ooops ... that should have been:

Total legislatures:
0 women
15 men

[not 10, apologies, to which women are admitted under supervision, inclusive of leadership]

Power resides with the parliament in a constitutional democracy. A monarch and any office of a monarch is ceremonial while local councils and state parliaments, as with the federal parliament in accordance with the doctrine of original intent, remain exclusive sources of male power. Obviously the pathetic bunch of male wimps constantly whining and whinging that women have too much power, Dr Peter West's clarion call, are themselves unacquainted with the source and distribution of power in modern democracies to the extent of remaining abjectly powerless within their own communities, a seasonably apt parade of zombies. Fortunately these miserable attempts at men represent a minuscule proportion of all Australian men while their contribution remains a source of uproarious hilarity and side-splitting laughter. Australia doesn't even have a women's caucus to advise its exclusively men's legislatures as does the majority of modern democracies. There's hardly a man who isn't in a state of zombie-like stupor left in Australia who wouldn't support the achievement of authentic equal rights and equitable power sharing with women if an amendment to the Constitution to provide for governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees was put to a referendum this weekend.

Another thread that has disappeared down the usual worn-out and predictable path up a dry gulley.

Surely it should be possible to craft an article about men, boys and masculinity without anchoring it in feminism. Is everything 'informed' by feminism, I think not.

Any lateral thinkers out there?

I agree Cornflower.

These sorts of threads always end up as a gender war, with the female part of the argument always at fault in all things.

See you all on another thread.

Well feminism always seems to be at the root of all problems according to some posters of whom some cannot distinguish between anti-woman and anti-feminist.

Why don't you start a thread about masculine issues Cornflower. Ten to one it will be a bloke that will throw up the feminist conspiracy theories.

Feminism is a philosophy which has been responsible for a change to injustices perpetrated for hundreds of years. Its ideas have improved life for men and women
Like the curates egg it is good in many places; some aspects have been overstated but this is always necessary to encourage people to think about injustices.
What I find odd about this set of posts is the inablity to debate the issues in the original post.
Somehow we seem to get onto individuals pet issues and often I was unable to follow the argument..........perhaps I am unfamiliar with individual writers personal gripes.
Nonetheless I have been interested in the issue of supporting a child when the parents separate and some alternative ways of managing that dilemma

The reforms I suggest would have the following advantages.

1. Responsibility
Pelican, as I said, child maintenance would continue in family law. My reforms would not enable people to absolve their responsibility on marriage break-up – unless they had not created such a responsibility in the first place.

2. Marriage
Abolishing compulsory child support would reduce the major social problem we have now, of people blundering into reproductive relationships with no forethought or commitment. Often people have causal sex after meeting at the pub while drunk, and then are “in a relationship”. They have children first and then they think about marriage if at all. Fooled by current laws, they think “marriage is only a piece of paper”. They fail to recognize the importance of commitment. These are the ones who expect others to take responsibility for their own reproductive behaviour. They appear disproportionately in figures of separation, step-parenting, child abuse, welfare dependency, mental health and domestic violence.

3. Sex and Company
Many women would choose not to marry, and that is entirely their business and their right.

Whether in prostitution, marriage or anything in between, a virtually universal pattern of heterosexual behaviour is the female expectation of valuable consideration in exchange for agreeing to sex. This is a classic locus of male-female co-operation.

With the abolition of compulsory child support, many women would probably make money by selling female company to men in various ways, including by housekeeping, non-sexual company, girlfriendship, shows, and personal and sexual services.

Men have a legitimate interest in this development, and there is no reason why policy should put a thumb in the balance on women’s side, to force men, in effect, to pay for female services they’re not getting, which is what’s happening now.

The consent of the parties is a complete answer to any question of morality involved. The majority should no more be able to dictate the sexuality of heterosexuals any more than of homosexuals.