hi Pericles, male privilege is a fact of the rule of law in Australia. By original intent there are men's legislatures only. Pirates and buccaneers may argue otherwise but the fact remains. You're asking a bloke which decision women would have made? I'm with George Jetson.

hi R0bert, Australia celebrates extraordinary achievements with women's rights other than legislatures and a jurisdiction at law.

I've asked a couple of times, whistler, but have yet to receive a response. You insist that...

>>...male privilege is a fact of the rule of law in Australia.<<

...but you haven't explained which law - or laws - demonstrate this.

Given that they all tend to be written down somewhere, I would have thought that it would be a simple exercise for you to provide just one?

>>By original intent there are men's legislatures only<<

Men's legislatures that contain women.

A situation that was specifically enacted through legislation. Why do you keep pretending that they are for men only?

>>Pirates and buccaneers may argue otherwise but the fact remains<<

I don't see that piracy is particularly relevant. But I do strongly suggest that you use your buccaneers, and listen harder to the arguments.

>>You're asking a bloke which decision women would have made?<<

Just one "for-instance" would do, whistler. Only so that you can illustrate your fanciful suggestion that "an imbalance of male power has caused irreparable harm to the environment, collapsed the global economy and prosecutes warfare incessantly"

You must surely have some foundation for this bizarre claim?

Given that women voting, women in parliament, women Prime Ministers and so on, must have had some impact on the turning of the democratic wheels over the years?

>>I'm with George Jetson.<<

Which particular assertion? This one, perhaps...

>>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<<

More probably, this one...

>>...a one leader government is not equitable in comparison to a two leader government representing the two genders and their respective interests<<

Significantly, no justification for this assertion is provided.

Why is it wrong to have a female Prime Minister? Why complicate matters by insisting that a man should stand alongside her?

I thought we had overcome the "little woman" syndrome a long time ago.

hi Pericles, George Jetson rightfully points out women and men represent different interests. Women would never have been discriminated against in the first place if they represented the same interests as men. It's preposterous to suggest the two Westminster legislatures which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, legislation which is Australia's primary instrument of governance, were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures which intended to enable dedicated men's legislatures because both prohibited women. It's even more preposterous to suggest that state legislatures enabled when the law considered men were people and women their property are anything other than dedicated men's legislatures. Men have a superior quality of tenure than women in Australia's legislatures. Members can remove women, only a vote of the people can remove men. The rule of law privileges men, plain fact. Only the lawless would raise the Jolly Roger and insist otherwise. The remedy is the provision of women's legislatures, courts and corporate committees at a referendum which would succeed next Saturday because there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equality between women and men. The military prosecuting wars globally, the finance industry which collapsed the global economy and the board of BP Global, the company responsible for the oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst in history, are all saturated with male decision-making, and that's just the legacy of the past three years. Coincidence, few would agree. The US congress has already enacted fair inclusion legislation to include women more equitably in the finance industry as the ASX is doing having flagged the introduction of quotas for women on the boards of directors of Australian companies, including BP Australia, while the recruitment of women into the military is ongoing.

erratum: the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900

Well, call me preposterous, whistler.

>>It's preposterous to suggest the two Westminster legislatures which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, legislation which is Australia's primary instrument of governance, were anything other than dedicated men's legislatures which intended to enable dedicated men's legislatures because both prohibited women.<<

I do suggest it. In fact I insist upon it.

A mere eighteen months after Federation, the brand-new Commonwealth tidied up the detail of the composition of the legislatures, and the equal right of men and women to vote, via the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902.

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=88

You will also note - and this is very significant, so pin back those buccaneers - that the Constitution (yes, that one) had already provided for the women of South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia to vote, since they had already been enfranchised prior to Federation.

So, far from the intent being "dedicated men's legislatures", as you postulate, it quite specifically included women. Which is why you may be confident that the Franchise Act was merely a tidying-up operation, creating consistency across the new confederation.

>>It's even more preposterous to suggest that state legislatures enabled when the law considered men were people and women their property are anything other than dedicated men's legislatures.<<

You might have to run that past me again, I'm not sure your meaning is clear. Which laws considered women to be the property of men?

(More importantly, have they been rescinded? If not, it will provide some very interesting dinner conversation with my partner this evening)

>>The rule of law privileges men, plain fact.<<

Repetition does not make this any more true, whistler. In fact, it simply underlines the massive lack of anything that even hints at evidence.

>>there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equality between women and men.<<

At last, something with which I can agree, wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, my own view is that equality in the make-up of our legislative bodies has also already occurred, and that introducing gender apartheid is a fundamentally flawed proposal, and a quite considerable retrograde step.

hi Pericles, the CWA is gender apartheid?