hi Philo.
I've already indicated that neither anti-discrimination laws nor remuneration laws work.
case in point:

"In Australia one in two women will be physically assaulted at some point in their lives and one in three women will be sexually assaulted. We also know that by the time a girl turns 18 there is a one in four chance she will have experienced rape or another form of sexual assault. To put that figure in context we also know that men in prison have a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted, suggesting that when it comes to rape, what young women endure in their everyday lives would for men be considered prison conditions ( http://2mf.net/news158.htm ).

The Constitution is demonstrably at fault with regard to gender, ethnicity, sexual preference and the economy.
my underlying hangup is about equity for women as well as men.
sexual identity certainly caused injustice when women were prohibited from the Parliament which enacted the Constitution by which Australians live today.
unhealthy in my personal imagination?
my family gifted me with the arts if that's what you mean. ( http://2mf.net/philip.htm )
thanks for your comment. :)

Maximillion, thanks for the conjecture but you know nothing about me or who are my family and friends. I wonder why you would make such judgement?

if "discrimination against women is the focus of the pursuit of equity because therein lies the solution" constitutes 'one-eyed femnist', then does "its the refusal of men to cede power over women to a women's legislature, men are bringing discrimination upon themselves, myself included" constitute one-eyed masculanist?

with respect, can you also please tell me something, do you include the $1.5 billion intervention which has identified something like three children at risk from relatives, as Aborigines wasting money?

In response to Whistler, read my previous post. we don't even live on the same planet, let alone speak the same language.
To paraphrase a popular movie..."Move along there, nothing of interest here"

Whistler,
How would women's court make a difference to rape? Rape is a criminal offense wether committed on a man or woman and there are laws currently that prosecute. What do you want that is different? - perhaps women judges that feel more lienient towards imprisoning men who from driving passion push respectful sexual boundaries?

You said, ""In Australia one in two women will be physically assaulted at some point in their lives and one in three women will be sexually assaulted. We also know that by the time a girl turns 18 there is a one in four chance she will have experienced rape or another form of sexual assault."

It is not the Governments, legislature or the courts that will stop criminal offences. The fact we need such institutions is because crime exists. It is rather cultural values and education of attitudes that change social behaviours.

The problem you see is not dealing with criminals after they offend it is motivating culturally accepted behaviours. If we lived in a civilised crime free society we would need no criminal laws, Police and courts to administer them. The proble is not the laws or their administration it is the problems that is the nature of sinful man. The answer lies in dealing with the spirit, heart and values held individually in society.

Have you personally been raped? Have you a good mixed group of both males and females peers with whom you relate

hi Philo,

"Many people believe that rape is a sexual act. Although rape involves sexual acts, it is motivated by the desire for power and control over another person rather than by sexual attraction or the desire for sexual gratification. In other words, rape is a crime of violence." [ http://www.apex.net.au/~samssa/rape.html ]

Rape works when women and men boss over each other, to control the other.
Same-sex rape is practice.
The Constitution of Australia mandates rape.
Rape doesn't work when women and men are their own bosses, it doesn't happen.
A potential male offender will achieve nothing by seeking power and control over a woman who is not answerable to men.
This is the evidence of Australian indigenous tradition.
A constitution with provision for a women's legislature and a men's legislature eliminates rape.
Does this resolve your concern?

With respect, Maximillion, if you don't consider it's a real problem in Australia that "by the time a girl turns 18 there is a one in four chance she will have experienced rape or another form of sexual assault", then we surely do live on different planets. I apologise for interrupting your perfect world.

Whistler, there you go again, seeing things through your own warped view and putting words in my mouth. I have nowhere said the world's perfect, or that we don't have problems, just that your view of it is alien to me. I look at the evidence and seek answers that are real, not Ideological clap-trap. Just look at your blatantly ridiculous statements above; the constitution mandates rape? rape won't happen if we change the constitution? Rape didn't happen in indigenous society? and best of all, same sex rape is practise?
I re-iterate-
I feel there's little point in discussing things further, you're coloured glasses effectively mean we'll never even be able to reach a common definition of the problems, let alone any solutions.

oops, sorry, I was giggling too hard.