hi Pericles, the first two statements are a nonsense because men can remove women's suffrage at a whim. Australia's Constitution, which authorises this whim, is thus legislation which allows women to be treated as the property or chattels of men. The Constitution currently obstructs equal rights between women and men and can only be amended by referendum to give women and men equal power in our present legislatures, or abandoned, the former more courteous to the Queen. Male privilege should be compromised because equality is a pillar of democracy.

Actually, that isn't the case, whistler.

>>the first two statements are a nonsense because men can remove women's suffrage at a whim.<<

Women's suffrage can only be removed by women and men, jointly, voting it down. There is no legislature in Australia that is "men only".

>>Australia's Constitution, which authorises this whim, is thus legislation which allows women to be treated as the property or chattels of men.<<

Australia's Constitution, may I remind you, enshrined the existing women's suffrage in SA, NT and WA. Clearly, there was no provision for women to be subservient to men, as you suggest.

>>The Constitution currently obstructs equal rights between women and men and can only be amended by referendum to give women and men equal power in our present legislatures<<

Women and men already have equal power in our present legislatures. It doesn't need to be given to them by referendum.

hi Pericles, there is no legislature in Australia which cannot be made men only. Women have equal power in men's legislatures. Men's legislatures enshrined the existing women's suffrage in SA, NT and WA.

Hey PERICLES... myyyyyyy oh my... I just discovered how much I appreciate you :)

Apparently you have not yet surcumbed to the temptation? to post in poor old CJ's *whinge* BLOG.

I can see why, you generally seek to persuade, and do some argumentation based on actual research rather than 'just' saturate your posts with 'fear/loathing' type comments.

See the predictable progression unfold below.

//Foxy said... (from Cyberia)
We all left OLO for a variety of reasons.
I feel rather strongly that if this blog
is going to be successful - we should leave
OLO behind us - and move towards trying to create a new discussion Forum. If we don't do that - we might as well have remained on OLO//

Morgan says:
//I just had a quick squizz at OLO, and I found the discussions generally too banal and one-sided to really miss.//

Yep..that's why his blog is called 'siberia' :) with a c

then this from our beloved Ginx

//And Mr Morgan? In an appalling and pathetic endeavour to show a difference between yourself and Graham Young- you choose to 'encourage' me to leave your site by taking the action you have done.

CJ/Severin/Andris/LeFoxy: there is NO difference between you and Graham Young. NONE.// (discussion?)

The rot setteth in.....destruction draweth nigh.....the end is near.

Balance.....that's a good idea.. but apparently some people prefer incestuous self indulgent mutual back scratching of intense loathing for anyone who is critical.

This is a bit off topic (apologies)...but I wanted to register my thoughts having only this morning seen the Cyberia site :)

Brevity is all very well, whistler. But this is getting beyond brief, and well into cryptic.

>>hi Pericles, there is no legislature in Australia which cannot be made men only<<

But equally, there is no legislature in Australia which cannot be made women only. Parliament can decide, a referendum held, and lo! We have a women-only legislature. This is in fact - if I understand you correctly - exactly what you are suggesting.

The question is, why would anyone want to do this, when we have the various genders working together quite harmoniously under the banner of "equality before the law and parliament"

The concepts of separate decision-making processes, and equality in decision-making processes, are at complete odds with each other.

>>Women have equal power in men's legislatures.<<

There is no such thing in Australia as "men's legislatures". But it is nice to know that if there were, women would have equal power. That would surely be a good thing, right?

>>Men's legislatures enshrined the existing women's suffrage in SA, NT and WA<<

And if they were to exist, that would also be good, right?

I am still having a problem coming to terms with the problem that you see in the present set-up, that requires such a divisive "solution".

Pericles ">>...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."

Whistler has already provided the justification Pericles.
* It better represents the many gender specific social issues.
* It better represents the many non gender specific social issues.
* It puts checks and measures on the other leader.
* A two leader system is a tried and true method - res publica, or if you prefer, Sparta.
* The 'little woman' syndrome would have no currency, because the system proposed would not support it.

More significantly, there is no justification for the one leader approach to government, except to say that it was born of monarchy and imperialism, both of which promote inequity.