Is parity the answer for Polish women?

So you are selective. We know that already.


That's an outright falsehood. Women are not prohibited from running for public or private offices. You sound like a women's study major. Were you really that brainwashed by academia?


Another odd comment from you. Do you really believe that young men growing up look forward to work in mines? Those who end up there do it out of necessity. It's not a career they want. They work to support their families.


The fact that you base it on gender only and not on other criteria such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., and of course you ignore other jobs such as long-haul trucking, crane operation, power line installers, oil rig workers, and thousands of other positions. Yes, your position is not only "arbitrary" but discriminatory. True equality does not mean that a select group can pick and choose only those areas that are favorable.


Injustice is passing laws that discriminate against one group for the benefit of another. Quotas do exactly that.


You are being logical and in our "politically correct" western cultures that sort of thinking must not be allowed. You will make the Orwellian brain explode with such a rational

philosophy.

Of course those who demand quotas infer that people who benefit by them cannot be successful on their own. There is an inherent sense of inferiority about those needing extra help by those superior beings giving it to them.

Shouldn't we be? Some jobs are not life or death, the execution of some jobs actually do show an improvement on a community when specific genders or ethnicities are in them. I'm not defending the extent to which things have gone but I really think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water here.


Sorry kid but i'd say yours is the odd comment. I'm not commenting about young men growing up (something you'd do well to imitate). I'm talking about grown up enough men, capable of determining the kind of work they like and don't like and YES some of them prefer that kind of work to other jobs. If you don't grasp this then you've got some living to do.


Is your brain made of F-ING JELLO? Look at the thread title- the question is about GENDER ONLY.

Indeed women are in average lousier than men in logical reasoning. They have better verbal abilities in average than men.

That is what empirical studies say.

When it comes to average female vs average male intelligence, although commons sense somehow suggests that men are in average higher scorers, studies about it a rare, political correctness seems stands in a way. I don't have an excess to a large database of IQ tests one of my professors collected through the years, but I'll try to get something about it.

Those studies I saw so far, usually state that there is a tendency in certain life periods for boys to have higher scores, but it is usually stated that the difference is not statistically significant. P values are higher, tests statistics are not showing extreme differences.

personally I know more gifted men than women.

Southern , Serbia is also full of female judges, and processes are longer than Kafka's in average. I also think there are professions where women with their dispositions tend to do better than men, nurturing spectrum, like psychotherapy, counseling, pediatrics, social work, teachers, professors, some specializations within medicine etc.

Insisting on artificial changes of by biology given limits of both genders is silly. And funny.
Woman in uniform with the gun is a threat to public safety. What if she is in PMS?

The most common subgroup, PMS Type A, consists of premenstrual anxiety, irritability and nervous tension, sometimes expressed in behavior patterns detrimental to self, family and society. Elevated blood estrogen and low progesterone have been observed in this subgroup.

wtf? ;)

Although I don't support quotas and other government sponsored forms of discrimination I don't buy your PMS argument. I've served with many females and they performed their duties just as well as the men did. Now, I'm in the aviation field, if I was on the battlefield I'd want to fight next to someone who could drag me away if I was wounded. Otherwise, I have no qualms about serving side by side women.

yes me too, also more really stupid men than women, like men are just more extreme in both directions, perhaps?

Exactly :)

^I've heard it said that men are nature's gamble while women are nature's insurance police.

Female cycle alters the woman's persona into three distinct personalities, three faces of Eve they call it in psychiatry, they even respond differently to medications depending on the phase of the cycle, so PMS is there, pregnancy wooooooo :))), and finally undebatable, poorer physical performances.

You never experienced one good PMS (one of my fantasies is that ALL men on this planet feel that gift of nature once;)) that is sometimes transforming women into creatures similar to character of Jack Nicholson in the movie Shining.

Women are symbolically behaving similarly sane.

If I had a uniform and a gun we wouldn't be talking now ;)

Well, is it because you're a woman or because you're natasa? LOL

Some 20% of military personnel in the US are women so I think your findings are somewhat inaccurate or maybe all those women go AWOL one week every month? FYI, there are guys in my unit who PMS regularly but we all manage.

For some it is, for others it isn't.

Are you suggesting that someone cannot make comparisons about parity in other industries when making their case? If there is a thread about Ford automobiles does that mean that comparisons with Chevrolets or Pontiacs should not be mentioned? Seems to me that Zimmy has destroyed your narrow position and you don't like it, Southern too.

No, but those industries had better be comparable to what it is that person is trying argue. This is the case here, not once has someone given a comparative situation to an "industry" which is comparable to realm of what political representation is supposed to be at a municipal, state/provincial or federal level. Perhaps what you wanted to write instead of "industries" was areas or comparative phenomenon, but neither he nor I at that point were arguing industries but instead minority and interest groups.

I don't know what you've been reading but I'll sum up what I've comprehended thus far and if you can find an inconsistency in this then please alert me to it:

Zimmy, rightfully, sees that if we follow the slippery slope of gender based representation then other "minority" groups would then demand mandatory political representation based on their numbers as well. I AGREED WITH HIM that because of this and other factors that it's not a good idea overall, at least not in the capacity of current western political systems. But if he's going to ask me why I am not arguing for that too then it's because IT WASN'T IN THE ORIGINAL QUESTION AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS I AM OPPOSED TO THE IDEA!!!

I only think his argument about secretaries in blue collar industries is entirely off the mark. I don't like the pervasiveness of politically correct hiring practices in north american society but I can also readily admit to its strengths in some are facets of society. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, there are roles in society in which it's a good thing and in many it's not. If we had a different political structure then it might be but if you read carefully you'll see I have been opposed to some criticisms of the idea because they were poorly thought out, that doesn't suddenly amount to validating the proposal.

Tell me if you understand this.

I certainly don't. There's discrimination or there's no discrimination. Replacing one form of discrimination with another form of discrimination doesn't solve the problem. It only creates future problems as those who are now being discriminated against will end up demanding new laws that will grant them preferential treatment. A vicious cycle. Not to mention the hate and resentment the quota cronies generate. Discrimination is wrong, period, no exceptions, no "strengths in some facets of society".

Let's take an example from the real world. Let's take an example of where I'm from. First Nations people from my part of the world are more likely to be in long term incarceration than people from other ethnicities by a HUGE MARGIN. They are more likely to engage in just about every activity deemed to weaken society that you can imagine. One initiative to curb this was the introduction of youth programs in the inner city. It is entirely subsidized through taxes. Now the only thing to do is hire staff who can connect with these kids. These people need training, methods, experience and instincts, oh, and most of all they need the kids at risk to trust them.

Now who do you think those kids will trust more: some white or black person or someone who they look like, someone who more than likely came from the same kind of environment they should want to escape from? If all things are equal or close to it then it's pretty easy to see who will connect with those kids better and know what to look out for in terms of their behaviour. When they can see at a young age that there are people succeeding who look just like them, the likelihood of them thinking "hey I can do better too" is infinitely greater. If you call that discrimination then there's no helping you.


Just for clarity, what exactly do you define "the problem" to be?

Could you elaborate? I'll await your position on diversity.


Of course you are. I once met a woman who told me that she was not a hooker but if I could give her a lift to Reno, Nevada then she would be "very very thankful" (I was at Lake Tahoe at the time, about 50 miles from Reno). You are like that woman pretending not to be what you are.


You're in fairy tale land again. No father or mother wants their son to grow up digging coal.

Scenario:
Mother: "Yes son, someday you will be like your father coming home with coal all over your face and body and coughing up blood.

Son: "Thanks mom, I'm looking forward to that."
Father: "And if you're lucky, you'll get Black Lung disease and suffer for years just like me."
Son: "Sounds good, can I be hunched over and in constant pain like you too?
Father" "That's my boy."

People who work in those jobs have to in order to support their families. They are both humble and a proud people at the same time.

youtube.com/watch?v=Zv2uA5QEbNw


The title of this thread is, "Is parity the answer for Polish women" and by extension the question expanded to include women in general. Since you are demanding a quota for women in the clean office managerial positions, it cannot escape notice that women are vastly under represented in the harsh dangerous professions as well.

Yes, this thread is about gender and real equality not the 'pick-and-choose' preferential type.


You are very astute as well as brave. Don't you know that feminist organizations would stone you for saying this? You seem to be a woman 'par excellence'.


That's one way of putting it. I just say that women talk more, much more lol.


"Political correctness" is the western worlds social virus. The only cure for it is to use logic. Sadly, our professors, both male and female, are afflicted with this destructive virus which censors common sense and truth.

You are correct however, that the highest IQ's are male, but so are the lowest. Seems that men dominate the top levels as well as the lowest ones. When averaged out

the "British Journal of Psychology" says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests. Virtually all such studies have indicated this but once again, it isn't politically polite to publicly report these findings.

These is noting wrong with differences between the sexes, after all, without them there would be no human race (we're all one race irrespective of color, etc).

There are the obvious physical differences but also many subtle ones as well. Women know more about this than men because they read the many women's magazines which describe 'female problems'. For instance (and I've got dozens of examples), about 22% of menopausal women in the US are diagnosed with thyroid dysfunction. The majority of these women suffer from a sluggish thyroid (hypothyroidism) which leads to fatigue, weight gain, depression, high cholesterol and other symptoms. Some suffer from hyperthyroidism,which is an overactive thyroid. Men are much less affected except of course when watching sports on television and drinking excessive amounts of beer thus gaining weight during their 50's.

The point is; we should not be censored when it comes to facts.


Male innovation and creativity seem to bear that out, certainly historically it does. Almost everything people use was invented by males. Women hurt themselves in this area by concentrating too much on (their) beauty. How many hours a week do women put in attempting to make themselves look pleasing? How many do men? All those extra hours make a big difference. Was that nature or nurture?


Absolutely correct, yet feminists and the "politically correct" still attempt to ignore the differences between men and women. They claim that men and women are the same and any differences are mere "social constructs". What bullcrap.


This has actually been used as a defense in some murder cases.


Your stuck in your small fish bowl. All industries are different yet have some degree of similarities with each other. You believe that representation by quota is different. I don't as I know that a rose this malodorous still smells fetid.

Women make up the majority of the voting public. They can vote anyone in that they want to vote in. They are not prohibited from running for office, indeed, I can make an argument that they receive favored treatment in this and many other areas.


I'm guessing that you don't see your own contradiction in the above statement. Additionally, you don't want affirmative action for "minority" groups but you want it for a majority one (women are 50.5% of the population).


AMEN!

I can't multitask. Not really.

There, I've said it.

No. I'm not. Look at what I've written and you'll see that for yourself.


It's been done, if you read it after you wrote this then great, if not then take another look.


You wrote that "men don't want to be miners" now you're going on about what parents want for their kids. You know as well as I do that what you had originally written is patently false and now you're trying to shift your argument to being about what parents want for their kids. It's no good, you stated your position and we both know it's not true. Why don't you just admit it? Some men like doing what you would consider a sh*tty job. That being said, those jobs are production based and have little crossover activities with that of politicians, it's got nothing to do with the price of fish.

Zimmy, am I just falling for a persistent troll job on your part? I ask this because it seems you're purposely missing the point of everything I've communicated to you. It's like you want to believe I'm some card carrying member of the Affirmative Action Committee. In many cases, affirmative action is a poison but in other cases it is definitely a good idea. The problem has been that people have been dishonest with it. Whenever someone doesn't get what they want, cries of "racism" and "sexism" are generally all that is needed to get an emotional response from many to capitulate on the matter.

I oppose that. It is lazy thinking. But there is more than one form of lazy thinking and you sir have been engaging in something just as lazy but on the other end of the spectrum.

From my first exchange with you, I have written that I'm only in favour of the spirit of this idea but overall OPPOSE IT but do so for different reasons than you. You keep accusing me of being the bastion of affirmative action despite my insistence that I agree with you that it has gone out of control in areas of employment it simply shouldn't be it. Despite this you keep insisting I have done the opposite. It's easy enough to go back and check the record. At this junction you're either:

sleep deprived
completely stupid
dishonest
using mind altering substances
unable/unwilling to comprehend what you've read


So what? You had asked me why I don't seek parity for other groups beyond gender.
I then referred you to the thread title, i.e. your rebuttal regarding other minority groups wasn't in the thread title. Do you understand this?


No you dip sh*t, I don't support that either but for different reasons. The argument you had provided against it was weak sauce and didn't even make sense. Read this and read it carefully, then think about what it means for a good 24 hours of cumulative thinking before you even think about replying:

I criticized your arguments which were in opposition to a proposal of gender parity in government. The fact that I don't agree with your reason for opposing the idea does NOT MEAN I support the proposal.

Do you understand that? Please choose:
a) yes F4, now I get it.
b) no F4 it is not clear to me.


Hold the phone!!! Zimmy has come up with a real argument against the proposal. You finally upped your game. Now make your argument...

Okay, parents prefer their kids not grow up to be miners, and kids prefer not to be miners. There! The rest is gobbly gook on your part.


Now you've generalized. I referred to coal miners. Other difficult jobs might include being an oil rigger. Some men do like that kind of work. Don't be so oafish.


I don't think that trolls write in depth posts especially ones you are too close minded to understand.


Aha, there it is. You do believe in affirmative action. You've finally stopped tip toeing around. Can you tell us when it is a "good idea"? Give some examples, please.


Wait, you just stated that you think it's a "good idea", at least in some instances but overall oppose it. You are the one who is disengenuous and vague.

Okay, so you believe affirmative action is, as you put it, " definitely a good idea" but you "oppose it". Why do you oppose "good ideas"?

In your previous post(97), regards quotas, you stated, "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 befemale. In your post (99), you noted, "the whole point is that if half the population is one gender, shouldn't have the government representation also be downthat line?. Your own comments suggest that you support quotas because your comments look like quotas, walk like quotas and quack like quotas.

Given your immense ambivalence you ironically said this;


Thanks for the laugh, I was so loud that my dog jumped off my lap.


No! I am opposed to artificial government mandated parity, that dirty thing call 'quotas'. Did a light just go on in your head? I also pointed out the prejudicial and hypocritical notion of those who demand equal percentages of jobs in one category but not in jobs that are less desirable. That is a bigoted philosophy, not one of real equality.


Rub your tummy and chew gum at the same time.;)
Feminists have attempted to find things women can do better than men and have come up with this nonsense. Nobody, man or woman can work as proficiently multitasking. Focusing on one-thing-at-a-time is the preferred way to get something accomplished well. (but I will admit that I can juggle three balls in the air, read a newspaper and bicycle all at the same time;)).

What was the rest? I am pretty sure my only point on that matter is what you admitted but I'm open to criticism what is "the rest?"


I understand perfectly well what you've been writing, the problem is YOU don't seem to understand what you're writing. It's like you think one thing but write another; read one thing and then respond to something entirely different.


Have I? Not more than 2 sentences later you did the exact same thing:


I am saying mining has comparable jobs in other fields and as you've admitted some guys like those jobs. We both know that is true and the fact I had to beat you over the head with it tells me I need to work on my communication skills when communicating with imbeciles.


What do you mean "believe in it?" It's not a f'king religion.


What is disingenuous about that (I'm guessing you tried to up your perceived iq by using a big person word but you don't know what it means)? If it's vague it's because you haven't read the example I gave where I think it benefits society - go and find it (141). If you can't understand the times and places for it then you're likely just opposed to anything which disrupts male hegemony. You're one of the reasons rabid feminists exist you idiot. By only seeing things as "all or nothing" issues, morons like both yourself and feminists polarize others on issues.

Here's what I wrote:


This is your reply:


At first I was going to give an example of how in some cases violence is a good idea but overall I oppose it but then it finally became clear- YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLING ME. Well done sir, well done. That was a lot of work you put in to it. I wasn't sure if anyone could really be that stupid, it's kind of a relief that it was a troll but why so much effort?

Your recent post is written in a jaded manner. Perhaps it's because defending something which you believe to be a "good idea" and yet in the same sentence "oppose" it is a difficult turn to make even for a philosophical Houdini. How can one oppose a "good idea"? Conversely, does that also mean that you favor bad ideas?

If black is white to you then I finally understand your positions of incongruity. Perhaps you are of the school of thought that decisions should be based on emotion, not logic. I wish you luck with that.

Dude, give it up. I refuse to believe you're really as stupid as you've been displaying in your posts. I think we've both come to realize your initial criticisms were weak and you're trying to safe face with an elaborate troll. You did an excellent job, I kept thinking "is he really that dumb?" but still replied- cudos.

I think drinking water is a good idea but I oppose it when I'm swimming.

As it stands you favor quotas for women in select positions such as political representation but at the same time you also oppose them. You don't seem to be able to explain this contradiction and instead substitute the following:


If you believe that explains your dual and opposing positions on quotas for women then continue to live in your small self contradicting fishbowl. It's not quite the analogy you 'feel' it is.

Once again if something is a "good idea" and you still oppose it then logically do you favor bad ideas? ...or do you just oppose ideas in general? Try to break through that brain cramp wall you keep facing. I know you can do it.

Do you think choice is a good thing? Is it something you support?

No, I believe that government should mandate quotas and people better accept them. Favoring one group while discriminating against another is the way to go (just kidding).

Choice involves making a decision when there are 2 or more possibilities. Such decisions are preferably made by using reason and logic, not emotion. Choice often comes with responsibilities as well.

Now, to relate choice to group rights, I find Ayn Rand's philosophy of choice when dealing with individual and group rights most interesting.
aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_collectivized_rights

From the link: "Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression "individual rights" is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today's intellectual chaos). But the expression "collective rights" is a contradiction in terms."

"A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob."

Here is an example of you reading one thing and comprehending another or simply engaging in an invisible debate. It is a simple question, do you support the idea of choice or don't you?

Here is an example of you reading one thing and comprehending another or simply engaging in an invisible debate. It is a simple question, do you support the idea of

choice or don't you?


in some positions in the work force I am completely opposed to affirmative action while in other positions I can clearly see a logical reason for it- why you refuse to see it as more than an all or nothing issue is the real question.

Quite obviously bollox as the ideas of collective punishment/guilt or at a smaller level joint venture are well described in law. This silly idea flies in the face of almost every discipline known to man.

Zim stop posting stuff you feel makes a point cos you heard it from some bar room bore.

I answered your question in my prior post. If you want something specific then ask me a specific question regarding 'choice'. Your comment is otherwise nebulous. If you are fishing for something then spell it out!


Another general statement, once again, in which areas are you for it and in which areas are you against it? ......and do you still oppose something which you claim is a good idea? Be specific for a change.


Was that you sitting next to me?


It's okay if you feel that individual rights fly "in the face of almost every discipline known to man".

Zim you could easily work for any propaganda agency at anytime in the past, you are almost uniquely qualified with the vacuous monologues and evasion.

put it in quotes for me.
The question posed was as follows:
Do you think choice is a good thing? Is it something you support?
Please highlight where you explicitly answered that.

I don't have time. I'm too busy exploiting the little people so that I don't have to pay my "fair share" in taxes.


Coming from you that must be a compliment. You wouldn't know specificity if it sat on your face.


Just for you this one time I will repeat my answers which are twofold.
"Choice involves making a decision when there are 2 or more possibilities. Such decisions are preferably made by using reason and logic, not emotion. Choice often comes with responsibilities as well."

"I answered your question in my prior post. If you want something specific then ask me a specific question regarding 'choice'.Your comment is otherwise nebulous. If you are fishing for something then spell it out!"

If you don't understand a simple answer to a simple question then I'm wasting my time with a child-like mind. I'm tempted to ask you if you are for 'choice' but also opposed to it at the same time. lol