hi,Im in support of Whister and wat he has to say about a smart democracy.As it does sound complicated and far fetched if u really think about it,it makes alot of sense just will take alot of reorganising the system and change for a better and fairer then happier future for the people.:)

Oh no, not again, please.

>>...a better system of democracy than the one we have now would comprise both a men and a women's legislature, which would be presided over by elders. There would also be courts of women's and men's jurisdiction<<

Unfortunately, as we discovered the last time, there is absolutely nothing behind the slogans.

You can ask why we need it. You can ask how it will be put together. You can ask what form will it all take, and who will be asked to decide upon it.

You can ask an infinity of why, how, what and who questions.

There is no answer beyond "absent..."

>>Absent any argument of substance to the contrary, an Australian solution, with provision for women's legislatures, remains the more equitable option for sustanable economic management...<<

>>...absent provision for women's legislatures, women are not free...<<

>>...absent women's legislatures, women, individually, are absolved, in perpetuity, of all blame...<<

>>...absent women's legislatures, regulators do what men's legislatures tell them to do...<<

>>...absent provision for women's legislatures, men's legislatures, which allow women entry under male supervision, supervise the people, thus all women remain under male supervision<<

Actual arguments for the proposition have so far, I'm afraid, been conspicuously...

...absent.

Pericles,
I have to agree that defining women's roles in society as seperate to men's is not a move for greater individual freedom but a return to sexual discrimination.

Perhaps a different system is needed although I am not sure if having different legislature for men and women is good idea. It seems that having to separate system would lead to even greater divisions between the sexes than is already present. And how would one legislature influence the other? What about anti-discrimination laws work if the women’s parliament says that for example centre-fold posters are to be banned out right but the men’s say it ok as long as it is in a private place? Further, what would happen if we had two systems of courts? Could not a woman in a women’s court elicit sympathy by acting emotional. Sociopaths are very good at playing on peoples sympathies to get what they want whether your a man or a woman. How would the family court work? Who would preside over it? To which court would a person who has undergone gender re-assignment report or could they choose? No, there are too many potentials for problems and too little to be gained by such a system.

However I believe that a Hybrid of the Athenian, Spartan current models might do well. From the Athenians a one person one vote rule, no giving votes to others if you do not have enough for yourself. From the Current model keep our system of voting and terms in office and from the Spartans have the ministers stand before the people to be judged after their term, however unlike the Spartans have jail terms instead of beheadings. I believe that the prospect of doing time after your term in office if you don't pull your weight or just buy votes, etc. may actually see pollies doing their job. Which is after all representing us and not themselves in government.

Thanks Princessunicorn, fairness does produce happiness!

There's no shortage of unhappy corks bobbing around on the ocean of male privilege. As Foxy has pointed out elsewhere, the majority are men.

Thanks also Pericles for the reminder that the absence of women's legislatures is a massive problem for democracy, as I've concluded on many occasions in response to concerns raised on this forum.

Philo, women's and men's roles are not different, each can be legislators, doctors, truck drivers or whatever they want. It's women and men themselves that are different, they have different life experience and bring different points of view to a complementary society. Sexual discrimination is both the source and the outcome of the prohibition on women's legislatures.

Maximillion, thank you for your concerns. In answer, democracy is divisive without the inclusion of women's legislatures. Moreover, women and men are the primary components of society. That's where the line is drawn. Achieve equity between women and men and all else follows, gay women and gay men included.

How would you pick the Elders, by popular election, parliamentary appointment or some other method? Ultimately that's a decision which should be made by agrreement between a women's caucus and a men's caucus at a constitutional convention.

How would appeals work, against a decision of the Elders? How do appeals against the decision of Governor-Generals work under the current version of democracy with male privilege? Again, a matter for a women's caucus and a men's caucus to negotiate.

The anatgonism between the genders when male privilege rules is certainly not conducive to overall happiness, and its the men who are overall unhappiest!

Arthur N, a women's legislature and a men's legislature would make law by agreement. Law interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions eliminates the guesswork about what might be on the mind of the opposite gender. The family court would focus on the child, male or female, where the focus should be. Gender reassignment is negotiated as to whether a person may be accepted as male or female. Elders have a role to resolve disputes over gender. The problems are not that many and aren't that difficult to resolve yet the happiness dividend derived from fairness is massive, especially for men.

The accountability of politicians is also a feature when fairness is at the forefront of democracy.

As Princessunicorn suggests, "it does sound complicated and far fetched if u really think about it, it makes alot of sense just will take alot of reorganising the system and change for a better and fairer then happier future for the people.:)".