Hi Pericles, you don't have to steal from your neighbour, however improbable that might be, to prove the rule of law prohibits stealing, the fact it's possible is sufficient. Neither are referenda required to disenfranchise women in the states. All that's required is to rescind legislation enfranchising women. In tandem with the Commonwealth, all women can be removed from all legislatures in Australia and all women prohibited from the vote at the collective whim of majorities of each of the fifteen dedicated men's legislatures governing the nation, a distinct possibility if these legislatures seek to prove Australian governance remains firmly under the doctrine of gender apartheid. Men can only be removed by referenda of the people, a much more difficult process. The word apartheid, used usually with race but may also be applied to gender, refers to segregation of political, legal, and economic rights. It doesn't mean segregating women and men with the same rights or segregating women and men to achieve the same rights. A women's legislature gives women exactly the same political, legal, and economic rights as men granted themselves when establishing the Commonwealth, state and territory legislatures [the NT became a territory on 1 January 1911 and its legislature achieved self-government in 1978].

Gender apartheid was at full bloom in England during the Victorian era when women could not vote, sue, or own property. "The role of women was to have children and tend the house. They could not hold a job unless it was that of a teacher, nor were they allowed to have their own checking accounts or savings accounts. In the end, they were to be treated as saints, but saints that had no legal rights." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Victorian_era. Apart from the right to a legislature which only men hold, gender apartheid has been largely dismantled, a process during which men encouraged women to gain experience in men's legislatures in preparation for convening legislatures of their own, a necessary step since women had no experience of lawmaking other than casting a vote in two of six states at Federation. If you support gender apartheid and don't believe women should have exactly the same political, legal and economic rights as women you will in all likelihood have the opportunity to vote no at a referendum on an equal rights republic in the not too distant future.

But whistler. Surely, it is the other way around?

>> If you support gender apartheid and don't believe women should have exactly the same political, legal and economic rights as women you will in all likelihood have the opportunity to vote no at a referendum on an equal rights republic in the not too distant future.<<

I am in the corner fighting for equal rights.

You are in the corner fighting for gender apartheid.

Apartheid is Afrikaans for "separateness", or "apartness". It came to mean, in a political sense, separate development, in which there were different legislative structures for each group.

Your proposal that women form a separate legislature follows exactly these lines.

Your proposition, therefore, is for gender apartheid, while mine is for gender equality.

Just saying.

hi Pericles, you nailed it for the women and men of Victorian England just like George Jetson nailed it for today. Apartheid means separateness or apartness from political, legal and economic rights which generates separate development. Do you collect antiques?

"The pejorative term gender apartheid (or sexual apartheid) has been applied to segregation of people by gender, implying that it is sexual discrimination" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation. "Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership (whether voluntary or involuntary) in a certain group or category" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination. Gender apartheid implies prejudicial treatment, like when men have legislatures and women don't. If you genuinely support equal rights like George Jetson, you'll vote YES at a referendum to provide women with exactly the same powers to make laws as men. If you only pretend to support equal rights but actually prefer gender apartheid like Pericles and consider men should have have more power than women you'll vote NO. Genuine equal rights or more of the same tired old well past its used by date gender apartheid that blossomed in the Victorian era and is now in its death throes, held up by little more than lame efforts to emasculate the meaning of words, it's up to you.

Whistler, which of these statements is inaccurate, and why.

"Men and women in Australia today have equal access, to the same legislation, and are treated equally before the law."

"Laws are formulated, implemented and supported equally by men and women, who are equally able to vote, and to stand for representation in the legislatures."

"There remains no legislation on the statute books that allows women to be treated as the property or chattels of men, or vice versa."

The above forms the background to the following observations:

>>Gender apartheid implies prejudicial treatment, like when men have legislatures and women don't.<<

There is no prejudice involved in a legislature in which women and men have equal rights. Such as that we currently enjoy.

>>If you genuinely support equal rights like George Jetson, you'll vote YES at a referendum to provide women with exactly the same powers to make laws as men.<<

A referendum is not required, since women already have exactly the same powers to make laws as men.

>>If you only pretend to support equal rights but actually prefer gender apartheid like Pericles and consider men should have have more power than women you'll vote NO.<<

Men and women have equal power in our present legislatures.

I genuinely cannot see that it is necessary to compromise the equality we have at the moment with the creation of gender-separate legislatures.