That's a very odd argument, whistler. In fact, it is a non-argument.

>>...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.<<

I understand that parliament can introduce a bill to rescind existing legislation, that much is clear.

But what I cannot understand is what you consider to be "the same for men", in your statement "Only a vote of the people can bring into effect the same for men".

Is the "effect" that you are looking for the disenfranchisement of men? Under what circumstances do you see that being required?

Would those circumstances not be the same for women? Or do you seriously think there is the remotest possibility that someone would introduce a bill that rescinds the legislation that "legitimizes" women?

Let's be realistic for a moment. A bill to disenfranchise women is just as likely, statistically speaking, as a referendum to disenfranchise men, would you not agree.

As a result, the entire foundation upon which you build this "men govern by public consent and women are second-class citizens" is purely theoretical, and therefore a thoroughly unsound base upon which to create the notion that "separate legislatures" are somehow a requirement.

There is, of course, absolutely no impediment to the foundation here of a women's caucus. As you point out, the US has had one for more than thirty years. Interestingly, far from it being "a preparatory step to a women's legislature", they seem sublimely indifferent to the concept.

Given that there is little interest among women Senators in the foundation of a Women's Caucus, combined with the fact, as I noted before, that we have a preponderance of women in power right at this moment, don't you think you might be advocating that we run, long before we have even thought about dragging our nappy-covered bottoms across the carpet?

hi Pericles, the citizens of Australia would remove men from governance at a referendum if a majority decided male privilege is untenable. Since an imbalance of male power has caused irreparable harm to the environment, collapsed the global economy and prosecutes warfare incessantly, a majority in support is a certainty as a last resort to secure human survival. A referendum isn't required to remove women because women and men are not equal under the law. The representatives of the people in the nation's parliaments can remove women to prove the intractable nature of male privilege under the Federation Constitution. There are easily sufficient members of Australia's parliaments with the courage to do more than just give lip service to equal rights with women by passing the necessary legislation to remove all women to prove the rule of law not only works but is wildly out of touch with the people, if ever the few remaining skeptics and criminal fringe needed to be convinced. Women Senators in Australia caucus informally and on occasion formally, all the time, A caucus is preparatory not a precondition of a legislature. Australian women already have sufficient experience of parliament to assemble legislatures of their own. Neither is there a preponderance of women in power right at this moment in Australia. The nation is not one of the 28 countries which have achieved the 30 percent target for women in decision-making positions set by the United Nations in the early 1990s, considered critical mass for the prosecution of a women's perspective. The rule of law is more than theory, it's the difference between modern democracy and mayhem. If you find the rule of law too theoretical go live in the backblocks of Somalia. The rule of law in Australia privileges men. That was fine at Federation but is no longer acceptable.

Collective bargaining is one of the pillars of modern democracy. The Senate and the House of Representatives are convened on the principle of collective bargaining between the States and the Commonwealth. Collective bargaining between the primary components of community, women and men, is replacing collective bargaining between primary components men conceived in the formulation of modern govenance, a process which culminates in the provision of women's legislatures enacting law in agreement with existing men's legislatures globally.

George Jetson nailed it:

"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".

It still doesn't hang together as an argument, whistler.

>>the citizens of Australia would remove men from governance at a referendum if a majority decided male privilege is untenable<<

You have already presupposed male privilege. None exists. We are all citizens, with equal right to vote.

>>Since an imbalance of male power has caused irreparable harm to the environment, collapsed the global economy and prosecutes warfare incessantly<<

Again, where's the imbalance? All Australian women have had the same right as men to vote, and to stand for political office, since 1902.

The only position that you can realistically hold in the face of this evidence is that democracy itself does not work. That is, despite the fact that women's votes and men's votes have equal weight, and that women can bid for those votes with the same standing as men, somehow the outcome is not representative of the will of the people.

How exactly does it fail, in that respect?

As I asked before, what decisions would women have made that avoided the "irreparable harm" you allude to (but do not specify), when would they have made those decisions, and how would they have been implemented?

Just one example would suffice.

>>A referendum isn't required to remove women because women and men are not equal under the law.<<

But they are indeed, completely equal under the law. Show me a law that denies this.

And frankly, this following sentence of yours is completely obscure. To the point where I suspect that you intended it to be.

>>There are easily sufficient members of Australia's parliaments with the courage to do more than just give lip service to equal rights with women by passing the necessary legislation to remove all women to prove the rule of law not only works but is wildly out of touch with the people, if ever the few remaining skeptics and criminal fringe needed to be convinced.<<

Care to elaborate?

>>Women Senators in Australia caucus informally and on occasion formally, all the time<<

But you told me that the Country Women's Association was our only women's caucus...

[contd.]

>>Neither is there a preponderance of women in power right at this moment in Australia<<

We've been through this.

My own "journey to the top" starts with my local mayor, through my State Premier, then to State Governor, through to Prime Minister, Governor General and Australia's Head of State.

Our day-tripping Martian visitor would be forgiven for thinking that we are already a matriarchal society, with men as also-rans.

>>The rule of law in Australia privileges men. That was fine at Federation but is no longer acceptable.<<

At Federation, South Australia and Western Australia already enfranchised women. The year after Federation, the Commonwealth Franchise Act (1902) was passed. There is no rule of law that privileges men in Australia.

Not one.

>>George Jetson nailed it<<

Who?

http://www.scarlet.nl/~ivo/photo_GEORGE.html

And he should learn to spell...

"they would both be powerful and directed to compliment one another in the interest of society as a whole"

Although I guess saying "you look nice today" is a good start...

"My own "journey to the top" starts with my local mayor, through my State Premier, then to State Governor, through to Prime Minister, Governor General and Australia's Head of State." - mine too but I think my local mayor and State Premier are different to your's.

It's those dammed men unreasonably oppressing women plus a few manly women appointing women to positions that's the created a total lack of female representation in government.

R0bert