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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

*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.