Mirko,

The way this is written reminds me of the Indian call centre people being taught "Aussie". I'm afraid your use of colloquialisms is extremely dated. People don't talk this way today, that was the 70's mate. The word "chicks" dates your "knowledge" considerably.

Regardless though the point you are attempting to raise holds much water.

Men have had control of the reigns for as long as history records human behaviour. With the results we all are aware of.

To me women are far more balanced in regard to political decision making, with the notable exceptions of Deanne Kelly et al. The women in government seats though have been specifically selected as airheads and represent no danger to the male incumbents who weild power. Amanda of course is an exception and, despite disliking her management intensely it is clear that management is directed from above by those same worn out old men. Without that grey man order I suspect Amanda would be a great politician.

Maybe women are too smart to tie themselves to party politics as those that do join have little power or say.

I say no to quotas and let everyone compete equally but the party system has to be broken as it is responsible for the lack of future planning and the dismal decisions made at all government levels today.

Tupperware sales will go through the roof at parliament house.

Jokes aside, yin and yang, 50/50 balance is ideal and if this happens great but if it does not through natural causes, so be it. Going along the same angle, if this is the case we should then have the correct numbers from each minority group represented and then, from each age bracket that correctly represents the population.

A trivial article realy.

If we tried to create affirmative action for women in parliament we would end up with plenty of whinging and debate, less things done, and it would be harder to progress especially on sensitive issues.

That is my opinion.

I love women by the way they are special creatures and i live with one, its just that she is the boss at home as with most 21st century relationships, i would hate for her to be calling the shots at the big house too, i would end up a lawn mowing, family visiting machine.

Women in power can be every bit as abusive as men. Given this and the fact that forcing a 50% women in power edict is NOT democracy, the eventual backlash to it will expose all the weaknesses that have kept women from equal rights throughout human history. The principal weakness which women are so coy about unveiling is that they have 3-4 times the environmental footprint that men have due to the inquenchable urge to bear children and due to their higher personal time and cost maintenances. This revelation will set the cause of equal rights for women back 100s of years.

Global economy moguls may well find marketing advantages in skewing the above outcome but that is not only undemocratic and environmentally unsustainable but everyone knows that the global economy will always be ruled by type A personality men on $1million per day bonuses. They will NEVER let a woman in to their ranks. Even if these moguls were to continue getting away with their nonsense, which is going to come to an abrupt halt with Peak oil, it would be a pyrrhic victory for women at best.

The concept of 'equal women in power' must ultimately come from democratic processes. It is rather like like a flower: you cannot force the petals to open lest you cause that flower to wilt and die.

And another thing.

The main reason global economy moguls are on outrageous $1million a day bonuses (which are so outrageous we have stopped even questioning it) is because it allows them to get laid with any woman they want.
That is the sole purpose of extravagant salaries and fame as aptly pointed out in one memorable scene in the film 'Deep Impact'.

Is that the kind of equality in society women really want to achieve?

Some of the comments so far lead me to believe that it is and some women are prepared to use whatever sex-in-the-city deceits it takes to get there. How low is that!

KAEP - I thought the posts so far were pretty much in agreement so who are you referring to with: "Some of the comments so far lead me to believe that it is and some women are prepared to use whatever sex-in-the-city deceits it takes to get there."

and your ecological footprint theory is just plain ridiculous.

"The concept of 'equal women in power' must ultimately come from democratic processes. It is rather like like a flower: you cannot force the petals to open lest you cause that flower to wilt and die." - that bit I agree with - good analogy.

This is feminism at it's worst. Affirmative action in the past has led to women being selected for various positions or awards on the basis of sex, not ability.