First, ask each other to think about your respective organizational setting as well as national and media cultures. Has there been organization-wide discussion of some of the following issues? Are they being discussed in the wider society, or is discussion supressed by politicians or the media, and especially needful of an telecommunicative exchange program using GOOD principles? Do you have unique wisdom and progress good news from your nation to share with sisters and brothers in other countries that they need to know about?

Compare and consider your and your international gender-balance partner's officialdom or civic organizational officers, as they are operating according to gender representation principles and processes. It will help you prepare conjoin and cooperative conference calls to each other's national officials and leaders.

                         GOOD                            or                  NO LONGER GOOD

a. Globally Informed and Connected          or         Isolationist and Insular
b. Gender Relational                                   or         Gender Unilateral
c. Women's and Men's Decisions              or         Worried by Women/Decided by Men
d. Shared and Observable Standards         or         Quota-Phobic and Ranking-Ashamed
e. Gender-Integrative and Wholistic          or         Gender-and-Issue Compartmentalizing
f. Inclusive Vive le Difference                     or         Denial or Polarization of Difference
g. Symmetrical yet Complementary           or         Dominator-Victim; Unbalanced Rigid
h. Recognizing/Empowerment of Good       or         Victimhood Fixated; Might-Stunned
i. Mutual and Manifest                                 or         Tokenized and Trickling
j. Trusting of Talent Pool                             or         Overprofessionalizing; limiting pool
k. Seeking Real Government                       or         Accepting Officialdom as Government
l. Time-Aware                                                 or         Time Avoidant
m. Consciousness/Low Cost Technology   or         Raising Money/Lowering Consciousness

Let us give some examples:

a. Globally Informed and Connected
    or
    Isolationist and Insular

Are you and/or you organization making good use of global connection to empower your effectiveness, or has your approach been mostly isolationist? Whether you are an organizational head, a political office holder, or just a grass roots citizen concerned about human imbalances due to underrepresentation of one gender and the overrepresentation of the other gender in your nation's or international leadership; you need to have sisters and brothers in the world available and ready to bring GLOBAL POWER, success stories and conjoint forward pressure into your activities for gender justice and cooperation.

Here's some GOOD methods on how:

Personally participate, and see to it that staff and colleagues participate, in at least one multinational gender balance conference- call to insist on gender balance per week using free 3 way-calling available on most lines; your long distance charges will likely cost under $5 but will save our world. Similarly, produce one internationally conjoint email or fax per day or week with an international sister(s) or brother(s) leader(s) or activist(s) you have located (i.e. via the Internet or other forms of public contact that allow you to visit other nations). A set of international partner pairs, triads and choruses are recommended. Especially, bring in statements and voices from nations that will most powerfully yet comfortably pressure and pull your nation up in the gender balance rankings.

For example, a gender balance activist in the gender regressed US or England who wants to move her officialdom forward toward greater gender balance should arrange a conference call to her representative with a woman from France - a historical US ally, or English-speaking Sweden (50-50). and be sure to mention that English-speaking Australia already is at 26% and South Africa at 30%. An Australian trying to move that government from 26% to 36% or above, may choose not to include a low percentage US American partner, but mobilize the voice of 50/50 Finnish, French and Swedish partners, who are at levels above Australia, include a Canadian or Spanish Woman Senator or citizen, since Canada and Spain are at 30%, and a Hemispheric Partner, like an Indian activist who has already sought 33% on the way to 50-50. All partners should express a natural global entitlement level of 36% or 37.5% for each and either gender. Develop a sense of entitlement, justice and creative potential for this ideal universal minimum.

If time zones make conference calls impractical, use a tape recorder or free internet audio software to tape a personal message from your gender fairness partners in other lands, and let the person you are contacting know you will tell your partner that you have played the tape for them. A set of links and resources to assist you in finding representatives, spokespersons and activists across national boundaries is provided in our Links Section.

Pinpoint your conference calls, emails and faxes to leadership and citizen nexuses within and across nations or international bodies, organizations or corporations. Mobilize other leaders to do the same. Contact lists of women who you can mobilize in US State and City officialdoms, for example, will be provided in the links on this topic. If a few Swedish, Finnish, and French women in office or even a handful of informed ngo members or grassroots activist worked together to call say, 50 of US women (and some men, too) at state, local and national government offices, and citizen organizations like the League of Women Voters, so that these women and men were literally receiving at least a few gender balance calls from around the world a week and knew that citizens in women's organizations in their districts knew this was occurring, the steam within the US to bring about gender balance in that powerful country would accelerate quickly, with less friction, and fruitfully, we feel sure. That is the power of conjoint international work across national boundaries. It's not just your or their country - It's OUR World, and gender balance will bring a WORLD OF GOOD

The computer and website are also important. Do not allow the front page of your or your chosen international "buddies" woman's or gender website to be isolationist/nationalistic (these boundaries feed into keeping patriarchy entrenched; Self-limitation to a focus only within national boundaries impede and slow the good benefits of global and inherently universal global sisterhood and profeminist brotherhood). Be sure to highlight success stories and strength and steps in the struggle stories toward gender balance stories from other nations as prominently as your own national gender news, and as leading examples on the front pages of your website, with international and national links clearly accessible. Email to officials in several nations simultaneously. Let your international partner help guide you to some of the most important potential change agents within your respective nations.

We believe mostly "Isolationist" activists when it comes to gender balance will be less effective. For example, isolationist US activists make little progress. Suffering from the illusion that their nation is #1 and out of touch with progress in many other nations which has far outpaced them, they are ironically and overtolerantly complacent and "proud" of their pathetic token-level 13% women in national office. They may simply ask their party or organization to push for the vague and overgradual "more" women, because they have either not sought or not been contacted by a partner from Canada, Australia, Sweden or Finland, and don't even realize they can ask for 40-50%, and speak to officials with a global sense of entitlement that will help them break down all important attitudinal, and derivative institutional "barriers" that currently exist in their nation. Such barriers can fall quickly under focussed global pressure and mutual understanding.

Websites like www.thewhitehouseproject and others on Executive Leadership should incorporate the concept of Gender Balance and should contact/be contacted by women from Canada, India, England, Norway, Iceland, and other internationals can provide stories and links to international women National Executives, and men Executives who celebrate each other's achievemtns and men colleagues or campaign managers who have promoted the cause of Executive Women and/or worked with them. This helps universalize and normalize female Executive Leadership and should be included on such a website to bring energy to US women who say they are "stalled", because they are over-focussed within their nation and not using the leverage of other nation's progress properly yet.

b. Gender Relational or Gender Unilateral

Does your organization, nation and colleagues express goals always in terms of women alone, or does it also use the relational approach of commenting on the relationships and ratios of each gender to the other as linked to group dynamics, a way of gaining the talents of both genders while their complementarities bring forth better group dynamics and decision-making processes? The concept of 50-50 of both genders is a different concept and presentation than a goal of 50% women, because it takes both genders into account. Similarly, saying your government is 13% women or 18% women (i.e. US and England respectively) is different that saying it is 13% female and 87% male, or 18% woman and 82% men.

We believe it is usually far more respectful to the goal of good and mutual public service to speak and present goals relationally at least part of the time. "More" women is not a very well developed or relational goal or concept. Many activists have stated that 33% is a critical mass for women (we actually believe this is slightly too low, and 36-37% is more stable). Saying the balance is 22% to 78%. or 13% women and 87% men, for example, reveals the imbalance more clearly, and mobilizes both men and women to grapple with relational balance and fairness.

Using relational concepts, we believe, also creates a culture in which public officials are reminded that public office is a relational, and not primarily individualist, narcissistic or egoistic gratification or activity. It sets up a greater ability to cooperate, work with and serve others while standing up with esteem for the self. It assists men who are overrepresented to grapple pubically with the numerical facts of unfairness and domination; it assists women to realize that token levels (such as those in the US, Japan and England) can, in some ways, be even more dangerous and misleading than outright exclusion, if used to complacently delay further steps and risks to achieve better balance and progress, and tokenizes and coopts the still too low numbers of women present.

c. Women's and Men's Decisions or Worried by Women/Decided by Men

Lobbying and issue activism by a naturally cohesive and identifiable segment of a population is a part of public life. But if lobbying and citizen activism is presented as if it were representation and the end-all-and-be-all of citizen participation, the basic realities of democratic participation are being avoided and misrepresented.

In a sound government, all citizens are the pool of officeholders, and officialdoms should be expected to reflect and embody women and men well in order to truly represent them for decision-making. Repeated gender-proxy -- one gender repeatedly "representing" the other challenges a common sense expectation of what self-government is about. In the US especially, major women's organization such as the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority have spent most of their funds and activities on lobbying women's issues such as reproductive issues, gun control issues, and health issues in a context of patriarchal legislatures. Their success has often been marginal and is fragile. Many of these groups have recently dropped and lowered efforts at affirmative action, as well. Some US and even international women's peace groups such as WILPF have also followed this "lobbying and activism without representation" model on peace issues, and have neglected to include relationally fair representation of the gender most noted for nurturing and conflict resolution talent in the priorities and integrated descriptions of their activities.

We and now perhaps most others believe that this most lobbying model actually reinforces patriarchy, and cedes too much political authority to imbalanced, unrepresentative officialdoms, giving the mostly male and token-level female officials the illusion that they are routinely perceived as adequate "government". It then creates a victimizer government and a disenfranchised and victimized citizenry, a process which will also spread to men citizens seeking good government.

For example, both men and women in the US realize that it was a gender and racially imbalanced Senate that approved an antiquated Electoral College excuse for disenfranchising most Americans, especially women, and people of color, in the last national Presidential election. Many observers feel this occurred in part because US women's organizations allowed women Senate officeholders to be coopted and tokenized by party politics, without protest. The impacts of failures of leadership in certain major US women's organizations are being felt around the world. We believe it is high time for women and gender activist men in and outside of the US to openly confront the "leaders" and members of these US organizations for failing to adequately address and prioritize long term representational imbalances, and for inadvertently and conterproductively losing and stalling women's progress and societal fairness. The confrontations should stimulate reempowerment and shared honest global sisterhood. Later on, the methods and examples of such confrontation with the intent to reempower women leaders to do better, their own best, and do good will be detailed.

d. Shared and Observable Standards or "Quota-Phobic" and Ranking-Ashamed

The European Community has sponsored several websites that detail the gender balance in government rankings of the nations of Europe and around the world. Thus far, no US governmental sight offers such a ranking; and even US women's groups, and good government groups such as Common Cause and Public Citizen have utterly ignored and delayed offering a website that offers this humanly important information. Also, while many nations in Europe, South America, and Africa and Australia-New Zealand have already passed laws that set official goals and standards for acceptable and non-acceptable levels of gender representation, and others such as India, the Phillipines, China and others have legislation under development and consideration already, some even major nations, such as the US and Japan, have not.

Some "government" apologists and not very good women's leaders, especially in the US, have steadfastly maintained that number goals and timetables represent quotas, and are therefore inherently bad. It is high time to look carefully at this defense/excuse. In many cases, it is not only fear of quotas, it is a fear of looking directly at the evidence of the numbers. It also may involve a lack of awareness that healthy quotas, like minimum and maximum speed limits or ranges in the flow of traffic, are part of life.

Will the same women "leaders" who resist "quotas" want to say publicly that they wish to undue the laws on bigamy or polygamy, because setting a standard of one wife to one husband is a quota? Nature itself requires gender 50-50: one sperm to one egg in order to produce life. Is that a quota, and if nature can set a quota, shouldn't that wisdom get our attention if we want living government? Do quota-phobics wish to say they are incapable of differentiating between a relational, life affirming ratio, an affirmative goal and standard, and a negative, de facto, discriminatory unigender quota that repeatedly keeps one group below another group?

One person, one vote is a quota and a universal human right, recently abdicated by men and women office-holders without protest in the US, under the watch of these same quota-phobic organizational "leaders". Citizens in and outside the US now should "consider the source" amidst the general political regression to Electoral College circa 1789 in the US, when being offered quota-phobic comments from US officials, experts and organizational leaders. Many of these women are simply "playing it safe" and hiding their own misgivings about controversial processes of representation which they, as "leaders" daily quietly resign themselves to and bite their tongues about while they "lobby" on other issues. They know deep down that this interference with women's votes and one person-one vote, have been imposed without consent (no woman in the US ever ratified the Electoral College to deprive herself and others in her land of a modern UN-listed basic human right) in a manner that disenfranchised a far greater number than a gender ratio or percentage standard could ever do. Just remind undifferentiated quota-phobics that the Electoral College is indeed a quota system, and their "officialdom" endorsed that quota system quite recently. If the Electoral College can remain in place, gender quotas cannot be overturned simply because they involve quotas unless one wishes to make the preposterous argument that state geography is more inherently important than gender to achieving cooperation and a standard of representation among human beings who can fly from one end of their nation to another in an hour, call long distance in a moment, but can never fully make a woman into a man or a man into a woman.

Furthermore, some of these number phobias are rationalizations growing out of some deeply seated (but healable, we believe) self-hatred or misogyny that may exist even within some male-pattern-identified women "leaders" who are often under pressure from male (and prima donna political women who may unconsciously prefer to be big fish in small female ponds), to NOT be their female selves. Such number-phobics may be entrenched politicians and personalities, some of whom have already demonstrated to the world quite clearly that they are willing to "cope" with the imbalanced system as it is rather than change it, even if it induces them to raise large treasuries related to domination or be cuckholded and disempowered (in the intimate sphere) more than most people, male or female, would do or tolerate. So talk against numerical standards may indeed represent misogynist phobias and a deep down wish to be counted among the boys, rather than rational, logical arguments that make sense.

One does not need to assure a quota to set and articulate a bottom line standard as to whether to call an election result a representative government or a mere "officialdom". Unigender-dominated officialdoms reflect institutionalized barriers to a more natural sample or selection of the population of a nation whose form of government is allegedly based on citizen equality in participation. A simple standard statement will suffice: an election result in which either gender (or major racial group) does not naturally achieve 75% reflection of its half of the population, that is at least nearly 37.5%, has produced an unrepresentative institutionalized officialdom, but not a government.

Democratic, gender balanced governments and citizens that must address or comment about such officialdoms, while knowing that vast segments of that nation's population has been repeatedly underrepresented and other segments are overrepresented, should use the words "official but not necessarily popularly representative" wherever possible when referring to officials of such officialdoms, and avoid calling such officialdoms "governments" wherever possible.

To be democratic and uphold human rights, certain standards of both voter turnout and population reflection of gender in candidate offerings and results must be met if common citizens of the world can be expected to call an entity a government. Without this, the officialdom should be referred to as controversial and not clearly humanly democratic entity. Officeholders can be politely told that in the eyes of people around the world, their legislature is an officialdom, but not a government yet. Many nations are still at the stage of officialdom; but that shouldn't keep internet-linked global citizens from everywhere from expressing and working toward a clear standard for real, human "government", which is now also emerging in many nations which have passed gender and democracy standards as mechanisms and standards.

e. Gender-Integrative and Wholistic
or
Gender-and-Issue Compartmentalizing

Women (and men) whose national officialdoms have not reached a critical mass on gender balance in representation have or would likely sooner or later lose ground on many other issues they work on, related to human respect: civil liberties, family-friendly worker standards, economic prosperity, reproductive rights, education, conflict-resolution and peacemaking and peacekeeping, even if they work on these related issues day and night. All these issues are intertwined with each other, in part because they are associated with imbalance in gender in decision-making which perpetuates problems in each and all of these areas.

Numerous authors such as Helen Caldicott, Sylvianne Agacinski, Hannah Arendt, numerous male and female ecofeminists and many theologians have written tomes and tracts about gender and decision-making affecting such issues. Without gender balance, all other progress on such issues regresses, or may be played off against each other in political "compromises". If you are an environmental, democracy or peace activist, or a political party representative, does your organization have a stated policy to link with gender-parity standards and activists world wide as part and parcel of environmentalism, government reform and peace? Is there a statement of how gender balance in society cuts is systemically related to all other issues, and are gender balance links, prominently available from the website? What percentage of your organization's activities are related to gender-equality in representation; and what are your spokespeople saying about it?

f. Appreciates Some Vive le Difference or Denial or Polarization of Gender Difference

French and Swedish lovers are often stereotyped as among the world's great lovers. It is interesting that some of the nations that have the notoriety of intimacy are world leaders in the area of gender representation in government. The joyful "Vive Le Difference" has joined love and respect for gender in a new context. The energy and joy of sex now has decision-making implications.

We believe that is because the chemistry of love and life is related to the chemistry of doing good. Interpersonal interactions and decisions are based in interactive, creative potentials inbuilt into every human male and female. In different contexts, they combine creatively at different levels. Gender balance in decision-making combines male and female at the level of MIND. Officialdoms that deprive themselves of the Mind of either gender deprive the results of the mature human mind.

Monogender governments are, in fact, possibly an outgrowth of a puritanical discomfort or distrust of both genders together. And yet, oddly governments of one gender still have notorious sex scandals with political aides and secretaries, and marital problems. So keeping a gender out of office hasn't improved the political body, it has simply done damage to the governmental MIND.

Those who exaggerate and polarize the differences of the sexes so greatly that they feel men and women can mate together and parent children together but cannot make official decisions together, have an anti-female mental prejudice inbuilt into national institutions, polarizing women into decision-receivers and men into decision-makers: These nations pay a high price by being more politically rigid and eventually unstable, more conflict prone, and sacrifice opportunities for creative decisions that could solve many problems.

Similarly, nations that deny that men and women are different enough for it to matter if their officialdom deviates widely from 50-50 assume a unisex that science has repeatedly shown does not exist. Men and women have brains that are slightly but reliably different in hemispheric communication, and are blessed by some similar but some different hormones that impact processing of information. Gender in group decision simply matters; and a richer balance optimizes the best processing of information and decision-making based upon it.

g. Symmetrical yet Complementary or Dominator-Victim; Unbalanced and Rigid

But, if the circle is unbalanced and remains in that condition for too long, say, many decades or a few centuries, the circle itself flips. One half the circle now sits above, instead of beside the other half, and the circle is divided horizontally instead of vertically. In a sense, the force of the mind is now "laying down, and asleep" instead of "standing up and awake". The mind, and its decisions, have lost awareness. Part of the mind dominates, or victimizes other aspects of consciousness just as part (male) of society now dominates the other part (female), which allows itself to be dominated. Individuals develop dominator, victim, or perhaps most dangerous, token or imitative consciousness, which no longer contains the little "eyes" within that respect aspects of both self and other, and the whole. The flexible curve becomes a stagnant flat line. The token imitate aspects of the dominator, or separate connection to the victims.

Such a circle will die of domination that brings inflexible separation and true alienation of both halves from each other. Such a circle represents a danger to itself. An officialdom or nation without enough of each gender for too many decades or centuries is like an unbalanced, flat-lining yin-yang symbol in its decisions. Its individual members no longer serve the whole, but are corrupted dominators and tokenized enablers, disconnected from much of the whole population. It presents a danger not only to itself, but everything it connects with. This is a picture of Rome entering the fall.

It is the responsibility of nations and citizens to help their governments and others grow mentally gender-wise and eternally young, as the healthy immortality-promising yin-yang symbol. It is the responsibility of every nation and global citizen to be concerned if any nation's officialdom has too long remained stuck in gender dominating, tokenizing and corrupt-body-decaying. Decay and fall is the eventual result if balance is not wisely and consciously integrated in MIND, reflected in the decision-making of government.

h. Recognising/Empowerment of Good or Victimhood Fixated; Might-Stunned

Called the Great Soul, Mahatma Gandhi reminded us that material might is not identical to spiritual power, or truth. The famous recent film about his life introduces that concept, reminding the audience that humanity has been experiencing the struggle between "the love of power and the power of love", and that ultimately, it is the courageous and yet patiently and persistently loving power of love which emerges, inevitably chosen to continue, by the true nature of the universe.

The materially mighty can temporarily enslave many by inducing compliance, fear or habits of abdication of presence or responsibility. This may involve the victim's willingness to submit to imposed discriminations and patterns of inequality rather than assertion of active conscience. And, while victimhood is very painful, the passive or abdicating may subtly induce others to take responsbility for them and advantage of them, and even inadvertently encourage threats of might because of unconscientious silence when the risk to speak truth nonviolently but courageously or openly needs to be taken. But, the roles of mighty and victimized are two roles of a cycle that always overturns itself, falling of its own weight. Both mighty and victim can fall together. They are two faces of the same lack of truth force.

Spiritual Love is, by definition, a transcendent mutuality between self and other. One cannot exercise true spiritual power without experiencing equality and mutuality with other human beings. Certainly, one can exercise might, or accept victimhood, but neither one of these modes achieves the full power or experience of love for self or other. Only the conscious mutuality of equals who both fully seek their own AND the other's full potential and welfare, and transcend themselves to make and connect with a more powerful loving Whole, can do that. Relational respect and equality, then become a prerequisite to mutual and spiritual love.

Humanity can certainly come to recognize the truth and spiritual power inherent and endowed within humanity. The key to doing so is empowering the process of mutuality, especially mutual respect, and concern in connected relationship as equals. As mutuality of respectful equals increases the spiritual and wise power of each equal increases as well. This phenomenon exists whether the relationship is between two people, or the two great genders of humanity, male and female, in respectful relationship to self and other. But the mutuality relies on presence and connection; a mutual decision cannot be arrived at if one of the parties, or genders, is not present enough to make the decision(s).

Only gender balance can assure enough of such presence to bring empowerment of the complex human brain and heart to our human government. Once balance is achieved, the good decisions of such governments may indeed exceed our fondest and most treasured expectations, a quantum leap in our collective capabilities unleased from harnessing the full mental and spiritual power of both genders of humanity, acting in mutual concern for self and other, where and when decisions are made.

Mutual gender proximity and interaction in the discussions and thinking of true self-governments is likely the necessary combination to help humanity to achieve longevity, with quality of life, everywhere on earth, and capable of travelling into space. But without it, humanity continues to struggle with the imbalances of might and self-victimhood. Humanity pays a high price for gender unequal national and international decision-making. Gender Balance in government is key to humanity's recognizing and experiencing the best of its own total power and potential.

i. Mutual and Manifest or Tokenized and Tricking

If your nation's women's advancement has slowed, or become stuck, now's the time to use GOOD principles to get it mutual and moving. What else would you be waiting for? Especially in a materially well-endowed nation like the US, England or Japan?

j. Trusting/Expanding Talent Pool or Overprofessionalizing, Limiting Pool

In nations where women's leadership presence has soared, many of the women leader's have had life experience and training outside of professional politics. Some may be wives or widows of career politicians, but others have been nurses, doctors and school teachers. Many, if not most, have NOT been professional politicians.

Yet, in the US with its embarrassing 13% token-level of national representation, one is often shocked to hear women political leaders insist that more women are needed to come into the political party "pipeline". But is politics the right pipeline for good government by either gender? Even the white-male only ratified US Constitution does not begin, "We the Politicians".

US law, medical, nursing, social work, business and other disciplines have been graduating well-educated, civic-minded women leaders for at least a decade, in numbers of from 1/3 to over one half of the graduating classes. In addition, many senior organizations have retired educators, medical professionals, and well-educated grandmothers with volunteer leadership equivalent to any CEO; Many labor unions and non-government environmental and public interest organizations have women leaders, as well, who are totally familiar with the legislative process both as it exists and as it could exist if it were balanced and functioning well.

Many American women speak with dismay about the thus-far abdication of responsbility to hold office of well known actresses and celebrities, overlooking their likely quick readiness to serve as soon as the US people realize how far they have fallen in gender balance, and look around for draftable candidates. The Ambassador Shirley Temples can just as easily serve as legislators and executives within their states and nation.

The failure in the US is NOT in not having enough women in the pipeline; the failure in the US is in believing the illusion that only experience in the corporate-club clogged arteries of male-defined politics constitutes evidence of leadership ability enough to serve well in public office. In fact, many men also feel that politics has become laughingly overprofessionalized for men, as well, and the winning ability of a male Jesse Ventura, and many other lesser known examples, make it clear that women who are ready to venture need not overworry about the usual politico mumbo-jumbo about office-holding experience in the "pipeline".

k. Seeking Real Government or Accepting Officialdom as Government

The officialdoms that exist in many nations today, upon reflection, may or may not fit a definition of government that includes the government of the people, for the people and by the people. How could it? Much of the face of the people, especially the feminine face, has been missing. From Susan B. Anthony to Bella Abzug, women leaders knew that government that included women would be changed, improved and different, from what once passed for government without them.

What is best would certainly be wisely retained, but dubious elements, such as rigid hierarchial seniorities, or controversies like the US Electoral College, most often objected to by the wisest men as well, will likely pass away from government that is fully GOOD and gender balanced.

We believe and advise that, as much as possible, women and pro-women men leaders should reserve the word "government" for those systems in which at least 75% of the both genders in the generally 50-50 population are reflected when the seats of office-holding are tallied. Thus, systems in which either gender falls beneath a 36% or 37.5% level of seats for either gender, or in which one gender possesses more than 72% or 75% of seats and offices, should be referred to as officialdoms that have not yet become governments for modern nations in a world daily more interconnected by internet, telephone, television, and always responsible to the unity of human spirit for real democracy. (The 36% figures has been suggested by some because is represents the number-symbol for life of the individual, 18, times 2, the number of people necessary for a balanced, mutual relationship in which each person thinks twice - for the well-being not just of self, but of the other, as well). Einstein's rule of 72, usually used to discuss compounding interest, may in reality apply to public office - dividing a minimum 36% + 36% for both now mutually-oriented genders into 72, one finds that the public good and human empowerment can literally double in a year, once 72% equality of representation of both genders is reached!

l. Time-Aware or Time Avoidant

Has your nation or organization been aware and mindful of time in making progress? Did you have a timetable for accepting/rejecting gender levels in officialdom and candidate offerings, or were you and are you vaguely referring to change with no target goal by a certain date. Is your timetable relational to your nation's and other nation's developments? Just wanting "MORE" "in the future" is too vague and not GOOD enough.

In fact, gender balance in your nation may literally be late, likely multiplying a whole host of evils and problems for your nation. If you are late, try to catch up quickly and expeditiously as possible; for if one sleeps too late when the foundations of the bed have been tilting too long and now weak, you may be awakened by a sharp fall out of the once comfortable bed of freedoms, civil liberties, and prosperity where you were just a moment ago snoozing.

m. Consciousness and Low Cost Technology or Raising Money/Lowering Consciousness

Do not get overly caught in organization-building activities and reinventing the wheel: linking and sharing headline information' about gender and government is most critical, and effectively using already existing information in phone, fax and email outreach and lobbying is most important now. Organizations must exist to fulfill strategic missions expeditiously, not just for their own growth in funds, numbers of (poorly empowered) members, or other more self-serving or narrow goal.

ESPECIALLY, Use low cost and accessible telecommunication technology boldly and effectively to overcome media patriarchy and self-disempowerment of women in media. Detailed examples are provided above.

Token level number US Women candidates, in numbers below the critical mass for women, are being pressured towards raising money but pressured against discussing national rankings and relational standards.These women are, putting it bluntly, being asked to sell their souls for dominant-male-pattern political power. Do you think they need to do that?

If women in other nations have been able to keep their souls and run less expensive campaigns in more accessible systems, shouldn't your nation import and highlight a global consciousness of the GOOD rather than isolate yourself and try to fit women into a model that was never ratified by women and is NOT GOOD enough for anyone?