//Because she knew her place and what was expected of her, she did her duty and went on to become queen.//

Wow, no excrement, Einstein.

The point is that when she became Queen, she attained a position of great power in national security (commander-in-chief of the British armed forces), whilst being a woman of child-bearing age.

Is Mise has just said that he thinks that women of child-bearing age should't have such positions - but I've never heard him complain about the Act of Succession that got her in the crowned in the first place, or the changes recently made to Act of Succession replacing male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture (which increases the chances of getting a Queen rather than a King). Every single member of the British armed forces swear allegiance to, and only to, the Queen... never heard a peep from him on the folly of having a nation's military swear allegiance to somebody who may suffer PMT.

Is it possible that he thinks royalty don't menstruate?

//So Toni, next time there is an election to vote in a 'queen'//

How is that relevant? Democratically elected or appointed by hereditary succession, she's still a woman. The clue is in the word 'Queen'.

Toni, the difference, and the part you are not considering is, that a Royal has no choice, or should I say, they have two choices, one is to accept the job or two, is to reject it, and abdicate.
We can do nothing about a royal, PMS and all the other foibles that come with them.
Where-as 'electing' a woman is a whole different story.
In this scenario WE, the people, get a choice.
I think you may be attempting to deflect by the substance of your question.
I bring your attention to the title of this topic; 'Women in parliament'.
As a queen is not a political appointment but a hereditary one, I think you can see what I'm getting at, your question might not apply here.

//Toni, the difference, and the part you are not considering//

Yes, the reason I'm not considering it is because, as I pointed out in my last post, it's not relevant.

Is Mise didn't specify women democratically elected to positions of power. He said, and I quote:

//No woman of child bearing age should be in a position of power affecting National or State security//

Not 'No woman of child bearing age should be elected to a position of power affecting National or State security', but rather 'No woman of child bearing age should be in a position of power affecting National or State security'. Do you understand the difference in meaning between those two sentences? Serious question.

//I think you may be attempting to deflect by the substance of your question.//

Deflect from what, you daft twat? I asked Is Mise to clarify his point about whether women should be in positions of power affecting national security. You're the one throwing in all these pointless (and, might I add, tautological) red herrings about hereditary monarchs not being elected.

//I bring your attention to the title of this topic; 'Women in parliament'.//

Yep, that's the title alright.

But Is Mise didn't specify women in Parliamentary positions. He specified women in positions of power. Which the Queen definitely is.

//I think you can see what I'm getting at//

No, I'm just scratching my head as to how you can be so remarkably thick as to fail to understand the point even after it has been explained simply and clearly a number of times.

Toni, then instead of responding to a comment you clearly knew was off topic, why did you not choose to simply correct him by highlighting the name of the topic, thereby getting back on topic.
Oh and by the way 'women in parliament' are 'elected', so back to MY point, you should have pulled him up for going off topic.
Even though it's off topic, I stand by my previous comments.

Toni Lavis, "//I guess the sooner we come to accept that men are from venus and women from mars//

No, they don't. They both come from Earth. They both belong to the same species. They share 45 out of 46 chromosomes, and their similarities are much, greater than their differences."

Come on Tony, you're kidding me. Do you really expect me to believe that just one little chromosome, only a fraction over 2% could cause so much trouble in the world.

You had better pull the other one, it yodels.

I've been reading all of your comments with interest.

It appears that many of you recognise that our society
is individualistic and highly open to change and
experimentation, and that men and women can today explore
a wide variety of roles. Including running for office
in Parliament.

To me personally true liberation from the restrictions of
gender means that all possible options should be open and
equally acceptable for both sexes. That a person's
individual human qualities, rather than his or her biological
sex would be the primary measure of that person's worth and
achievement.

Our Parliament should reflect the communities it serves.
It should be made up of a fair representation of those
communities. Women are a vital part of those communities
and should be represented in Parliament. Ar the moment this
is not the case - hopefully things will get better.