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.