On the Women's Vote thread Pelican asked whistler some questions about how a women's legislature would work http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3510#83704

I think that I've asked similar questions in the past but I still don't have any idea how the idea would work in a modern society with a large population. I have the impression that the idea is based on concepts used in some indigenous groups, I've followed links whistler has posted previously but not found a real outline of what's proposed.

Pelican's questions could be a good starting place.

I'd also be interested in why gender based legislature's are considered more important than other groupings where people may have differing needs based loosely on a grouping (thiest vs athiest/agnostic being one such grouping).

whistler or anyone else who understands what is proposed in the idea - over to you for a chance to give your pitch.

R0bert

the basic idea is each house has half the govt funds to expend..they then forward the approved expenditures to govt depts for action,and oversight

it allows an oversight and auditing function..to reign in the rein of the public service[breaking the two party boys club monopoly

it is designed to neuter those lobbiets who lobby for their treasonous coorperate welfare..[like when howard gave half a billion to that magnesium 'plant' in gladstone..[topped up with peter beasties half a billion]...or like when howhard got lobbied/scared into buying that vacine and tamilflue

basiclly the duel oversight system is run from ol parlimeny house..[the senet becomes the wo-mens chamber]..naturally there become over 500 sovereign states...[each with their own gov general oversights]

all legislature for all australia [states]..is made at the fed level..as per motion one...of the federal constitution...

[ie the states ..see preamble]...gave up their rights with federation...but yet in practice ignored the federation they did form..yet somehow didnt give up their powers...

see acording to our fed con..we are one federated australia according to our own constitution..but somehow the states have expanded their oppressions...this needs to be further clarified..

[the system needs to revert..to the intent of the constituted authoriy/constitution...a mens womans gov general type..oversight could cleanly correct the possably treasonous..deception..of the divisive coleny/state's..yet one federal union

R0bert

I am sure that separate legislature based on gender would be a disaster. There is too much division as it is. Just look at the hatred some people have for the opposite sex.

That I don't fully understand whistler, is true. I do know that her views originate from aboriginal culture. What may have worked extremely well in small tribal communities does not transfer to large, educated populations.

It would be a sexually driven apartheid.

RObert raises some good questions.

Severin points to valid reasons for why seperate legislatures don't fit in with the idea of democracy and equality.

The rising level of cynicism, wedge politics and division will not wane if we are to establish different treatment for various interest groups. There are many female judges and barristers but they are the same as men in their adherence to the law. If the law is equal then why must the legislatures differ?

Human beings first, all else follows.

whistler may be able to elaborate more on how her ideas might be carried through - I may not understand how she comes to that view.

clearly asking questions wasnt the point...those having their boys club feel threatend?

the current system is corrupted[and bankrupt]...the constitution is ignored...[the so called privey council[or that oversight body quite simply dont work

the laws made in the fed and state legislature are..unconstitutional[as well as oppressive]..govt was not alowed to privatise the federal reserve out to the bankers[yet it did...it wasnt allowed to make anything but gold/silver coin..legal tender...but it did

the wages rates for govt was set in stone..yet we have govt setting its own payrates[and pension scemes...and worse selling off the public assets..at the fed level by tel;i-com/commonwealth bank sales..at the state levels by things like the upcomming sales of the qld silver[plus water power rail etc

thing is that govt..NEEDS to get its new legislation SIGNED BY HER ROYAL HIGHNESS..[the queen of the common weal[the common wealth trustee]for the peoples of these great south lands

yet go look at the actual papers[peter beatup signed the act 80 of 2001[making the fOundational document[the qld constitution]..into an act...thing is hrh hasnt a clue[and has better things to do that sign revenue raising legislation...so peter/beatup[a lawyer..signes anything he likes into statute..[

troubl;e being its totally illegal..better we have 520 govenenor generals who sign off on valid legislation...[BUT THE BOYS CLUB LIKES TO MAKE ITS DEALS WITH THE BOYS...thus the need/urgency...for a mens and WOMANS oversight body..everything from council meetings to govt is overseen by the mens womans legslature[by sovereign right

its paid for by returning the mint to the first people..[the only constituted legal tender being coin[read the fed con]...so we go baqck to coin[pennies/shillings pounds[and the boys club gets the fed reserve and notes..[fiat money isnt[cant be sovereign debt...true sovereign debt can only by via coin-age

time to move from the bank credit age back to the coin-age..credit where credit is due

The following website may be of interest:

http://2mf.net/

cont'd ...

I forgot to add this website:

http://2mf.net/power_and_control:_rape_and_the_Constitution.htm

Foxy thanks for the links.

I think that's the site that whistler may have linked to previously. I don't know if it's the style of writing, the extremely narrow focus or the overt sexism but I've not done well with trying to understand how the proposal would work in practice.

The site seems dominated by gender difference eg the definition of conflict shows a very narrow focus "Conflict is the product of an imbalance of power between women and men." - http://2mf.net/conflict.htm

I've had the impression that whistler is male, I think I recall whistler claiming so but I don't know for sure.

Under One God asking questions was a big part of my starting the thread and I doubt that pelican was all that worried about having her boys club threatened when she asked the questions I referred to in the opening post.

Another part was my frustration at whistler continuing to interject calls for a womens legislature into large numbers of threads without ever (as far as I've seen) explaining how it would work in practice.

If this is a serious proposal it should not be all that hard to give some suggestions on how issues like family law (or even speed limit's and penalties) would be determined by separate legislatures.

I dread the idea of legislatures based on what divides us rather than what we share but agree that our existing parliaments don't always serve us well.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer so I can't make valid judgments about the claims made by some regarding our constitution or it's intent but for me the priority is in what works rather than in contentious interpretations of the constitution.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

I gave the sites hoping that perhaps someone
could explain to me also, how things would work.

I admit that I don't quite understand what whistler
was talking about on all those threads either.

I have some serious reservations about separate
legislations based on gender, religion, et cetera.
We should all be treated equally under the law.

Or am I being simplistic?

Come on you lawyers out there - explain?

foxey quote..<<We should all be treated equally under the law>>...that is the illusion..the fact is 51 percent..lord it over the 49 percent....

then add in party loyalty/basic human fears/the ability..for lawyers to make laws[and other lawyers to judge them...and govt's claim to be alowed to sell the silver[peoples assets]..to their mates..like as happend with the federal reserve and commonwealths bank...

the common weal is subverted to the two party machine men[and the public service who serve the elites their govt largess from our taxes..govt is not representative to its trust[those who voted them into power...

thing is their powers are defacto[within the artificial state juristictions..created by our foundation documents[by which we control the acts/licence of the servant/gaining powers under the act

see that voting allows the elect-ed..to claim higher permissions[acting as a trustee over its ward...,but somehow in this mix we lost the representative..MEANT to represent US..[not the party nor the state nor the law but US

this has resulted in a mens club..its time we got a womens club to balance the affects of a paternal [patriarchal overlord...forcing govt to become fore like a mother than a diciplinarian father[whos every act is law..whos every act serves their mates

[the boys club...that sees things like a sportsclub..getting govt subsidy..to get a govt subsidised/solar hotwater system ..that has one system..FOR EACH OF ITS PLAYERS....

one whole solar system EACH..so these boys can rise off after playing with their mates..and then hand out how to vote cards at elect-ion time[so they get govt largess to build a new stadium/or make their tennis court's blue[subsidised by the non represented electors

the mens/womans circles are designed to beter represent the non boys club...there must be oversight[mother knows best..but these spoilt credit card bEaring two party machine men...KNOW THE GAME...TOO WELL

Ye gods...

R0bert

On this I am in full agreement. I find whistler's posts mostly incomprehensible and often inappropriate.

Foxy I checked the links, thank you. They are written in the same style as whistler's posts and very offensive, painting men as a single homogeneous group, whose primary goal is to dominate women. Even if this was true of all men, I still don't see how separate legislature would help. The images as well as the sentiments were upsetting as well, not the kind of thing you'd want young girls (or boys for that matter) seeing and reading - getting a very distorted view of both sexes. The sites were like the extreme men's movement sites - completely biased; full of disinformation. Despite the efforts of a minority, we are not at war.

And further agreed there is no detail about how this apartheid would work.

whistler, please explain.

"No-one will ever win the battle of the sexes while there is so much fraternising with the enemy."

Dear Severin,

Do you think it's possible that we're looking
at all this from a different cultural point of view -
by that I mean - a white cultural viewpoint
instead of from an Indigenous Woman's point of
view. Perhaps we're missing something in our
perspective - and hopefully whistler can explain?

Foxy

We could well be. I did acknowledge in my first post that such separation into "secret men's and women's business" probably works in a tribal culture. However, maybe because of my own cultural myopia I am unable to see how whistler's proposal could work. Besides, I like men, I like going to the footy with them, or movies (not really into chick flicks) and really grungy rock 'n roll - I just see separate laws as regressive. I'm not really in favour of separate eduction for boys and girls either - at least from secondary level.

BTW, just picked up a copy of Jeanette Winterson's "The Stone Gods" today from the library. I think I will enjoy it - puts me in mind of much of Ursula Le Guin's work, such as "The Left Hand of Darkness". Which also reminds me I do believe a reread of that book is in order as well.

Cheers

Foxy, Severin, "Do you think it's possible that we're looking
at all this from a different cultural point of view?"

That's something that I've wondered about as well. I keep being left with the impression that there is something about it I just don't get.

I do hope that someone has a serious go at trying to explain it.

Antiseptic, you stay out of this ; ) .

R0bert

R0bert:"Antiseptic, you stay out of this"

Help. Help. I'm being repressed.

Dear Severin,

I'll be interested to hear what you think
of Jeanette Winterson.

I've loved her work for years - ever since I
read, "Oranges are not the only fruit."

My favourite work of course - was, "The Passion."

Dear RObert,

Let Anti come out and play... :-)

Foxy only if he promises not to say that the site you linked to is main stream feminism and if he promises not to blow raspberries at Severin even if she does poke her tongue at him.

Besides if I let Antiseptic play then Holly will want to play to and we all know how that turns out.

R0bert

Stuff Antiseptic!

Welease Wodewick!

regards,

Y,WAAI!

Lol Y,WAAI!
That thought brings to mind the great Roman Biggus Dickus and his lovely wife Incontinentia!

I am amazed that Antiseptic has actually agreed to keep out of this debate. Robert must be a powerful influence on these pages.

R0bert:"the site you linked to is main stream feminism"

It's more mainline psychosis.

R0bert:"blow raspberries at Severin"

Actually, I think she's starting to sound a lot more reasonable of late. I could even get to like her, if only she didn't insist on reading Anne McCaffery.

OK ITS A WHISTLER FLAME..i get it now

its..NOT A QUESTION ABOUT HOW IT WORKS..or would work

BUT ABOUT HOW A white?-MAN CANT SPEAK FOR WOE-MAN...i could agree that some people..could try to subvert the mens womens circles..and as to how it works... IS.. at the local level...

but united into ever higher assosiations..[self funding]..via rights of seignorage...into the higher levels..

[the local levels..pay costs for a nomiated member/representitive to represent A SPECIFIC point...into the over sight bodies..who will raise mens/womans business[and yet not actually 'be' man/woman..or child

[mens womans legislature...[men/womans business..meaning they are limited in their sphere of influence/specialisation..not the godheads serving the public service[cash.cow largess]..not a party machine man serving the maqchine men /banker/lawyer cartel

...many small fish..alowed to be big fish...locally...yet held in control by neighbours..overseening and balancing the current boys club excess/excesses...that have become too big to ignore..too big to fail...and rectify their errors/failings..and going beyond their empowerments...

but go back to whistling..the wind...peepole

sleep you sheeple...you serve the master of these realms..[well]..with your devisions...diversions/destractions..and redirections..[the link..[s].. is [are]..a destraction]

ye gods...

Antiseptic:

<<< Actually, I think she's starting to sound a lot more reasonable of late. I could even get to like her, if only she didn't insist on reading Anne McCaffery. >>>

1. I must be doing something wrong.

2. I don't read Anne McCaffery - but so what?

R0bert

Unless whistler deigns to make an appearance, I don't see how much further we can go with this topic.

Severin:"I don't read Anne McCaffery "

See? I said you were sounding more reasonable.

"OK ITS A WHISTLER FLAME..i get it now

its..NOT A QUESTION ABOUT HOW IT WORKS..or would work

BUT ABOUT HOW A white?-MAN CANT SPEAK FOR WOE-MAN"

None of the above, some curiosity and a bit of put up or shut up. Whistler continues to post claims about the need for a womans legislature into various threads but so far has not explained how it works in any detail.

You have put a few brush strokes down about the structure but that's thin enough that I still don't get how it actually improves anything.

Take the issue of childrens living arrangements following separation, who would be deciding what the laws are that cover it?

If representatives are locally funded does that mean that people from poor communities would be disadvantaged even further because to lack of funding to pay for their representative compared to those from wealthier area's?

Would it mean that women who's average income is generally lower (for a variety of reason's which I don't want to start a fight about here) could afford less representation than men in similar area's could afford?

R0bert

<<Take the issue of childrens living arrangements following separation,who would be deciding what the laws are that cover it?>>this is a court issue..[case by case]..courts decide...its not a legislative issue

<<If representatives are locally funded does that mean that people from poor communities would be disadvantaged even further because to lack of funding to pay for their representative compared to those from wealthier area's?>>the constitution allows that only gold/silver coin shall be legal tender/the bible says ursury is sinfull..thus see the queen has her face on coin[this is by right of siegnorage

but see that seignorage is a sovereign right[yet sovreignity lies with the people[thus each of the first peoples states..have the right to issue its own intrest free coin]...local men/womens circles issue their own ursury free money[via the mint]

money[coin]..is collected by the banks on behalf of the state...from income and tarrifs/death duties[just like it has allways been..till the lawyers managed to thrust the burdon onto..'wage..'earners[see wage ISNT income]its wages...and the constitution dosnt allow wage tax

further see that..money was in silver/gold/copper..the values of any note is 7 cents cost[yet the cost of copper for a one cent coin=6 cents[a 6 pence containes 8 dollars of silver[coins mearly return to real values/pennies/shillings pounds..ie[pre bankers stealing the silver and gold]for a guide it is likely one coin/5cent=five dollar[fiat]

to acces the coin-age..is by circle[mens or womens..who create the coin/intrst free/a straight out loan[or payent in full/say you want to by my house..we go to a mens womans circle and they arrange the loan/intrest free in coin[=the only legal tender

see that bankers can keep their paper/fiat/ursury..but the people..born in these lands..have an inherant birth right..to its wealth/plus the rights of seignorage

<<Would it mean that women..who's average income is generally lower>>no

Dear RObert,

I came across this website and thought it
may be of some interest:

http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/55/1/5

" The Representation of Women in Australia: Meaning
and Make Believe," by Marian Sawyer.

R0bert

I don't even know where to begin on the can of worms that is divorce and how separate legislature would apply. I don't even see how men and women could cohabitate with such legislature.

All I know is whenever whistler inserts one of his/her posts anywhere, whatever point one of the rest of us may be trying to make gets lost in the process. Perhaps better to treat whistler as a more sophisticated troll (trolls rarely having their own website).

Antiseptic

You strike me as a Robert Ludlum fan.

Severin:"You strike me as a Robert Ludlum fan."

More Iain Banks or Neal Stephenson or perhaps Peter Hamilton. Banks has a wonderful gift for language and Stephenson is...well, his plots are dense, some of his concepts are remarkable and his writing flows easily, as can be said for Hamilton. All 3 are tremendously inventive.

It's sad, but there are few new good writers in science fiction. When they appear the publishers make them produce 3 or 4 volume door stoppers that should have been either 3 separate books, or more probably, 1 decent volume. Instead of focussing on the author as brand, they focus on a "series", thereby producing the literary equivalent of a series of McDonald's burgers.

Ludlum was pretty good early on, but deteriorated to a third-rate Ian Maclean clone. His research sucked too.

RObert thanks for this thread.

apologies for the delay in my reply,
i've been occupied updating articles on my site http://2mf.net i hadn't looked at for 15 years.

the notion of women's and men's legislatures first occurred to me some time in the early 1980s when i was returned from a month in gaol in Sweden after an unsuccessful application for political asylum following a particularly brutal night of police bashing when i was removed and relocated for several hours to the Prahran Police Station from my "Australian Independence Communications Office"' located in an Aboriginal Entertainment Centre in St Kilda near Brighton in Melbourne where i was born.

i had spent the previous decade living with the Victorian Aboriginal community whilst being mentored in constitutional reform.

gender based legislatures are considered more important than other groupings because if women and men are equal all demographics comprising women and men are equal, which arguably, is everyone.
the same can't be said for any other demographic, such is the nature of the human condition.

one under god, i can only agree.
the savings alone in the delivery of justice with a premium on certainty would solve the crime problem.

Severin, i'm a 58yo male and would argue the source of hatred some people have for the opposite sex is the uncertainty of speculating as to what might be on the mind of the opposite sex.
surely the current arrangement of men's legislatures only is sexually driven apartheid.

pelican, Severin did nothing of the sort.
Australia already is a democracy with separate legislatures.
gendering them snatches the jewel of equality from the jowls of iniquity.

the rising level of cynicism, wedge politics and division occurs precisely because we establish different treatment for various interest groups. men have legislatures, women don't.

the Constitution gives a majority of men in Parliament the power to ban women from voting and replace all women members with men. only a majority of the people in a majority of states can ban men.

human is comprised of women and men, human the abstract, women and men for real.

1/2

R0bert, overt sexism disadvantages a sex, like how Australia's Constitution deprives women of a legislature.
the site celebrates gender difference.
whistler's hand puppet may be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Von-SGtpN8

gendered legislatures agree on the same law just like the men's ones do now whether its family law or speed limit's and penalties.
the laws gendered legislatures determine are interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, just like the laws men's legislatures determine now are interpreted in a men's jurisdiction only.

what divides us is why we're not machines.

yes the Constitution does work.
it works so well it's the rock at the vanguard of the human journey to equality.
more so the cycle of franchise to legislature commenced in its second year.

Severin, all men dominate all women, no exception, its the law.
a women's legislature would help.
parliaments across the world already have women's caucuses attached to their legislatures.
California's congress for instance. a legislature is a formal caucus.

Tom Calma's organising a congress with equal numbers of women and men to replace ATSIC.

views of both sexes are distorted by a distorted Constitution.
you don't need to visit my site to see apartheid at work preventing half Australia's population from having a legislature.

Foxy, yes, inversion is an excellent tool.
someone questioned me recently about the transplanting of complex and different systems of kin and eldership and men's and women's business onto the structures of Western law and justice,
to which i replied my commentary isn't about transplanting men's and women's business onto the structures of Western law and justice, its about transplanting the structures of Western law and justice onto men's and women's business.

Severin, there are no separate laws, there are separate courts which interpret the same laws.
moreover, there are separate jurisdictions within those courts.
a matter may be heard in several jurisdictions at the same time, the men's jurisdiction in the custodial jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of the Family Court, for instance.
men's laws only interpreted in a men's jurisdiction only is regressive.

again apologies for the delay,
hope everybody has a happy sunday.

2/2

whistler,

You say in your site that, "Women are first-class citizens in the Aboriginal tradition of governance by agreement between women's and men's committees and second-class citizens in a Commonwealth governed by legislatures men allow women to attend.
Which citizen would you rather be?"

With the greatest respect I would not like to be an Aboriginal girl child used and abused through marriage to an old man. No rights, no consent (as if a child could give informed consent anyhow), no childhood, no education, a body full of bruises and no hope.

Having travelled though some Aboriginal communities and seen the pitiful state of women and children at the hands of their menfolk and having had those observations confirmed by the reports in the media of independent medical practitioners and other professionals, I can say without hesitation that I would not like to be one of those girls or women.

Whistler

Thank you for your responses - need some time to consider what you have said and try to see how it could be implemented into western culture - frankly I can't.

Cornflower

Your point regarding the treatment of aboriginal females is true - but is it the result of 'western' style culture interposed with traditional values? Aboriginal culture is not what it used to be.

Whistler

Were young girls married off to old men before white settlement? It is a common practice still among many other cultures.

Anti

I am a big fan of Iain Banks both his sci-fi and straight fiction. Damn.

As always, it strikes me that as a political ideas man, whistler makes an excellent artist.

As Cornflower said, Aboriginal communities, whether in the backblocks of WA or in the heart of our cities, are the most dysfunctional in our nation. It is those communities, more than any other, that cause the national rate of child abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and violence to be as high as it is. According to the ABS, an Aboriginal child is 6 times as likely to be harmed as a non-Aboriginal. I do not regard that as a condition worth aspiring to.

One of the reasons for having men's business and women's business in aboriginal communities is that many of these communities have essentially been two in one. Women performed one set of tasks and men performed another. It was a specialisation based on gender and just as occurred in the West, specialisation involves some separation and some self-regulation.

European and Asian societies developed guild-driven self-regulation to a high state. It remains important today, with many professions being run by guilds, especially Medicine and Law. The trade unions evolved because of the lack of guilds for unskilled or semi-skilled workers. The Masons started as a guild and woe betide anyone who tried to tell a Mason how to behave.

European society, however, never developed guilds based on female labour AFAIK until the unions came along. The female-dominated unions are now the most powerful of all, but they are not gender-exclusive, merely reflecting the gender balance within the specific trade, such as nursing or teaching.

It seems to me that whistler simply doesn't much like blokes and that he has been kindly treated by Aboriginal women.

Severin, I maintain Banks is the best writer of English fiction today. The sheer breadth of his output, from Feersum Enjin to the Wasp Factory to the Culture series is staggering. His use of vernacular, character sketches and his willingness to experiment with prose forms is quite simply masterful.

I'm sure knowing that Antiseptic is a fan will ruin the experience for you...

I admit my knowledge of the law is
limited to say the least, however the
problem that I see is if we start getting
into gender specific legislation, that is,
if the ball starts rolling - it won't stop.

If we're to consider separate legislation for
women then we should in all fairness consider
separate legislation for gays, ethnic, and
religious groups.

There will be an outcry or demand by these and
various groups for their specific individual interest
legislation.

I really can't see us wanting to open up this sort
of Pandora's box.

Severin

Suffice it to say that Aboriginals who have made the transition by education to the 'burbs and the middle class have rejoiced in having some excuse to curtail the tradition of longrassers (so-called kin) dropping in to stay with them and their families. That is how a lot of the violence especially sexual assaults of children occur.

There is a lot of Disney style myth around and all it does is ensure that the cries for help from young mothers, children and youth go unheard and unheeded.

Cornflower, i would argue that what you've seen is a consequence of the imposition of european law.

Cornflower, Severin, unlike european patriarchies, what happens with adolescent girls in the Aboriginal tradition is entirely dependent upon what Aboriginal women with autonomous authority allow to happen to adolescent girls.
a father's advice about the loss off virginity, for instance, is considered on an equal footing with a mother's and her aunties and the experience they bring to bear, not accompanied with the status of head of a household in which a mother's advice is considered only in private, and can be overruled in any event.
marital arrangements in communities where men boss over women differ from those in which women and men are their own bosses.

Severin, Aboriginal culture is very much what it used to be as Tom Calma's congress, with the endorsement of the Australian government, will demonstrate.
the ecology has changed, as it has over millennia, albeit more rapidly with the arrival of europeans, but the infrastructure is still there, and as the essential expression of the human condition, always will be.
the failure of government to recognise decision-making conducted by agreement between women's and men's committees is precisely the reason for the breakdown in communication with Aboriginal communities directly responsible for the squandering of billions of dollars on attempts at advancement, as well as indifference to the cries for help from young mothers, children and youth.

Antiseptic, in the quest for dysfunction no civilization has done more damage to both the planet and its people than the patriarchies of european civilization, with reparation impossibly beyond its means.
its so drop dead obvious its not even a competition.

Foxy. there is no gender specific legislation just as there is no House of Representatives specific legislation or Senate specific legislation.
legislation is enacted by agreement between both, of which there isn't a great deal at the moment as men lock themselves in a legislative standoff of their own making.
gays, ethnic, and religious groups are comprised of women and men equitably represented in women's and men's legislatures.

whistler I'd like to add my thanks for the response. I'm rather tied up with other tasks today so I won't try and do a serious post here today.

R0bert

Whistler <" Cornflower, i would argue that what you've seen is a consequence of the imposition of european law."

Does it really matter, at this late stage, whether the current living conditions and relationships between Aboriginal people today have been "... a consequence of the imposition of European law?

Many Australian Aboriginal people, with women and children in particular, have a very poor lifestyle and a shorter lifespan than all other ethnic groups in Australia. We have to work on fixing the current problems, regardless of what happened 200 years ago.

As far as I am concerned, if we are using the example of the separate
men's and women's groups of the Aboriginal culture as something we should be aspiring to, then I don't like the idea!

Whistler, you say you lived amongst the Aboriginal people at one time?
I wonder would a Caucasian woman of the same age, putting herself through the same experience as you, have a similar conclusion as to the benefits of the Aboriginal way of government and lawmaking?
I very much doubt it.

I believe we currently have a men's legislature, and that hasn't been very successful. How about just having a women's legislature by itself? Couldn't do any worse really, could it?

Suzeonline

Agree that getting bogged down into the impact of white settlement on Aboriginal culture is a debate for another thread. That anyone can seriously claim there was no impact - well Cornflower is an expert at the 'bait and switch'.

I, too have reservations about adopting a tribal culture of separation of roles and responsibilities of the sexes. It is something from our past which worked to some extent in smaller populations. Nothing whistler has said convinces me otherwise.

For example, when I asked if the practice of giving young girls to male elders for marriage, whistler completely hedged around a straightforward 'yes' or 'no'. Instead I got a lot of waffle about whatever the female leaders would agree to. Not exactly reassuring; in other cultures elder females go along with female circumcision.

As for your point, "I believe we currently have a men's legislature, and that hasn't been very successful. How about just having a women's legislature by itself? Couldn't do any worse really, could it?".

Apart from giving me a laugh, I agree it wouldn't be worse, but it sure wouldn't be any better.

People need equitable representation in law, politics, business and domestic issues. We know that division hasn't and isn't working.

My understanding of what's proposed (have I got this right or am I missing key aspects of this?)

1/ Representation based on around 250 local communities
2/ Those local communities print their own currency and appoint and fund their representatives.
3/ Separate mens and womens legislatures
3/ Some mechanism so that laws passed are by agreement between the legislatures
4/ Oversight by a group of elders who have hopefully gained empathy due to their age
5/ Separate courts for men and women

R0bert

suzeonline, women’s and men’s business is as relevant in Aboriginal communities today as it was 200 years ago, the more so that europeans have largely assimilated in all but their instruments of governance.

i've lived in Aboriginal communities from Redfern where I live now to the Central Australian community of Areyonga a decade after first contact and never come across anyone who disrespects equal rights between women and men.

it's a trait governments doggedly refuse to acknowledge which most Australians do, which is why Australia's Constitution is so out of kilter with the will of the people and needs an urgent update.
when men gave women the vote in 1902 and allowed women to enter parliament the inclusion of women was considered an improvement.
the trial worked, governance has improved, its come time to consolidate with a legislature.

the entertainment centre which housed my office operated a night club attended by a number of sexworkers of Caucasian appearance, some of whom reported being raped by police.
these women sought the refuge of equal rights from the paternalism of Australian law, as do many women who attend Aboriginal festivals and solidarity marches, as with the hundreds of thousands who walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge a decade ago. Aboriginal women's business isn’t exactly a secret.

matriarchies are rare but exist, Hopi Indians pass property on through matrilineal descent.
like patriarchy but for different reasons, matriarchy is inherently unstable.

Severin, Australia is governed by a tribal culture which divides the nation into first-class male citizens and second-class female citizens, about which most Australians have serious reservations.
the people are crying out for equitable representation in law, politics, business and domestic issues which can only be achieved with the provision of a women's legislature.

cultures in which elder females go along with female circumcision are controlled by men.
i didn't hedge, the practice of giving young girls to male elders for marriage is different if women control what girls do than if men do, obviously.

RObert, Tom Calma is convening a preliminary self-funded national Aboriginal advisory congress comprised of equal numbers of women and men following widespread consultation with Aboriginal communities across Australia.
representation is from a variety of sources including government and community organisations and individuals funded on a corporate model.
the proposal may be viewed here http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/repbody/report2009/index.html.

i'm proposing a referendum to amend Australia's Constitution to provide for law enacted by agreement between a women's legislature and a men's legislature, replacing the current provision for law enacted by agreement between the Senate and the House of Representatives, presided over by distinguished elders replacing the Queen and governors-general accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction replacing courts of men's jurisdiction only.

Whistler, I am sorry that I missed the real meaning of your first few posts.
After reading the above posts I can see what you are getting at.
I would welcome a parliament with a much larger representation of women in our country.

I agree that at present it is much too male dominated.
Surely with male and females in more equal numbers, we would have a much more balanced government with an equal emphasis placed on male and female issues.

I don't think this will happen in my lifetime, but I can't see a separate legislature ever coming to pass.

I too have worked amongst Aboriginal people in both city and country situations over many years. Although I admit to mainly dealing with issues involving the health of these people, I was a community nurse going into their homes and communities.

For the most part, women and children were treated as second class citizens and many were abused.
I just can't get past that experience.

Whistler

Thank you for your considered responses to our requests.

You state:

<<< cultures in which elder females go along with female circumcision are controlled by men.
i didn't hedge, the practice of giving young girls to male elders for marriage is different if women control what girls do than if men do, obviously. >>>

I would posit that cultures in which elder females go along with giving young girls to male elders are also ultimately controlled by men.

Further, in aboriginal culture, "women's business" would be the only opportunity for tribal women to be free, if temporarily from the patriarchal tribe.

I do understand why you suggest a 'women's legislation' in Australian parliament - women are still considered second class citizens in many ways. However, like Suzeonline, I cannot see that ever happening and can see only equitable numbers of women in office ever making legal, medical, education, political, industrial and environmental systems approach more balance and rationale than we have at present.