Is parity the answer for Polish women?

No, you haven't- the binary processing you need to grasp the ramifications of what I've written just isn't there in your case or you're guilty of intellectual dishonesty. You have not provided one iota of reason to back up any of your grievances with what I've said; rather just a few quotes taken out of context and an attempt to cling to them like a seal hugging an ice flow, surrounded by orcas. Logic is an orca for you and you are a seal.

I feel bad for you in that you get angry when it has become clear to you that you are outclassed. You use discrimination every day to live your life and you're not even capable of understanding that.

I'm sure there's a conversation about video games or smart phones that you're better equipped to comment on.

I think I'm done with you now. Bye.

I take your point but why should the discriminated against be left without any redress/remedies? That's my point! Your theory is spot on and I have no qualms at all. However, this is reality we are talking about and wouldn't you rather make a concerted drive towards parity, then normalise it? Sometimes we have to put right the bad deeds of others, undesirable as the method may be. I fully accept your stance but let's be realistic here. Do you speak as an aggrieved and discriminated against person, SSM? I think discrimination in all forms needs to be tackled but, like it or not, that requires an element of regulation in reality. See it as the steering function of government. It's facilitation and not overly hands-on.

You can't leave the status quo as then you will have permanent discrimination. Do you see my point here? Things often don't just sort themselves out, esp when attitudes become entrenched and discrimination institutionalised. Tools are needed.

so you are suggesting they are forcing vs the simple truth that they havent even bothered to vote in those
qualified because its supposed to be a " Male dominated" seat?


And this has been happening for a long time.. especially in the US. if they didnt apply these laws those
qualified women like hillary wouldnt be where they are today.. Poland is just doing what other countries
already have been doing.. only this time, not giving them any choices.
because we know that the votes would lean towards the male vs female in office.

if they didnt do this, do you think women would be able to get to serve in the polish govt?

I mean come on.. maybe it appears as though a qualified man is losing his chance, but that
could also be two qualified men up for the job, one seat.. someone is going to get the boot
either way.. they arent going to fill the positions with people that dont know what they are
doing.. plenty of women lawyers in poland arent there?

Bravo, Seanus. Bravo!
and that is coming from a person who opposes how affirmative action has manifested itself but still sees how it can better be used.

Good, because you're such proud specimen of today's intelligentsia. I'm honored you actually replied my lord.

Mr. "I'm against discrimination except when I'm for it... and I'll belittle anyone who disagrees with my superior view..."

p.s. in case you missed it the first time:

I never missed it, I simply disagreed with your reverse- or "make-feel-good- racism", that's all.
It's black and white, don't replace discrimination and/or racism with new forms of discrimination and/or racism. A concept extremely difficult for the "intelligentsia" to grasp. Ok, going back to my computer games.

Good bye

hey thats what I said but in a dumber fashion.. lol


agreed.. there is no other solutions. they cant put up the signs anymore " NO GIRLS ALLOWED" :)

how come I have to keep fixing who I am quoting, it keeps bringing the wrong persons name
then I have to edit and go back out.

the above was Seanus I quoted not myself.

The message is the key, Patty ;)

Let's take golf, for example. Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden. In my eyes, there is no good reason to debar women from sitting in a clubhouse but I can tell you that, coming from the home of golf, it was the case at the turn of the century and maybe still is in some places. And the logic is.....? Elusive! All it needed was intervention but the authorities did nothing for soooooo long. I believe changes were drafted in but what changed in terms of entitlement? The logic has been the same throughout time so I can only imagine remedial action.

I dunno man, if a group of men or women feel so inclined, they should legally be free to have a clubhouse in which membership is gender based. There will be other places which will cater to the ladies, it's unfair to force everyone to cater to everyone.

Sky, parity is not discrimination, it is the opposite of it. There are no better tools then then implement the law on parity. It guarantees equality and the affirmative action has done more good then bad, maybe not for all- but it was designed for minority groups and it has served them well more often then not.

Seanus and Patrycja - again, the goal is the same. The question is how do we get there?

IF you support quotas then we should apply them to ALL jobs, correct? 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?

Silly questions, yes, but 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, I know, all I can handle is computer games, but still.... Black and white...

Aphrodite - totally disagree. The affirmative action is sexist and racist. The goals are noble and I support them. However to say that it's ok to discriminate today because of past practices is a horrible solution.

I took skys point too , he had a point, but this is the way its been in the US, people will cry out discrimination
if there isnt enough.. so there is no choice, it has to be fair number because both sides will have issues.

The irony is that after some 40+ years of affirmative action regulations the US is slowly reversing the trend. The ban on use of race and gender in some school admissions a few years back is one of the first mini-steps. Europe on the other hand is going the other way, I guess it's like a pendulum, it must swing from one extreme to the other.

Like I said, I whole-heartedly support equality. I'm not sure what true equality looks like and if we'll ever reach it and if it's even possible but, no, I will never support revenge discrimination in the form of affirmative action.

who is Aphrodite lol

Sorry, dang auto-spell check. Just realized it. LOL

start typing manually lol

I am. But my phone corrects my spelling when it feels like it. In three languages may I add. :)

Anyways, I've said my piece on this thread. I love equality, hate racism and discrimination of ANY kind. Not sure how to reach a racial- and gender- nirvana. That's about it.

all its doing is opening up the doors , you have to have quailified people, its not like they are kidnapping someone who
works in a hotel and saying you have to be a miner.. cause the law says so.. its just giving people a chance to do

these jobs. take on those responsibilities otherwise given solely to whatever gender they felt they wanted to hire, now
they have to give the chance to both... and not discriminate. which is why Poland is going that route.

do you honestly think they would have 30% by now if someone didnt make it mandated? I dont.

its the only solution to otherwise ongoing argument.


it was example.. but now you are contradicting, because, if you have a clubhouse based on gender, your not
fair in the market of equality. which is what you agreed with seanus on as far as the choice.

its a yes/no, you either want equality or you dont.. all in or nothing lol

for me, I think it seperates us/ we already have different car parts, but we drive in the same car, we live by the
same standards, if we disagree, hang in seperate clubs how is this fair? some men feel more comfortable in the
company of women and some women feel more at home in the company of men, why are we pushing them to be
around their own gender if they dont want to be?

getting back to parity, I am glad Poland is changing/Evolving.

No.
If we are talking about gainful employment then the best candidate ought to be selected based on the aggregate benefit to the employer and society overall.

If we are talking about a group of men or women who want to create a club that caters to only one gender then that should be their choice. I agree the two issues are similar but they are also very different.

Do you know how afirmative action works? I'm not sure you do. I repeat, two individual with identical qualifications are judged differently because of their gender. Apparently you're ok with it because it favors you.


I don't know. I'm arguing discrimination here. You're for it and I'm against it. Apparently this is your "solution."


...and you only want it if it's "equality" of your liking, correct? To turn down males simply because they're males is ok... because "Poland is evolving". Hypocrisy at it's best.


?? I'm lost. What's this got to do with affirmative action regulations? I'm confused?


I'm truly sad Poland is turning to discrimination but I'm even more disappointed that you (not just you but in general) can't see the unfairness in your own statements. - "Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła dopóki ja wygrałam/wygrałem?"

the Polish Parliament is not a cafe or a bar.


turn off your spell check please. It is not doing you any good lol

Sport is for people, For4. Given that the 19th hole, i.e the clubhouse, is often used for refreshment purposes after a gruelling round, why deny women that which men often look forward to after a game? It's discrimination, pure and simple. Maybe they should create a terrorist clubhouse, you know, for those terrorists that have been put through hell on the course. The point I am making here is that a golf course is a shared facility and there is just one clubhouse in most places to look forward to. Maybe they should create one for commies only, one for Jews only. Is that what you want?

For4, straight to the point. Is it about treatment of people or not? Can we agree that that's the commonality here?

SSM, so you are happy to leave the results of discrimination in place and just hope that the problem goes away? The way I see it, there has been discrimination against a group with no efforts to repair it. A bit like slapping people in the face and telling them, 'oh, don't worry about it, it'll pass'. Haven't you ever wondered why conscientious people let the other person slap them back? They realise their mistake, simples!

I see, so it's ok to discriminate in the Polish parliament (uhm, uhm, spell check? ;)) but not in other workplaces? I see, it makes no sense to me but then again, I only do computer games.


It does if you give me more than a minute before you reply. Check again. :)

I'd leave that question up to the owner of said golf club. If he or she saw financial gain in it then that would be their choice, if it turned out to be unprofitable then that'd be their folly. Either way, in such a case no one is being hurt imo.


No, I'm not so sure it is. Gimme a moment or 8 to give it a chewing over.

Slapping people in the face, huh? Isn't that what you just did? Did you even read my posts? You know, the ones you initially agreed with? Your own post #186 for example? For someone who keeps calling himself a "pretty liberal guy" you sure love some heavy-handed government regulation.

So you are leaving the prospect of discrimination wide open, For4. So you'd leave the option of him shutting the door in the face of men and having a laugh too? Aha, it's about financial gain and not ethical principle, am I right? Even assuming it was, women have money to spend too, you know!? ;) ;) For4, my point is clear. There is typically one clubhouse per golf course and there is no good reason to exclude women. What if a couple had a round together and wanted a shandy after the round? Give me one ethical reason why the woman shouldn't be allowed to have one.

SSM, I slapped nobody in the face at all. I still agree with what you said so please outline, through the quote function, where you see the anomalies in my arguments. I didn't advocate heavy-handedness at all. I said "steering function" and 'facilitating". I read your posts, yes. I even show you how in my replies. I am quite liberal but just take issue with how you feel so comfortable with allowing wrongs to linger like a bad smell in the air. The slap in the face was a good analogy and you know it. Care to refute it??

I realize that, it was in reference to clubs.. which went off topic.

apologize , you are correct in saying , it was for4 fault.. lol


Yeah,,, lets hear it.. :)

You said: "...SSM, so you are happy to leave the results of discrimination in place and just hope that the problem goes away? ...The way I see it, there has been discrimination against a group with no efforts to repair it. A bit like slapping people in the face and telling them, 'oh, don't worry about it, it'll pass'...

Is that really what I'm advocating? Remember, the disagreement here is about how we can reach the very same goal.

IF you and everyone else here (or most people) said something like "affirmative action i
IS a form of discrimination but we'll discriminate for a while while we're working toward a more equal society" then I'd say, ok, we agree that this is discrimination and I understand you want to speed up reaching the equality-nirvana. I disagree with the tools you're using but otherwise I understand. "

Instead, people are telling me that affirmative action is NOT a form discrimination?! Really? If that's the case then earth is flat and the end of the world starts somewhere around Arkansas.

no. In one sense treatment of the individual is the issue but at the same time only with regards to rights in society- I'd argue that the right to pursue gainful employment is more important than being able to play a round of golf somewhere. You can go play a round of golf somewhere or take up another hobby if no one wants your business. If someone is refused work based on gender or ethnicity then that is a might bit more terminal. Of course then you run into the people saying affirmative action policies are so awful, because the implementation of such policies do refuse work based on gender or ethnicity. However where I counter that, is by saying that if it benefits society that such discrimination happen then it becomes warranted.

I'm pretty lucid right now if you catch my drift so apologies if that seems too trippey.


and I thought I made it clear that the only way a clubhouse owner would make such decision was if he or she saw financial gain in the matter and I can't imagine a clubhouse owner getting far ahead through discriminating against a 15-25% customer base. I just don't think it'd happen in place where the owner thought it'd be profitable to do that. Again, no one would be getting hurt in that situation except the club house owner. If a couple couldn't share a drink together there, then they'd go somewhere else.

So you are not prepared to take steps towards parity and then normalise it when relative parity has been reached, SSM? I think you ducked that part. I also didn't see your dichotomy between parity and equality. You are clearly in favour of equality but preclude a major player in the form of an elected body that can do sth to get nearer to bringing it about. SSM, doesn't it tell you sth that I'm not a proponent of substantial govt intervention in many areas??

You are tacitly advocating that what I said in the quote, yes. Without any fair reply to the slap, that is exactly what you are advocating through passive default.

It has been called reverse discrimination, yes. Would you prefer temporary/short-term inequality or long-term equality, SSM? That's my real question here!!

For4, let me be very clear. I'm talking about domestic/municipal courses here. Taxpayers have a right to make use of such facilities. It's not the right to play golf but the right to use the clubhouse, For4. Where are your ethics? You can 'gain financially' through selling weapons. Does it make it right? Does it?

Im not, Im arguing that it had to come to this because no one would mandate it.

I said I see your point, but you give no solutions either, you just keep saying its wrong, but its equally wrong
to have a qualified candidate who Is a woman get turned away because they want all male seats in parliment.

or because behind the scenes those interviewing decided who was the more qualified based on gender...

its a no win situation.. examples are given and what Im understanding is you feel its more or less discrimination
against the male population because if they are qualified they will get booted because they need more females in
parliment, but what your failing to see the other side of it..

I believe it should be a well qualified individual , male or female. And there are plenty of both.. just not enough
was done to make sure of it. now they are making sure and your hollaring discrimination, but it can be said for
both if there isnt enough.