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.