Is parity the answer for Polish women?

you said it Seanus...you've only yourself to blame.....treat women like ****** and they will act like it......

Spot on Carrie 65...:)

Very true, rozum :) :)

Changes start with us. Action-reaction etc etc

it's actually a really good idea in one way i.e. half of society is female so why shouldn't half of government reps be female. Of course it's a really childish idea in another way i.e. the message is that only women can/will support women and only men can/will support men. Certainly the potential for disaster is there but still, the current system is crap so what the heck if anything it'll get us to anarchy faster and that's what we really need at this point.

I remember when women were happier staying at home. Now they just seem to complain about their jobs and almost everything else.

Here is a problem I have with the idea that half of government reps should be female. A few posters already touched on this subject.

In my day, women wouldn't be so bold as to demand parity in the good jobs while disdaining the harsh ones. They would blush at this kind of hypocrisy.

^Except carrie65's post, those are HORRIBLE arguments against the idea, they don't even support any type of logic.

Government Representatives are to do one major thing, here it comes: REPRESENT
The whole point is that if half the population is one gender, shouldn't have the government representation also be down that line? The jobs you guys listed are tough jobs but the existence of them isn't to represent the interests of the voting population. I have reservations about the idea at it's fundamental level but you guys gotta up your game a bit.

Carrie is absolutely correct. There's nothing wrong with "parity" although I hate that term and prefer equality. An equal society is a flourishing and a healthy society and it should be the ultimate goal for all of us. We'll probably never reach a total parity or some people would have to split in half.

There's discrimination and there's bias all over the world. Poland, US, Sweden, no perfect societies out there. Change begins from within, you cannot fight one form of discrimination with another, this time government sponsored discrimination.

So I think most people on this thread agree on the final outcome, we just disagree on how to get there.

As always I wasn't quick enough to proofread.

Meant to say:

...There's discrimination and there's bias all over the world. Poland, US, Sweden, no perfect societies out there. Change begins from within, but most of all, you cannot fight one form of discrimination with another, this time government sponsored discrimination. The whole idea is revolting. You dislike the current discrimination (yes, it exists) and therefore want to mandate positions based on gender (or race) which is a different form of ...discrimination.

Look it up.

Discrimination - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
"Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category."

-> in this case the category is a person's gender....

If feminists demand equality and claim gender differences are 'social constructs' then shouldn't they also demand to work in the "death profession" jobs?

Anything else is 'pick-and-choose' favoritism that would create an advantageous white collar social group and a disadvantaged 'death-collar' one.

In the U.S men are forced to sign up for a potential draft while women don't; yet women would be mandated to be 50% of policy-making positions where decisions involving war-making would be made by draft exempt women. That's just one example.


They absolutely do. I've had many discussions with women who have had no idea of what it takes to build a bridge or put up a highrise. They just take these things and many others for granted.

In Texas, going back a couple of decades, women at a trucking firm wanted to make the same wage as men who were long-haul truck drivers. They bought the "wage-gap" nonsense. These women worked in air-conditioned offices and were home every night. The men were often away from their homes, from their families for days and even up to a couple of weeks at-a-time. They often had to drive long hours, fix any flats or anything else that went wrong with their vehicles, etc, They were caught in storms or whatever, not to mention accidents. These women did not understand these problems because there were hardly any women involved in driving long-haul trucks.

The men decided that if the women were going to get paid the same as them then they would apply for the safe office jobs as well. They'd like to be home every night too. That's when the women finally understood the problem. They didn't want to be long-haul truckers after all.


I just did.
Men are 93%-94% of all job related deaths annually so decisions involving their particular occupations shouldn't be made by people who don't understand the needs let alone the culture of their jobs. That's also 1 of the 3 main reasons men are paid more and it's justified.

that is your argument ? I was hoping you could do better, but never mind.

Huh??

Well, I was hoping you'd actually read my replies to YOU and not to southern.

The comment you quoted is my reply to southern when he tongue-in-cheek "sees" me gravitating toward a communist idea. (ALL jobs, coal mines, farming, etc, evenly divided, based on the "equal representation" idea). He knows how I feel about communism and that's why he made the comment. I replied "if that's what you really see then you need to check your vision" as I obviously am not supporting those ideas at all but rather am playing the devil's advocate, ie if we reserve government jobs for one group then how about all other jobs?

Either way, I gave you plenty of reasons to my thinking, but to summarize them all - racism and sexism is wrong, period. Whether by the government or in private business. No exceptions.


90, 100 and 101 are my latests.

These people just got married..............to each other. The definition of marriage continues to expand.

Good luck to them.

Is it a "good luck" or a genuine good luck Jonny?

I think the lady got a pretty good deal provided both males are hetero-, or bisexual.

Are you joking? In what way is being a miner akin to a politician in terms of representing constituents?

I see the point you've made here. Unfortunately it shows your astute command of the irrelevant. The problem is not dumb fcuking North American women with out of proportion entitlement issues. The question regards political representation.



Try harder.

So when one of them dies (after a long and happy marriage) do the two remaining spouses get to collect death benefits, pension benefits etc? Would they be eligible to bring a different "third" into the union?

Many political decisions including law making are made by people who don't understand the industry they are affecting. For example, doctrinaire feminists 'feel' that a woman working as a secretary in an air-conditioned office deserves the same pay as a long-haul truck driver who has to deal with physical responsibilities; and being on-the-road for days and sometimes weeks at a time. By their agenda-driven standards feminists claim "comparative worth" and have on many occasions attempted to pass laws to that effect. They still wish to legislate pricing based on their perceived values. Would you like such people (among others) to represent you? They 'don't get it' and it seems neither do you.

Are you in favor of gender quotas? If so, please elaborate. Call me difficult but even with all its imperfections I believe that people should achieve their jobs by a common sense concept called merit.


Ironic for you to say that but those with a limited mind-set often do. They don't know what they don't know.


LOL, I don't think so. Perhaps you should since you've given nothing of worth as of yet.


From the article I read, it would seem that one of the men is bisexual and the other gay. The woman is straight.


I'm just waiting for how the divorce works out.

So? If anything you've proven my point. Most politicians are men and according to your own admission, they make decisions affecting industries they don't understand. Why not have women do that to?

Even then, we could allow your mining representative but even then you have to factor in where those miners live and if they truly are the majority where they live then they'll vote in who ever the heck they want.


blah blah blah. Yeah I get it there are women with out of proportion entitlement issues in North America but secretaries demanding they get paid as much as long haul truck drivers in the U.S. are neither the majority in Poland nor connected to any tangible argument. Tell me the connection because I don't see one!


Rarely but in some instances, yes for both male and female workers. Representative government based on gender is not a great idea but not for the reasons you're trying to argue.

I couldn't have because you don't have a logical one.


We don't need to use quotas to increase additional uninformed people who will then attempt to apply even more laws in areas they don't understand. Why do they need a quota in the first place? Adding an additional avalanche of rules and regulations by a supposed oppressed group only suppresses economic growth. Do you belive that some people are inherently less equal and therefore deserve extra protections?


Unfortunately, most of the rules tend to be national where one set of rules covers all (note Obamacare). At the very least many are state-by-state but it seems that BigGovernment wants to trump all.


Many dubious laws which would have been thought ridiculous have been passed with many being of the "politically correct" variety.
For example, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) isn't a tangible argument either and yet it's a discriminatory law that passed. (I'm guessing you don't know how bad it is)


That's because it's right in front of you.


So you 'feel' that fighting alleged discrimination with additional discriminatory laws is somehow logical?
What quotas do you favor for women? Since you noted that you also favor quotas for men as well then I have to ask; in what areas? (this should be interesting).

Explain to me what you interpret my point, however illogical, to be. After you do that we can continue, until you do that, I can only conclude you don't understand what I've communicated to you.


What difference does it make to you if the person who is, by your own admission uninformed, male or female?


No, nor do I believe that others are more equal, do you believe some groups are more equal and deserve extra protections?


Yes there have been and will always be bad laws but what you're arguing is that due to this phenomenon, any new law must be interpreted as "bad."


I don't "feel" anything. I can see that quite clearly and quite rarely, there can be a case for it, one that I don't necessarily agree with but at least am able to acknowledge the thinking behind it.

I honestly do NOT see the point you're trying to illustrate with f'd up self entitled secretaries and how it relates to a law demanding women are proportionally represented in Parliament, the Sejm or Congress or where ever. I don't even agree with the idea, it's just that you haven't made any sticking criticisms of the idea. Now, whether it's in front of me or not, spell it out for me because I just don't see it and I'm increasingly sure you can't connect your arguments to any logical end. Go for it, show me I'm wrong, if you can.

I'll try to cut-to-the-quick before this topic gets twisted and we end up communicating at cross purposes. You first noted;


. This suggests an artificial quota. I oppose that. Call me crazy but I believe in something called 'merit' even with all its flaws. As Southern noted,


Therefore, a quota for the high ranking professional and decision making jobs is discriminatory because it allows one favored group to 'pick-and-choose preferred employment over others.

You then stated;


I logically countered that since half of society is female then why shouldn't that half be consistent and demand to be 50% of coal miners, oil rig workers, crane operators, etc. Demanding quotas for high ranking jobs to a select group of people is inherently discriminatory not to mention just plain unfair. This artificially sets up a privileged group of people.


Obviously not. How could you not gather that from my responses?


So far so good.


Yet there are some good laws and there are some bad laws. The right to free speech is good, the right to ban someone with hairy legs is bad. It's not all relative.


That's the crux of the matter. I don't care if women or pygmies or talking parrots are elected as long as they are done so by citizens who freely vote for them. I do mind if some percentage is given for one group or another. It's unfair to a more qualified person who is not of that group and is not allowed to compete because some numerical number prohibits him or her from doing so. It creates real victims.

and you're suggesting that politicians are in office based on merit only, call me crazy but I believe that is not the case out here in reality


Your use of this word suggests that the last point is relevant and even the contingent factor to your next "point," nothing could be further from the truth. Men and women gravitate towards different jobs and that's that. Most women don't want to be miners anymore than most men want to be Human Resource "professionals."


I agree with you unless that job is to represent those who belong to your gender group. There is simply no way a woman can hope to represent men's point of view in the world anymore than men can hope to do so for women. That is the essence of the argument you haven't acknowledged.


You countered, true but it's a completely silly point because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE topic being discussed. If you honestly can't see the difference between what miners or long-haul drivers et all do compared to what a politician is supposed to do then we simply can't continue this discussion. Tell me how those jobs are similar and different, after you do that then we can continue. Until you do that, I can't acknowledge your point of view as anything but delusional.


That was my thought when you posed the question to me in a different manner.


I would mind as well unless the point was to represent the group you belong to.


And this is where an entirely new system would be required. In my opinion, the number of zones would have to be reduced and enlarged and then there would have to be only one male and female rep elected from each zone. Only men would be allowed to vote for male candidates and only women would be allowed to vote for female candidates. The reason I oppose the idea overall is because I can't see HOW it could be implemented. If that changed then I'd support it, and I find it odd that someone else wouldn't.

This is discrimination and limitation of freedom by gender.What if a woman wants to vote for a male candidate?Why take the right from her?

Anyway I find that affirmative action and beneficiary policies towards certain groups regardless of performance hamper economic performance as a whole and are a serious cause of today's economic crisis due to the magnitude of effects they have some of them really deep and disheartening,

AND THAT'S WHY I WROTE I OPPOSE THE IDEA!!! Are you people seriously that good at typing yet that utterly unable to READ and COMPREHEND in English?

I don't oppose women representing women based on numbers as it makes perfect sense but the idea falls apart in other areas and not one of those is connected to secretaries wanting the same income as long-haul f'n truck drivers!

There is political representation managerial representation and income representation.Women ask for equality by political measures not by market outcome that is if a woman happens to be less competent to be compensated the same just because she is a woman.Or be hired to managerial position because she is a woman.Or gain a political seat because she is a woman despite lower competence.All the fuss is about this.Not let the natural powers prevail.

The point is that all this has a Vorrausetzung to be inn place without damaging economy.The prerequisite is that men who are excluded from their managerial position aspirations due to women blocking men will work the same way.This simply does not happen.It does not work like that.There is a fundamental flaw in all affirmative action initiatives since they disregard this basic truth.They take everything for granted and try to redistribute while the reason for distribution is the performance in first place.

Of course there are several opposing opinions to this.The central aspect in capitalist economy is that women have to be mobilised in order to make better use of human resources.It is supposed that when an ''old boys network'' is in place women are hindered from being fully mobilized to reach their potential.So we have to promote them artificially to managerial positions in order to crash the old boys network and then gain the benefits from competition.In reality even women prefer male managers.So by the time women take over bad decision making follows inevitably and really many men cannot believe the current incompetence of leadership which is obvious in many fields unlike before it is real and constantly underestimated.

Only exceptions can be scandinavian societies due to local traditions of equality physically and mentally strong women due to genetic reasons and lack of macho men again due to genetic reasons.There equality basically works because it is natural the men do not reduce their output when controlled by women.

Natural Powers?


No, while being the "victim" of some of these initiatives, I can see the overall benefit to society that some do represent. Two candidates applied for a job, I didn't get the job because the other candidate was an aboriginal woman. I was angry at the time but in retrospect, the offer to her represented more security for society than for me. I was less likely to be involved in crime and become pregnant (a lot less likely there) while out of work than she was. The job wasn't saving the world and honestly, she could have done it just as well as me. We'd have done it differently but I can accept the benefit to society that her being employed represented vs my unemployment.

I don't mean violence.Just compensation by performance as favored by naked capitalistic model.

I added a bit with the editing function.

So what do you define natural powers to be exactly? I'm still unclear as to what you mean by the term

Physical strength,consistent work,work under pressure,precision etc.Usually women lower the standards for example in the army after the introduction of women in Greece in office positions the taks had to be reduced so that women could execute them as well.

However I have noticed that Americans tend to apply gender balance policies in many fields based on common sense and it probably has good results for example they restrict women's admissions to schools over 60% favoring men with lower grades with the thought that men mature later and will become better proffessionals than women who may get a slightly better grade at 18 but fall later behind.It is a bit arbitrary but I am sure that several research has been conducted to confirm the right of this decision.

For example since the selection to become judge in Greece is based on exams results alone women have taken over 90% of judge positions despite some favoring of men in oral exams to counterbalance the mass of women.The result is a constant decline of quality of judicial corps decisons since women naturally lack many of the insight and logical abstract abilities of men.

Work under pressure? What kind of pressure? Like deadlines or danger or life pressure e.g. you mess up a kid and the kid's going to be trainwreck in life, or life or death in the delivery room or on the operating floor?

Would you consider the ability to cooperate to be a natural power?

Could you define what isn't a natural power?

Of course not. What I am saying is that it's the best system even with all its flaws. It's certainly better than quotas.


Therefore why create an artificial system of quotas? Let people 'do their thing'.


Men don't want to be miners either. It's what they're stuck with.


So you make an arbitrary exception in this one area eh? Why stop there? Perhaps we should have ethnic representation as well? Perhaps an 'adequate' amount of Italian Americans or Polish Americans or Greek Americans etc should be quota-ed in? How about a percentage of gay reps? By your logic we should be numerically equal with everyone and not just 'pick-and-choose' subjectively.


Really? ...and just what is that view? Perhaps Maggie Thatcher can straighten us out on that.


Snap out of it, we're humans first and our natural interests overlap so often that only politically correct agenda-driven people (feminists, liberals, et al) fail to notice that.


Probably not as you seem dense in that area.


They are not similar and indeed are different. Just as a miner's job is different than a long-haul truckers job or a fashion models is different than a store managers'. I freely acknowledge that many jobs are dissimilar. That's another reason we should not pick-and-choose quotas for favored positions only.


LOl, yes indeed, it's delusional for me to believe in the free market place when it comes to employment as opposed to some arbitrary authority appointing people to some 'flavor-of-the-moment-in-time' philosophy which may change in the future. At another time the mediators of justice might demand that 50% of people must speak Swahili.

Forced injustice is such nonsense.


I'm glad that you oppose a "straw dog" premise that you've needlessly inserted.

because what i stated doesn't refer to ALL jobs and the present system disallows many women from entering based on them being women.


Some do, some don't. To suggest otherwise is a red herring.


You don't seem to understand what the word in bold means. There is nothing arbitrary about the suggestion, it is based on representative numbers correlating to gender. What do you perceive to be arbitrary about political presentation based on numbers?


If you can figure out HOW to implement such an idea then I'd like to hear it. That's the problem with the idea we're contesting, you seem to be against it out of fear while I'm against it unless someone can help me understand how it could be implemented. I would argue the entire system would need an overhaul but I'm not opposed to that either.


What is that view? Different men have different views on the world as we two do right now. If you think Margaret Thatcher represented the views of all men then that's your problem. My point was that women DO understand women better than men and ARE more capable of representing what is important to women as men DO understand men better. That is not to say one is only capable of representing the wishes of their gender group but simply more likely to relate to the perspective of those belonging to their gender group. Why you're trying to contest this is unfortunate.


Do you know what a non-sequitur is? This bit I've quoted you on is an example of one on TWO levels- quite a feat you pulled off there. On the face of it, it appears you've made a point but the reality is you stated nothing of consequence to the debate you're trying to engage in. I'll repackage your statement with the same premise but a different consequence: Our interests overlap so often that only conservative fundamentalists fail to acknowledge that. My answer to both statements is SO WHAT?


Tell me how those jobs are different. I want to see if you can do it because after you do it you'll have precious little area to squirm and I'll finally force you to admit your original comparison was completely erroneous.


Not only does the idea not qualify as injustice in a society in which 50% of the voting population are women but I've every reason to believe you have no experience on what true injustice really is. Your naivety on the matter is your own good fortune.