so why shouldn't Australia have a Constitution which mandates a female Prime Minister and female bank ceo's?

because with the more equitable provision of women's legislatures, which with men's legislatures regulate banks, a women's Prime Minister is already appointed.

Col, you know that I agree with you and no doubt you have read enough
of my posts, to conclude what I think of the likes of Whistler :)

Whistler, the American elections were indeed revealing. Obama
was chosen over Hillary, Obama-Biden were elected over McCain-
Palin. Shock horror, those elected have penises instead of vaginas.
What on earth is your problem?

*so why shouldn't Australia have a Constitution which mandates a female Prime Minister and female bank ceo's?*

Why on earth should it? We already have an extremely talented
female bank CEO, a migrant who used to be a bank teller. She earnt
it and deserves it. Other men and women are free to do the same.

You have yet to explain why mandating a job, based on possesion
of sexual organs, is a good thing.

smut won't rescue your argument Yabby.

the Icelandic solution is premised on the basis that women, with different life experience from men, nevertheless, in many instances, have achieved excellence under male supervision.

the provision of women's legislatures reconciles life experience.

whistler - you never answered my question.

I repeat, is the 2mf.net site yours?

http://2mf.net/

Whistler, it seems to me that you don't understand the difference
between smut and basic biology. That is your problem, not mine.

People have different life experiences. As many as there are
people. To imply that only sexual organs matter in these
different experiences, is of course a folly.

Sorry, but the days of sexual apartheid, which you seem to be
proposing, are well and truly over.

Whistler “Col Rouge, you're perfectly correct, absent women's legislatures the Icelandic solution remains the optimum response.”

No WRONG.. I never suggested that

I said
“Yes well, that is maybe but the ‘optimum’ solution for the ‘Icelandic’s ‘ is not to be found in “women’s legislature”

It would seem to me, your ‘reading ability’ is as dubious as your ‘writing ability’

and as geographically sound as the location of this land where these “Islandic” amazons live.

As to “so why shouldn't Australia have a Constitution which mandates a female Prime Minister and female bank ceo's”

For the same reason Australia should not have a constitution which mandates a male prime minister or male bank ceos.

The matter of Prime Ministerial gender should not be prescribed by statute or constitution. It should be resolved purely as a function of the “individual merit” of each qualified contender for the role,

And the selection of a CEO for any bank should be a matter which is resolved solely by the directors and share holders who own the bank.

The notion that because half the population are women, we must have half the CEOs of business as female and for half the time the Prime Minister must be female is the sort of “Affirmative Action” twaddle which brought about this Financial Crisis in the first place, when I consider a lot of it started with Jimmy Carters Community Reinvestment Legislation, which made the exercise of discrimination illegal in the provision of loans

Lets face it, in the interest of the investors in a bank, a lending officer has to exercise “discriminating judgment “ in deciding who he will lend to and who he will not.

And the pursuit of “Affirmative Action / Corruption” eventually lead to stupid laws which allowed “indiscriminate borrowers” the right to walk away from their liabilities and responsibilities by mailing the keys to the secured property back to the lender, who then was denied recourse for recovery.

Ultimately ‘gender’ entitles no one to a particular position.

The objective is to find the best individual to fill any role, regardless of gender.