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.

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.

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

*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.

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

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...