My main concern about Ms Gillard is her oft-repeated statement that she is governing for "working families". What happened to the traditional stance that the elected government, while of one party or another, is governing for all Australians?

It is very clear that while she has been successful in passing legislation that favours her left wing constituency, at least some of it (particularly the Carbon Tax) is highly controversial.

My other concern with Ms Gillard (and many other politicians, to be fair) is that she has absolutely no experience of working in business, running an enterprise, or for that matter employing people. She clearly doesn't understand the issues. Like many in parliament, for her whole career, her income has been paid either by union members (one way or another) or by the taxpayer. It is hardly surprising that while she may understand the situation of working families, she has very little understanding of business, particularly small business, that provides so many of the jobs in this nation and much of the taxpayer revenue that keeps the government going.

It is clear that there are 'significant humanitarian objections' to both the carbon tax and the NBN, if wasting vast amounts of taxpayers' money that could have been spent on food, clothing, hospitals or libraries counts as a 'humanitarian objection'. And you don't mention the Slipper affair, or Craig Thompson.

I'm afraid the "you just hate her because she's a woman" line won't get much traction here: there are too many valid and continuing reasons to regard the whole Federal ALP as currently toxic, leader and all.

Or, let me add, her opposition to gay marriage, despite her declared atheism. Is that because she is a woman, do you think? Or just a leader scared witless by the Religious Right?

'Policy gains of the Australian government since 2010 election contradict Roosevelt's contention that a woman leader 'could never hold her following long enough...'

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
(Gasp for breath)

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

"Julia Gillard thus broke through the barrier recognised by Eleanor Roosevelt"

I suspect that Eleanor Roosevelt had in mind the US election process, that requires two stages. First the drawn-out contest for Party nomination, voted for by the citizenry as we have just witnessed amongst Republicans, followed by the endorsement of the whole of the nation in an open election.

There is no comparison.

Julia Gillard was placed at the head of her Party, not by the public, but by a classic internecine numbers game, conducted by powerbrokers behind the scenes. Then she failed to gain election when placed in front of the public, and needed to thoroughly compromise herself, her party, and the country as well, by making Faustian compacts with a bunch of political fringe-dwellers with agendas of their own.

The rest of the piece, following this thoroughly-failed analogy, is mere puffery, seasoned with a few defensive charges of "sexism".

Face it, Ms Scutt. If a "bloke" had performed as Ms Gillard has done, perpetually gaffe-prone, error-prone and ultimately devoid of any recognizable principle, he would have been knifed by his party many months ago. I reckon that the only reason she is still there is because she is female.

Of course they are possible.

They are also a great way to ensure any government that has one will be a one term government only.

>>They are also a great way to ensure any government that has one will be a one term government only.<<

Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister for 11 years which makes her the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century. Something tells me that Gillard will not hold the position for as long.

Cheers,

Tony

There seems to be a lot of sexist rubbish written about Julia; and or political proponents that have started to believe their own patent propaganda?
A one term Govt and Mr Abbott in the Lodge? Oh goody. Then all those busy rubbishing Julia will likely realize she was far and away, one of our best most inclusive Leaders.
Yes she has problems! Did she hold Thomson by the hand and direct him to the best up market brothels? Well listening to the daily rant from show pony phoney Tony, you'd be forgiven for thinking so?
Did She break a promise, in saying, that any govt She led, wouldn't introduce a carbon tax?
Any reasonable person would at least acknowledge that the promise was sincere at the time it was given and or, entirely predicated on a solid majority in govt, which the then polls were predicting!
Only to see that lead and all that depended on it, whipped away by treacherous leaking! Leaking which by and large indicated She is one of the more financially astute, fiscally responsible leaders.
I believe in a fair go, and believe it is high time She was given one, as opposed to all the mindless odious mudsling, that has so marked her leadership to date.
Yet in spite of everything She has had to deal with, including white anting from within, we still outperform every other western style economy, with the lowest debt burden.
Study and compare what conservative policy settings have wrought in Europe and then bless our lucky stars, we have someone like Julia, and her new deal style leadership and fiscal stimulus, keeping us and our outperforming economy where it is, all while Europe stares down the barrel of a double dip recession, which is edging ever closer to a new Great Depression, given the idiotic obsession by conservative thinkers, on economy shrinking Austerity.
Fair go and credit where it is due! Rhrosty.

Back to topic, what about Christine Milne?
She's our only real female political leader at present, at least in my view, and as an avid listener of parliamentary broadcasts I'd rate her as the only currently sitting woman parliamentarian with any real leadership qualities.

Well Jay, that would be right if you wanted someone to lead a pack of vipers, she'd be right in here element there.

Oh its not my fault,they're being mean to me whines the deserving one. In this case Julia. She is disliked for concrete reasons, she is a liar, has never worked in a real job, is divisive (overtly hating the the North Shore), has been complicit in the deaths of at least 600 boat people (probably more) and has heavily damaged health, education et al by the mind numbing waste on NBN, batts, school tin-sheds and more.
Enough reasons?? Whats female got to do with it; find another hammer, no-one in the real world cares about gender any more.

If I were a long term forward thinking Labour strategist, which I'm not; I'd give the Gillard detractors exactly what they want. An election.
Moreover, I'd break with tradition and simply preference conservatives for both the lower house and the senate.
That would reduce the power of the greens and their claims of popular support; and indeed, hand the reins of govt to economic illiterate Abbott; at the worse possible time, and indeed, empowered to ram everything he wants through the senate; in record time, like say, a relabelled work choices.
An Abbott led govt, would confront a world, where revenue continues to fall and the GFC deepens, terms of trade weaken and the major economies turn to populist policies and the attendant isolation. Virtual wall to wall conservative govts would likely cause our own economy to shrink very significantly, with massive business bankruptcies, unprecedented foreclosures; a completely collapsed equity/real estate market, as foreign property/equity speculators, cut their losses and flee from our markets and consequently, leave floundering conservative govt(s) very much on the nose, blaming each other, or anybody else?
My bet would be, that Abbott left to impose any policy/economic paradigm he wanted, would stuff up so significantly, his would be the party sent to the political wilderness; and or, never ever trusted with the economy again for at least a generation.
If the people want Abbott; then they should have him, in one "GREAT BIG" entirely unpalatable dose; that they are forced to choke on! Given, that is all the gormless Gillard detractors deserve. Rhrosty.

Excellent article.

The well documented tirade of sexist abuse directed towards women leaders in the world today is nothing more than a pimple on the arse of the demolition of male privilege in the achievement of equality at the source of the reproduction of culture currently sweeping the globe.

Australian women have already cast aside such infantile nonsense having gained experience in all the principle roles of governance, Governor-General, Prime Minister, High Court justice, Attorney-General, Speaker in the parliament, Premier and so forth.

Sexism is ultimately eliminated with balance.

The task at hand is to establish balance between women and men in the constitutional, bicameral, parliamentary method to which the populations of most modern democracies, Australia, the UK and the USA for instance, have become accustomed.

To consider otherwise is to ignore the tide of history.

Balance in leadership is achieved with conjoint women’s and men’s leaders, the male and female co-chairs of Australia’s First Peoples Assembly, for instance.

Balance in Cabinet, the boardroom of parliament, is achieved with the appointment of an equal number of women and men.

Balance in representation, the Houses of Parliament which appoint Cabinet members, is achieved with dedicated women’s and men’s legislatures, the women’s elected by women and the men’s by men.

Constitutional reform is all that’s required, a referendum one Saturday on the question “do you support equal rights between women and men in the Constitution”.

The way forward is perfectly clear, and with commentary of the quality Dr Scutt presents, self evident to any clear minded citizen, although obviously not to those who continue to engage in lateral violence against women.

Pericles, I endorse your comment.

Julia's incompetence and political naivety and Machiavellian nature has set back the women's cause at least 30 years.

The harder she tries, the more the public reject her. Why doesn't the LABOR Party get rid of her now and put Tanya in her place.

That is the only chance the ALP will have of contesting the next election.

www.dangerouscreation.com

Hi Jocelynne,

Sadly Jocelynne you analysis isn't as all encompassing as you think.
The Rudd/Gillard Governments have simply been bad Governments and it is a case of poor performance by both leaders teams just as much as the overall debasing lack of Prime-Ministerial leadership. I believe the leadership coup by the male dominated labor faceless MEN, poisoned Gillard's PMship before it started. That interfering clique has merely continued influencing her behaviour during her tenure.

It was also the case in Queensland recently with the Beattie/Bligh Labor disasters. Note many commentators now acknowledge many of Bligh's crisis were bought about by the actions of Beattie and his boys club. Many of those continued their mismanagrement, in ministerial positions, during Bligh's tenure and contributed greatly to labors crushing defeat.

In Bligh's case as in Gillard's case blame is being and has been laid solely at Bligh's and Gillard's feet.

I might also add Joan Kirner, who I admire hugely, was delivered a similar raw deal by male dominated labor boy club elites. Yet it has been acknowledged her defeat was because of the Cain Governments mismanagement, but individual criticism of Cain and for that fact Beattie has been missing or not widely reported.

Do you see the pattern, Jocelyn? Yep it is mysognist Labor elites who have ensured criticism is laid at the feet of their female leaders, simply to cover their own cupability. That's where the sexism originates. It's where our media source their stories and criticism. The Liberals merely accentuate and use the endless opportunites that are provided.

But here is the greatest 'crime'.

Labor's poor leadership choices and the leaders subsequent, to be fair often unavoidable, behaviour is causing a backlash in the community.
Personal anecdotal evidence, in Queensland, is suggesting, to me, there is a rejection of female leadership and indeed female involvement in politics simply because of the very poor performances of Gillard and Bligh.

Analysis of the Qld State and Local elections would probably confirm that trend.

Regards

Oops sorry for misspelling Jocelynne in the body of the post.

The Labor Party would do very well in the next election if it appointed stalwarts McClelland and Macklin to it's leadership. Both are respectable, command respect across Australia and are proven performers.

did not think it would be long before the sisterhood cried wolf. Maggie Thatcher seems to be ignored by the sisterhood even though she did Great Britain a huge favour by stopping the union rot that we have here in Australia. To many of the Labour party's women were trained in the union movement having an attitude of entitlement like many of their men. Even fish and chip shop workers are more in touch with the public than professional union/political hacks. Claim victim status all you like but it was not a man stabbed a sitting PM in the back and made many promises before blatantly lying to the public and all to hang onto power.

The author listing the carbon tax as some sort of achievement is the same as saying that Craig Thomson did good for his members. Everyone except a few ignorant know it is a massive con.

Well, hello again whistler.

>>Constitutional reform is all that’s required, a referendum one Saturday on the question “do you support equal rights between women and men in the Constitution”.<<

I think we may have covered this ground before.

The Constitution, as you very well know, but are somehow unable to recognize or accept, already supports equal rights between women and men.

Point me to the bit that says otherwise.

A poor article.
Has the author never heard of Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir? Either the author has not heard of them in which case we have a startling degree of ignorance; or the author has heard of them but does not approve of their politics so pretends they did not exist. Hence the article is either intellectually weak or crooked.

A leader appointed by a majority of men, a Cabinet comprising seventeen men and five women, legislatures overwhelmingly populated by men, no dedicated women’s legislature, not even a women’s caucus as with a majority of modern legislatures, universal women’s suffrage which can simply be withdrawn by a majority of the parliament rescinding the relevant legislation, no recognition women bring a different approach to governance than men, all this from a Constitution which allegedly supports equal rights, evidence which clearly refutes your opinion Pericles, as I have explained, as you very well know, many times on this forum. If men suffered the sexism women do under the Constitution you’d no doubt be the the first bloke on a soapbox railing about discrimination.

The bit that says no begins with the refusal of men to allow women to speak to or vote on the Constitution at its enactment and proceeds all the way to the blatantly sexist and inexcusable abuse directed towards the Prime Minister.

While I acknowledge your right to an opinion, once again, where such opinion is clearly without substance, I decline discourse with you.

Oh come on Whistler, the worst government we have had in Queensland had women ministers coming out of the woodwork. I never bothered doing the math, but it seamed like there were hundreds of them.

There may not have been that many, perhaps it just felt that way, because they were always in the news making excuses for their failings.

Having had a total failure in Bleigh, what do they do, but get this silly little girl, with the funny name to replace her as leader, then another in her seat.

If ever there was a party with a death wish, it's got to be Labor.

eyejaw, during the English summer of 1975 I was living homeless in London selling crayon drawings on card on the streets of Soho to earn a feed. Best free show in town was Parliament so I went along to the House of Commons and gained entry to the public gallery. I took a seat and commenced sketching, whereupon an attendant tapped me on the shoulder and informed me of a prohibition on the public recording of proceedings, including my artwork, so I took further pause to analyse the chamber. It was a full session. In front of me to my left sat three hundred or so, mostly men in brown lounge suits, the Labour Party, at the time in government, with Harold Wilson seated front and centre. To my right sat three hundred or so, mostly men in dark business suits, a solid block of shady hue. Front and centre was Margaret Thatcher, a few short years from becoming Prime Minister. In no democratic sense whatsoever did Mrs Thatcher represent a women's voice.

Margaret Thatcher was appointed by a massive majority of men to do precisely what that majority wanted her to do otherwise she would never have been considered for candidature to her local council let alone the office of Prime Minister. Women had virtually no say in her appointment or the undertaking of her duties whatsoever. With respect, disparage women’s predisposition to the exercise of power when massive majorities of women make appointments and enact policy, otherwise your comments reflect unfairly upon all women. Mrs Thatcher is certainly no exemplar for women, the notion is preposterous.

Thanks Hasbeen, Anna Bligh’s Cabinet was variously comprised (it changed) of around of five or six women and thirteen or so men with women mostly in junior portfolios. Rhrosty is on the money, and I must say it’s hilarious reading post after post by men disparaging women in power when the power they exercise is simply an extension of male privilege. Men can be so drop dead stupid sometimes!

Ahhhh come on whistler, not talking is not an adult way of addressing differences of oppinion.

It's typical of petulant pouting school kiddies.

Ah, whistler - sometimes one comes upon a post that is a cut above the rest. Your last was just such a one. Well said!

And of course whistler belittling people who don't completely align with your views is more likely to lead to them rejecting your positions.

On the contrary imajulianutter, why should I waste my time in conversation with someone who has no grasp of the facts of the discussion, someone who simply opines on prejudice. Not all opinions are worthy of discussion, what a ludicrous supposition, but perhaps not to those unacquainted with critical thinking.

Why do the coalition want Rudd returned as Labour leader? Well, arguably because multi-millionaire Rudd is one of them, a flawed fiscal conservative, I believe, simply posing as a socialist, merely to get his power hungry hands on the levers of power?
And, because Julia is far and away one of the most competent and genuine socialist leader/dangerous adversary; they have confronted in many a year?
I have two daughters and applaud the systematic destruction of the glass ceiling; that have held hostage the best, brightest and most brilliant from the other 50% of our population!
Those companies that are in the best shape in today's current economic climate, are those with significant numbers of women on the board or fronting as CEO's!
One notes the paucity of logical argument coming from the over-represented typical misogynists, endlessly putting their mindless vacuous broken record opinions, which simply echoes the equally mindless or moribund Machiavellian machinations of mediocre miscreant mendacious Slime slinging Sydney shock jocks?
Not for nothing is it writ large, empty vessels make the most sound!
Sadly, as voters, [*electoral roll*,] women currently outnumber men and as such; particularly in their dotage, are arguably their own worst enemies? Rhrosty.

Still feisty, I see whistler. But as unconvincing as ever.

>>A leader appointed by a majority of men, a Cabinet comprising seventeen men and five women, legislatures overwhelmingly populated by men...<<

There are more women than men in the electorate. They choose the people who go on to appoint the leader, and the cabinet. The entire legislature is elected, in fact, by a majority of women. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

>>...no dedicated women’s legislature, not even a women’s caucus as with a majority of modern legislatures<<

What possible justification can there be for a separate women's legislature? Women have an equal vote, and they use it to elect people - men, and women. Creating separate laws for men and for women is not the answer to any question that has yet been posed. And whose problem is the lack of a "women's caucus", whatever that might be. If you want one, form one. It's a free country.

>>...universal women’s suffrage which can simply be withdrawn by a majority of the parliament rescinding the relevant legislation<<

That's a furphy. Parliament could just as easily withdraw the vote from men.

>>...no recognition women bring a different approach to governance than men<<

"Different" in what way? How was Thatcher "different". How was Golda Meir "different"? How is Cristina Fernández de Kirchner "different". And how is that way necessarily an improvement?

>>...all this from a Constitution which allegedly supports equal rights, evidence which clearly refutes your opinion Pericles<<

It is not anyone's opinion that the Constitution supports equal rights. It is a straightforward fact: the Constitution supports equal rights.

>>While I acknowledge your right to an opinion, once again, where such opinion is clearly without substance, I decline discourse with you.<<

With such a weak case, whistler, your disinclination to discuss it does not surprise me in the slightest.

Have a great day.

Is a woman leader possible?
If the woman is not female australian, yes!

The problem with women politicians in Australia is that they are bound by the rules of the Westminster system, which is the most macho, confrontational, hairy-chested, dick-swinging parliamentary culture of all the democratic systems worldwide.

The main problems besetting Julia Gillard are that she is not only breaking ground as the first female PM, but she is also lumped with leadership of the LEAST Westminster-type parliament in Australia’s history. Strangely enough, it’s a parliament better suited to the constrictions traditionally placed on women’s lives – i.e. deferring their life goals to the needs of others.

No wonder the winner-take-all politariat, weaned on the winner-take-all Westminster system, looks at the compromises and game changes critical to the success of a minority government and all they can see is weakness and deceit.

Killarney,

I agree with your views to a certain extent. The likes of Gillard and Thatcher merely step up to the Prime Ministership in the same mold as do men. The object is to keep our social democracy chugging along in the service of consumerism...but it's amodel that the female population has embraced wholeheartedly.

Your point about women "deferring their life goals to the needs of others" is interesting. Are you referring to having children, and then supposedly being there to nurture them? My take on such a thing is that if you choose to have a child, then it's incumbent upon you to think long and hard before embarking on that course. Better to understand that child-rearing is life-changing and not something that can easily be slotted alongside competing priorities.

Hi Whistler,

Thank you, you're always good for some light relief:

"Constitutional reform is all that’s required, a referendum one Saturday on the question “do you support equal rights between women and men in the Constitution”."

And yet, you list a, b, c ...... down to x, y and z and conclude that

"all this from a Constitution which allegedly supports equal rights..."

Isnt't it great fun to have a bit both ways, for and then against something in the Constitution ?

Imbalance, and/or lack of equality in actual representation, does not necessarily mean discrimination: you would need to point to an actual Constitutional obstacle to equal representation to test your point.

So what might there be impeding more balanced representation of men and women in our legislatures ? Parties' candidate selection, social pressures on women to look after the kids, those sorts of factors, practical matters rather than Constitutional clauses. Those situations won't be helped by separate legislatures, or by any form of gender Apartheid and I look forward to the day when that dawns on you :)

Cheers,

Joe

Great imagery, Killarney.

>>The problem with women politicians in Australia is that they are bound by the rules of the Westminster system, which is the most macho, confrontational, hairy-chested, dick-swinging parliamentary culture of all the democratic systems worldwide.<<

I've not measured our system against these metrics before. In fact, I'm not sure I would know how to compare the dick-swingingness of one against the other. But it is obviously of concern to you - so - which rules need changing, do you think, in order to change the culture for the better?

I have absolutely no argument with your analysis of the problems Julia Gillard had in forming a government in the first place, and the massive compromises she was forced to make every time she wanted to get something done. And it is true, that the result was a reputation for "weakness and deceit". But my question is - how was this state of affairs in any way caused by the system?

Or even the "macho, confrontational, hairy-chested, dick-swinging parliamentary culture" you mention.

Australia's constitution was promulgated on the assumption women were not competent to participate in politics. No woman spoke to or voted on it's enactment, neither has the document ever been reformed to acknowledge women. The nation's primary instrument of governance is misogynist junk.

Hi again Whiastler,

I'll get in before anyone else: that was then, this is now.

What is there to prevent 100 % of parliamentary seats being held by women ? Nothing. And that would be fine with me. They have as much right to bugger up governance as men and I'm confident that, given the experiences of the last couple of decades, they are proving that they can do just that.

Killarney,

To paraphrase Anatole France, just as both rich and poor should be equally free to sleep under bridges, both male and female representatives should be equally free to scratch their hairy chests and swing their dicks at each other. As long as they get down to the business of governing effectively, whatever that may mean.

To paraphrase Gandhi's answer to John Gunther's question (isn't that so poncy?!), effective governing would be a good idea.

Cheers,

Joe

Just come back after the weekend.
Whistler. Do you really think/imagine,fanticise that Thatcher was bossed about by anybody, male or female?
Get a grip for heavens sake. She has been accused of bullying but not that she was led around by men.
Her most outstanding achievement was to radically change the Conservative party. She did that, not the men. Pity that the present Eton and arrer crew in the Cons AND the Lib Dem are no use in comparison to Thatcher. And they are a mob of whimpy men. Thatcher would have had them for breakfast. Poor UK.
By the way; it is a bit rich to blame the OPPOSITION in the Commons rather than the government. Labour had been in power for some time and would remain in power for more years before they lost.
What did the Cons do to put you on the streets? The then government (Lab) or some bad decision making by you seem to be the most likely candidates. Not the then opposition except in your imagination.

Killarney
"The problem with women politicians in Australia is that they are bound by the rules of the Westminster system, which is the most macho, confrontational, hairy-chested, dick-swinging parliamentary culture of all the democratic systems worldwide."

All politics involves opposition, confrontation, argumentation, overcoming, out-thinking, out-maneuvering. To rule over people, leaders must embody the masculine, the will to rule, the will to dominate, pleasure in ruling, pleasure in subduing.
Politics does not even exist without such characteristics.

To rule over a people requires that the leader(s) have egotistical characteristics. They must have the will and desire to instantiate their view over the others. Selflessness, empathy, and caring may be in their somewhere, but it never erases the egotistical nature of the ruler.

It is the fundamental ontological nature of politics that there is opposition. Take any issue and there will be multiple perspectives on it. Each party takes a particular perspective and tries to ram home theirs over the alternatives. Even feminist literature is fully embroiled in this ontological structure, as they too battle it out in the political arena against multiple alternative perspectives. Feminist literature rarely admits this point though.

The subtext to your post is that if politics could do without confrontation then all would be good with the world. How does your political perspective try and erase conflict? Have you ever thought if this is even possible? Is it even desirable? Like most feminists and so-called egalitarian idealists, you are blinded by your naivety and ignorance on such issues.

Conflict exists; it is part of our essence. We become stronger, more courageous, more disciplined people through opposition. It is our enemies who make us think, make us see our faults, make us determined to overcome them.

I thank the Westminster system for allowing multiple perspectives on an issue to be tabled and challenged. All forward and future visions can often be measured by the forces it had to overcome to achieve it.

Long live confrontation!

One of the tricks of neo-Marxist types is to rarely offer solutions to perceived problems. Rather, endless critique is the norm. This makes them appear "smart." To the casual reader they seem "intelligent" because they have deconstructed and criticized the big bad evil authority figure. They play on the prejudices of those who have problems with authority figures in general.

It is much, much, harder, however, to actually supply pragmatic, practical solutions to problems. Solutions that can be implemented and work on a basic level. This is almost impossible with neo-Marxist types because they are wedded to ideology. Slogans like 'tolerance,' 'equality,' 'no oppression,' 'no offence' etc. are their main front of attack and proceed to try and debunk all power structures through such slogans, regardless of how empirical reality actually works.

Your arguments don't get any sharper with the passing of the years, do they, whistler.

>>Australia's constitution was promulgated on the assumption women were not competent to participate in politics<<

False.

Section 41 of the constitution specifically enfranchised, at a federal level, the women in South Australia and Western Australia who had already been given the vote in those States. And the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 completed the job for all the rest.

>>No woman spoke to or voted on it's enactment<<

False.

Women in both SA and WA voted in the referendum that gave rise to the Constitution Act. Without the approval of those States, the Constitution would never have been enacted.

>>...neither has the document ever been reformed to acknowledge women<<

True.

Of course, neither does it acknowledge men.

>>The nation's primary instrument of governance is misogynist junk<<

False.

The language of our "primary instrument of governance" is scrupulously gender-neutral, throughout its length and breadth. The words "man", woman", "male" or "female" do not occur once, in the entire Constitution.

Can you point us, perhaps, to a single section, clause or even sentence, that provides any evidence whatsoever of misogyny?

Thought not.

Have a great day.

imajulianutter, let me give you a couple of examples of why I decline discourse with Pericles.

Pericles claims Federal Parliament can “just as easily withdraw the vote from men” as from women (by rescinding the Commonwealth Franchise Act, 1902). Check out the archive of my posts over the past few years and you’ll find many instances of threads in which Pericles participated where I explained that the Constitution implies male suffrage since, at law, the intention of those who enact legislation accompanies the legislation. Only a referendum of the people to amend the original intent of the Constitution can remove male suffrage, not the parliament. The Constitution applies different standards of suffrage to women and men, is discriminatory and unfairly disadvantages women. Pericles has never challenged this view, he simply repeats the misinformation he made up which forms the basis of his argument, has done so repeatedly for years, and refuses to use discourse to further his knowledge.

Pericles also claims a bicameral parliament produces “separate laws”, one for each chamber, as does his protégé Loudmouth. It’s abject nonsense, a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of governance in Australia, to assert that laws enacted by the House of Representatives are separate laws from laws enacted by the Senate, that laws enacted by a men’s legislature would be separate laws from laws enacted by a women’s legislature, albeit that the Courts may interpret laws separately in separate jurisdictions, mindless, misinformed, rubbish.

You may enjoy engaging with such unambiguous nonsense when discussing your future, I have better things to do with my time.

Loudmouth, the entire dark history of male privilege indicates an imbalance of power between women and men is dysfunctional (unless of course you think abysmal conflict resolution, mass warfare, starvation and environmental devastation are acceptable outcomes of governance). Thanks to the vagaries of male privilege the Constitution permits this dysfunction, however it's achieved, and it's achieved every day of the life of each Parliament. Most men are comfortable attending an assembly of men, but if you need a female interpreter I’m sure one can be arranged.

Whislter
"the entire dark history of male privilege indicates an imbalance of power between women and men is dysfunctional (unless of course you think abysmal conflict resolution, mass warfare, starvation and environmental devastation are acceptable outcomes of governance). Thanks to the vagaries of male privilege the Constitution permits this dysfunction, however it's achieved, and it's achieved every day of the life of each Parliament."

Let's run with your strict dichotomy between men and women for a minute. Have not women taken advantage of this? Have not men died by the millions fighting and working to protect women and children? While men die in wars, work intense long, physical hours that usually degrades his health to supply women and children with food, clothing, housing, security, money, and healthcare, one has to wonder, who is being exploited here? Who has created most of the advances in technology, sanitation, food production, etc which females take for granted? Men of course. If men really wanted to see women as second class citizens they would bar them from all such inventions. But no, rather, men fully allow women to use these advances in order to live a more comfortable life. One could even argue women are exploiting men by making them work and die to make their lives easier. One could even call them sexist.

It is typical of feminists to claim men are responsible for all the misery and females are just innocent, pure creatures who can do no wrong unless a big, bad man comes along and corrupts her pristine nature. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for such a claim. It is a piece of metaphysical fancy conjured forth by dreamers.
It is, as I highlighted in my previous post, the neo-Marxist agenda that endlessly critiques power structures with feelgood slogans like 'egalitarianism,' 'altruism,' and 'equality,' while providing no practical solutions. It can't provide any practical solutions because their feelgood agenda cannot be implemented on any working basis. Therefore, they remain ideological in nature and have nothing to do with how real world situations operate.

See what I mean, imajulianutter? Pericles claims it was a “referendum that gave rise to the Constitution Act”. The Westminster Parliament in the UK enacted Australia’s Constitution. Most Australians would have been ineligible to vote on a referendum conducted by the Westminster Parliament had one been undertaken on the issue, which there was not. The Colonies submitted drafts to their electorates, and two of the six at the time allowed some women to vote. But the parliament which enacted the Constitution strictly prohibited women’s franchise and gave no regard whatsoever in the Constitution to the inclusion of whatever the Colonies were up to with women, for to do so would have been to go outside their own boundaries of exclusion, their own intent. A parliament which prohibits women’s franchise can’t legitimately legislate to include women’s franchise in a further parliament, the contradiction is beyond reasonable parliamentary process.

Pericles incessantly invents fundamental misinterpretations of law, presents them as the basis of discussion and never wavers from the nonsense he makes up. It’s simply a complete waste of time engaging in conversation with him.

Aristocrat, I’m not arguing women are more moral than men. I’m arguing an imbalance of power between women and men promotes dysfunction, and offering the entire dark history of male privilege, and if you like, the female privilege you may perceive surrounds you, in evidence. With women’s support, male genius conceived constitutional bicameral parliamentary democracy and that’s what I’m running with to achieve balance at the source of the reproduction of culture, in order to overcome the dysfunction which has had a devastating impact on both women and men.

I realize that you are not talking to me, whistler. But I can't let you get away with simply repeating your mantra whenever you feel like it, without some gentle attempts to put you right. Because I'm sure that it is ultimately bad for your health, to expend so much anger without cause.

>>Pericles claims Federal Parliament can “just as easily withdraw the vote from men” as from women (by rescinding the Commonwealth Franchise Act, 1902)<<

I wasn't actually thinking of rescinding anything. I had in mind something more straightforward, along the lines...

"This Act may be cited as the Male Disenfranchisement Act 2012

"The object of this Act is to enhance the welfare of Australians through the elimination of male influence on legislative processes"

...and so on.

There is nothing whatsoever, constitutionally, preventing this from being tabled, and voted into law.

>>...the intention of those who enact legislation accompanies the legislation. Only a referendum of the people to amend the original intent of the Constitution can remove male suffrage, not the parliament<<

But on this basis alone, a referendum would not in the least be needed. It is blindingly obvious that the original intent of the Constitution was, quite specifically, the inclusion of female suffrage. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and plenty - Section 41 being front-and-centre - to support it.

>>The Constitution applies different standards of suffrage to women and men, is discriminatory and unfairly disadvantages women.<<

After all this time, and all those words you have written on the subject, we are still waiting for the very first tiny inkling of how the Constitution does this. It doesn't even mention men or women, male or female.

This is the deep and abiding mystery of your campaign here, whistler.

What exactly is it that you perceive the Constitution to be doing to, or for, women, that it does not equally do to, or for, men?

If you are able to shed light on that, we might just have the start of an interesting and constructive discussion.

Excuse me eyejaw, but street art is a valuable and well established artistic occupation, albeit perhaps not an undertaking to the liking of upper class snobs, but who gives a toss about their artwork anyway. Insights I gained from the streets of London, a purposeful and deliberate approach to my artwork at the time, remain with me, crystal clear, four decades later. Why anyone would disparage an artist for making an honest living is beyond the pale. My great great grandfather, a Colonial artist declined a request to join the ill-fated Burke and Wills expedition of 1860-61, is exhibited at Federation Square. My great grandfather, a Federation artist, is archived extensively at the Ballarat Art Gallery. My grandmother, an artist, befriended members of the Heidelberg School when they sojourned to Sandringham where she was Lady Mayoress. My mother, a musician, befriended members of the Heidi School, Sid Nolan and Albert Tucker, in their early years in St Kilda, and prior to travelling to London I’d been schooled in contemporary art at the Yellow House in Macleay Street under Brett Whiteley, Martin Sharpe, Bruce Beresford and a host of others.

It’s a fundament misunderstanding of the exercise of democratic power to assert that a majority of something like 90% of men would appoint a person to a position of authority who did not represent that majority. Are you acquainted with the notion of a critical mass?

Whistler,

You honor me by suggesting I am a protege of Pericles :) I would be happy to also be his acolyte, or even one of his myrmidons, if you wish.

The House of Reps and the Senate are not simply 'two separate chambers', they have different functions - one to initiate business (bills), the other to review, amend and finally approve of them in the event that they are agreed to in the lower house.

Are you suggesting that, with a men's and a women's assembly, one house initiates business, the other, as it were, waits and gives its final assent, but can't initiate business ? Which then is the initiator, which the final assenter ?

Or are you suggesting that both houses are equal, equivalent, that they would consider the same business simultaneously - and, of course, by some magic, come to the same conclusions, so that there is never any dispute between one house and the other ? Do they each, in turn, refer bills to an upper house, where the same differences may arise ? How are differences to be resolved ?

Have you actually given any thought to this arrangement ? Or did it seem like a good idea at the time you first thought of it - so unique ! so novel ! so brilliant ! so me ! - and you haven't reflected on it since ? That, by definition, two separate deliberative chambers may very likely come up with different bills - after all, they might be controlled by completely different parties (imagine, for argument's sake, a men's legislature controlled by the Libs, and a women's legislature controlled by, well, a coalition of Labor, Greens and Independents - or vice versa). How would the two houses reconcile their decisions, presuming that they deliberated over identical issues ? Through referral to two upper houses ? Then the question becomes: how would all four houses reconcile their differences ?

[TBC]

[cont]

Or would a men's and a women's legislature deliberate over different issues ? Men's issue for men, women's issues for women ? Who decides what is a men's issue and what is a women's issue ? Another house ?

Can you start to see how reactionary this idea is, how it moves rapidly into a form of Apartheid ?

So who on earth would ever agree to it ? After all, the notion of separate legislatures would most certainly need a change in the constitution, and you might have difficulty persuading people generally to contemplate the expulsion of men from a 'women's realm', and women from a 'men's realm', if that is how you are imagining it.

Isn't it interesting how Utopian ideas, if taken to their logical conclusions, always degenerate into either authoritarian hells, or fatuous idiocies ? Which are you aiming for, Whistler ?

Cheers,

Joe

You are missing the really important points, whistler, and focussing on irrelevancies.

>>The Westminster Parliament in the UK enacted Australia’s Constitution. Most Australians would have been ineligible to vote on a referendum conducted by the Westminster Parliament had one been undertaken on the issue, which there was not.<<

It was absolutely not Westminster's job to hold a referendum on the Australian Constitution. But it was, most certainly, ours.

"Referendums asking people to say 'yes' or 'no' to the proposed Australian Constitution were held in each of the Australian colonies between 1898 and 1900. This was one of the most important steps in the process of Federation. It was also the first time in the world that a national constitution had been submitted to the people's vote. The 1891 Constitutional Convention agreed that before proceeding with Federation, the Constitution for governing the new nation should have 'the approval of the people'. The intention to seek this approval through referendums was established at the Corowa people's convention in 1893."

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/Fact_Sheets/factsheet1.htm

>>But the parliament which enacted the Constitution strictly prohibited women’s franchise and gave no regard whatsoever in the Constitution to the inclusion of whatever the Colonies were up to with women... A parliament which prohibits women’s franchise can’t legitimately legislate to include women’s franchise in a further parliament, the contradiction is beyond reasonable parliamentary process.<<

Aha... so what you are saying is that because the Act was passed by the Parliament in Westminster, and that Parliament did not at that time admit women to vote, it somehow transfers that lack-of-women's-suffrage to Australia?

But it did pass the Act, did it not. And women did have the vote within the Constitution, specifically grandfathered from the WA and SA legislation. So in spite of your suggestion that they could not "legitimately legislate to include women’s franchise", that is precisely what they did.

Maybe they held their noses or something, or crossed their fingers behind their backs. But it was passed.

But maybe I've missed something. If I have, perhaps you could explain it to imajulianutter.

In that voting process leading up to Federation, Aboriginal women in South Australia (and perhaps other states) had the vote and by all accounts, exercised it vigorously.

During the same period - as Whistler is alluding to - women in the UK (and pretty much every other country) did not have the vote, and did not have it, at 21 years, until 1928. As Pericles suggests, this meant that the British parliament had to deliberate over a Bill to validate the federation of Australian provinces which contained measures which were not in existence in Britain itself.

But of course, this may not have been uncommon: the British parliament also had to deliberate over legislation affecting, for example, land tenure in the African colonies, which may have taken very different forms from land tenure in Britain itself [check out C.K. Meek's pioneering work].

In its deliberations, the British parliament would have had to take the pre-existing Australian arrangements in relation to voting rights as they were - otherwise what you are suggesting is that the British parliament could not, and would not, have passed legislation recognising Australian Federation unless the law of each Australian province/state/colony was brought back into line with British law - and self-government in each province and state had already precluded that ever happening again.

Going back a bit further, say to 1800, British parliaments would have had to deliberate about the respective rights of slave-holders and slaves in the West Indies, even though slavery in Britain itself was outlawed. Call it a deliberative anomaly :)

Cheers,

Joe

It couldn't be as simple as whistler's disquiet arising from misunderstanding that the use of the male personal pronoun in the Constitution merely reflected formal English grammar at the time when expressing gender neutrality?

Because it's quite clear that its constant reference to 'the people' throughout the document makes no distinction on the basis of gender in favour of anyone.

I for one am prepared to overlook the fact that no male gave the Australian Constitution Royal assent.

Personally, I was more interested in learning more details of "a women’s caucus as with a majority of modern legislatures" but I only seemed to be able to find references to Rwanda.

But if we really do need to consider structural change to the Constitution a better move would be to continue to ignore gender in lieu of disenfranchising stupid people – obviously too many of 'them' slip through the net, both into voting booths and the legislatures.

WmTrevor, in Victorian England “the people”, at law, the law which stood when the Constitution was enacted, largely meant men and the property they owned, including, in order of legal interest, land, stock and female dependents. It was very nice of the British parliament to permit female figureheads, nice of the parliament to have also legislated the same hereditary entitlement obtaining to women as obtains to men, permission I’m certain Her Majesty was most grateful to receive when announced to the Commonwealth in Perth earlier this year. Women’s caucuses, the US Congress, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, the British parliament, Viet Nam and many more. It’s the imbalance of power between women and men at cause of the stupidity to which you refer, in my humble opinion.

Thank you for the clarification, whistler… My misunderstanding was that I thought you were referring to constitutionally enshrined women's caucuses.

Certainly many laws with respect to women (or would it be more accurate to say many laws with disrespect to women?) in Victorian England were shameful, so it's probably just as well that the wording and provisions of the Australian Constitution came from here not there.

I can't pretend to understand what your proposed referendum question, “do you support equal rights between women and men in the Constitution”, would actually change in the Constitution.

The history of obtaining successful referendum questions for constitutional change is – well, arduous at least. It might be less fraught to establish a Coalition Of Women Party in Australia.

Given the demographics, if there is the level of support you anticipate it would be guaranteed to win.

(imajulianutter, I'd be grateful if you could pass this on to whistler, when you have a moment.)

You might consider the option to stop digging, whistler, because the hole is only getting deeper.

>>... in Victorian England “the people”, at law, the law which stood when the Constitution was enacted, largely meant men<<

It was the Westminster Parliament that enacted the legislation. That is, the body of elected representatives that actually makes laws.

Interestingly, England did not have then, nor has now, a written Constitution, so your concept that "the law" meant "men" is completely incorrect. "The law" was precisely what the English Courts, through Common Law, and Parliament through legislation, decide. And in this particular case, the inclusion of women via s.41 was, categorically and explicitly, the intent of the document as passed by Parliament.

There is no question that at different times over the years, the definition of "who can vote" has changed, and will no doubt continue to change. But that status cannot be held as evidence that it has any impact at all on the legislation itself. If it did, there would be no valid laws for under-eighteens, for example.

The constitution has also been expediently re-interpreted on the fly, where it is common sense to do so.

s.2 is classic in this regard:

"A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him"

There was no mad rush to hold a referendum to change the Constitution when, for example, the "Queen" suddenly became "King" in 1901. Nor was it deemed necessary to ask the people to vote whether the Constitution should change the "him" to "her", to allow the appointment in 2008 of Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC CVO.

Everything that you appear to need, except the ability to enact laws via a women-only legislature, is already constitutionally available to you.

Have a great day.

WmTrevor, the genius of constitutional bicameral parliamentary democracy, albeit perhaps unintended, is that power between women and men can be very precisely balanced at the source of the reproduction of culture. My proposal, which would accompany a referendum question as described, and yes I’m confident of overwhelming majority support, is this:

The Constitution would be amended to rebadge the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men, each with the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both.

A Cabinet of an equal number of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the Parliament and provides leadership.

With Royal assent, sovereignty transfers from the Crown to a Council of Governors-General comprising an equal number of senior women and men appointed by the Cabinet. (What greater honour than for Her Majesty to pass sovereignty to distinguished senior citizens presiding over the first women’s legislature of the modern era?)

The Courts recognise women's and men's jurisdictions.

In summary, the answer to Dr Scutt’s question, “Is a woman leader possible?”, is a resounding YES!

Of course it's yes Whistler, but only if you want failure.

Haven't you noticed that since women took more authority in the home, indebtedness has skyrocketed, juvenile delinquency has followed a similar path, & we now eat prepackaged plastic food, rather than the real stuff.

Since we got more women in parliament, government has become increasingly dysfunctional.

This could be the number of women in parliament, but it could also be that this has been accompanied by affirmative action in the public service.

Affirmative action is where no matter how poor the field to chose from, half [or more] of the senior appointments to the bureaucracy MUST be women.

Don't they come up with some doozies too. Remember that meter wide water commissioner trying to hide behind a half meter wide post.

So fall in here, & we will follow this lady down the garden path. We can join the remains of the female lead Democrats down there with the fairies.

Hi Whistler,

The head of state of Australia is a woman. Her representative in Australia is a woman. The Prime Minister is a woman. The Premier of Tasmania is a woman. At various times, governors in each state, and ministers in all state governments have been, or are currently, women.

So what are you arguing about ? As you write, "In summary, the answer to Dr Scutt’s question, “Is a woman leader possible?”, is a resounding YES!" So who's arguing ?

But when it comes down to your ridiculous notion of a women's House and a men's House, each able to initiate, etc. legislation, one wonders what might happen if the two houses disagreed ? What if the women's House was under a Labor-Green coalition, while the men's was under a Liberal-National-Katterite coalition - how would disputes be resolved ? By a council of elders ?!

And what if men, like me, were quite happy to vote for, and be represented by, women, in our state and federal parliaments ? Or if women wanted to vote for some guy ? But we couldn't, by virtue of not being of the same gender. So how is this different from Apartheid, with gender rather than ethnicity as the excluding mechanism ?

And why, for God's sake ? In South Africa, Mandela fought for and insisted on a colour-blind state, one-person-one-vote, no privileges for any group, no discrimination against any group, all in together. It hasn't quite worked out that way yet, but the principle is surely worth fighting for.

I have to say that your notion is a backward, reactionary, extreme-right-wing and possibly proto-fascist notion of separating groups rather than bringing them together. I fervently hope that it never succeeds.

Cheers,

Joe

Yes Hasbeen, climbing out of the sewer of male privilege hasn’t all been plain sailing.

There's no point in being judgemental on the quality, Hasbeen. That misses the entire point, and opens you to criticism for tackling the man, not the ball.

>>Since we got more women in parliament, government has become increasingly dysfunctional.<<

There are some fundamental flaws in whistler's proposition that have nothing to do with the ability or otherwise of the people involved, but the sheer unworkability of the structure itself.

Not to mention, of course, that the need for such a structure has not yet been articulated.

whistler has been pushing this barrow for a while now, and he still hasn't offered any evidence that the current constitution, and the current parliamentary processes, are at fault.

We can all stand around and criticise the government for what it does - as indeed we do - but the Constitution is entirely blameless for the outcome. It's a bit like criticising the AFL Commission for the fact that your team can't even tie their own bootlaces. The remedy is not to change the AFL, but to instruct your players on what is required of them. Something that we have singularly failed to do with our politicians, sad to say.

There could conceivably some merit in the straightforward statistical argument that women making themselves available for the legislatures will necessarily be drawn from a smaller pool than men, since a number of them are already out of contention due to the self-selected need to raise their kids for a decade or so. (Contrary to the beliefs of some, there are actually women out there who do this. Mirabile dictu.)

But that apart, there are many examples round the world where women are making their mark in government, with an agenda uniquely their own i.e. not beholden to a patriarchy.

Here's one that caught my eye.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/05/201254233013571378.html

Hmmm, feisty. That'll show 'em.

Whistler,

If it's any use at all, we could start the laborious process of asking the government (for the next twenty years) to petition the British government (over the following twenty years) to dig up all the nineteenth century male politicians who opposed women's suffrage etc., and kick their bones around the cemetery for a bit (maybe for another twenty years). Boy, that would feel good: those utter b@stards !

Then we could re-bury the bones, put them back into the nineteenth century where they belong, as it were, and get back to the realities of the twenty-first century, back to the struggle of equality for all, with parliaments which nominally govern for all of us, undifferentiated.

Joe

Much easier to understand now that I know it was more than a single constitutional question proposal, whistler…

It also reinforces my confidence that suggesting a Coalition Of Women Party is valid, since the inception of such an entity – and assuming its acceptance and electoral success which is pretty well guaranteed with women being more than 50% of the population – would be the only avenue likely to result in your constitutional referendum.

In which case it would probably, by then, be unnecessary.

One interesting aspect that confounds me is, not your statement that "Sexism is ultimately eliminated with balance" but, that your method is to entrench it as the very basis of governance.

Having an imagination prone to cheekiness, your more detailed outline of the constitutional changes initially left me feeling sorry for the transsexuals and transvestites whom I envisaged occupying the cross benches. On the plus side, if put to 'the people' those in favour of your proposal could mark their ballot XX.

I still think though that an apartheid system disenfranchising stupid people would be more productive overall and still allow me to vote for those impressive human beings standing for office, who happen to be female. An entitlement I cherish.

Your women's member's door will always be open to you, WmTrevor.

Whistler,

you said you wouldn't discuss the issues with Pericles.

'While I acknowledge your right to an opinion, once again, where such opinion is clearly without substance, I decline discourse with you.'

Yet you carried on an intercourse with Pericles, although addressing me. That was purile.


Your statement was either dishonest, or we all could rightly conclude Pericles opinion is clearly not without substance.

Your actions undermine your arguments and fortify Pericles's now dominant position.

Bulldust always has the dominant position with male privilege, imajulianutter, haven’t you noticed?

Wm Trevor,

I don't think stupid people should be disenfranchised, or discouraged from putting forward their points of view. After all, few of us would want to muzzle Whistler, no matter how silly or backward his One True Idea may be. Free speech means nothing if it does not allow stupid or offensive opinions or remarks to be expressed, even Whistler's.

G'day Loudmouth… I'll have to finesse my writing style if I gave, even for a second, the impression I regarded or so classified whistler – because I don't. Nor did my reading of whistler's responses give me reason to think my comments were taken that way.

My lumping of the lumpen as 'stupid people' wouldn't include anyone capable of turning on a computer and typing an online opinion – even ones with which I disagree.

That's why I actually like Australia's system of compulsory voting – or to be more accurate Australia's system of compulsory attendance at a place of polling – as I regard it as the slight price every couple of years for giving every citizen the right to complain about politics. We've all 'had' to turn up, even if its to not bother casting a valid vote.

I still think my suggestion of a Coalition Of Women Party is a goer in pursuit of the One True Idea, but… I'm not convinced it's necessary.

Well, it was great to have you visit again, Philip. Do make sure you drop in again soon - as they say in Texas, "don't you be a stranger now, y'hear?"

But what was this parting shot?

>>Bulldust always has the dominant position with male privilege, imajulianutter, haven’t you noticed?<<

That's either a very brave and honest mea culpa, or an accurately placed shot at your own foot. I presume course that you mean all males, and haven't somehow excluded yourself from the charge - that would be rather presumptuous, and most unworthy of you.

But to make sure that you are not missed, I'll recommend to fellow-OLOers your web site, to ensure that your idea of "separate legislatures for men and women" can stay fresh in their minds.

http://2mf.net/

Perhaps it would be less stressful for you in future, just to remind us of its existence, instead of having to write all those angry posts.

See how I care for your wellbeing?

No need to thank me - I'm just that kind of guy.

Well Margaret Thatcher, from what I have seen of indigenous education over the last 10, years a woman could verywell become one of our future leaders. All political parties over the years have put into place educational programmes and development programmes to enhance the wellbeimg of our native land owners. Many control minning leases, red cake, coal, copper and iron ore just to name a few. Aboriginal and Torrens Straits Islanders have this country handed back to them on the classroom book covers throughout Australia. So the woman's not a problem as previous leading parties have won elections from the introduction of education ie, political science. The past is catching up with mainstream politics. Man or woman.

Pericles
"But to make sure that you are not missed, I'll recommend to fellow-OLOers your web site, to ensure that your idea of "separate legislatures for men and women" can stay fresh in their minds.
http://2mf.net/"

Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
It has every lefty cliché in the handbook.
So many of its assumptions and assertions are based on fallacies and unachievable utopian ideals.

I wonder if these "elders" who are supposed to preside over the separate men and women's assemblies are elected? If not, on what basis are they to be leaders? What esoteric knowledge are they meant to possess?

Ironically, all the talk of equality the site speaks of would be flushed away under such a system. But hypocrisy has become the norm in left-wing circles.

Hi Pinn,

You make very interesting points about education and Indigenous women: at the last Census (2006), around thirteen thousand Indigenous women held tertiary qualifications, out of a population of about 140,000, i.e. one in every eleven women, In fact, in the ACT region, at that time, there were 288 women graduates out of a population of 812 women aged 25-59, better than one in three. Meanwhile, in parts of the NT, the proportion of Indigenous men with degree-level tertiary qualifications was far below one per cent.

Indigenous women outnumber men two-to-one as university students and as graduates. I estimate that by the end of this year, about twenty thousand Indigenous women will have tertiary qualifications, usually at degree-level and above, out of a population of 160,000, i.e. one in eight women. Overwhelmingly , they are in urban areas, mainly the larger cities. Fifty thousand Indigenous women graduates by 2030 is certainly on the cards - that would be one in every four women.

If you want more data, just email me on: joelane94@hotmail.com - I've been trying to keep a HE database since the early nineties. Tertiary education is the one big success story for Indigenous people, particularly for women, and is a tribute to their efforts.

By the way, Whistler, the new French president has named 17 women in his cabinet of 34 - admittedly, junior ministers, but at least the numbers are there.

Cheers,

Joe

I'm not sure that has to with left-wingery, Aristocrat.

>>It has every lefty cliché in the handbook.<<

Philip, as he explained to us earlier, comes from a line of Australian painters stretching back to Colonial days, and as such is beyond politics as we know it. Here he is on YouTube, putting the finishing touches to some nice pictures of trees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX_wfd0-kss

>>So many of its assumptions and assertions are based on fallacies and unachievable utopian ideals.<<

In his defence, it is essentially unfair to expect someone with such an artistic soul to understand the practical realities of life. Nevertheless, we owe it to his continued health and general wellbeing to take every opportunity to explain to him what life is like for the rest of us out here in the non-artistic world, so that he doesn't end up blowing a cerebral gasket.

What intrigues me about his writings is that it is apparent that he probably wouldn't swap places with my lifestyle any more than I would exchange mine for his.

Which is quite wonderful, when you come to think of it.

I wish you'd given us some warning, Pericles…

It was almost somnolent looking at "some nice pictures of trees" and reflecting on the implications of the music choice of 'All Good Things (Come to an End)'.

Anyway, the upshot is that I've spilled nearly a full cup of hot coffee over my lap and my good chair, having decided to look the other video available from philiparts (80 views) and having a bronchospasm in shock before realising it probably wasn't Mr. McKeon in a blonde wig

>>Here he is on YouTube, putting the finishing touches to some nice pictures of trees.<<

I don't know how but watching that video is somehow even more boring than just watching paint dry.

Cheers,

Tony

I was sort of hoping for something more in the Impressionist line - a little more Pissarro - or Monet.

Though it's nice to see someone being creative : )

I think it was the shadows made by the trees that fascinated me, Poirot.

>>I was sort of hoping for something more in the Impressionist line - a little more Pissarro - or Monet.<<

The source of the light that caused those shadows was, using a quick bit of high school geometry on the angles they cast on the ground, somewhere around a mile away. So that thing in the background that looked vaguely like the sun would be sitting on top of the Sydney Cricket Ground (morning light) or somewhere on the Sydney Uni campus (evening).

I'd go for surrealist, myself.