D'you know, whistler, I'd really like to believe that.

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

But history tells me otherwise.

Everyone here has been gently tolerant of own dismissive tone, right back to your "absent womens legislature" days.

Given that, back then, you were reluctant to provide even the most rudimentary support to any of your assertions, I think everyone has been remarkably patient, myself included.

So for you to suddenly take exception to my patient and polite - if a touch searching - questioning technique, is exceptionally precious.

You are of course free to ignore my questions, or to present some rebuttals. It is entirely your choice.

Either way, have a great day.

hi Houellebecq, the mechanism works by rescinding legislation which men passed to enfranchise women. A majority of votes in a majority of states at a referendum can remove men. The female PM Governor General and Queen would become involved if legislation was coupled with a call for a republic.

There's a massive difference between representation conducted by members under legally enforced supervision and representation conducted unilaterally. The former is banana democracy.

hi Pericles, better thanks. I actually did do that. When i studied third form French i completed every exercise in the back of the text book by mid year and spent the rest of the year responding to the weekly task the teacher set for homework with the words ... c'est comme si c'était ... 'done that'! . But of course my comment on this forum was tongue in cheek. I was actually reprising President Kennedy in the context of the Cuban crisis ... "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". The vote raised the status of women from abject powerlessness to empowerment under male supervision and probably saved a nuclear winter, fallout shelters were built all over America. Now for global warming!

By the legal doctrine of original intent Australia is governed by fifteen men's legislatures which admit women under supervision inclusive of leadership. There are no women's legislatures and there are no people's legislatures, that's the law. Gender apartheid is when men have legislatures and women don't which is how Australia has been governed since Federation. Equal rights governance eliminates gender apartheid.

hey Pericles, in good humour, whatever else happens in my life i'll always remember you as the bloke who brought up the issue of the colour of the seats upon which men might sit, thanks!

Why not let women be women and men be men... let the one compliment the other in an environment that promotes equal consideration and equal opportunity.

It does mean accepting that women and men will dominate different occupations with a minority who cross over into the other's field of interest; that most often men are stronger and smarter but equally, that the manly strength of yore and the need for this level of strength is rare; that the aggregate difference in the Intelligence Quotient of females and males is negligible and has minimal impact; that there is always a minority who cross over the gender boundaries in strength and smarts as it is in work interests and most other things.

More radically, it means accepting that a one leader government is not equitable in comparison to a two leader government representing the two genders and their respective interests being mindful that they would both be powerful and directed to compliment one another in the interest of society as a whole.

All red/green seat trivia aside, whistler, I still believe that the issue that you have raised is an entirely manufactured one. Resting, as it does, on a confection of your very own: "legally enforced supervision".

It is a phrase that appears nowhere else in our constitution, legislature or parliamentary proceedings, yet you scatter it about these discussions like so much confetti.

The phrase "legally enforced supervision" is appropriate for such bodies as APRA, ASIC, ACCC etc., which provide governance in a well-defined, carefully executed manner. To apply it in the context that you do, requires a little more explanation than you have provided.

Where, for example, are the "legislatures which admit women under supervision inclusive of leadership"?

Given that we have such a preponderance of female leaders, surely the shackles of "supervision" would be visible to the naked eye, rather than resting solely in the eye of one beholder.

I suspect that you have confused the issue of "women in power" far more than you have clarified it, whistler.

It goes back a long way, you know.

Here's the Chorus of Women in Aristophanes' Lysistrata:

"It should not prejudice my voice that I'm not born a man,
If I say something advantageous to the present situation.
For I'm taxed too, and as a toll provide men for the nation
While, miserable greybeards, you,
It is true,
Contribute nothing of any importance whatever to our needs;
But the treasure raised against the Medes
You've squandered, and do nothing in return, save that you make
Our lives and persons hazardous by some imbecile mistakes
What can you answer?"

Interestingly, the Magistrate clearly believed that the problem stemmed from the extremely poor supervision that men exercised over women...

Plus ça change, eh.

hi Pericles, the politicians who occupy Australia's federal and state legislatures, dedicated men's legislatures by original intent, can remove all women members, including the current Prime Minister and two state Premiers, and prohibit all women the vote by rescinding legislation which granted women franchise. Only a vote of the people can bring into effect the same for men.

The rule of law in Australia is very specific, men govern by public consent and women are second-class citizens.

While "Modern democracies do not use institutions that resemble the Athenian system of rule"
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy], a majority convene a women's caucus, a preparatory step to a women's legislature, to advise their legislatures. Australia boasts the Country Women's Association as a quasi women's caucus and not much more.

"Interestingly, Australia’s parliament has no formal women’s caucus, which puts us in a minority among the world’s democracies. The US congress has one, and so does the British parliament. Around the world the number of women’s caucuses continues to grow. [Former Australian Senator Lyn] Allison, who has visited Vietnam, speaks about the caucus there, and the fact that in most of the “baby-step” democracies, women’s caucuses are a permanent and significant feature. [http://inside.org.au/a-different-kind-of-politics].