Is parity the answer for Polish women?

Simple Question:


Where's your answer simpleton? Yes or No, it's not complicated.


< that is a definition, not an answer- try again.

You seem to be stuck in place. I've emphasized individual rights in my previous response because it relates to choice but it seems that you still cannot connect the dots even though a 5 year-old can. I even quoted Ayn Rand's view on the matter. But I'll play building blocks with you because I'm curious as to what you are fishing for. Hopefully, you won't continue to embarrass yourself. You probably don't realize how often you have.

Here it is in a way that even you can understand ( hope).

As human beings we are given the opportunity to make decisions unlike animals who react on instinct. That makes us special. So choice is a positive attribute because it separates us from the animal kingdom.The ability to choose is a product of free will. That is the overriding gift we have been given or have evolved to possess. As humans we can make good choices or bad choices.

Here is an interesting article relating to various aspect of women and "parity" and how one man's work day went in an all feminist office setting. Mandatory boardroom quotas for women; the Asian woman syndrome; the mean woman, and other aspects of womanhood are discussed. It's 'politically incorrect' therefore refreshing reading: It is not meant for those with a short attention span.........

the-spearhead.com/2011/12/01/outrage-mounts-as-forbes-woman-tries-to-export-millennial-burnout-syndrome-mbs-globally

answer the question with a "yes" or a "no" and we can move on. It's so simple yet you can't figure out how to do it. I suggest enlisting the aid of a 5-year old.


The part I put in bold is the only part that is actually true. The part in italics is debatable. Other animals make choices all the time, so no, that isn't what separates us from them. Now here's the best part:

You think being able to choose is a positive attribute- what a limp-wristed, wet-behind the ear snot-nosed liberal answer. As a real man, the only decision to make is the right one. Weak-willed and feather footed individuals like yourself can turn in your man-card and stand in line with the other people looking for hand-outs and excuses in life. People like yourself might think it's a choice to do the right thing but the rest of us, the people who were brought up right, know that's not a choice but a trap.

You've shown your true colours after all. Zimmy- afraid of women having rights because he's too weak to deal with them and afraid of doing the right thing. Zimmy- a coward and a liberal.

/end thread.

So you are too stupid to understand this? "So choice is a positive attribute because it separates us from the animal kingdom." Amazing!


As I've already stated, they do it by instinct, not free will (sic). I'm afraid I can't pass you on to the fifth grade.


It is one of the principle features that does.
The following sentence applies to you but I doubt if you can comprehend its meaning:
*You seem not to know that you don't know what you don't know.*


Preferably we should make the correct decisions but men and women frequently do not. Your comment "as a man" is odd.


LMFAO again, I just spilled my coffee but really, thanks for the chuckles.


I didn't need one. Did you apply for one? Where did you get yours? Walmart? Is it like a social security card? You are funnier by the second and the hilarious thing is; you don't even know it.


Okay, I've tried to be discrete about the following but other posters here have already picked up on me so here it is. This "weak-willed and feather footed" non "man-card" holding individual lives on the Gold Coast in Chicago (very close to the Polish Consulate). I probably make more money in half-a-year than you make or will make in your entire lifetime or in your case probably several lifetimes. Just to throw this in, my parents came from Poland and were broke.


It figures that you are a pessimist. That explains a lot. That's also why I answered your simplistic question the way I did. I spotted your phoney intent.


They are red on the bottom and white on top, sometimes with an eagle on the top part.


No, I just don't want people, men or women to have 'wrongs' in the form of quotas.


Such direct name-calling merely shows that you are illiterate when it comes to debating. (calling me a liberal really hurts though, lol) Your comments only define you.

What would be inherently wrong then with a political system of representation in which there is an accurate ratio of representation based on population?
We could argue that our current system is unjust in other ways. But limp-wristed liberals like yourself who think it's more important to have the choice of doing the right thing and understanding what doing the right thing is won't understand that. You'd probably hypothesize on the importance of choice if you saw a woman laid out in a burning building- ZIMMY the coward and a woman hater to boot.

Hipster douche bags like yourself pretend to be working class and then turn around a pretend to be socialites when it suits them. Yeah yeah the king of long-haul truck driving is living it up in his super 8 motels. Give it up you delusional twat- everyone knows you really just hate the idea of confident women so you pain them all with the same brush. Every other post you've written here has been laced with malice towards women and it shows a deep seated contempt for women. What's the matter? Mom didn't give you enough muffins last birthday? You make me sick.

regarding animals and choice:


Sorry muffin top but millions of animals make choices as regularly as you do and probably of much greater consequence. Your failure to acknowledge that only illustrates how inept you are at processing truths that are obvious to everyone else strutting above your level. My suggestion is take the stairs on your way up cause the lift will only confuse you.

[quote=]what a limp-wristed, wet-behind the ear snot-nosed liberal answer. As a real man, the only decision to make is the right one. Weak-willed and feather footed individuals like yourself can turn in your man-card and stand in line with the other people looking for hand-outs and excuses in life. People like yourself might think it's a choice to do the right thing but the rest of us, the people who were brought up right, know that's not a choice but a trap.

You've shown your true colours after all. Zimmy- afraid of women having rights because he's too weak to deal with them and afraid of doing the right thing. Zimmy- a coward and a liberal.[/quote]

Zimmy, you been served.. lol

Nothing!
It is wrong however, to mandate quotas thru (government) force. Let the people decide by voting. Nobody stops women or anyone else, at least in western countries from voting their choices.


I'm a libertarian as almost everyone else knows in these forums, except you. Is this your attempt at sarcasm since liberals (not to be confused with European liberals) in the U.S. are the proponents of quotas.


What makes you come up with such ludicrous ideas? You continually postulate assumptions that have no bearing on the discussion, let alone how I handle things. Try to focus.


Again, thank you for such a concise argument on your part. (sarcasm). You've summoned your demons and defaulted to name-calling because you couldn't argue your dubious position. I'm sorry that I did not fall for you question about "choice". That's why I answered it the way I did noting its definition and its positive value(s). I also pointed out that people make bad choices as well as good ones. I check-mated you before you postulated this comment, "people like yourself might think it's a choice to do the right thing but the rest of us, the people who were brought up right, know that's not a choice but a trap" which says it all. I rightfully noted that choices are bad or good and sometimes even neutral.


Hmmm, "Hipster douche bags" sounds like a good name for a rock group. Now, I don't pretend to be working class, haven't been for many years. (How do you come up with this stuff and doesn't it embarrass you, not one little bit?).


I don't pretend to be a socialite.


Sorry I hurt your feelings. I can read your pain.


I'll tell my female vice-president that but I usually paint her green but I use different brushes.


You've decided to go the mother route eh? I thought only grammar school kids still did that, hmmmm. Have you reached rock bottom yet?


Take two cheese pierogies and a bottle of Maalox and call me in the morning. If you don't feel better by then-look in the mirror and yell, "I am somebody" 10 times at the top of your lungs. That should clear your sinuses.


So it's true, you really don't understand the difference between free-will and instinct? ....and I'm actually conversing with you? Part of that answer lies in how fascinated I was with your inability to understand what is actually stated. You continue to dig a hole deeper instead of digging out of it. Perhaps that explains your inability to be optimistic. I've gone as far as I choose to with you. You might be surprised that I wish you good luck and you're probably not a bad guy, just a bit thick.


I only see angels dancing on the head of a pin and am still counting them. They aren't "strutting" either.


You didn't pay anyone for that attempt at a clever line did you? Once again, good luck and I mean it. The only advice I can give you is to not be so defensive and mean spirited with all that name calling. "That's no way to go through life son".


If you call that being "served" then there's nothing I can say about your lack of logic. ... and like Foreigner, do you also compare animals instinctual "choices" to man-kinds free-will? Good luck with that.

edit: Anyone wanting to meet me tonight will find me at the "Pump Room" and later at "Gibson's" in Chicago. Just don't offend the company I'll be with.

Pretty sure you will take care of that by yourself..


god only knows what the pump room stands for with you..pretty sure you will take care of that also by yourself..

your just upset cause you dont have a leg to stand on. if you compare me to him, so be it, he has
more logic in his big toe then you have in your whole fricken brain.

get off the fem kick for once!! maybe people will listen occasionally..


zimmy, my dog eats his food cause he is hungry, thats instinct, thats how the animals feed, but he cuddles with me
of his own free will, I dont make him, if I made him he would bite my hand and cause me to bleed.. something that all

dogs do when they are forced , not of their own free will.

Animals dont make wrong choices, they dont create stupid shyt like humans do to get to that point..

animals dont inject drugs into each other, they dont steal money or Rob people and kill just because they can.

animals do have a free will, by choice they will walk up to you and give you their 100% trust.

of their free will they will jump on your furniture, especially after they have ate a good supper and they get
up on your clean couch and wipe their messy face all over your couch and look all innocent when you say HEY!!
what are you doing, then they look as if they have done something terribly wrong and take off running of their free
will fully knowing they are in trouble!!

yeah, dont talk about free will and animals.. and yes or no was all he asked for.. dont beat around the bush!!

ah, Zimmy - you have your words to defend you.

Going back on topic of the parity of women in Poland in the Polish government. THey have 30% at the moment. It will be higher in the future.

Me: Foreigner4: What would be inherently wrong then with a political system of representation in which there is an accurate ratio of representation based on population?


So if through the process of discussion people actually chose such a system be mandated then what the hell is your problem. People talk about the pros and cons of an idea and your up in arms, yet at the same time you defend people's choice to that end. You're whining and sniveling about the prospect of people discussing the merits of a notion.

We get it- you're intimidated by women. Now get lost.

He will try to argue his point, instead of agreeing, I dont think I have ever seen him agree unless someone
agrees with him, then he agrees with them that he is right.

oh well. you all know, here comes more.. blah blah blah..


That pretty much sums it up.

Well, and this is why I'm having hard time discussing this with you. You're basically advocating replacing one form of discrimination with a different form of discrimination yet you're calling him "dumb"? Really? I hate racism and I hate discrimination, in my professional life and in my private life. I have fond memories of dating a gorgeous black lady many years ago yet according to several posters here I'm a sellout to my race? Well, I know I'm right and they're wrong.

Similarly I won't tolerate ANY form of discrimination in my professional life either, including "legalized" discrimination. Quotas or affirmative action is government sanctioned discrimination. I don't care what you call it, it's discrimination. If 2 individuals compete for a job and one of them gets it because she has a vagina while the other one doesn't because he has a penis than it's discrimination. Yes, there's no real equality today and things need to change however you don't right a wrong with another wrong. That's what quotas do.

No not really. I am not advocating that system. How you have arrived at that conclusion is an indication of your inability to process the written word in English. Good luck with that.

Hmm, or maybe you struggle with your own English comprehension?

This is your reply to Zimmy:


So basically you're against affirmative action except when it's "definitely a good idea"? So you're against it ...except when you're for it??

The problem is people like you are dishonest about what they really want, or rather how they want to get there.

Let's see, you want equality, correct? Well, so do I and I've been very clear about that. Both genders should have the very same opportunities. Are we at that stage today? Absolutely not. So far I think we both agree.

However this is where we go separate ways. You believe that affirmative action stinks but that sometimes it's a "good idea" whereas I believe affirmative action is always wrong because it's a sugar-coated for of ..discrimination. Discrimination against women is wrong. Discrimination against men is wrong too. Hiring people based on their gender alone is discrimination and therefore is ALWAYS wrong; there are no exceptions to that.

SSM, while 2 wrongs don't make a right (as you correctly said), sometimes social expediency dictates the answer. Seen through one lens, affirmative action is merely social redress. Let's take apartheid, for example. Do you think that it created many imbalances? Should we strive for balance? If there is an imbalance, you must return to balance if that's what is desirable (which I think is). You have to restore the level playing field as best you can. The same applies to women but I think there is tacit consent with regards to roles here. In 7 years, I don't think I've ever heard a Polish woman gripe about chauvinism and being at an instant disadvantage. We are all people so it shouldn't be a factor if you have a penis or a vagina. It should be about stating objectives and having the right people in the right places.

All good points and I don't know the right answers, frankly I don't know any answers. What I feel though is that if we as a society stoop down to discriminating against one gender in the form of affirmative action because the other gender had been discriminated against in the past, and often still is, then we fail as a society.

If it were up to me every single employment interview would be conducted in total anonymity, behind a sound proof barrier, with voices disguised so you couldn't tell if it's a he or a she, with names replaced by numbers and a gender neutral interview board. Score the applicant based on one's knowledge, experience, etc. Then let a second interview board select the winners based on the interview + background + education numbers alone. First after the applicant is told he or she is hired should the interview board find out his/her gender. That's true equality, a person who's hired based on his/her skills and not presence of a vulva or a penis.

I see your point from the first 2 lines. It's a tricky problem for sure but I think your sensible recommendation in the second part of your commentary would go a long way to helping to restore confidence. That's what it's about too. However, other realities exist too. Ever talked to a white South African? They know full well what black folk endured under apartheid and are afraid of the backlash. Polish women don't have this sense of grievance or disempowerment in the workplace, I think. I think expressing their Polishness and being themselves means much more to them than entering the niggling debates I heard in the UK all too often.

No, it's just I can't make it any simpler for you and you seem to be struggling with that, so anything more nuanced than a "hell yeah" or a "hell no" is proving hard for you to process.

Let's recap for you:


That is not tacit support to the proposal of the thread title "Is parity the answer for Polish women?" It is only recognition that affirmative action, when implemented honestly and in select situations actually makes a lot of sense.

I have stated numerous times I am against the idea of mandated representation. Is that something you
a) don't understand
or
b) haven't read?
or
c) are choosing to ignore?

Do I support the use of affirmative action in some instances? I gave a clear example of a situation in which it would be irresponsible not to be discriminatory in a hiring situation. Did you

a) not read that
or
b) fail to understand it?
or
c) choose to ignore it?

Your problem is that you're trying to turn this into an all or nothing issue, in that this practice must exist in every facet of industry or in none. Most people can't see there is an overall benefit to society if this is done properly but because it isn't being used properly in society they are completely against it- you seem to be in that group.

[/quote]


What is this "one form of discrimination you speak of?

After you get back to me on that then mull this over:
Every choice you make is based on discrimination. Every employee you hire, every time you choose between pump 1,2 or 3; every time you choose which sales person to approach; who to talk to in a bar, etc, ALL OF IT is based off discrimination.

So while you seem to be "against" any form of discrimination, you use it every day to live your life to the best of your ability.

Tell me if you have processed that and
a) agree
b) disagree
c) don't understand

Well, my reply is really about the question of gender parity. Is it good or is it bad? Well, equality is great. If it means an exact 50-50 in all professions, all schools, all sports, music venues, etc., etc. then so be it, great. However, if we get there by discriminating one gender over another in the form of affirmative action or government required "quotas" then we have failed. We've reached theoretical "parity" but hardly any equality. So I'm not arguing against reaching the ultimate goal of equality but rather against using one form of discrimination to replace another form of ...discrimination.

Women are underrepresented not only in professionally choice and desirable positions suchb as executive posts but also amongst ditch-diggers, sewer workers and dustmen. Shouldn't they now be called dustpersons? And shouldn't those disparities also be corrected?

I've processed your views just fine and until you stop making smart a&$ comments the answer will be

d) you're a dipshit who argues for the sake of arguing

You feel that discrimination is sometimes ok
I feel that it is always wrong

That's about it.

If you say you're against mandated representation than you should never, ever say that sometimes it's a good idea. Otherwise you're being dishonest.

Yet those are your words and not mine:


Discrimination is NEVER a good idea. Affirmative action IS discrimination. Thus affirmative action is NEVER a good idea.

Didn't you read the 'princesses need not apply' stipulation, Pol3? ;) ;)

SSM, if social redress is a good point as you said, how do you intend to redress it? Would you rather leave the gross imbalance or would you rather try and restore a level playing field? Just curious as you've made one good suggestion already. However, that was on the basis of a level playing field.

P3
^While I don't support the notion of mandating who can and can't run for government in the current democratic system, the argument you've presented is a red herring. There is no logic for it in this context, it just doesn't hold up. If you need that explained for you then check out the last few pages in this thread and if you don't get it then get back to me.

I've said before that I believe the "earlier" Scandinavian model had a much better approach, try to create interests amongst the kids, take the girls out to male dominated fields and take the boys out to the female dominated jobs. Think of it as the "take your daughter/son to work" day just expand it. Encourage science subjects to the girls and give more exposure to arts, social fields, etc. for the boys. etc., etc. Scandinavian airlines (not just SAS but all Scandinavian airlines) for example have a much larger percentage of female pilots than any US airline does despite the fact they had no female quota requirements the way US airlines do.

In recent years the social-democrats of Sweden began pushing for affirmative action solutions despite the fact Scandinavia is fairly equal already. Yes, their approach might give them "paper equality" sooner, a parity if you will but hardly any real equality. True equality comes from within, from our own interests and desires. It cannot be legislated.

That could work! In fact, this has happened and worked in Poland. Many Polish guys upped and left Gdańsk, only to leave many jobs for firemen needing to be filled. There was a plethora of applications from willing females so they turned it into a huge work experience project. Quite the successful experiment!

That's exactly my point. Equality is great, no, it's wonderful. Government forced parity is simply one form of discrimination replaced with a new kind of discrimination. Pure and simple.

Then you are leaving a lot to chance, SSM. Without any regulation, people will just do as they please. This from quite a liberal guy who sees the danger in it.

You can "regulate" me to like broccoli, but it doesn't mean I'll actually like it. Regulation is not the answer, creating interest, zest for specific fields is.

Either way, my main point in the debate is - do not replace discrimination with discrimination. Using a "prettier," more PC term such as "affirmative action" doesn't change a thing, it's still discrimination.

So equality? Absolutely! Forced parity? Never!

What is the practical difference between equality and parity in your opinion, SSM? With all due respect, it's a bit of both. Some regulation is needed, coupled with such schemes as you outlined.

OK, SSM, I'm going to come at this from a different standpoint. Imagine you are from a culture which has undergone serious discrimination. You are one of the discriminated. You then witness a regime change which looks to do 'the right thing' and rectify the imbalances. Wouldn't you look for some form of restitution? What is the function of government in such a case? If they have no role and just let the people decide, how do you think it would look?

Listen, we can discuss this all day long and for every "what if" I'll give you another "what if."

I'm tired and am about to crash but will say it again, two wrongs don't make a right. One form of discrimination shouldn't be replaced with another form of discrimination. Do you understand my main point? The sentence in bold says it all, that's it.

Forget everything else here and just think about it for a second - two individuals, a man and a woman are looking for the same job. Both candidates are equally competent. Are you with me?

- In the first case the woman is turned down because the person conducting the interview doesn't like women or prefers men for the position. This is discrimination, pure and simple.

- In the second case the man is turned down because the position "needs" another woman to comply with the mandated gender quota. This is discrimination, pure and simple.

One "wrong" replaced with another "wrong."

Again, I'm against discrimination and for equality. It's really black or white here. There's no "...yes, but...".
Discrimination is wrong, period. No exceptions.