Good to see that you started the thread, whistler.

It might give the rest of us a chance to understand your position a little better.

Brevity, as Polonius explained, is the soul of wit. And you clearly believe that your pared-down aperçus should be sufficiently self-explanatory for us peasants to grasp your meaning.

But to help me along, could you please humour my ignorance for a moment, and expand a little on the key points?.

>>Men support the empowerment of women because an imbalance of male power brought life on Earth to the brink...<<

You stopped at the really interesting part. The brink of what?

But even before that, you make the sweeping assumption, that men support the empowerment of women.

Well of course we do, silly.

Or we think we do.

Or we do, under certain circumstances - let's be honest, no-one wants to be a slave, which would be at the far end of the "empowerment" spectrum.

So, can you tell us what you mean, when you use the word "empowerment". Some examples of how women are not currently empowered would help, I think.

And this is puzzling, too:

>>...it's perfectly obvious the imbalance is self-correcting.<<

Surely that's a good reason not to interfere? If the imbalance is self-correcting, all we need to do is step back and watch.

Once we have sorted that out, I'd appreciate an explanation of how "women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees" will work. You know, who will elect them, what powers they will have, that sort of stuff.

But that can wait.

Because obviously I won't be able to understand the solution, until you have explained what problem it is setting out to address.

hi one under god, male genius has its downside but ultimately the transformation of governance from family groups to that of the entire world, largely with the support of women, has contributed substantially to human achievement, but there's unfinished business. A women's legislature is a vote next Saturday away.

hi nairbe, the proposal is not for new legislation but to update existing legislation, the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1901, Australia's Constitution, to achieve the same 'liberational' equality between women and men as you suggest was your formative experience.

hi Pericles, the online BBC News Style Guide p67 suggests that "[S]implicity is the key to understanding. Short words in short sentences present listeners and viewers with the fewest obstacles to comprehension". http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsStyleGuide.pdf.

The phrase 'to the brink' is used in both it's senses, to describe a crucial or critical point beyond which catastrophe occurs, since the world has been living with the prospect of environmental catastrophe for the past half century, as well as to describe a crucial or critical point beyond which success occurs, with the imminent completion of the transformation of the governance of family groups to that of the entire world.

On empowerment, by original intent Australia is governed by fifteen federal and state men's legislatures, a solitary men's jurisdiction at law and a proliferation of men's local councils and corporate committees all of which which admit women under supervision inclusive of leadership. Governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees empowers women with exactly the same authority men exercise in a democracy and completes the transformation to global governance.

On self-correction, modern governance is out of synq with the modern world. The Constitution was written when women were prohibited from parliament, no woman spoke to the bill, women were powerless at the source of governance. Power has re-balanced, women are now perfectly competent to operate their own legislatures, to exercise exactly the same powers men granted themselves.

hi Pericles, equal rights governance rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women enrolled to vote and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men enrolled to vote, each legislature with exactly the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both.

A cabinet of equal numbers of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the parliament and provides leadership, while sovereignty resides with a cabinet nominated council of governors-general comprised of equal numbers of distinguished senior women and men.

The States and Territories follow suit, their interests preserved through women's and men's lines of communication, while the courts interpret legislation and deliver justice by agreement between women's and men's jurisdictions, reconciled by judicial councils comprised of equal numbers of women and men. Local councils and corporations administer legislation by agreement between women's and men's committees, reconciled by boards of directors, again comprised of equal numbers of women and men.

Change is a simple reorder of what already exists, a referendum gives effect, an equitable outcome is certain

Thanks, whistler, that's quite a lucid contribution.

Just a few small questions, though.

>>the world has been living with the prospect of environmental catastrophe for the past half century<<

Have you selected the last fifty years for a reason? What happened in the 1960s that moved us from a catastrophe-absent status, to catastrophe-in-prospect?

And about that potential catastrophe.

How might it have been avoided, if women had had the vote? Oh, wait a moment...

Try again. How might it have been avoided, if there had been "women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees" in existence, during the past half century?

As I have mentioned on this Forum before, Australia has a female Head of State, a female Governor General, and a female Prime Minister. My State of NSW has a female Governor, a female Premier, and my local Council is headed by a female mayor.

Which of these will need to be replaced by men, in your revised set-up?

And on much the same theme...

>>...women are now perfectly competent to operate their own legislatures, to exercise exactly the same powers men granted themselves<<

Which are the powers that men granted themselves, that now need to be granted to women? I can't think of one. Can you?

Now, to the meat of your proposal.

>>...equal rights governance rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women<<

How can that possibly be regarded as "equal rights"?

Surely, it is exactly the opposite - selected, segregated rights.

And why the Senate? Why shouldn't women do the hard yards in the Reps, and let the blokes lounge around in the red seats?

Fair's fair.

>>A cabinet of equal numbers of women... and men... reconciles the business of the parliament and provides leadership<<

Sounds good, on paper. Dishing out portfolios could be a problem though. The devil, as always, will be in the detail. And Party Politics will ensure that we are still served up with the same mish-mash of populist tosh.

Or will you do away with political parties too?

Now that's an idea...

I've got a better idea. Why not a women's legislature passing laws that apply only to women, and a men's legislature passing laws that apply only to men?

In fact, for more perfect equality, we could have one legislature per person. I could be the Independent Republic of Peter Humistan. I would wear one of those hats that Mohammed Karzai wears, and as I walk down the street, munching a sandwich, I could reflect on the glory of my own ineffable sovereignty.

Pericles Whistler gave a bit more detail about one aspect in a reply to me recently at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11131#187482

"With complementary state legislation a majority of Australia's parliament can rescind the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 with the effect of removing all women members, including a woman Prime Minister, and prohibiting all women the vote. "

I can't really see a majority of state parliament's feeling that was a politically safe thing to do although I expect that the QLD and NSW premiers might have been tempted in recent times given comments by the PM about them.

If the provisions are as whistler describes then they are legislative oddities which should be cleaned up but I don't see how they are real issues likely to be ever used.

R0bert