?
I was about to say something about you wanting the last word, and realised I was doing exactly that, lol, so I guess we're all human after all. Go ahead, knock yourself out! I will stay out of it from here-on-in, just couldn't resist this last jibe.
Posted by Maximillion, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 12:58:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximillion, you may be a High Court Judge or Vice-Chancellor of a University but around here your reputation counts for nothing. Simply reitterating my comments on sexual violence with postured astonishment absent any intelligent analysis of my reasoning whatsoever is a waste of your time, my time and readers' time. Playing childish games about a last say ditto. You have made it perfectly clear to this forum that there is little point in you discussing things further. Your response to my comments on sexual violence unambiguously evidences the soundness of your conclusion. Intelligent analysis is always welcomed. Posturing and juvenile gamesmanship is not. If you have an intelligent, reasoned response, for whatever reason, you have declined to offer it. You are asking this forum to believe that you either have deep psychiatric problems or you're simply out of your depth on the subject. I suspect the latter.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 9:57:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When you post something reasonable, or an intelligent outlook rather than Ideological cant, then you'll get a reasonable reply. You want to posture and prance and beat a broken drum, and one that I find most see as ludicrous, well, what can you expect? I suggest you try re-reading all my posts, I stand by them. And all I ask the readers here to do is think for themselves, you as well, try it some time.
Posted by Maximillion, Wednesday, 1 April 2009 6:01:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max,
The subject is closed as far as I am concerned also. Whistler has no idea of the difference of a written law and human behaviour. If human behaviour was perfect we would need no laws. Laws cannot change the motives of criminal minds. The fact Whistler believes the Australian Constitution sanctions rape indicates the lack of intelligent understanding.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 1 April 2009 7:10:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,
thanx for the links you provided - they certainly made me see you a little more clearly. I admit that, from other threads, I had gained a completely different picture and so didn't even read this one till I accidently pushed the wrong button.

It appears to me now that your ideas originated from your own area of expertise wherein you encountered this form of governance?

I wholeheartedly agree - though my knowledge of Aboriginal history and customs is patchy - that such a system functioned well. But, points to consider perhaps are:

1. Even in Aboriginal communities, such a system would not have sprung up, fully formed, to be initiated overnight,as it were. It would have evolved, with as much trial and error probably, as our own system.

2. The way it evolved would have been in response to the unique and pertinant problems of a particular society. One which evolved in isolation.

3. There would, realistically, have been disputes and situations to which this system could not actually respond with fairness to both parties since human nature and circumstances are so varied. i.e. it would not have been foolproof any more than any other system is.

4. Our own systems are in a state of constant evolution too. They evolve - albeit often lagging behind the societal changes which prompted necessary reform - in response to the unique and pertinant problems of a particular society which functions completely differently to traditional society.

5. Our system of justice and governance functions within a framework of global interaction and is thus - whether to a larger or lesser degree at different times - forced to accommodate within this framework.

6. The complete abolition of one system, in order for it to be replaced by another, diametrically opposed one, would, without doubt, result in anarchy and/or rebellion in our society.

Notwithstanding the adoption of such a system in Iceland, for the above reasons I doubt whether the adoption of such a proposal would be viable in any first world country at this point in our history.
Posted by Romany, Wednesday, 1 April 2009 7:41:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Philo,

At risk of boring senseless readers who can follow deductive reasoning, let me explain again why the Constitution of Australia mandates rape, with further explanation for those unfamiliar with law, history and Australian democracy.

There is nothing in the Constitution of Australia to say that women should be prohibited from being elected to Parliament yet women were prohibited from being elected to Australia's first Parliament.

Why? ... because that was the intention of the Westminster Parliament which enacted the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900.

Black letter law is accompanied with baggage, that is, the intention of those who enacted the law.

Moreover, Australia's Constitution has never been amended to overturn the doctrine that men boss over women which accompanied its enactment.

The Westminster parliament enacted men's legislatures only, from which women were prohibited.

In 1902 the Parliament of Australia legislated to allow women to vote and to stand for Parliament but this legislation did not overturn the doctrine that men boss over women because legislation enacted under a Constitution cannot change the doctrine accompanying the Constitution.

Australia's Constitution provides that only a referendum can change its black letter law, and consequently, the doctrine by which its black letter law was enacted.

All the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 did was extend the practice of male supervision of women to within the nation's legislatures.

After 30 years, anti-discrimination legislation enacted under the Constitution of Australia has had the effect of "no drop, or even of an increase" in violence against women.

Moreover, since the doctrine accompanying the black letter law of Australia's Constitution mandates that men boss over women, the courts are required to treat women and men differently.

As strange as it may seem with all it's talk of impartiality, that's the law under which Australians live today.

Clearly, the Constitution is at fault.

Since power is derived from legislatures, only provision for both a men's legislature and a women's legislature can replace the doctrine that men boss over women with the doctrine that women and men are their own bosses, thus achieving equity between women and men.

(1/2)
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:25:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, "although rape involves sexual acts, it is motivated by the desire for power and control over another person rather than by sexual attraction or the desire for sexual gratification."

Thus, when men boss over women, rape can be a successful, albeit vilified, strategy to control women.

In this context, same-sex rape amongst men is practice for male control of women.

The Constitution of Australia thus mandates rape from the doctrine espoused at its enactment, since unamended through referendum, that men boss over women.

By contrast, rape is an unsuccessful strategy to achieve control over women when women are their own bosses, it doesn't happen.

A potential male offender will achieve nothing by seeking power and control over a woman who is not answerable to men.

As evidence, there is very little in the almost 50,000 year record of indigenous Australian mythology, a repository of information of just about everything else that occurred in communities, assembled under a regime of women's and men's business with the doctrine that women and men are their own bosses, of sexual violence.

Thus, the logical conclusion arrived at from deductive reasoning is that a Constitution with provision for a women's and a men's legislature eliminates rape.

Obversely, in its present form, the Constitution of Australia mandates rape.

Does this explain my position to your satisfaction?

(2/2)
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:27:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Romany, thanks for your comments.
yes, I have been influenced by my life with, and study of indigenous Australians.

In response to your concerns, I would suggest that communities are comprised of women and men whether on the shores of Lake Mungo 35,000 years ago or in the concrete canyons of Manhatten today.

The same essential rules of social governance between women and men apply, irregardless of difference in material culture, cirumstance or period.

The governance of women and men has been an ongoing occupation since human communites emerged.

In this context, the Constitution of Australia is an evolutionary product of at least 75,000 years of continuous human (homo sapiens sapiens) occupation of Earth, still evolving as you suggest.

Governance in which women and men are their own bosses, where law is derived from agreement between a women's legislature and a men's legislature presided over by elders accompanied by the delivery of justice in women's and men's jurisdictions, appears to have emerged with human consciousness.

Governance in which women and men boss over each other, matriarchies in small confined locations, or patriarchies as with those that emerged with agriculture which remain predominant in much of the modern world as the source of massive social dysfuntion, appear to be aberrations derived in response to confined, unstable or changing ecologies.

The evolution of governance has thrown up constitutional democracy as the modern, preferred model.

The mute point in this discussion is that democracy enabled by an equitable constitution can accommodate confinement, instability and changing ecologies without social dysfunction.

The Constitution of Australia requires very little revision to transform its doctrine from men bossing over women to women and men being their own bosses, essentially a successful referendum providing for the inclusion of a women's legislature.

As Princessunicorn suggested earlier, "it does sound complicated and far fetched [but] if u really think about it, it makes alot of sense just will take alot of reorganising the system and change for a better and fairer then happier future for the people.:)"

I trust this goes someway to responding to your comments.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:43:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i think 2 things of this,

firstly the other aproach is actually in not wanting to formalise any kind of established 'elders',(in a natural society sanity should rule decissions anyhow), secondly what is smart about democracy is that there is a theoretical opening to have a lot different people do the most responsible jobs. Ofcourse they should be checked for their financial doings.

Apart from you can (it will probably not be completely succesfull at once) that way finally get rid with the establishments that occupy so many high positions very conservatively,
you show trust in that 'smart democracy', one where you take it as a fact people are capable of doing the better things(*), the optimal ones even, by sharing those responsibility's by many different 'smart' people.

I don't want to be a nuisance, but in my personal opinion smartness is not really actually the criterion when choices over positions in those establishments, the dutch is rather one but (ofcourse) not the worst, are made. It is not my point a somewhat smarter person would allways function better, yet that follows there are allways enough fools to do the jobs.

(*)contrary to in 'capitalism' that would come with a juridical responsability for the integrity of the policy. Fortunately somewhat superfluous through the principle of shared responsibility. (you would for example also confront the tax department with the consequences of their expert opinion) basically nobody is allowed to shut up.
Posted by onix, Friday, 3 April 2009 4:30:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the destruction of Australia democracy is basically a hissy fit by men. Women in Australia got the vote, starting in South Australia and South Australia was the first to abolish that great democratic institution the civil jury.

As the vote was extended to all Australians men and women alike, the civil jury was abolished in all States including the Commonwealth. The coalition between the Roman Catholic male chauvinists and the atheist male chauvinists, has seen civil juries abolished as the strength of the women has increased in the voting public.

It is true women can be as vindictive as any part of the human race, but their vote in a civil jury should be retained, and simply because they have been given a vote in elections, they should not be excluded from the courts. Most Magistrates and Judges are men, but there are a few women, however from my experience with female Judges, they try to out nasty the men in the game. This is only to be expected because a Judge is essentially a violent vindictive person, whose very job is inflicting pain.

A professor of jurisprudence called Pierre Schlag, who teaches jurisprudence at Denver Colorado, claims Judges are the most violent and vindictive people in the community, who inflict pain on others, and never lift a finger of their own against them. Jesus Christ in Luke 11 Verse 46 says woe unto ye ye lawyers, for ye lade men with burdens grievous and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. I think this adequately describes a Judge near you.

Is there anyone here who is really good at punctuation? Look at S 79 Constitution. It says: Number of judges. The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. The capital letters used on Numbers and Parliament are absent from court and judges. Is it a nasty male trick to exclude women from full participation in our democracy, by creating Courts and Judges, as the Parliament of the Commonwealth has done? All Judges are lawyers
Posted by Peter the Believer, Friday, 3 April 2009 6:19:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,
I think I still hold onto my reservations as outlined previously. While I would dearly like to believe in a society ordered more equitably and fairly I just don't think that separate gender-based Legislatures would be the answer in Australia, at least.

Our history has provided an aura of rancour surrounding gender divisions in such a way that that separate Legislatures would, I firmly believe, at this point in our development, lead to more divisiveness than cohesion. Quite simply, I don't think we are evolved enough yet.

I don't believe that the question of rape would in any way be addressed by such a model either. Those who already hold women inferior would simply hold a Women's Legislature as an inferior body. Nevertheless they would feel their power=base to be threatened and the existing reasons for establishing dominance could, in fact exacerbate these feelings.

The private reasons that cause certain men to express their feelings through violent acts of sexual dominance would not disappear with a change in governance.

However, I genuinely see now where you are coming from and, though I remain unconvinced that this strategy would work, I certainly agree that theoretically such a model does have a lot going for it. But then, theoretically, so does socialism, communism and universal enfranchisement.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 4 April 2009 3:23:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,
You are ignorant of the 50,000 years of Indiginous history. Where are the records? where is the factual evidence? There is none. I have lived among Australian indiginous people and find that rape is prevalent.

These men know nothing of the Australian constitution. When women fail to give themselves sexually to men in these community who desire them they are beaten - that is their culture. That is the aboriginal culture and law. That is why under our Australian constitution rape is a crime against the intimidated. Rape does not exclusively happen against women. Indiginous men who reject white men's laws and rape children violate civilised laws. That is why our governments step into indiginous communities who rape to enact civilised laws.

Please quote the paragraph of the Australian Constitution whe it states men are the boss over women. This is pure fantacy.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 4 April 2009 3:49:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Philo,

If you're unaware of the record of indigenous Australian mythology extending back tens of millennia there's a whole world of Australian anthropology awaiting you.

William Stanner, Lester Hiatt, Diane Bell, Isobel White, Ronald and Catherine Berndt ... I can't imagine why you would want to treat the work of these academics with such distain.

The absence of evidence of rape from this record indicates in spectacular detail that Europeans introduced rape into Australia some two centuries ago.

> Please quote the paragraph of the Australian Constitution whe it states men are the boss over women. This is pure fantacy.

Exactly! Please quote the paragraph of the Australian Constitution which states that women should be prohibited from being elected to Parliament, yet women were prohibited from being elected to Australia's first Parliament.

Go figure! ... or simply re-read my explanation as to why ... its not rocket science.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 4 April 2009 5:05:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy