Thanks for starting this thread, whistler. I'm looking forward to gaining a clearer understanding of your stance.

From what you have said so far, I do have a couple of points that I hope you can clarify.

Firstly, I am guessing that your re-branding of the senate would in fact convert it to a second lower house - am I right? The two lower houses (men's and women's) would act as upper houses for each other, requiring agreement before legislation is passed. Correct me if I have misunderstood.

Secondly, would there be two cabinet members for each portfolio, or would the portfolios be divided equally among men and women? If the latter, how would the 'big ticket' portfolios be divided?

I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from but, from a social point of view, I can't help thinking it would do more harm than good. It legalises a divide that we are trying to break down. It says that men can never stand up for women and women can never stand up for men. I don't like that too much. What of the other arbitrary divisions in our society - black/white, native-born/immigrant, young/old, blue collar/white collar? If we give up on integrating genders, then what's to stop us giving up on bridging these other gaps? We could end up with a truly enormous government.

hi Pericles, small questions? i've answered them all, at least to my own satisfaction! What about the biggies, like re-balance from what? for there to be re-balance there must have been balance in the first place. Or the monster, why are there women and men? i could use the practice.

My take on environmental catastrophe begins with nuclear winter, much discussed during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 [sort of solved], progresses through acid rain [solved], the hole in the ozone layer [solved by 2030] to global warming [we live in hope], not to mention overcrowding [projected to decline after 2050 from ninish billion - how? by having given women access to education!]. The coincidence of a surge of women's liberation with the moment men achieved the dubious honour of being able to extinguish life on Earth is a demonstration of the balance in nature which drives evolutionary theory. The question is not what was avoided with the vote, but what might be avoided with a legislature? Perhaps we're moving from a world which men can extinguish to one which is extinguishing men unless men re-balance habitation by sharing power equitably with women.

Each position you nominate needs to be shared conjointly with men to achieve equal rights governance, which is eminently achievable since women having already proven competent at each. Men granted themselves fifteen legislatures, sixteen actually but then abolished the Queensland Legislative Council, which are the source of all powers exercised by the citizens of Australia. There are no women's legislatures.

A women's legislature with members elected by women can be regarded as "equal rights" if you extend your quote nine words further along in the sentence which mentions "a men's legislature with members elected by men". Women and men have exactly the same right to elect members to their own legislature uncontaminated by ballots from the other, equal as it gets! Segregated rights applies to the same, not different constituents, so that only constituents who are the same get rights, constituents who are different miss out. Women and men are different not the same.

[cont.]

The day it really matters whether the blokes sit on red, green or technicolour seats is the day my work will have already been done, although i would suggest men should occupy the green seats because those seats currently form government so if the men remain on the green seats and the women occupy the red seats there is continuity in sharing the capacity to form government between both legislatures.

hi Peter Hume, i wouldn't support your counter proposal for gender specific laws because governance which empowers its principal constituents equitably should be inclusive not divisive.

hi R0bert, I sometimes wish there were sufficient men in the parliaments of Australia with the guts to do more than just give lip service to equality with women by actually passing the necessary legislation to remove all women from all parliaments, Ms Gillard and Ms Keneally included, and prohibit all women from voting at all elections in perpetuity, just to show the skeptics the second-class status women actually occupy in Australia, albeit a wake-up call i trust my powers of persuasion can avoid.

hi Otokonoko, your comprehension of my proposal is perfectly correct. Cabinet is conducted by convention, not really the business of a referendum which is conducted to enable a Constitution with a framework for equal rights governance. The business of government is best left to those governing, within guidelines, although i would expect each portfolio would have conjoint Ministers appointed from each legislature and i'd probably prefer a smallish cabinet with Ministers from say, half a dozen key portfolios, than a massive cabinet inclusive of a large outer ministry.

The good news is the divide has long since broken down, the genders are fully integrated and there's no turning back. It's now time to take advantage of difference. And if the principal constituents of governance achieve equality all demographics under governance achieve equality.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, whistler.

>> Pericles, small questions? i've answered them all, at least to my own satisfaction!<<

I hope you didn't try the same trick at school. "You may think it a touch thin on the ground, sir, but in my view I have completed my homework to my own satisfaction."

Wouldn't have worked for me.

Or more accurately, it didn't work for me.

This sort of thing would not have gone down well either.

>>The question is not what was avoided with the vote, but what might be avoided with a legislature?<<

Substituting your own question for the one that was asked is generally considered poor form.

Especially when, having posed the revised version, you don't even bother to answer it.

And forgive me for stating the obvious, but without a proper explanation of the basic need that is being fulfilled, your argument is entirely circular...

>>There are no women's legislatures.<<

No. But there are people legislatures, in which women are represented. What you haven't yet explained is why you have a problem with people.

This sounds uncommonly like apartheid:

>>Segregated rights applies to the same, not different constituents, so that only constituents who are the same get rights, constituents who are different miss out.<<

Are you old-school, separate-development South African, by any chance?

And again, it is necessary to state the bleedin' obvious:

>>if the men remain on the green seats and the women occupy the red seats there is continuity<<

If you happen to be a woman on a green seat, or a bloke on a red seat, there is no continuity whatsoever.

And this is a blatant self-contradiction:

>>The good news is the divide has long since broken down, the genders are fully integrated and there's no turning back.<<

Surely, if there is no longer a gender divide, creating one is exactly that: turning back.

>> It's now time to take advantage of difference.<<

What advantage?

Or have you already answered that to your own satisfaction?

I think you enjoy this too much Pericles.

I was just about to say, right.. so it's all settled then. No need to mention it any more.

I am curious about one thing. How would the mechanism to evict all women from parliament work in practise and would the female PM Governor General and Queen have to be involved?

I do like the idea of getting rid of outdated laws and it would be good to get rid of many of them, but it takes someone obsessed with symbolism or an extraordinary pedant to really care enough to bother when there are more pressing concerns.

hi Pericles, change your tone and i'll answer your questions.