Is parity the answer for Polish women?

As far as your clubhouse comment - how far will your fairness doctrine go? A club house is a private club so are you saying you'll force them to admit members? I don't care per se, I think they're stupid for not allowing women in but those ARE private clubs. A very few club by the way, a tiny, tiny minority of them.

Now, in the US we have over 500 girls only/women only schools. They're all private. There used to be ONE all male school, the Citadel - but no longer. They received 5% of their funding from the government so the government said let women in or no money. They chose the money. I agree with their decision. However I find it so ironic no one cares about the plethora of girls/women only schools. Selective sense of justice?

..and no, I didn't "duck the answer" a already said that I prefer the Scandinavian approach. You on the other hand never replied to my questions.

"- ..IF you support quotas then we should apply them to ALL jobs, correct? - YES/NO?

- Each and every job, cleaners, coal-miners, farmers, garbage-, I'm sorry sanitary-workers, etc., etc. each and every job, correct??

- What if we don't have enough men for one field and women for another? Will we force them to work in those fields? I'm serious, parity, remember? Legislation, remember? Because if you say no then you're being disingenuous.

- I mean why is it important for the parliament to be 50% female but not the sewerpipe cleaners??

- ...and what number will be good enough? 45%? 50%?

- There are more women than men so they'll get around 51% of all jobs, correct?? Is that fair?

- What if a company needs 5001 employees? Will one of them have to dress as a man one week and as a woman the following week?

- ...or will you legislate the company to hire an extra person? A person that company doesn't need??

-..and how long will this "quota" system be in effect? In all eternity or until we reach a specific number?? Serious question...

...where do you draw the line?

- You either support discrimination or you don't. If you say, let's discriminate today so we don't have to do it tomorrow at least I'll know where you're coming from.

- However if you say that you support quotas but are against discrimination than you get me all confused..."

No, it happens in public/municipal clubs too, SSM. For4, so you are saying that men spend more on refreshments than women? What profits? How does he profit more from men? Remember that most drive to golf courses so likely have a shandy and that's it. You are saying that business is the reason for excluding women? Even the math is hardly on your side here.

I don't support quotas. I've already said it's about the right person for the right job. We agreed long back, SSM. Let's clear this up by me making a concession. I will concede that reverse discrimination is a necessary evil to restore some semblance of parity if you agree that long term equality is more desirable than short term inequality. It's worth going through short term inequality to reach long term equality. Deal??

no. I'm saying it'd be profitable for a club to cater to both genders and in most cases it is and that's why you don't see much if any gender based customer discrimination.


jesus wept seanus, read it again- I phrased my example in the second conditional- it was hypothetical.


Well jesus christ seanus why not put that in the original scenario- that changes everything!

For4, women WERE discriminated against for a long time. It's a fact! I remember my dad playing a round with a female colleague and her not being allowed in for a jar. That's discrimination, pure and simple. A man can be a guest and gain entry. A woman must pay for membership. That's the deal!!

I'm talking reality, not hypotheticals.

I wanted to tease out your thoughts first, that's why ;) ;)

well then reference a current example


That WAS the deal!!
The discrimination you referenced is out of date and that's a fact! It was wrong then and it'd be wrong now if it took place on publicly held facility.

I did in the post above. But it still happens: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6521703.stm

Ok, I missed it, please highlight the current actual example you have where this happens on public facilities.
When you do that, I'll say that is wrong.
When I won't do that will be if a private business owner who is not being supported by public funds chooses to do that. I'll think it's probably not a good way to run a business but I wouldn't worry about it.

I was using it in argument, For4. I know that Scotland now doesn't accept any such discrimination on public courses.

So you agree with me that it's a form of discrimination? Correct?


Well, those are small solutions but yes, I did bring up a few ideas. See posts 177, 180, 185 for example. Slow progress but progress nevertheless.


Absolutely except I thought that parliament members were chosen by the people?? ...and last time I checked women in Poland could vote AND were in fact the majority of the voting block?? So what does that say about you, women voters?


Well, in the US it's usually "against" males or whites. In Poland it's against males. For now, but it will expand, mark my words. You'll have quotas for women, for minorities, for language minorities, for transgender people, etc.

It's not always "against" the males either, in nursing for example a male gets preferential treatment over a female. I'm against that too. It should be based on your qualifications and experience and your grades, never on your penis or lack of it.

No, no one gets "booted" by the way. Instead a person doesn't get hired or admited to a university program (those that still use the affirmative action) even though they're well-qualified (have great grades) because someone from the preferred gender (race) wants the position too.


I do too. I simply don't believe we should discriminate to repair past discrimination practices. You do. I call it for what it is, government sponsored discrimination or revenge discrimination, you call it affirmative action.

How about my concession, SSM? (post 223). Agreed?

hermorphadite?


its just options dude, right now I know a friend who gets discriminated against for having one arm
and he can build homes, but construction workers have some type of joke about it..wtf.

come on.. its just opening doors.. where does the word force come in.. its not a camp, people
arent made to do anything.. chill.

I'll say that I see what you're trying to achieve and I support those achievements. However I won't support your discriminatory ways of getting there. As I said, two wrongs don't make a right. So I understand your goals but disagree about the solution.

So you agree to let the slap sting indefinitely without a fair reply or a bigger player stepping in to slap back. We agreed on some methods, e.g the Gdańsk firewomen, but please Ctrl C, Ctrl V your recommendations for rectification. I will look back to see if I can find them. Otherwise you are letting a serious wrong persist. A bit like Israel does in wronging people, then talking peace til the cows come home (all the while doing nothing). Can't you see the unfairness in that?

SSM, "We've reached theoretical "parity" but hardly any equality", from an earlier post of yours (180). Care to elaborate?

You don't support quotas so what do you support to bring about your much cherished equality?

its a good solution.. but non in existence that I know of..

so then are you telling me you don't have any current examples of the discrimination you're arguing against? *edit* sorry I forgot you are against this on private courses as well. Fair enough but you don't have any examples of this happening on publicly funded courses so I just don't see your point*

I agree that in the example you gave of your father, discrimination would be unfair and "wrong" imo but I never proposed it be allowed in such a situation, I proposed it be condoned if adopted in a truly private setting and it would only be condoned to the point the private owner could make such practices profitable (and I don't think they could for the long haul).

it is not OK to discriminate anywhere, yet it happens all the time. If you want to spend time with the company of your choice it would not be the government office, nor a Parliament since the latter is not a social club. ( I can see Flagless coming up with some off the wall comment). That is all I meant.

What spell check? You must have it on American English most likely:D

Anyways, are you drunk?

I agree with his solution too. However, it only ensconces fairness within the system for present/future applicants and doesn't address the gross imbalance that was created before. He seems to be suggesting 'grin and bear it'. I wonder if I had got well ahead of him through being a discrimination beneficiary if he'd change his tune or not. If he personally lost out then would he still believe the same?

For4, it existed before and the principle is what I took as being important. Remedial action was taken. It wasn't just left to slide. Private courses are a matter of informed consent so it is somewhat more acceptable there as women can do likewise if they so desire. We agree on this, I think. It's still not for choice but at least it isn't as unreasonable as selling drugs for financial gain, right?

Because the execution of sewer pipe cleaning is based on physical performance. The only measure of the job is whether the sewer pipe is clean or not. Representation isn't a factor, only an objective result which is measurable based on liquid flow.

The execution of being a politician is something entirely different and much more complex. Obtaining the post of political representative involves a very different vetting process.

The capacity to which either job is executed is entirely different from the other and that is why I was originally opposed to using that as any kind of argument against the question in the title- because it is a weak argument that holds no water.

That still doesn't mean I support the idea in the thread title, it just means I can spot weak criticism and that was it.


Yes.


I think you're right but a lot of pharmaceutical firms would disagree.

You really don't understand and I don't blame you for it because you haven't experienced it yet. Just one tiny example. My best friend, a female, is a computer/data tech in the military. Or was. It's not my field of expertise but I understand enough. She had a very solid resume and once she separated from the military she applied for a similar position with an oil company, basically an analyst using similar type of equipment she used before. She had much more experience than her closest competitor, in fact several additional years of experience and a higher rank. When she applied for the position she had a stellar resume, numerous and great recommendations from at least 20 other former coworkers and supervisors... We all assumed she'd get the spot because many of the recommendations came from some fairly high ranking individuals. Corporations usually value those type of recommendations. We thought she was a shoe-in. Come to find out a black female got the job even tnough she had much less experience. The minority quota was low for the year and that was it. So a "quotee" got hurt by another "quotee". You think, whoopsie doo, but those opportunities arise only once every few years. Some 5 years later she finally got a similar job but those 5 years cost her a LOT of money. Oh, the person who got the job was fired about 8 months later for failing to solve some basic problems with the software. Too late for my friend. Had they gone by experience she'd have gotten the job. Instead they used the affirmative action to discriminate against her. Two wrongs don't ever make it right.

One day your son might be turned down for a job or university education simply because he's your son and not your daughter and you might change your mind? Maybe or maybe not? Who knows...

SSM, I could say the same on your last point to Patty. Any answers to 234?

Drunk? Where did that come from?? I said "spell check" since you poked fun at my spelling and then went ahead and misspelled the word Parliament, (a-missing), that's all. I guess you missed the smiley face?

As far as the rest of your comment I don't get it but that's ok. I don't believe in discrimination in public or private work force. You disagree, that's fine.

So, suggestions to repair the damage of the past? What's the difference between parity and equality?

WHAT!!!? They better get off that crack lol. Women may have a mind equal to a man but in politics you need Cojones.
Look at what this guy thinks of gender equality....

youtube.com/watch?v=T0xoKiH8JJM

What do you mean REVERSE discrimination?Discrimination is discrimination,period.All these parity and affirmative action laws are discriminatory.I can't understand why i have to tell my race on job application.Since like they say everyone is equel it should not matter wheter I am caucasian,black or yellow.This is discrimination!This ******* world becoming very hostile place for caucasian male.Makes me very angry.

Seanus - seriously, how many times do I have to repeat myself. Encourage kids, foster interests in typically male dominated fields with the girls and male dominated fields with the girls, focus on science with the girls and art and social services with the boys. Interests is the key to real equality. Did you get the part where Scandinavia has many more female pilots than the US despite the fact there was no affirmative action in Sweden until fairly recently? Did you get that? That alone is all you needed to read but as always you cherry picked your favorite tidbits and left out the rest. They achieved a more equal society WITHOUT forced, reverse discrimination. That's what I mean. Quotas bring equality on paper only, numerically but not in real life. That's what I meant.

This is a very repetitious discussion. Or rather a series on monologues. I will never, ever concede to any form of legalized discrimination. I acknowledge that we have problems today but I believe we should solve them via education, encouragement and guidance. You believe we need government control. Now you bring in Israel? What's next? Das Kapital?

Dude, if you're gonna skip reading my comments then why are you even asking me questions??
I am for equality, period! If there's ever parity reached because there are just as many well-qualified men and women for the same jobs then more power to them. That's great. However if you reach fake equality via forced parity than you haven't achieved anything new. You simply replaced one form of discrimination with another. Read my comment about gender neutral interviews - it should apply to ALL aspects of life. If you understand that part of my reasoning you'll understand the rest. If not, we'll never agree.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination here. Grubas, 'The law in some countries, such as the UK, draws a distinction between Equality of Provision and Equality of Outcome, recognising that identical treatment may sometimes act to preserve inequality rather than eliminate it. Opponents of this distinction may label it as an example of positive discrimination'. This is the crux of the matter.

If you accept that discrimination is wrong in the first place then what does that say about you when you sat back and allowed it??? You are up in arms about discrimination yet allowed the very thing you curse against. A word beginning with 'h' and ending in 'e' springs to mind.

SSM, Swedes didn't discriminate against blacks like America did. They have traditionally been more egalitarian so 'tweaking' measures don't go that far towards redressing the imbalance and that's my point. It's still a PAST grievance with no given remedy. You keep looking to the future and that's great but please compensate the wronged. That's what I'm telling you!!

Furthermore, would you be prepared to pay more tax towards educating blacks who were previously denied access? Would you coach them to become a pilot, for example?

Can't you see it doesn't make any sense?This is simply discrimination of one group of people in order to give favorable position to other group.What a ****** up world we live in.

Explain to me how telling my race on job application helps equality since the employer will base his decision on candidate's race? I stand by my statement discrimination is a discrimination.When a caucasion person is discriminated againt because of his/her skin color it is exactly the same discrimination as against black person because of his/her skin color.

Then I state again, 'If you accept that discrimination is wrong in the first place then what does that say about you when you sat back and allowed it??? You are up in arms about discrimination yet allowed the very thing you curse against'. Right, grubas?

Yea but Swedes ,pardon my French, are dick1ng themselves! Malmo is a ghetto. Arabs, Africans walk around like they're at home. Swedes (the common people) are trying to be civilized and not discriminate but they don't really want them there. But if you say something you're automatically a racist. Those newcomers are not blind they see they can get away with almost anything there. Sweden is giving them freedom that they could never have dreamed of in their old country.

Where do you see me allowing any kind of discrimination?