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...

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.

"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.

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.

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.

*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