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.

*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.

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.

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?

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.

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.