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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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