I thank you kindly for your comments and perspectives on my posting.
However, Boaz, I fail to see what relevance religion has to do with this topic. That is the problem globally, everyone wants to project religion into any given political topic as if there is some fundamental religious law above all else. That is not the societal reality when you look at hard data pertaining to my posting. Firstly, I am not some crazy Germaine Greer type feminist who has gone totally off the rails. I agree with you on the issue of female frontline soldiers, but then we are getting back to the 'sexist' view that has been around for centuries that women are indeed inferior to men. Physically, yes of course I totally agree. I am talking about inequality of wages, careers and how the female gender are treated throughout politics and the judicial system and society in general. Our monetary worth is less, why? many women perform at extremely high levels of various professions and are totally competent and better in some cases then men. Why then are women worth less? This is 'sexism'. Your comment about male and female complementing each other is true, but as females we should have the free choices that males have, we do not!
I am a mother,and I am currently studying at University, why can't I have it all? I still take care of my family, but again that delves back to the old perception that women stay at home and take care of the family and be ostracised as some unmaternal weirdo if you want a bit more out of your life.

in addition;
Women are unrepresented in all areas of politics, and as stated in the prior posting, what is alleged to be meritorious is not necessarily the case. Women are different from men! Yes of course but I still adhere to the fact that if viewed from an historical perspective the white male patriachal system reigns supreme, this is not a fallacy, it is fact. One only has to view the data throughout the court and criminal justice system to see how disadvantaged women are. It was only in the late 1980's that 'Domestic Violence' laws were inacted; up to that point in time it was historically accepted that men could do what they would with their spouses or partners and it was nothing to do with the autorities? It was only in the last decade that the laws of rape within marriage were aceepted and passed to protect the women. How then can you state that sexism does not exist and is nothing more than a token phrase used in the socio-political arena. In not accepting its existence, that is condoning it from my view and perpetuating the inequality. I would like to end by saying that all of your comments thus far were thought provoking and greatly appreciated. Wishing you all a wonderful weekend.

Boazy, you really do write some rubbish here:

"*Scratch a vegetarian hard enough and you will find an embryonic Hindu*... not universally true, but close."

What utter nonsense. I'll have to try scratching my vego partner and finding her inner Hindu - hopefully a Kama Sutra devotee!

Back to the topic:

"Perhaps those who make the decisions about who does what adhere to an ideology or a faith which suggests it is not the best thing to have female leaders ?"

Given that Boazy is a member of a particularly patriarchal Christian sect, it's little wonder that he believes that women complement men best by remaining barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. However, at least one of the more mainstream Christian denominations apparently thinks otherwise. The Anglican Church of Australia has cleared the way for women to be ordained as diocesan bishops - although some reactionaries like Peter Jensen retain a view of women's subordination that resembles Boazy's:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/28/2046124.htm

Hi there CG... keyword.. "equality of opportunity where the opportunity is equal".. yep.. good point.
The thing is.. as Justice (who agrees with me here) the physical is the big point.. I don't want to re-argue the same things I have done b4... but keep in mind... I spend 2 nights a week in a mixed combat class and when it comes to combat.. the chics just donnnnt have it...
Strength.. it counts.. bigtime. But the other point about front line and mixed gender soldiering.. for goodness sake.. a pack of blokes out in the bundu with 1 or 2 so so shielas.... sleeping arrangements.. bathing arrangements... male female attraction? Jealousy... none of those things suddenly switch off when you grab the Stire and put the camo's on. The potential for morale to totally come unstuck is huge.

Justice.. an important point I wish to make.. I do not in any way regard females as 'inferior'... I regard them as different..and in a very beautiful complementary way....

You mentioned the usual list of stuff.. such as equal pay etc.. "representation" ..now thats an interesting one. I would love to think that all people are represented in government etc by 'people' irrespective of their gender.

We start to enter the arena of 'culture' here.. they way it used to be was that men were culturally expected to pay for a night out with a female friend.. so the cultural theory was.. men have to spend more and women less... so.. equalize the financial burdern in terms of our cultural norms.

I don't know that the shift from that pattern to the 'equality' thing is neccessarily good. It might be having serious social implications that we have not yet been able to measure. Cultural decay does not happen overnight and tinkering with the glue which holds us together can have horrific consequences.

The big vaccuum these days I see.. is the absence of love.
I was only alluding to 'religion' in an indirect way above..I tend to do that with every 'ism' or issue.. its my 'work' :)

continued....(responding to Justice)

You mentioned:

'Domestic Violence' laws were inacted; up to that point in time it was historically accepted that men could do what they would with their spouses or partners and it was nothing to do with the autorities?

I'm not sure about this one. Laws against assault etc.. are not limited to outside of marriage.. and this 'domestic violence' thing has gone totally too far to the point of direct and specific discrimination and 'pre-judging' men.. no matter what the reason.

In my local police station, there are pamhlets saying "It's NEVER 'your' fault when he is violent" which is a load of absolute rubbish. On the one hand.. CG is telling us about how women can fight up there with the rest of us.. but this pamphlet is telling us we are always wrong.. and on face value it would appear that to knock a women out who is coming at you with a large knife.. is ALSO wrong.

I was physically attacked with a weapon in Melbourne just for holding a sign a communist woman didn't like.. and when I fronted her up to the police, they threatened to arrest 'me'.

Back to Religion. If anything is clear.. the treatment of wives by husbands is ABUNDANTLY clear in scripture. "love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her".

So, in the case of 'It was accepted that men could do' etc.... well.. the solution might have simply been 'repentance' from such evils in God's eyes. Culture might have accepted it (DV) but God sure didnt.

BD, I've worked on an outback farm as one of 3 women among 40-odd men. Same sort of isolation. When you are out in the paddock you have to take a wee, but no facilities. You just do what you have to. To say that it wil automatically lead to disruption along sexual lines is silly. The navy have managed perfectly well with homosexuality ;) . I've also worked in other male-dominated industries and have had few problems. Women are in the armed forces now and generally in the minority. Just not normally on the front line. Front line gender politics should be no different to back at base camp.