Wow Mr Arts, are you going to give an examples of this "unscupulous academic methodology"?

Whistler,

I think we've been down this road before ......

Actually, as a left-hander, I've always had a sense of alienation, that society was run by and for right-handers. I really am sick and tired of being told what to do by bloody righthanders.

So, to take your point, it might be understandable if some people think that there should be separate parliaments, not only on the basis of electorates, and state representation, and gender, but handedness as well. Gender-handedness, by the way: separate chambers for lefthanded women, lefthanded men, righthanded women and righthanded men in each jurisdiction.

Of course, we already have eight State/Territory legislatures with (I think) thirteen chambers, as well as a two-chamber federal legislature. But fifteen doesn't sound too much. If we had gendered houses of representation, this would double the number of chambers only to thirty, still not too many. Handedness would kick this up to sixty.

In that case, each of us would be represented in sixteen chambers (twelve in Queensland and the Territories: four times in each of their State/Territory parliaments, and eight times in the Federal Parliament).

With elections every, say, four years for each chamber, that would mean an election for each of us every twelve to seventeen weeks, upper and lower houses, etc. It would be up to elected representatives to work out how to balance the powers and responsibilities of each of the eight (six in Qld and the territories) houses to contribute to effective government.

Surely that's not too much to ask in the interests of more representative democracy ?

You might be onto something, Whistler.

Now for proper representation for grossly obese people, such as myself: I'm sick and tired of being told what to do by miserable, thin b@stards. Do I have your support, Whistler, is it worth giving it a go ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi again Whistler,

You conclude:

"While it's sad to see the perpetators of male privilege swoop like vultures on Tony's excruciating public pain to further their insidious cause, his commentary also speaks volumes to the depth to which tertiary standards have descended in the death throes of the discrimination Europeans introduced."

This raises a few queries:

* who are you talking about ? Which perpetrators of male privilege ?

* what do you mean by 'Tony's excruciating public pain' ?

* what insidious cause are you referring to ?

* what do you mean by the death throes of discrimination ? Which 'Europeans introduced' ?

* in what way does Anthony's commentary speak volumes about 'the depth to which tertiary standards have descended' ?

Or is this simply a jumble of negative-sounding phrases dog-whistling for appropriate responses from an unseen, but presumably appreciative, audience ?

You may need to be a bit more specific, Whistler :)

Cheers,

Joe

I don't post comments to do other people's thinking for them Loudmouth, figure it out for yourself.

Hi Whistler,

I'm still trying to make sense of

"While it's sad to see the perpetators of male privilege swoop like vultures on Tony's excruciating public pain to further their insidious cause, his commentary also speaks volumes to the depth to which tertiary standards have descended in the death throes of the discrimination Europeans introduced."

But to get back to your extremely conservative and segregationist notion of separate legislations for men and women, I'm still puzzled how it could possibly work in a world in which men and women are actually occupying more or less the same space. And maybe liking it.

How do you imagine different legislatures will operate in the same space, about the same issues, especially if they come to different decisions ?

Or are you proposing that they dealing with the same issues in two different (to use a current buzz-word) and segregated spaces, one for men and one for women ?

The men, say, all re-located to Queensland and NSW, and the less fortunate to Victoria, and the women to the rest of the country ? Coming together (oops, bad word, naughty word, implying similarity of issues and aspirations) once a year for fertility festivals ?

Or are you proposing that men and women deliberate and make decisions over different (there's that buzz-word again) issues, in different spaces, being so fundamentallydifferent from each other ?

So if the same space, who decides what is a men's issue, and what is a women's issue ?

How is this different (to over-use that buzz-word) from the most extreme Apartheid ?

What about men and women who are happy and comfortable to operate in the same space, together, deliberating over the same issues ? (Or is 'together' a boo-word these days ? Has Apartheid become popular on the Left again ? Or areyou onthe Right ?)

What if some men and women want to build a democratic system, together ?

Yes, we HAVE been over this same tired old ground before, I remember now. Remind me, what was concluded ? Or did it all fizzle ?

Cheers,

Joe

Ok Anthony,
I am stumped. I have reread your post, other comments and your article. I then reread my posts and I am at a loss as to how you can possibly believe your article and posts are anything other than your personal assertions. You are becoming increasingly irrational.

You state that you don't just dismiss any view only those that you find flawed, yet you offer no basis on dismissing research like the AMA one I referred to. (have you not read it?).

You offer criticism on random statements like "The earth is the centre of the solar system", rightly stating that it is not based on research.

How can you then expect anyone to take your opinion pieces as anything other than your personal rant as you provide no substantiation whatsoever of your stand. Rambling on about causality needing to be established, you fail to provide any attempt to back up your stance. You use unsubstantiated assertions of what some unnamed/unverifiable people are alleged to have said/written.

In no way can this or your previous opinion piece be classed as an academic work.

Anthony, your articles are poorly researched (no references) and your comments are losing any thread of reason. You are just pandering to your far-right followers.