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.