Col,

I read, respectfully, all of your post up until you resorted to the usual insulting jargon that's become part of the way you handle your responses. Hardly surprising that you'd resort to put-downs, even after you labeled me as a being a bully.

I want to know where you gained the assumption about my 'cerebral constitution' – since you know nothing about me other than the occasional summarised post – which I might add, many have agreed with. Please refrain from commenting on my originality – I used the word, ‘void’ where in context and in response to your post. You don’t have copyright on the word.

I must give it to you though, your ‘insults’ to the users of this site are indeed varied and original, however this says nothing of your dull and predictable responses to the actual content of articles.

As a published author at the age of 28, your comments on my vocabulary are, to avoid using the ‘v’ word again – empty. You know nothing of my lexical status, so you're in no position to comment on it. I avoid using ‘big’ words where unnecessary. I suspect you love using them as a way of proving your 'superior literacy skills'.

I've learned no new words from you, Col but have reaffirmed my belief in your ignorance. You have once again neglected to rebut my statement that marginalisation is as forced a process as the means used to counteract it, other than your throw-away comment about two wrongs not making a right blah blah blah.

It’s called balance. The absence of it tears at the very fabric of a democratic society as we continue to marginalise half our population based on pre-conceived ideas about how women and men should operate. If you really believe in merit, find the source which blocks us from noticing that merit. If reward is based on merit alone, then why are there so few female politicians? Please give me a real answer. Your refusal to adequately answer this question astounds me more and more each time I read your posts.

Col,
I notice on another thread I can acually compliment you, a somewhat rare occassion, due to your irritating, nasty style as displayed on this thread.

How about we simplify the issue for you....the female population is 51%, democraticly then you would expect approx 51% representation in parliament, correct ? You may correct me if I am wrong, however that is the way I understood parliamentry democracy to work, not so, please explain?

This goes out to Mr Rouge, Mr Young and anyone else who thinks they can keep me away. I have over 57 email adresses of which i keep updated every day. You can try to suspend me but I will just keep moving to new accounts. You will never keep me down. I get knocked down but I get up AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIN!

Col,

None of your suggestions could ever be considered idealistic... perish the thought... In a previous post you called us "idealists"... you can't join the team now mate... Ha!

What a top line this is that you typed "In the natural outcome of matters heterosexual, I see men and women as two halves of a couple through which they produce a synergy of experiences, from which both the male and female can develop and grow closer to their own individual potential and fulfilment."

If you limit the synergy of experiences as happens in many organisations and parliament then you undermine the "natural outcome" and your two halves are out of balance... thereby limiting the underrepresented side to develop.

Congratulations! In one sentence haven't you shot yourself in the lead boot again big time? Thanks for the giggle.

We all want merit based outcomes once the "natural balance" is restored... Col you are a classic! Ha!

Opinionated2

No, he isn't answering our questions, using avoidance techniques is the easy way out for Mr Rouge. As yet he's failed to sufficiently address the question asked in the article, '...why Australia has had so few female politicians and no prospect of a woman as prime minister...'

He has, however, managed to inform us on his personal life and his relationship with his partner – how these details are supposed to impact on the big picture is anyone's guess.

Seeker...

'most women reach their pinacle with relative ease'. Glad to see you're the spokesperson for all women. Half the population 'might' just disagree with your statement.

To answer your question, I have no idea if I'll be teaching in ten years time. I've no idea what I'll do tomorrow even!

Yabby,

You chose a bad example. What happened to Clinton is a result of him being a floundering imbecile and a lier. In my opinion I think Hillary handled the situation much better than Bill.

As for your observations that 'in general' women are 'far thinner skinned' then men, I'd have to disagree, as my experience tells me otherwise.

Suebdootwo,

'The barrier is almost masonic' - you hit the nail on the head.

Reason,

You accurately interpreted what I was trying to represent and I thank you for clarifying it to Col.

Oh and Col, about your comment:

'Reason, I welcome and need more of your posts, dealing increasingly with tubley's and opinionated's posts has obviously resulted in a dropping of the bar from my normal standard.'

How noble of you to blame others for your own blunderings. However, somehow I doubt your statements were a result of 'dropping' the bar, as you suggest. I think the bar may have been low all along.

I am dying to hear your rebuttal of my posts in this thread, so I shall eagerly check your next post – your simplistic approach still leaves us with less than 15% female representation in our so-called democracy.

To use a clique – heaven forbid my lack of 'originality'... 'Please explain'.

Shonga, JT_dontmesswithme... welcome back.

Tubley,

Do woman have equal rights with men to stand in public elections? – yes, balance.

Do women have equal rights as men to vote in public elections? – yes, balance.

Do men and women have the right to vote for men or women? – yes, balance

Do I have the right to ensure more men are elected than women? – no because such an idea is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unbalanced.

Do you have the right to force men and women to vote for your preferred gender mix – no – because such an idea is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unbalanced.

What you want is to engineer / manipulate / massage / corrupt the representation process and force it to conform to your sense of “niceness and balance” simply because what the various electorates have voted for offends your sense of what, in your opinion, the outcome must be. Unfortunately for you, your particular sense of niceness and balance is not a consideration for anyone, other than yourself.

Shonga, the above should explain and as for complimenting me – thanks – however, there, as here, I promoted the view that men and women are equal and should be treated as equal. What else is to explain, why a fair and equal system produces a particular result. We have secret ballots and I do not know the answer to why. However, that the historic pattern of elected representatives produces a particular outcome does not matter. What matters is “do men and women have equal opportunity to participate at the voting and representative level?” – they do so the process is “balanced”.