The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > women rescue economy

women rescue economy

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All
At the vanguard of a new era in gender relations, a community which suffered a humiliating collapse during the global economic meltdown "has turned over key levers of finance to women", The Washington Post reports. http://2mf.net/news169.htm

Iceland now has a female Prime Minister, and women lead two of its major banks.

"As the global financial downturn deepens, the first rumblings of a gender revolution are underway in an industry long controlled by men."

The equitable outcome is corporate management based on agreement between women's and men's committees regulated by governance comprising agreement between women's and men's legislatures.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 13 February 2009 11:34:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, of course they will. There is no doubt that the shopping
gene is deeply inbedded in the psyche of many females.

One even told me that she loved her Mastercard, as she could
withdraw money to pay off her Visacard :)

That is why I have such confidence in owning bank shares.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 13 February 2009 1:43:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahhh.... a stilletto heel led recovery....

Yep... soon we see "MasterCard" joined with "Mistress Card"...

anyway what is so new about a lady primee minister... UK had the benefit of Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago... but Blair and Brown have still managed to undo most of her good works
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 13 February 2009 2:28:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Golda Meir. Indira Ghandi. Benazir Bhutto. Corazon Aquino. Mary Robinson. Edith Cresson. Mary McAleese. Ruth Dreyfuss. Jennifer Smith. Helen Clark. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Isabel Peron. Vigdis Finnbogadottir. Megawati Sukarnoputri... etc etc.

Gail Kelly. Patricia Russo. Brenda Barnes. Cathy Hughes. Angela Braley. Mickey Siebert. Christina Gold. Meg Whitman. Susan Ivey. Mary Kay Ash. Andrea Jung. Carol Meyrowitz. Anne Mulcahy. Indra Nooyi. Paula Reynolds. Irene Rosenfeld. Shelley Lazarus. Mary Sammons. Patricia Woertz. Cathleen Black

whistler, you're back on your hobby-horse, aren't you?

>>corporate management based on agreement between women's and men's committees regulated by governance comprising agreement between women's and men's legislatures.<<

sounds remarkably like...

>>a Republic comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.<<

and like...

>>one law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, presided over by elders, furnishes the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated, sustainably.<<

It would be useful at this point if you could be a little bit clearer about how this will work. At the moment it is all rather puzzling.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 13 February 2009 3:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
women and men have different life experiences, the judgement of one on the other is guesswork, thus the vagary, hitherto, of capitalism.

my guess is that equity is essential to the provision of certainty.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 13 February 2009 5:39:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*my guess is that equity is essential to the provision of certainty.*

Ah, that is your problem then Whistler. The most permanent thing
in life is change, so forget certainty. Equity won't happen, as
there is so much genetic variation within genders, let alone between
genders.

Best you just paddle your own canoe as best you can and make the
most of what you have. Meantime, enjoy every day!
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 13 February 2009 6:49:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
contrasted with the guesswork of judgement one on the other,
optimum economic sustainabilty is achievable with the provision of equity between women and men,
albeit that neither is exactly the same.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 13 February 2009 7:54:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sometimes I'm at a complete loss as to why certain topics are approved in the General Discussion forum of OLO.

This is one of those cases.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 13 February 2009 8:07:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
what is it about equity between women and men offends you?
Posted by whistler, Friday, 13 February 2009 8:50:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely nothing at all.

However, that's not what you're proposing. You want gender apartheid, and that's just nuts.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 13 February 2009 8:57:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I prefer men and women mixing it up and messing it up as individuals (well I like to mix and mess around with women at least)...

rather than breaking into a pair of tribal groups based on gender....

It all sounds too much like the title of that TV show ........


the great race






or maybe.....





Lost
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 14 February 2009 5:40:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan:"You want gender apartheid, and that's just nuts."

Well said.

Mind you, it's an only-slightly off-beam extension of the feminist policies being pursued in our own great nation. Where it differs is in suggesting that men may have a right to an equal say, while our home-grown feminidiots want nothing less than domination, with men (except the "nice" ones, of course) relegated to being garbage collectors and labourers.

Self-serving twits, one and all.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 14 February 2009 10:27:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan, gender apartheid, in the form of discrimination against women, self-evidently caused the economic meltdown. this thread is about the provision of equity to overcome gender apartheid. here, the discussion is about a solution not the problem. your comment is off topic.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 14 February 2009 12:50:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*gender apartheid, in the form of discrimination against women, self-evidently caused the economic meltdown.*

Err actually not so Whistler. The two people in charge of
compliance at the SEC, who should have picked up Mandoff and other
fraud schemes, were in fact women.

So do we now conclude that because oxytocin has been shown to
affect gullibility, that women are in fact responsible for the
economic meltdown and should no longer have those kinds of positions
of authority, due to possible hormonal influences?
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 14 February 2009 1:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah I can see this turning into the successor of "New Rules for OLO" thread as far as windbag slapping is concerned..

Nice one Yabby... yes SEC was as effective as a school girl enjoying the onset of her first experience of PMT...
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 14 February 2009 1:39:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
blaming women acting under male supervision is not a conclusion the authors of the article under discussion at the commencement of this thread reached.

for those unfamiliar with the way most constitutional democracies work, absent women's legislatures, regulators do what men's legislatures tell them to do.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 14 February 2009 9:39:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is that 2mf.net site yours, whistler? Fascinating.

Do you still suffer from "anxiety neurosis" "intentionally inflicted" upon you by others?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 14 February 2009 10:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilster, I think you are whistling in the wind on this one :)

If you check it out, those women were heads of their departments
and they failed in their duties. I have seen no reports which
state that they were told to ignore any crooks.

Hopefully they will now be fired, for they were clearly
not able to do their jobs. The global economy is paying
a high price for their failure.

The reality is that there are smart men and dumb men, smart
women and dumb women. People should be promotoed on their
abilities, not on the basis of their sexual organs.

But I do accept that there will be failed women out there,
who rather then soulsearch the lack of their own talent,
will rationalise it all away by blaming men for their lack
of accomplishments.

That is human nature, blame anyone but ourselves.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 14 February 2009 10:07:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We cannot have different legislatures to cater for every group. A separate legislature for women based on the fact that women think differently to men, assumes that all women think the same and that men and woman equally cannot come to a fair and logical conclusion. We are firstly, human beings.

As CJ stated it is gender apartheid. Do we make different rules for every culture, every religion, weight, levels of intelligence.

I can see no positive benefit to what is being recommended.

Issues of commonsense, fairplay, equity, justice, punishment, rehabilitation will invite various opinions from within a gender group as outside of it.

It is interesting that the same society can produce two completely opposing views in whistler and Antispectic.

Through their different experiences, they are so engrossed and passionate about their perceptions of gender inequality that they cannot see the view from the other side.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 15 February 2009 8:39:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, I can very clearly see the viewpoint of women; what I see all too often when I look at the people claiming to represent women, however, is self-promoters pretending to be altruistic.

Whether those people are men or women, they're worthy of no more respect than the most shonky of used-car salespeople.

Sadly, the feminist movement is composed almost exclusively of those sorts. That's not my doing - they've managed it all by themselves. I'd be only too pleased if some genuine thinkers worked on the problem of gender equity, but as long as the feminidiots control the agenda, that's never going to happen. Instead, the field is left to third-rate non-entities looking for a sinecure who will dutifully produce the same regurgitated pap time after time, ensuring they never, ever rock the boat.

I can't see the view from the other side, you say? I'd say I see it all too clearly.

If you disagree with my views, by all means let's have a discussion about it, but don't stand on the sidelines trying to taint me by association with the borderline psychotic, such as whistler
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 15 February 2009 9:14:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic I won't engage in a gender equity discussion with you. We both know where that will go. The same never-ending 'who is the most hard done by lot' debate. I am over it and would rather be constructive.

Read my post again - I am hardly standing on the sidelines and have expressed a definitive view about separating legislatures based on gender.

I am all for gender equity in every sense including in the family courts, where especially the interests of the children should come first.

I was not picking on you per se nor comparing you to whistler (as a person - I know neither of you). I was trying to demonstrate the disparity displayed ie. look at the society we have created where there can exist two completely opposing views on gender equality - based on personal experience. If another poster had posted similar, I would have also included them.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 15 February 2009 9:22:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic: << don't stand on the sidelines trying to taint me by association with the borderline psychotic >>

Pelican doesn't have to do that, old boy. You do an excellent job of it yourself.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 15 February 2009 9:23:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"look at the society we have created where there can exist two completely opposing views on gender equality - based on personal experience"

Is whistler's view really based on personal experience of anything other than the voices in her head?

My reason for recounting my own experiences is to show why I have formed the views I have. If I had been posting to this forum in say 1999, before those experiences occurred, I'd have had a very different POV.

Pelican:"'who is the most hard done by lot' "

I only go down that path when the victim-feminists start their spiel. As it happens, I don't think either gender has a particular social advantage in modern Australia, which I've said countless times. That's why I get so aggravated by the victim-feminists and their bandwagon riders trying to paint a different picture.

On ABC Brisbane radio recently, I was heartened to hear Kelly Higgins-Devine, when speaking to Steve Austin, make a joke about the roles of men in the family then swiftly add a disclaimer to the effect that she was just joking and say "I'm not a genderist".

I know Graham Y is an occasional guest on ABC local radio, so perhaps Kelly has seen some of these threads and has been moved to think about her assumptions? I hope so. There are many other such discussions taking place in all sorts of places, which gives me some hope that the constant strident whinges by the victim-feminists have started to wear thin.

CJ Morgan:"yapity yap yap yap"

Oh no, the pomeranian's gone and soiled itself again. Someone take care of it, for pity's sake.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 15 February 2009 12:26:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, President Obama was elected on a platform of effective regulation of the financial industry following the SES's failure through an absence of legislative will.

the legislatures were held responsible for the global economic meltdown not the regulators.

regulators, able or incapable, did what weak and ineffective men's legislatures, discombobulated by the presence, albeit by noble enterprise, of women, told them to do.

pelican, the men's legislatures, comprised of men, and women under their supervision, which caused the global economic meltdown, proceeded from the assumption that men have the same life experiences, of culture, religion, weight, level of intelligence etc, as women. they do not.

the organisational principle is elementary, establish equity between women and men and all else follows
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 15 February 2009 1:21:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic... "CJ Morgan:"yapity yap yap yap"

Oh no, the pomeranian's gone and soiled itself again. Someone take care of it, for pity's sake."

ah yes... I have been commenting on CJMorons canine attributes for some time now... started with the "Dinner party invitee" thread back before Christmas....

I did not have a precise image but you have kindly provided one...

a snappie little pomeranian, the sort of dog which is totally useless.

An obnoxious critter, snapping at the heels of anything which is bigger than it (which means everything) ... the sort of critter who is the love object of some huge overweight dowger figure.

I can see it now... CJMorons demise

smothered under the huge rolls of obese body fat and flappy, crepe skin, as his mistress, in a moment of near consciousness, rolls her sagging bulk over and traps him under a massive, if not magnificent, mammary....

Yep, this thread is definitely shaping up as the new "facile pursuit" thread, taking over from the Passed-its-use-by-date "OLO Rules" thread.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 15 February 2009 1:49:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*regulators, able or incapable, did what weak and ineffective men's legislatures, discombobulated by the presence, albeit by noble enterprise, of women, told them to do.*

Err Whistler, so legislators told regulators to ignore crooks
like Madoff? Where is your evidence.

I remind you that even the US Congress is loaded with women.
So trying to foot the blame on people, based on the posession
of sexual organs, is not going to do it for you.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 15 February 2009 1:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby if former SEC commissioner Mary Schapiro was asleep at the wheel then why the concern about whether incoming President Obama will support effective regulation of the financial industry?

http://www.examiner.com/x-775-Political-Issues-Examiner~y2008m12d22-Madoff-scandal-raises-issue-of-Obama-nominees-regulating-financial-markets

the US Congress is comprised of men's legislatures to which women are invited.

an Equal Rights Amendment is pending.

your life experience is your sexual organ?
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 15 February 2009 10:23:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice to see that I help to keep Col in touch with memories of his mother.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 15 February 2009 10:27:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, of course Obama is being asked to look at more regulations.
That does not mean that a huge amount of damage could not have been
averted, if present rules has been enforced. Clearly the SEC
was fast asleep, women being in charge of compliance.

The US Congress and Senate are indeed littered with women, without
their vote pretty well nothing would pass.

*your life experience is your sexual organ?*

Your hangup is life is your sexual organ? Try to use your brain,
as normal men and women do.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 February 2009 8:12:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, men's legislatures, in concert with a male executive, appointed regulators, wrote laws for them to regulate and provided the resources to facilitate regulation.

a majority of US citizens summoned the courage to attribute responsibility accordingly.

absent women's legislatures, women, individually, are absolved, in perpetuity, of all blame.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 16 February 2009 12:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler "absent women's legislatures, women, individually, are absolved, in perpetuity, of all blame."

ah so that is one of the differences between men and women, I suppose....

men accept the collective responsibility for legislation enacted by those they have elected to govern, whilste whistler seems to think, unless there is a particular gender representation she is absolved from responsibility.

Women have shared the burden of unbiased gender elections for 100 years or so. Any woman is entitled to standup and try their hand at political leadership equal to men.

Margaret Thatcher ruled the UK Conservative party for 15 years and was the longest serving UK prime-minister in over 150 years.

Her view of gender the sort of trivial politcs which whistler is postulating was to observe

"The battle for women's rights has been largely won. "

and to the maniac feminists

"I owe nothing to Women's Lib."

of course, whistler might well claim Margaret Thatcher was note "representative" of women.

To which I would say, the pre-eminence of a successful woman, who walked the world stage with head up and shoulder to shoulder with other world leaders, might be an inconvenience for the rabic feminists but so what.

She was more a woman than most and she had more character and strength than many men.

And those attributes will never, in any way detract from the clearly observable fact that she not just a "Woman", she was also a Mother.

And Margaret Thatcher did not need separate male versus female assemblies or legislatures or representatives.

Margaret Thatcher was simply "inclusive"

whereas the drivel being promoted here is purely and simply "divisive".

I love it when we can just stamp stupid ideas into the dust.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 16 February 2009 1:03:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*absent women's legislatures, women, individually, are absolved, in perpetuity, of all blame.*

hehe, I love this stuff. Perhaps we should call your statement
"female logic" :)

Every member of both houses are on record, as to how they voted
and on what. They are responsible for their actions, no matter
which sexual organs they have or don't have.

But the fact remains that Linda Thompson was the SEC enforcement
director, so had huge powers. She clearly screwed up real bad
and it has cost investors and the world, hundreds of billions.

Now of course she has resigned. Big deal lol.

Was she gullible? Was she stupid? Did she lack the testicles to
enforce the law?

My point is that clearly there are both talented men and talented
women, their talent does not depend on their sexual organs,
but on good judgement.

Whistler you really have a chip on your shoulder about this one,
perhaps its not the whole world that is wrong, it is just you.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 February 2009 1:18:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> Did she lack the testicles to enforce the law?

no, she lacked legislatures.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 16 February 2009 3:41:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is not so clear at all. What is clear is that she was not
enforcing what she could have and her division was asleep, even
when people were reporting fraud.

If she had testicles, she could have gone over the head of
her boss, if needbe to the public, to the press. She seemingly
chose not to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/business/10sec.html?ref=washington

Rating agencies, flogging off subprimes as AAA, came under SEC
regulation. What did she do about it?
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 February 2009 4:38:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
followers of Yabby's link might note that:

"some investor advocates gave Ms. Thomsen the benefit of the doubt, arguing that her task as enforcement chief was especially difficult because she reported to a chairman, Christopher Cox, who had little appetite for regulating."
Posted by whistler, Monday, 16 February 2009 4:57:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually it was not just Thomson that was the problem, but a
number of women who were at the top.

Alot came out in the Senate hearing, I watched some of it on
Bloomberg. Here is a Reuters report on a bit of it.

Basically the enforcement people at the SEC screwed up and did
not want to know. So Thomson did nothing because one man
was in her way? Sheesh, if I did business that way, I would
fail too.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-3-SEC-pummeled-as-Madoff-whistleblower-test-NXW3Z?OpenDocument&src=srch

.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 16 February 2009 5:08:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“"some investor advocates gave Ms. Thomsen the benefit of the doubt, arguing that her task as enforcement chief was especially difficult because she reported to a chairman, Christopher Cox, who had little appetite for regulating."””

If the attitude of Christopher Cox was so objectionable, the correct thing for Ms Thomsen to do would have been to at least resign and possibly go public.

Speaking personally, I have resigned, more than once, from lucrative posts in both private industry and public services, on a principle where I believed my advise or input was being either ignored or the role became, in other ways, untenable.

That Ms Thomsen was happy to be paid for her role, means she is culpable and the public is entitled to judge her for her lack of performance in it.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 8:40:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
old news Yabby,
US citizens decided months ago scapegoating women under male supervision was a dead end.
you'll learn more about the global financial crisis watching Charlie Chaplin movies.

absent provision for women's legislatures, the Islandic solution remains the optimium response.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 8:57:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler “absent provision for women's legislatures, the Islandic solution remains the optimium response.”

Yes well, that is maybe but the ‘optimum’ solution for the ‘Icelandic’s ‘ is not to be found in “women’s legislature”

"A" for effort, as usual "E" for achievement and spelling ( not that I usually comment on spelling but “Islandic” was just too obvious to let pass).

And based on howling errors like that,

Any legislative legislatures are likely to be litigiously challenged on the grounds of illegibility.

care to express a view Yabby?

Keep ‘em coming whistler, this thread is shaping up to become the fun place I predicted it would.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 9:12:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know, let's give whistler and her girlfriends their own little piece of paradise where they can have their own womyn's legislature and have full responsibility for running every aspect of their own world.

Perhaps a nice little piece of the Gaza strip would be a good place. After all, the place has been very poorly run to date: this would be a perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate how much better they are at administration than all those terrible men.

Ms Thomsen could be the first Treasurer...
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 9:23:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, the news that came out in the hearing was not old news,
but news from a couple of weeks or so ago.

People, both men and women, are responsible for their actions.
Most sensible Americans would agree with that, but I am sure
that you have a couple of the sisterhood who don't. So be it.

What we know is that the enforcement section of the SEC was
largely dominated by women and in this case, these particular
women sadly failed at their jobs, at a cost to all of us.

Sadly America as a country is still pretty puritanical and
that has cost them too. Some of the world's largest crooks
hang out on Wall St and they run rings around some of these
regulators, who seemingly would be more talented to run the
St Hilda's garden party, then what is a corporate jungle.

Spitzer was the one bloke who made large crooks nervous,
he cost them plenty and regularly nailed them. Like
Clinton, he too was sunk for his sexual habits.

Those crooks would be laughing all the way to the bank,
when some school mam is appointed to enforce regulation
on them.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 9:32:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
move on Yabby, a majority of US citizens attributed responsibility for regulatory failure to the nation's male executive and men's legislatures at a Federal election last November.
crying over spilt milk won't absolve men of obfuscation and inept supervision.

thank you for strengthing the case for the provision of women's legislatures with the proof you provided of inept male supervision.

Col Rouge, you're perfectly correct, absent women's legislatures the Icelandic solution remains the optimum response.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 12:48:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so why shouldn't Australia have a Constitution which mandates a female Prime Minister and female bank ceo's?

because with the more equitable provision of women's legislatures, which with men's legislatures regulate banks, a women's Prime Minister is already appointed.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 10:03:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you know that I agree with you and no doubt you have read enough
of my posts, to conclude what I think of the likes of Whistler :)

Whistler, the American elections were indeed revealing. Obama
was chosen over Hillary, Obama-Biden were elected over McCain-
Palin. Shock horror, those elected have penises instead of vaginas.
What on earth is your problem?

*so why shouldn't Australia have a Constitution which mandates a female Prime Minister and female bank ceo's?*

Why on earth should it? We already have an extremely talented
female bank CEO, a migrant who used to be a bank teller. She earnt
it and deserves it. Other men and women are free to do the same.

You have yet to explain why mandating a job, based on possesion
of sexual organs, is a good thing.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 February 2009 10:41:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
smut won't rescue your argument Yabby.

the Icelandic solution is premised on the basis that women, with different life experience from men, nevertheless, in many instances, have achieved excellence under male supervision.

the provision of women's legislatures reconciles life experience.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 9:56:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler - you never answered my question.

I repeat, is the 2mf.net site yours?

http://2mf.net/
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 10:03:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, it seems to me that you don't understand the difference
between smut and basic biology. That is your problem, not mine.

People have different life experiences. As many as there are
people. To imply that only sexual organs matter in these
different experiences, is of course a folly.

Sorry, but the days of sexual apartheid, which you seem to be
proposing, are well and truly over.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 10:26:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler “Col Rouge, you're perfectly correct, absent women's legislatures the Icelandic solution remains the optimum response.”

No WRONG.. I never suggested that

I said
“Yes well, that is maybe but the ‘optimum’ solution for the ‘Icelandic’s ‘ is not to be found in “women’s legislature”

It would seem to me, your ‘reading ability’ is as dubious as your ‘writing ability’

and as geographically sound as the location of this land where these “Islandic” amazons live.

As to “so why shouldn't Australia have a Constitution which mandates a female Prime Minister and female bank ceo's”

For the same reason Australia should not have a constitution which mandates a male prime minister or male bank ceos.

The matter of Prime Ministerial gender should not be prescribed by statute or constitution. It should be resolved purely as a function of the “individual merit” of each qualified contender for the role,

And the selection of a CEO for any bank should be a matter which is resolved solely by the directors and share holders who own the bank.

The notion that because half the population are women, we must have half the CEOs of business as female and for half the time the Prime Minister must be female is the sort of “Affirmative Action” twaddle which brought about this Financial Crisis in the first place, when I consider a lot of it started with Jimmy Carters Community Reinvestment Legislation, which made the exercise of discrimination illegal in the provision of loans

Lets face it, in the interest of the investors in a bank, a lending officer has to exercise “discriminating judgment “ in deciding who he will lend to and who he will not.

And the pursuit of “Affirmative Action / Corruption” eventually lead to stupid laws which allowed “indiscriminate borrowers” the right to walk away from their liabilities and responsibilities by mailing the keys to the secured property back to the lender, who then was denied recourse for recovery.

Ultimately ‘gender’ entitles no one to a particular position.

The objective is to find the best individual to fill any role, regardless of gender.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 12:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge:"The objective is to find the best individual to fill any role, regardless of gender."

Absolutely correct. The preferment of individuals based on gender or some other irrelevancy is counter-productive and regressive, leading to poor outcomes and expensive failures for both the unqualified individuals and the organisations they are appointed to.

It's a shame that 40-odd years of feminism has managed to produce so many whingers with a sense of entitlement matched with a lack of ability and so few genuine achievers.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 5:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the provision of women's legislatures overcomes the scramble to ascertain as to which men are qualified as women, Antiseptic.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 6:01:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well there we have it Whistler. Absolutaly no support for your
crazy ideas. Best you pick up your dummy and move to Iceland :)
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 6:36:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absent any argument of substance to the contrary, an Australian solution, with provision for women's legislatures, remains the more equitable option for sustanable economic management over the Icelandic solution's appointment of a female Prime Minister and female heads of banks.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 19 February 2009 8:43:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler:"the provision of women's legislatures overcomes the scramble to ascertain as to which men are qualified as women, Antiseptic."

erm... perhaps English is your second language, but try as I might, I can't make any sense of that statement at all.

Sadly, you seem a classic example of the whinger with a sense of entitlement that I referred to above.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 19 February 2009 8:57:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There have been plenty of arguments of substance presented Whistler,
but I think they are sailing clean over your head.

You seem to be against men discriminating against women, based
on gender, but you think that women should discrimate against
men, based on gender. Hehe, with that kind of rational thinking,
Iceland is still your best option!
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 19 February 2009 10:01:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic you said:

"It's a shame that 40-odd years of feminism has managed to produce so many whingers with a sense of entitlement matched with a lack of ability and so few genuine achievers."

If OLO is any indication, there are more men whinging about feminism than women claiming any sense of entitlement. Men have become the new 'victims' and the rise of men's groups has grown. Antiseptic are you going to deride these mens' groups in the same way you do women. Are these men just whingers with a sense of entitlement who lack ability?

Why do some men refuse to acknowledge that the playing field was anything but even which is why the women's movement formed.

Feminism did not create the problem in the Family Court system as women have always been more likely to get custody even in the 'good old days' because it was culturally accepted (rightly or wrongly) that children should stay with their mothers.

Nothing to do with feminsm. In fact feminism has seen more men in shared custody arrangements in the interest of equality. The system may still be somewhat flawed but it is certainly fairer now for men than it was in the 50s/60s.

Why dont' we take our gender hats off and look at individual situations from an attidute of what is fair in any given situation.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 19 February 2009 10:47:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
most of the contributions to this thread have failed to address the thrust of the article cited at its commencement, that women and men bring different life experience to economic management.

whereas, the appointment of women to key levers of finance is cited as a temporary, Icelandic solution to the management of an industry off the rails through a preponderance of male managers, "men have made a right mess of it", mandating such appointments to achieve economic sustainability would disciminate against men.

a permanent, Australian solution, with provision for women's legislatures, does not discriminate against or disadvantage men because men already have their own legislatures.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 19 February 2009 10:59:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler cites “that women and men bring different life experience to economic management.”

As Margaret said…

“Economics are the method, the object is to change the soul”

Anything which looks at economics as the objective misses the point.

Of course men and women perceive and prioritize differently.

That is not to assume a elected political representative is not influenced by his or her interchange with spouse, children and constituents of either gender.

Forcing a untested, mandated solution onto an a freely constructed function which works for the benefit of all at present is not an advancement it merely a three ring circus side show, the rings, in this case being Women, Men and Joint.

With no perceptible benefit from the notion of separate gender legislatures, which have to address the electoral expectations of a duo-gender population the idea that separate legislatures would produce sufficient benefits to outweigh their cost is dubious to start with.

People do not live their lives to be legislated for. They appoint legislatures to do what is expediently needs to be done and to leave them alone to get on with the important things of life

Marry
Bonk
Have children
Take vacations in exotic places
Buy new cars
Choose what sort of house to live in
Bury parents
- Although not necessarily in that order.

“a permanent, Australian solution, with provision for women's legislatures, does not discriminate against or disadvantage men because men already have their own legislatures.”

No they don’t

Australia operates a gender-joint legislature, well except for Bob Brown, he might be considered a bit “gender discriminate” but that is his choice…

all whistler wants is to impose an artificial gender representation on us all because she believes she cannot compete with men on a level playing field.

Too bad

Cost too much

I have better things to do with dosh

Like spend on lap dancers, strippers and partying
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 19 February 2009 12:35:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*men have made a right mess of it", *

Err, so can we assume, that women who IIRC make up slightly more
then 50% of the population, got it wrong by voting for the
wrong candidates?

Blame yourself if you vote for a dummie.

Whilster is of course free to provide evidence that women don't
make a mess of it, as Carmen Lawrence and Joan Kirner did.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 19 February 2009 12:55:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge your "freely constructed function which works for the benefit of all" has collapsed the global economy.

neither is equity untested.

to consider legislatures enacted by a Parliament which probited women, anything other than men's legislatures, to which women have been admitted under supervision, is preposterous.

streamlining what already exists should produce significant savings
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 19 February 2009 12:56:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"Antiseptic are you going to deride these mens' groups in the same way you do women."

I recently made a post (under the same handle) to Dads on the Air, which I have been a contributor to for some years, stating that I would not be posting there any more because there is no genuine discussion, merely an airing of grievances. Does that count?

Pelican:"there are more men whinging about feminism than women claiming any sense of entitlement"

Feminist women have largely achieved their utopian vision and yet we still have a large number of well-educated women who try to claim that they are being victimised and use the genuine cases of maltreatment, such as female victims of DV, to justify their own claim to preferment. It's that class of people (think SJF, Pynchme, NinaF, whistler, to name a few) who I was referring to as whingers with a sense of entitlement. As I said earlier, I don't believe that either gender is significantly advantaged in modern Australia, although some fields are definitely gendered.

Pelican:"Why do some men refuse to acknowledge that the playing field was anything but even which is why the women's movement formed."

I have no problem acknowledging that, but a great deal has changed since then. Why do some women refuse to acknowledge that there were compensating advantages for women in those days, and that there are few compensating advantages being given to men for all that they have had to accept in the way of social change? I don't accept your custody example, because women are still overwhelmingly more likely to be given sole custody of children post-divorce and the changes in the Family Law were bitterly opposed by the victim-feminists, who could see that they stood to lose a very effective weapon.

Pelican:"Why dont' we take our gender hats off and look at individual situations from an attidute of what is fair in any given situation."

Well, I didn't start this topic...
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 19 February 2009 2:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> Why don't we take our gender hats off and look at individual situations from an attitude of what is fair in any given situation.

to whom is the "we" and the "our" you refer, pelican, women or men?

why don't men take their men's gender hats off and look at individual situations from an attitute of what is fair for men in any given situation?

because men collapsed the global economy already.

> I don't believe that either gender is significantly advantaged in modern Australia, although some fields are definitely gendered. Anticeptic.

men have legislatures, women don't.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 19 February 2009 11:17:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler “men have legislatures, women don't.”

Women have shared the rights and privileges and carried the burdens of universal suffrage for over 100 years.
Women have been free to stand in elections, at every level from school board all the way to being a representative in parliament.

So with women being so “capable” and “able”

Why, after more than 100 years are there not more women in parliament?

Men vote, Women vote

There are approximately as many men voters as women voters.

I know exactly why there are more men in parliament.

Because more men vote for candidates who happen to be men and

Because more women vote for candidates who happen to be men.

Don’t pretend changing the structure of legislative assemblies will change the outcome

The problem your silly proposal faces is

Just as you lack the support from the vast majority of men
You lack the support from the vast majority of women

No support means…

Dingbat idea,

So, now let’s move on to something which actually matters….
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 20 February 2009 6:41:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler:"men have legislatures, women don't."

"Men" don't vote for politicians, voters do and they're of both genders. As I said, it's a shame that the feminist movement has produced so many whingers with a sense of entitlement and so few genuine achievers.

Using your own logic, "men" have the garbage collection industry, women don't. when do you plan to start your campaign for a "women's garbage" facility. Oh, that's right, you've already got UniSA. As you were...
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 20 February 2009 7:33:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler:"men have legislatures, women don't."

"Men" don't vote for politicians, voters do and they're of both genders. As I said, it's a shame that the feminist movement has produced so many whingers with a sense of entitlement and so few genuine achievers.

Using your own logic, "men" have the garbage collection industry, women don't. When do you plan to start your campaign for a "women's garbage" facility? Oh, that's right, you've already got UniSA. As you were...
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 20 February 2009 8:27:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, it matters to the people of Iceland that men collapsed the global economy, to the extent that key levers of finance have been turned over to women.

equity also matters.

Anticeptic, women's garbage facilities won't solve the problem, the provision of women's legislatures will.

absent argument of substance to the contrary, this discussion is ample evidence that support for smart government to achieve sustainable economic management is a nobrainer.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 20 February 2009 11:50:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler:"support for smart government to achieve sustainable economic management is a nobrainer."

Of course it is, but support for separate gendered "legislatures" is simply evidence of no brains.

whistler:"women's garbage facilities won't solve the problem"

A statement shown to be profoundly true by the UniSA example.

whistler:"the provision of women's legislatures will"

A statement shown to be profoundly false by the examples already given.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 20 February 2009 12:37:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually crooks on Wall St have done the damage to the global
economy and the women in charge of enforcing the law, were
not enforcing it. For them now to resign, is a bit late!

Whistler you have shown not a single scrap of evidence, that
women would make better economic managers then men.

Show me why Joan Kirner was a better economic manager then
Jeff Kennett, for instance.

Anyone can vote in our form of Govt and anyone can stand for
elections. Discrimination based on gender is over, you are
trying to turn the clock back 100 years.

As this thread shows, you have failed miserably with your
goal. Iceland awaits! Now that dummy would be there
somewhere...
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 20 February 2009 12:46:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler " it matters to the people of Iceland that men collapsed the global economy, to the extent that key levers of finance have been turned over to women."

You sure they blame "Men" and not the individuals?

You sure the elected "Women" and not the individuals

I must admit I do know where Iceland is and have actually met some Icelandic folk but I never took Iceland to be a place which set the course or the pace which the rest of the world would follow

Of course, the USA has just appointed a male president and vice president and rejected a male presidential contender and female vice-presidential contender... what should we glean from that..

Of course back in the dark ages (1975) the UK conservatives elected Margart Thatcher as their leader and in 1979 she took them to government and remained their leader and Prime Minister until 1990, the longest continual serving UK Prime Minister in around 150 years.

She was a woman and a Mother and she would have had a view on your proposal...

"The woman's mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world, but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities."

MArgaret Thatcher was more interested in the unification of men and women, rather than the set up of divorced and separated legislatures.

She knew what it is about..

the unionification of men and women as "humans" forming families, working together to nurture the next generation of men and women;

not your strange and bizarre notions, which demand gender separation and institutionalised gender competition.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 20 February 2009 12:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"support for separate gendered "legislatures" is simply evidence of no brains".

women have no brains, Antiseptic?

"Whistler you have shown not a single scrap of evidence, that
women would make better economic managers then men".

the Icelandic solution is evidence, Yabby.
ask Icelanders.
an Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures would resolve issues of equity.

Col Rouge, the excellence Mrs Thatcher achieved in the Westminster Parliament would certainly have contributed to the Icelandic solution.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 20 February 2009 4:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough Antiseptic. I always kick myself for getting embroiled in these sorts of debates because they don't achieve anything but my bad (to use a term my teenage daughter favours). :)

whistler
You cannot say that women are better economic managers than men based on one example in Iceland, even if that were a legitimate example.

Women don't like to be put down as inferior intellectually so I would assume that men don't either. Biologically men and women may differ in a general sense in some ways (usually strength) but there will be exceptions on both sides. I would think through experience that intellect is not biologically programmed to favour either gender over the other.

I often wonder what we mean by 'good' economic management as the mantra was strong that Howard was good, but many others thought him too obsessed with a surplus than with using the funds for much needed infrastructure. He also spent too much on corporate welfare and ruined a perfectly good IR system that wasn't broke to start with.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 20 February 2009 4:54:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican, Icelanders are saying women are better economic managers, not me.

the Icelandic solution is inequitable.

an Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures reconciles performance.

the optimum outcome occurs when women and men work together, not when one remains under the perpetual supervision of the other.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 20 February 2009 5:31:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*the Icelandic solution is inequitable.*

I have not followed the Iceland story, apart from knowing that
their future in banking was clearly flawed, they should have
stuck to fishing in the first place.

Australia needs outcomes that are equitable. That means
that everyone has the same chance. That is the case in
our elections and in our parliaments. That is the case
in our business world.

Candidates can choose to stand, electors can choose to
vote as they wish. Shareholders can invest as they wish.

Interestingly, I actually bought some Westpac shares,
based on the fact that I think that Gail Kelly will
do a great job leading Westpac.

Discrimation based on gender is what you are promoting.
Sorry, it is the past, it might be your pipe-dream but
I see not a scrap of evidence why Australians should
support your agenda
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 21 February 2009 1:21:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler:"women have no brains, Antiseptic?"

Your very question verifies my original proposition. Based on your performance to date, it is likely that anything you support would provide good evidence of brainlessness. Well done, you've established a paradigm.

Pelican:"I always kick myself for getting embroiled in these sorts of debates because they don't achieve anything "

I disagree. They may not lead to directly changing any of the interlocutors' minds, but they do provide a good overview of the spectrum of opinions around the subject and the relative logical merit of each, at least insofar as it is able to be debated in these sorts of forums.

I'd like to think that my own constant and consistent challenges to the polemics posted by the victim-feminists and entitlement-junkies have had some impact on both those people and on the people who may read them. They have relied for a long time on the forebearance of others to get away with posting emotive claptrap and that is definitely changing. We're left with poor befuddled whistler as the sole representative at present and she's hardly prime stock.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 21 February 2009 4:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"That means that everyone has the same chance"

... to be governed by men's legislatures, Yabby.

which is ...

"Discrimation based on gender", "what you are promoting".
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 21 February 2009 9:37:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, there are no mens legislatures.

There are peoples legislatures, made up of both men
and women, according to how men and women voted.

Our deputy PM is in fact female, if it has passed you
by. Our deputy leader of the opposition is female,
if that has passed you by as well.

Our Govts are made up of men and women, of more or
less talent, depending on how men and women voted.

My local member in the House of Reps, happens to
be female. She does a reasonable job. I voted for
her.

The problem is not the system, it is your chip
on your shoulder, in denying reality.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 21 February 2009 9:54:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There are peoples legislatures".

no. the Constitution of Australia Act was enabled by a Parliament which prohibited women.

there are only men's legislatures.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 21 February 2009 11:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic sounds like he's got real personal and emotional issues against women. Much of the abuse he tries to direct towards others merely shows a sad little individual as the writer. His inability to construct debating points devoid of attempted, juvenile, personal put downs shows a very underdeveloped personal insight. It truly is very sad that a minority of people can travel through adulthood without acquiring the emotional wherewithal to deal emotionally with their past experiences with the opposite sex.
Posted by TZ52HX, Sunday, 22 February 2009 1:31:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ52HX:"Antiseptic sounds like he's got real personal and emotional issues against women"

LOL.

What was that about "personal and emotional problems" hon? Your "first" post and it was all ad homs directed at little old me. I should feel flattered if it wasn't such a banal example of the genre.

Now, off you toddle back to the little sock-puppet drawer, there's a good girl.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 22 February 2009 6:21:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler "no. the Constitution of Australia Act was enabled by a Parliament which prohibited women.

there are only men's legislatures."

Maybe someone should tell Julia Gillard she is a pawn in the process of male dominance.

And Nicola Roxon....

Maybe, whilst the "legislature" is doing "Mens work", the House of Representatives lets all the women MPs go out the back and do their hair, check their makeup, make scones and prepare pots of tea

so after a male exclusive sweaty debate arguing the regulation of the futures prices of pigs bellies and bovine offal and the men MPs voting on their "legislation", the women MPs are there to serve them up the tea, scones and strawberry Jam, made previously, in the Parliamentary kitchens, by the right honourable member for Lalor.

and after tea they all, men and women go down to the shores of Lake Burleigh Griffin and chase the fairies and water sprites until sunset... then run home before the Canberra boogey man comes out to capture them, bite off their heads and drink their blood... and all the rest of the stuff found in a good Grimm fairy story.

Because Whistler's agenda is just that, a fairy story for the forlorn feminists, who demand what they will never get through democratic means.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 22 February 2009 6:52:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whister
Even if Icelanders are saying that women make better economic managers does not mean it is true.

Antispectic
whistler does not (nor indeed any one person on OLO) represent a whole body of people. whistler does not represent feminists anymore than runner or boaz represent Christians.

One individual airing their views does not a movement make.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 22 February 2009 12:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I notice that antiseptic's reply to my post on the previous page confirms my character summary of his motivations and agenda within this topic.

Of all the people who have replied with a different opinion to Whistler, there's only one person who displays misogyny within his replies, Antiseptic. His misogyny stands out like a sore thumb, whereas with the other people opposing Whistler the only thing that stands out is simply their opposing opinion.

From just his few posts here on this topic, we can see that Antiseptic is indeed a very sad little individual, full of angst against the opposite sex. Does anyone here know anything of his past that could have led to his angst?
Posted by TZ52HX, Sunday, 22 February 2009 12:34:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ52HX, to be fair, many men are having enormous difficulty coming to terms with the reality that their own kind collapsed the global economy.

bizarre behaviour is not uncommon when ego is shattered.

Antiseptic may be a basket case for the present, but given time and support, he's sure to recover.

pelican, Icelanders have not mandated their solution.

the Islandic solution recognises that women and men manage economies differently.

the governing principle is that optimum economic management occurs when conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures and committees.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 22 February 2009 1:11:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ52HX""antiseptic"
TZ52HX:"Antiseptic"
TZ52HX:"Antiseptic"

Obsessed much, dear?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 22 February 2009 1:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican:"whistler does not represent feminists"

I'm prepared to take your word for that. It was either feminists or raving loonies, so I'm glad we've cleared that up.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 22 February 2009 1:29:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, it's true that most of the behaviours that brought about the current economic crisis were behaviours adopted by men. However, that's merely as a consequence of the fact that most economic control at a corporate level is exercised by men. I see no evidence that females in similar positions (yes, they are a very small minority) have acted any differently from the men.

The only reason females are in a tiny minority in corporate administration is because their career paths are severely interrupted due to their family responsibilities. Responsibilities that men have yet to embrace, and this neglect of male responsibility has been encouraged throughout history. It's been encouraged because those in control are, you guessed it, men. When the few women who rise to the top are given their chance to perform guess what? They basically continue to perform as men have performed, with all the varieties of honesty, corruption, greed, efficiencies, ineptness, responsibility and irresponsibility traditionally displayed by men in similar positions.
Posted by TZ52HX, Sunday, 22 February 2009 1:36:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmm, I see Antiseptic is now becoming quite obsessed with me.

He writs a 9 word post, and mentions our screen names 6 times, and 3 times in tandem with each other.

Nice to see our sad little misogynist has a new "hobby".
Posted by TZ52HX, Sunday, 22 February 2009 1:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic "I'm prepared to take your word for that. It was either feminists or raving loonies, so I'm glad we've cleared that up."

yes I think a few of us are now recognising in Whilsters posts the demented ravings of the pathelogically incompetent.

as to TZ52HX

if it posts like a troll and responds like a troll, it is a troll...

and the best advise I have ever received is

"Don't Feed the Trolls"

:-)
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 22 February 2009 5:55:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ52HX, excellence achieved under supervision is fraught with parody.

women's legislatures enables women to be their own bosses.

also enables men to assume family responsibilities otherwise delegated to women.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 22 February 2009 11:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge:""Don't Feed the Trolls""

Oh, but it followed me home, can't I keep it? Its legs are so lovely and hairy and although it's not house-trained yet, I'm sure it can be taught to behave itself eventually. We still have the animal-training gear that the PALE girls dropped during their last raid, when they "freed" the goldfish. What a shame it turns out that goldfish aren't usually herded with cattle-prods. Still, it's the thought that counts.

If it turns out that this troll can't be trained, we can always export it to Coventry.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 23 February 2009 6:42:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that whistler has, in this thread, set a new benchmark for the definition of "enigmatic". This is a true classic of the genre.

>>excellence achieved under supervision is fraught with parody<<

(The etymology of enigma is illuminating: "Lat. aenigma, from the Greek ainigmat-, ainigma, derived from the verb ainissesthai lit. 'to speak in riddles', whose root is ainos - 'fable'". It's that last bit that I find intriguing.)

Of course, it could very well be, given the tediously circular nature of whistler's contributions, that we are ourselves being taken for a ride, and the entire thread is "fraught with parody". The moebius strip of her logic insists on returning to the impenetrable concept of "women's legislatures", but every attempt to elicit detail on how this would function in real life has so far failed.

I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that we, the "voice of sanity" contributors to the thread have, in fact, been taken for a monumental ride.

My theory is that whistler is in fact a first-year sociology student at ANU, filling her term paper with chortles on the gullibility of men when faced with the suggestion of a preposterous proto-feminist - possibly even Amazonian - concept of government.

Alternative theories welcome.

After all, it has been fun. For which, thanks.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 23 February 2009 8:00:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, it's not rocket science.

female high achievers under male supervision are hand-picked by men to do what men expect them to do ... they parody men.

female high achievers under female supervision are hand-picked by women to do what women expect them to do ... they parody women.

supervision is ultimately the responsibility of legislatures.

TZ52HX has brought attention to a further problem with the Icelandic solution which can be overcome by an Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures.

how does smart government function in real life? .... pretty much like dumb government only with decision making conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

if you're having trouble joining the dots perhaps you should sharpen your pencil.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 23 February 2009 10:52:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles "My theory is that whistler is in fact a first-year sociology student at ANU, filling her term paper with chortles on the gullibility of men when faced with the suggestion of a preposterous proto-feminist - possibly even Amazonian - concept of government."

yes I can go along with that theory, lets face it she is not worth devoting more consideration to.

Fast on the judgments slow on the justifications... typical under-grad... half the knowledge of a maggot but more opinion than the rest of humanity put together.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 23 February 2009 10:56:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col wrote, "Half the knowledge of a maggot but more opinion than the rest of humanity put together".

Funny 'bout that Col my poor boy, you just described "YOURSELF", in an attempt to belittle someone else.

Keep trying with the insults though. It says a lot about you.
Posted by TZ52HX, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 2:31:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ52HX:" I know you are, but what am I"

Best revise that age estimate down a few years, Pericles. I doubt this one's allowed to wear earrings yet.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 6:12:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmm, 4 out of the last 5 posts from our little misogynist Antiseptic have obsessed with "me". It's so nice to know our little misogynist has a hobby to keep him occupied.

Tell me, my little misogynist, you've just quoted me as writing "I know you are but what am I". Point to the exact place where I wrote that quote in this topic.
Posted by TZ52HX, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 11:58:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ52HX:"Waah, you're a big fat liar, so there"

Erm...never mind earrings, this one's only just finished with teething rings.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 12:43:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ52HX, this thread has reduced several contributors to waffle following their abject failure to mount any opposition of substance to the proposition at its inception that 'the equitable outcome is corporate management based on agreement between women's and men's committees regulated by governance comprising agreement between women's and men's legislatures'.

every post wallowing in waffle, and there have been many, strengthens the proposition to the extent that this thread can be held up as a shining example of the certainty the implementation of smart government, to achieve economic sustainability, is obstacle free and imminent.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 1:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*is obstacle free and imminent.*

Hehe, I have news for you sweetheart :) You still don't get it,
sexual organs have lots of amazing uses, but thinking is not one
of them.

What you are implying is that women are too stupid to compete with
men in the real world, so need legal protection from competition.
That is a huge insult to your gender. You might be too stupid,
but there are many smart women out there, as the evidence shows.

If anyone should be deeply offended by your reasoning, it is other
women.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 2:28:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is of course another angle, whistler, waffle-wise.

>>this thread has reduced several contributors to waffle following their abject failure to mount any opposition of substance to the proposition at its inception that 'the equitable outcome is corporate management based on agreement between women's and men's committees regulated by governance comprising agreement between women's and men's legislatures'.<<

So far, you have signally failed to explain, in any practical terms, how the "women's and men's committees regulated by governance comprising agreement between women's and men's legislatures" would be formed, how they would be elected, how they would operate and how they would implement any decisions that they might - probably accidentally - agree upon.

Your entire contribution was:

>>how does smart government function in real life? .... pretty much like dumb government only with decision making conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.<<

I.e. simply a repeat of the mantra.

About as useful as chanting Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

And the final cop-out?

>>if you're having trouble joining the dots perhaps you should sharpen your pencil.<<

Back atcha, girlie.

Explain, elucidate, contribute.

So far, it is just meaningless... waffle.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 3:36:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
what i'm implying, Yabby, is that women don't need to be under male supervision any more, that equity is achievable with smart government.

elect, operate, implement, agree, Pericles, that would be the business of a Conference hosted by the Federal Parliament comprising a Women's Caucus in the Senate and a Men's Caucus in the House of Representatives.

explain, elucidate, contribute, what's your view, how would you elect a legislature of your own gender?
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 11:08:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, it seems to me that you confuse being under supervision,
with being held accountable.

The CEO is accountable to the board and shareholders. The Prime
Minister is accountable to the electors and the parliament.
Even the Governor General (a woman right now I might add) can turf
him/her out.

The person who runs their own business, is accountable to the
consumers who buy their products. If they stop buying, they can
close down.

Women, just like men, are free to take on any of these positions
and they just about always, will be accountable to somebody.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 11:29:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, women are NOT free to take on any of these positions.

The vast majority of men in these positions KNOW their women will sacrifice career advance in order to do the necessary work of childcare. This SEVERELY restricts female career advancement. The vast majority of women know their men will NOT sacrifice career advance in order to do the necessary work of childcare. The result is a heavy "MALE" dominance of the top echelons of business.

Women are NOT prepared to compromise the welfare of their children, while men ARE prepared to compromise that welfare: This of course is a wide generalisation, but accurate, and of course doesn't apply to ALL men and ALL women: However, the percentages are high enough to SEVERELY skewer the gender balance in business management.

Put simply; women in general place family first, men in general place family second. Women possess the humanity to understand if they are not there for the children, then the children will suffer, because the men in general will NOT adopt the primary childcare role, or even equally share. Until the values of our society change, women will NOT possess equal business opportunity.

So no, women are NOT free to take on any of these positions.
Posted by TZ52HX, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 3:37:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The two positions still don't meet anywhere practical.

Having children is still a choice, not a legal requirement.

What seems to be emerging here is resentment, that it is still predominantly women who are required to give birth, and that the entire process is time-consuming and generally interrupts any career.

Further resentment, of course, in that those women who choose not to take this path, actually do quite well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145973/How-paid-men-Stay-single.html

"Ruth Lea, adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, said: 'It is a matter of choice. People earn the same until they get together, and then they make choices about work, family and lifestyle. That is what adults are expected to do - make decisions."

This has nothing to do with legislatures, it is about society, as TZ52HX points out:

>>Until the values of our society change, women will NOT possess equal business opportunity.<<

Values are not legislated. Laws follow value changes, they don't create them.

And whistler, these are just titles, not ideas:

>>that would be the business of a Conference hosted by the Federal Parliament comprising a Women's Caucus in the Senate and a Men's Caucus in the House of Representatives.<<

How would these Caucuses, whatever they may be, come about, and what authority would they have?

>>what's your view, how would you elect a legislature of your own gender?<<

Hey, this is your idea, not mine. You figure it out.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 5:36:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:"What seems to be emerging here is resentment, that it is still predominantly women who are required to give birth, and that the entire process is time-consuming and generally interrupts any career."

My advice to any woman who feels that way is "don't have kids". I would say the same to any man who feels the same.

However, if people want children, a uterus is required and that is the exclusive possession of women. It is a bit much to, on the one hand claim special consideration for carrying the uterus and on the other claim discrimination because the use of it precludes doing something else one might wish to. Many women regard the child, once the uterus has been used, as fair compensation for the inconvenience. Those that don't should consider hysterectomies.

Men are not given the option.

To use an analogy, deep-sea "saturation" divers have to spend sometimes several weeks in pressure chambers while they are not at the bottom of the ocean. They cannot leave the chamber or they will die. They regard the money they are paid as fair compensation for the inconvenience. Those that don't should consider different work.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 5:52:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, in a constitutional democracy, the people elect legislatures to supervise their activites.
accountability is subject to the electoral process.
absent provision for women's legislatures, men's legislatures, which allow women entry under male supervision, supervise the people, thus all women remain under male supervision.

whether a female Governor-General, under male supervision in an office intended according to the Constitution of Australia at its enactment be held exclusively by men, sacks a female Prime Minister, again under male supervision in an office intended according to the Constitution of Australia at its enactment be held exclusively by men, the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, the people and even the Queen, post Magna Carta, who acts upon the advice of men's legislatures, remain under male supervision.

the Constitution acknowledges these offices and is the governing arbiter.

absent provision for women's legislatures, women are not free to take on any of these offices in their own right.

yes TZ52HX, if men didn't have to supervise women they'd spend more time rearing their families.

Pericles, the British Parliament enacted the values of sexism and inequity when enabling the Australian Constitution, thus Australia is a sexist and inequitable society.

The Australian Parliament legislated to relieve values enacted by the British Parliament with the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, a process which will mature with the enactment of constitutional reform to accommodate equitable legislaures.

if you have no view as to how your gender's legislatures should be elected the default position is how Australia's men's legislatures are currently elected.

yes Antiseptic, men are incompetent to supervise women.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 10:13:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a thought, whistler.

>>a female Governor-General, under male supervision<<

Doesn't she report to the Queen?

There's little point in continuing to say the same thing over and over, so I think this is where I take my leave.

Have a nice day.

And, if it is permissible in your strange little world, have a nice life too.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 10:55:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our forum misogynist Antiseptic, once again showing his misogyny wrote, "if people want children a uterus is required and that is the exclusive possession of women".

The misogynist Antiseptic doesn't seem to be aware that "sperm" is also required, and that sperm is the exclusive possession of men.

Not too bright is our little forum misogynist.
Posted by TZ52HX, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 12:40:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TZ53HX:""sperm" is also required"

I see you've been doing some research.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 12:54:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, it sounds to me that you are getting your nickers in
a twist over a bit of semantics. Women are no more supervised
then are men.

If some word in the constitution upsets you, no doubt it could
be changed to "people". No need for a seperate female legislature.

As to having babies and having a career, sure women choose.

Fiona Woods, brilliant career - 6 kids

Gail Kelly, brilliant career - 4 kids

The list goes on. Just because some of you girls can't cope,
does not mean that others can't. That is a quesiton of your
personal failings, not of the system.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 1:36:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>a female Governor-General, under male supervision<<

Pericles, Australia's men's legislatures appoint a Prime Minister to advise the Queen on the appointment of Governors-General.

> Women are no more supervised then are men.

Yabby, that's not what the Constitution says.
there are no women in Australia not under the supervision of men's legislatures.
the provision of women's legislatures would achieve what you claim.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 7:43:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, in that case the wording of the constitution can be
changed, to reflect the reality of today.

Anyone can stand for parliament, etc. etc. Genitals have nothing
to do with it.

For that you don't need a separate female legislature, just a peoples
legislature, where all compete and anyone can stand for office.

As the evidence shows, the present legislature is not a mens legislature, but littered with aspiring females. Fair enough.

Your little girls exclusive club is a pipe- dream, that is the reality.

What you are calling for is an insult to your gender.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 7:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> If some word in the constitution upsets you, no doubt it could
be changed to "people".

Yabby, a Constitutional amendment to the effect that what once were men's legislatures are now people's legislatures poses the question as to why women aren't allowed legislatures ever?
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 8:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, I remind you that women are people and we have spent
alot of time and effort to get rid of discrimation based on race,
gender etc. Now you want to reintroduce it.

In sport we accept that we separate genders based on the fact
of a biological difference in strength etc.

There is no evidence that women are less intelligent then men,
so unless that is what you claim, no reason to discrimate
based on gender, when it comes to intellectual pursuits.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 9:16:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey whistler, what specific law changes do you think women would legislate for themselves? How would the laws for men and the laws for women differ?
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 26 February 2009 8:49:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq:"How would the laws for men and the laws for women differ?"

"Girls can do anything, boys can do what they're told" is the summation, I understand.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 26 February 2009 9:08:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, retitling men's legislatures to people's legislatures produces the same individual bargaining between women and men which resulted in the weak regulatory governance that allowed men to collapse the global economy.

The Icelandic solution attempts to swing individual bargaining in women's favour, in a weak government model.

An Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures produces collective bargaining between women and men, which results in strong regulatory governance to maintain sustainable economic management.

smart government replaces dumb government's individual bargaining with the collective bargaining of a people's parliament.

thanks to everybody's efforts since the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 was enacted, with provision for women's legislatures, the Constitution of Australia will no longer enable discrimination based on gender.

neither does provision for women's and men's legislatures discriminate against or disadvanatge either women or men.

Houellebecq, with smart government law is the outcome of agreement between women's and men's legislatures, the law for men and the law for women is the same.

difference may occur in courts of women's and men's jurisdiction as judiciaries interpret law against women's and men's life experience.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:54:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler that sounds like the law is the same, but, in the fine print, the law will be applied differently?

I think we already have that. Just look at the sentences handed down to men and women for various crimes. This will just be a case of formalising that. Yes, as a society, we think it's ok for a 40yo women to sleap with a 14yo boy, but not 40yo man and a 14yo girl for example. Or if a woman has assaulted a man, we could look at things from the woman's perspective. She didn't think she'd hurt him and well, he is bigger, so it's a lesser crime. Maybe if a man neglects a child, we can say, well, men aren't very good at all this baby stuff, he never had dolls to practice on as a kid, so I think a very light sentence is in order.

Probably a more honest system all round huh.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 26 February 2009 11:16:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> we could look at things from the woman's perspective

Houellebecq, who is the "we" to whom you refer.

women look at things from a women's perspective, men guess.

jusgement based on guesswork is the business on dumb government.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 26 February 2009 12:33:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So whistler, what will you do if the men judges, judging men only decide to be really really lenient on all the male crimes? Now that it's secret mens business only, women have no say in it. A man can rape, and if all the men decide that rape isn't really all that bad, then after being convicted by the law, a bit of community service will suffice as a sentence by the mens court.

Meanwhile in the woman's court, a woman can be on trial for killing her husband. The women can say, well he had it coming because he was a selfish lover and didn't pay her enough attention. He just wasn't listening and meeting her needs, men wouldn't understand. Community service again.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 26 February 2009 1:01:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The Icelandic solution attempts to swing individual bargaining in women's favour, in a weak government model.*

Ah Whistler, but there is not a scrap of substantiated evidence
to show that women are better economic managers then men.

Women were just as involved in the problems created in the US,
as were men.

Fact is, people get the Govt they deserve. Both American men
and women voted for the Bush regime. Little old ladies were
successfully scared by Karl Rove, with his "Osama under the
bed" strategy. Religious nuts, both men and women, were
equally convinced, that due to the claimed evils of abortion,
they should vote for George and Dick.

Gender has nothing to do with it. Bad judgement by the American
people, as the evidence shows, was the real problem in the US.

Now if you can show me evidence that proves that women are
better economic managers then men, I will take some notice.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 26 February 2009 1:34:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby:"Gender has nothing to do with it. "

It has everything to do with it. If not for feminism, the incompetent women would have no one non-female to blame...
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 26 February 2009 5:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
community service for rape, for murder, Houellebecq,
legislatures appoint judges,
peoples elect legislatures.

> there is not a scrap of substantiated evidence
to show that women are better economic managers then men

Yabby, the article cited on post one of this thread argues Icelanders "turned over key levers of finance to women" on evidence men collapsed the global economy.

an Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures turns over key levers of finance to peoples.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:57:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler, I see nowhere, where the article provides any evidence for
its claims.

Fact is that Iceland is in a mad panic, as they have gone from
first world to banana republic in one fell swoop. So the blame
game is on.

*an Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures turns over key levers of finance to peoples.*

People decide now. If you vote for a Govt that are economic dummies,
then you share in the blame, no matter which genitals you happen
to own.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 26 February 2009 11:16:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
for advocates of equity,
yes, there is women's peoples and men's peoples.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 26 February 2009 11:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So to sum it up Whistler, you have no evidence for your claims,
that is just how you feel. How typically female :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 27 February 2009 7:33:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> I see nowhere, where the article provides any evidence for its claims

Yabby, the article cites the evidence that Iceland has "handed over economic levers to women".

Are you disputing women have been appointed as Prime Minister and heads of two of Iceland's major banks?

Icelanders decided that in the current crisis, women are a better senior management option than more of the same.

You are perfectly entitled to assume this evidence indicates women are worse managers than men, if you have further evidence the population has descended into an abyss of depression and is exhibiting masochistic tendencies, but the article does not.

The perception that women are the best senior management option in the current crisis appears to arise from the view that men take greater risks than women, that high risk male decision-making caused the economic collapse and low risk female decision-making can rescue the economy.

Icelanders have not mandated their solution, they have chosen a management strategy to suit the situation.

Rather than bicker about which is better, Icelanders have selected what they consider is the best option.

As I explained earlier on this thread, "the Islandic solution recognises that women and men manage economies differently".

"the governing principle is that optimum economic management occurs when conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures and committees".

That other nations have not handed over economic levers to women in no way diminishes the Icelandic solution, especially in consideration of the extent to which the Icelandic economy has collapsed.

Neither do Icelanders appear to be acting on your advice given earlier on this thread that "they should have stuck to fishing in the first place".

An Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures acknowledges difference by achieving equity between women's and men's risk taking to stabilise economies in perpetuity.

No-one is saying women are inherently better economic managers than men.

What the Icelandic and Australian solutions are saying is that women and men manage economies differently, the Icelandic solution implemented to rescue an economy, the Australian to avoid the need for rescue.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 27 February 2009 11:31:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Are you disputing women have been appointed as Prime Minister and heads of two of Iceland's major banks?*

What a silly question is that? Iceland has a population of
a large country town, or similar, hardly lots of talent to
choose from. Their banks gambled and came unstuck. So
now its back to fishing. Global investment banking is
indeed risky!

*The perception that women are the best senior management option in the current crisis *

Some people may well have that perception and they well may be wrong,
for they have no evidence to back up their claims. What we can
show is that there are both women and men who are high risk takers
and low risk takers. In fact there were many men who warned that the
proverbial manure would hit the fan, already some years ago

To blame this whole thing on high risk taking is a furphy. Fact is
there was downright crookery going on and fact is that those
in charge of enforcing the rules were not enforcing them. Fact
is that many of those were women.

Wall St, US politics etc, are all loaded with women. How many
rang the alarm bells as to what was going on?

Crooks will exist if rules are not enforced.

Once again, there is no evidence that women are better economic
managers then men, so your argument simply does not stand up
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 27 February 2009 1:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just as an aside, the CEO of Pacific Brands during their scam to get Government funding before sacking all their workers and giving the CEO and other executives a pay rise was, you guessed it, a woman...
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 28 February 2009 8:28:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, this thread has already disposed of your theory it was a failure of women to regulate a testosterone soaked industry caused the global economic collapse.

US Senators have every right to inquire as to whether women under male supervision were at cause without such aspersion.

If you supervised supervisors wouldn't you?

US citizens put the blame squarely on the shoulders of a weak incumbent government, which was, and still is, shackled with men's legislatures in which women and men conduct individual bargaining.

a weak government failed enforcement.

if you're looking for evidence women are better economic managers than men you won't find it here.

this discussion is about reconciliation of difference, not supremacy of an illusionary same.

an Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures explains the collapse of the global economy as an absence of collective bargaining between women and men.

> Their banks gambled and came unstuck. So now its back to fishing.

men collapsed fishing.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 28 February 2009 11:14:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler:"this discussion is about reconciliation of difference"

hahahaha. Which one of your personalities wrote that?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 1 March 2009 9:35:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*men collapsed fishing.*

Whistler you really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about
men. That is your problem, not my problem.

In the West anyhow, decisions made about fishing, economics etc
are made in parliaments littered with women, people of both genders
vote for politicians of both genders.

For you to run off and blame it all on men, shows your bias.

Sorry dear, you are peeing in the breeze on this one, for more
rational people will not take you seriously.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 1 March 2009 9:49:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes Yabby, parliaments comprised of men's legislatures littered with women produced weak government which oversaw the collapse of the global economy by a male dominated industry.

individual bargaining between women and men is a recipe for disaster.

other than a spectacular and broadely welcomed success in giving women the experience to operate their own legislatures, individual bargaining is an abject failure.

yes, people of both genders do vote for politicians of both genders in the election of parliaments which produce weak government.

an Australian solution with provision for women's legislatures provides strong government through collective bargaining.

yes Anticeptic, women and men do have different life experiences.

the Australian solution reconciles difference.
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 1 March 2009 12:50:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*produced weak government which oversaw the collapse of the global economy by a male dominated industry.*

Sorry, that was simply not the case, but a Govt for which women
voted, with a certain ideology, with which they must have agreed, or
would not have voted for it. Cheney made it clear that the US Dollar
was not America's problem, but the rest of the world's problem.
Business should regulate itself, they were going to find Osama
under the bed, was another Govt policy. Women were part of that
Govt, apart from electing it. They are as much to blame as men,
so forget your gender based discrimination.

*individual bargaining between women and men is a recipe for disaster.*

But Govt is not about individual bargaining, its about achieving
agreement by at least 51%. Both women and men have an input.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 1 March 2009 1:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"women voted" for candidates to legislatures, prescribed at law as men's legislatures,
in which women participate under male supervision.
the global economic collapse is a tipping point.
more of the same,
or provision for women's legislatures.

> Govt is not about individual bargaining

exactly
Posted by whistler, Sunday, 1 March 2009 9:30:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*prescribed at law as men's legislatures,*

so untwist your knickers Whistler, call them
peoples legislatures. Men and women right now
in effect have exactly the same rights.

Your real problem is that you think that women
know better then men, but you have not a scrap
of evidence to show that is the case.

As the evidence shows, there are smart men, smart
women, dumb men, dumb women.

Electors are free to choose on merit, not based
on who owns which sexual organs.

If women were convinced of your case, they would
vote for women candidates. Clearly a great many
women simply do not agree with you.

So dream on Whistler, or whistle on Whistler :)
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 1 March 2009 9:46:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
whistler, you never answered my questions.

The reason I asked them is that I think, from looking at your silly website, you're a bloke with a chip on his shoulder about women.

Not only that, you seem to harbour a romanticised and ethnographically inaccurate perception of traditional Australian Aboriginal societies wherein women and men were generally equal in status, by virtue of separate religio-judicial domains.

While it's true that such separation of social domains afford a degree of gender autonomy, ultimately all traditional Aboriginal societies wereand are patriarchal, with groups of men effectively exchanging women according to very strict rules of kinship and affiliation.

Of course, these longstanding gender power relations have mostly fallen completely apart over the last century or two.

As a former anthropologist, I'm not aware of any ethnographic examples of the kind of gender apartheid that you seem to be promoting.

Unless of course it's all a product of your imagination.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 1 March 2009 9:56:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
more of the same , Yabby?
more weak, indecisive government,
more individual bargaining,
more unsustainablity,
more self-inflicted pain,
more recessions, depressions, economic rollercoasters,
more confusion, terror, warfare,
more Australian deaths on the world's battlefields,
more denial of history,
more pretending legislatures enacted exclusively by men are peoples legislatures,
more refusing women the right to their own legislatures,
more job losses,
more superannuation fund closures,
more climate catastrophe,
more scapegoating women, shirking responsibility, cowardice and obfuscation,
more imputation about women's election of candidates to men's legislatures,
more of your groundless assertion smart government favours women over men,
more endemic sexism, racism, discrimination against the aged and infirm,
more greed, compacency, irresponsibility,
more smut,
more slippery slope to oblivion?
no thanks.
dumb government is for dumb people, not Australians.

CJ Morgan, gender apartheid is the policy of a constitution which mandates men's legislatures and not women's legislatures.

> ultimately all traditional Aboriginal societies were and are patriarchal

no. Dianne Bell [1983] Daughters of the Dreaming, found otherwise.
male anthropoligists who collected evidence of patriarchy were never told about women's law because it was none of their business. nothing has changed in that regard.

are you familiar with HC "Nugget" Coombs?
i once read he said that whilst Australia's indigenous peoples exhibit enormous variety, the one commonality he observed was the ubiquitous maintenance of the practice of women's business and men's business.
i ask because i'd like to find the source.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 2 March 2009 6:22:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee whizz Whistler, if you think that things are so bad,
you had better grab your fishing rod and head for
Iceland after all!
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 March 2009 8:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy