What a strange little piece.

The style was presumably intended to be light-hearted ("give the tick to the chick"), but I suspect it will annoy and aggravate rather than gather support.

But maybe I'm taking it too seriously. It's probably just a bloke's idea of being snaggy, in a "youse sheilas are orright, I reckon" sort of way. The slightly sentimental waffle that comes with going home to the missus at the end of a night in the pub with the mates.

But just in case Mr Bagaric was being at least semi-serious, and not at all patronizing of "the fairer sex", there are several more aspects of this "give the girlies a fair go" approach which would need to be looked at before we take the plunge..

Are women actually prepared to step up to the plate in the sort of numbers that would make it possible?

How would we actually address the challenge of achieving the balance suggested?

Would we rely on the law of averages to get a balance in parliament, or would we divide the country into "men-only" and "women-only" constituencies, to ensure the right outcome?

If that didn't work, would we declare an election invalid if it didn't return a 50:50 split and, say, returned a 100% female parliament instead?

But hey, I'm probably taking the whole thing too seriously.

I would like to see more women in parliament but they should be able to compete equally with all other candidates. Women are just as capable but as the article points out are often hindered by the process of actually getting there. If we are serious in this then we should be changing the structure of the working environment eg. more predictable working hours, child care etc. Allocating quotas or other disciminatory mechanisms will only serve to belittle the success of women. We must be able to elect the best candidate for the role otherwise our democracy becomes a joke.

I believe that we will be seeing more and more women in government and other senior roles as men are starting to take a more equal share in child rearing duties - still a long way to go but at least things are moving in the right direction.

There are also many men who do not pursue a political career for similar reasons who would make excellent leaders.

Please do not refer to us as 'chicks' - it is insulting and completely undermines your argument that you believe women deserve respect. Or was this just an amusing little satire you dreamt up in the Boy's club? It is hardly appropriate language for someone who is the Head of a School of Law - glad I am not one of your students.

What a fabulous idea! Clearing the way for real thinkers and doers, I am all for that. I wonder at the idea that women can do it better however?? There is a highly selective process going on that removes from the running in the political candidate stacks, many very fine males as well, for all the same reasons mentioned by Mirko. In fact I would bet that clearing the way for the thinking, doing, compasionate girlz, and the thinking, doing, self interested boyz will produce an even better outcome, combining the best attributes of both genders when building leadership teams to run a Nation. Afterall, we need the highly motivated and competative male drive to compete Internationally, however tempered with the compasionate and energetic endurance of females to make it all domestically relevent.

If it means improved family and reproductive rights for men, I’m all for it. If I get to decide what happens in the home for a change, bring it on. Raising children - no problem. Housework and shopping – fine, in a minimalist sort of way.

But frankly, I can’t see it working. Men are bound to end up with too much leisure time, and be accused of enjoying themselves too much. Women on the other hand know they make better politicians then men but thanks to the paternalistic nature of social policy which they seem to want to keep, figure it is more to their benefit to stay out of the process.

The opening remarks “fact that the people who make all the important decisions come mainly from the wrong gene pool”

There is nothing wrong with male decision making capacities or capabilities. The “capacity” for “reasoned and analytical evaluation of choices” is a non-gender attribute.

Reading such a judgemental statement meant I have not bothered to read the rest of the rubbish.

“Real Men” realise “merit” is the only parameter that matters.

This bloke must be a pussy whipped nancy if he thinks such apologistic promotion of unequal values should be worthy of printing.

I don't know if women can do a better job of governing than men. I do know they are just as capable. That is just as capable of leading and just as capable of being corrupted by power as men are.

I know many men whose compassion exceeds that of many psychopathic women I have had the misfortune to encounter.

Whether or not one sex is 'better' than the other is entirely moot.

At least 50% of the population is not represented in the bulk of decision and law making. As human beings, women must be included in the policy making in business, in politics, in local government; across the entire human spectrum.

Until women achieve parity with men, we will continue to read patronising little articles like this which don't really make a positive contribution. Saying things like "women are more compassionate than men" isn't necessarily so and not the point anyway.