Phillip,
Men and women do not have different brain structures. Size difference in whole
or in part does not constitute a difference in structure.
Men's brains are bigger in general but not necessarily individually. As a ratio
to body weight, women's brains are bigger than men in general but not
necessarily individually. The Corpus Calosum (sp?) is bigger in women than in
men but it is still the same structure.
Trudy
philip wrote:
>
> the australian government agency centrelink has a bill of rights in the form
> of a staff policy of 'shared behaviours' concerning acting with integrity
> and so forth.
>
> since women and men have different brain structures, different thought
> processes and different behaviours a policy of 'shared behaviours' applied
> to a mixed-sex workforce is gibberish.
>
> i sought explanation of 'shared behaviours' as a centrelink employee and was
> informed that the policy was non-negotiable.
>
> two ministers and the prime minister declined to refute my analysis.
>
> i have since been dismissed from the australian public service in my absence
> on sick leave for failing to comply with a lawful direction in relation to
> 'shared behaviours' as well as around forty other suspected breaches of the
> public service code of conduct over my attempts to assert my rights in a
> centrelink workplace and to communicate with centrelink managers as my
> health deteriorated under a regime of acrimony and intimidation.
>
> my case for unfair dismissal comes up in the australian arbitration
> commission over five days from 12 november.
>
> my principal argument is that policies which fail to distinguish between
> womens and mens behaviours concern themselves entirely with the activities
> of brainless, sexless humanoids.
>
> since i am a male human being and not a brainless sexless humanoid i cannot
> be in breach of or be sanctioned for breaching a code of conduct or a policy
> which fails to distinguish between womens and mens behaviours.
>
> similarly, constitutions, bills of rights and treaties which fail to
> distinguish between womens and mens behaviours are gibberish.
>
> i've already unsuccessfully applied for political asylum on one occasion
> outside australia against the present constitution after i was tortured over
> several hours by a dozen police officers in and around an 'independence
> communications office' attached to an indigenous cultural centre in
> melbourne twenty years ago and assume i will be dismissed from australia or
> become deceased if a bill of rights or treaty which fails to distinguish
> between womens and mens behaviours is introduced.
>
> in my view the only solution is an australian republic with a womens senate,
> a mens assembly and an executive of elders.
>
> the days of civilisations treating their inhabitants as brainless sexless
> humanoids in the relentless advancement of material culture at unimaginably
> enormous social cost to humankind are rapidly coming to a close.
>
> philip
>
> @ cadigal eora
>
> managing women and men
> http://mfbns.com
>
> >
> > Another good idea, Suze! Or, why not just devise and pass a
> > Constitutional amendment with the proper wording. Then there's no
> > need for either a treaty or a bill of rights?
> >
> > But I don't mean to be mocking the idea of treaties or the idea of a
> > bill of rights. I believe that both are important to Australia if only to
> > provide an aspirational framework for our public life: this is who we
> > are, this is what we believe, this is how we are prepared to behave.
> > That sort of thing.
> >
> > Still, the problem with all pieces of paper is that they do not solve
> > problems by themselves. The American Bill of Rights does not, of
> > course, protect people from, say, being bashed or shot by the
> > police solely because they're black That still happens frequently.
> > (it's called "profiling". We shouldn't let it happen here). What the
> > Bill of Rights does do is give people whose rights have been
> > abused a means of redress. But that only works if people are
> > sufficiently informed, organised and cashed-up to take advantage of
> > the means of redress. And also only if the government of the day
> > is not completely hostile to the aspirations outlined in the pieces of
> > paper.
> >
> > (Incidentally, for Don Clark: You'll think I'm being hopelessly
> > pedantic here, but the U.S. Bill of Rights protects the right of "the
> > people" to bear arms, not the right of "a man" to bear arms. The
> > same thing, I hear you say? In that case, you've got a problem!
> > But seriously, you'd be aware that U.S. jurisprudence has always
> > been divided about the intent of the 4th (?) amendment: Does "the
> > people" mean individuals or does it mean groups such as local
> > militias? I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled decisively
> > on that. It's more the power of the gun lobby than the power of the
> > Bill of Rights that has put the U.S. in such a stupid and terrifying
> > condition vis a vis guns.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sandy
> >
> > > If we had a Bill of Rights here in Australia, we'd also need a Treaty
> > > agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia surely? But crikes, if it
> can
> > > be broken so easily, kinda makes ya wonder if it's worth everyone's
> effort
> > > in the first place? hmm... oh, how about write into the Bill of Rights
> that
> > > no-one shall dishonour the Treaty? <g> *sigh, I wonder if solutions can
> be
> > > that simple?
> > >
> > > Suze
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and
> Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/
>from
> that date.
> This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
>from the
> copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
>the "fair
> use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
>without
> permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
--
*****************************
Join the peoples' movement:
The Australian Reconciliation Party
http://www.green.net.au/arp/
*****************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
