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.