How do Polish men feel about gender equality?

interesting, it's not like that at all where i work...


so raising children is not work? i expect you, zimmy you stay at home with your newborn, so your wife can to the "real" job out there... lol


and women work in occupations that men don't! lol


well, if they aren't careful, who's fault is that? lol

That's a Department of Labor statistic.


I didn't say that! ...and incidentally, I raised 3 children mostly on my own!


Glad you agree that men work in the dangerous jobs sometimes referred to as 'death occupations' and get paid more because of that.


So, our moderator laughs at the fact that men work in dangerous professions that sometimes kill them? Perhaps women who have lost loved fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, and lovers feel differently about that.

they ain't accurate than...


i'm sure they all bring you beer and kapcie now...


such as? and prove that no women work as such...

:D

Zimmy, you have it all wrong.

It's true that that the pay gap has narrowed since, say, the 50s, but it's still there. The very fact that you mention gender separation in certain occupations (like, some professions are predominantly represented by women versus men), is a vestige of discrimination, because women tend to work disproportionately in lower-paying fields. Also, the gap is wider for minorities than for Caucasian women.

Why do women take time off for kids? Because in the majority of households, it's the woman who makes less money. (And it's not true that women take more sick days. Perhaps they take more time off to care for children, but it's still the same reason - the guy makes more money). If you ask yourself why, there is no logical explanation - the women are not less intelligent, the children don't need a mother - they need a parent/caretaker, so other than the "gender role," there is nothing to explain that.

It's true that more women graduate from colleges - still, why is it that they're a minority in management? And, on average, why do female college graduates make less than male graduates, in the same field?

The assumption is that women need less money, because they have men to take care of them. I remember being told about a layoff at a company a relative of mine worked at, where she was told that she had been selected to be laid off because she had a husband who had a job, and the guys who kept their jobs had families to support! That's something she should have sued for, but she chose not to.

And it happens here, in the US. Probably to a lesser extent than in other places, but there is still need for legislation that closes the gap, like the Lilly Leddbetter Act.

I'm not complaining, I have a good job and I get paid well, but to say that there is no pay gap is just ignorant.

(btw, the stuff about women working less hours doesn't make sense, either)

I feel like a professor teaching advanced physics and one of my students is still fumbling with addition and subtraction. You don't have to believe facts and figures if you don't want to. Many people prefer to live in their own world.


Once again, no one suggests that no women work in any of the dangerous professions and your infantile attempt to veer around the premise ihat men dominate the "death professions', often by percentages of 98%-99% is surprising. It's difficult for me to lower myself to this level of discourse.

Now, why do you laugh at the 93% death figure for men who work in dangerous professions? Please explain.

you must know it best :)


just admit you fail, simple... :)


i was laughing at you, lol

B*tch you should wash dishes and give birth to children, always.


Women cant work, to perform work you need thumbs, women were not given thumbs by evolution.

Now go do the dishes slave.


When i was young we'd beat you up with nailed 2x4s just by looking up at a man.

There are limits. If you continue name calling, you'll get suspended. That's the last warning.

...and then he died...

lol... I found the statistics page:

bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

it just makes Zimmy's own argument irrelevant.

Statistics are for pu$$ies, women are in the wrong because they're women.

I'm sure zimmy would stay home and take care of a newborn if only his lactating faculties were a little better

I've explained in common-sense fashion the reasons for it: employment seniority, overtime, women taking time off and professions that men do and women don't.


True, and it's by choice. Women self-select the jobs and careers as do men.


Perhaps women should get into fields that have traditionally been male? No one is stopping them but as you know, women select the 'pink collar' jobs (teaching, store managing, nursing, etc). Many of these types of professions discriminate against men.


So, when I pointed out that men work more overtime, take fewer sick days, have more seniority on the job, work in higher paid dangerous professions you claim that I "have it all wrong". Are you claiming those are not facts?

Zimmy c'mon mate what are you trying to fight here? Women are getting more power each day, its just a question of time before they start ruling us, surrender and be assimilated.

it's man's choice because in a handbook, it's written equally for men and women... you fail, zimmy! lol

Some companies got into legal trouble because they were assigning overtime to men more frequently than women - which is a form of discrimination... Either way, there is a pay gap in a lot of jobs that employ salaried professionals (and don't pay overtime).

It's not by choice that women lose the "seniority" battle (again, "seniority" is not relevant in non-union jobs anyway, so we're talking about a subset of jobs, not the entire job market), it's BECAUSE they stay home to take care of children, and it's BECAUSE they make less money than men in the first place. It's a catch 22.

Women are getting into professions that have traditionally been predominantly male, but it's very difficult and it doesn't happen overnight, so it's not like we can just "choose" to do so, and in fact, there are things stopping us - stereotypes and glass ceilings!

Well, I don't hear the crowds of guys complaining they don't get enough retail jobs, so perhaps we should put aside the comment on how men are allegedly discriminated against, as settled.

oh, and can someone get Socks his pills again today?

I'm afraid that any failure is yours. You may not believe that men dominate the "death professions" but then it takes common sense and objectivity to realize truths even if there is discomfort in them. For example (one of hundreds I can give), long-haul truckers are 98.6% male and every year some die on the highways. The failure to comprehend this is yours and yours alone.


You are hanging by your own petard. Here is the sequence;

ZIMMY:men are year-after-year 93%-94% of all job fatalities.
PGTX: well, if they aren't careful, who's fault is that? lol

Here you claim that men are not careful and therefore die, then you laugh. You keep digging deeper holes for yourself and it's very disappointing.


While I disagree with Sokrates methods of discussion you are not much better laughing at men who die on the job.


Actually it doesn't. It shows a narrowing of the overtime gap (and I have other figures which do not). ...and of course you might comment on the "death-gap" while you're at it; right? Is that irrelevant too?


Are you trying to milk me for a comment?

At a cocktail party one woman was lamenting that Bill Gates was so rich. I asked her, "why was it Bill Gates and not Betty Gates?".

She looked confused.


Are you really so unaware that you are making my point? That's right, it's a man's choice (or a woman's) as to what jobs and careers they undertake. That's why men make more money. Get it? Phewww, and somehow you became a moderator?

exactly zimmy, you should finally face the truth... lol


i was laughing at you.... lol


yes, unlike you... :)

Got a beer bottle?

A non personal comment, the awesome thing about Zimmy is that he takes it all so seriously.

ok, we get it, the death gap... nothing to laugh at but it doesn't explain EVERYTHING.

the overtime gap narrows along with the rest of the overall picture, but it's still there. at the same time, as the economy moves away from manufacturing and other hourly jobs into salaried professions, so goes away the overtime itself.

the excerpt also says that women tend to work more p/t jobs than men, another example of gender separation.

you can't deny the reality.

oh, and here's a visual for you:

Can we move Sucks to Off-Topic permanently? Has he said anything constructive or intelligent in the past six months?

• 
  grgenderearnings6.gif
  

Yes i did, quite a lot really, i just believe, firmly and honestly that women as our inferiors should be deprived of all priveligers and rights post haste, just because its controversial doesnt mean its out of place, this is a thread about women isnt it?


Why? If reality does not serve our purpose we most ceirtanly can and should deny it, in this case we should ignore all positive evidence and deprive women of rights alltogether.

Now, now, now; I've retyped the sequence in my post 109 and there is no getting out of it. You laughed at men who die because of the dangerous professions they work in. You noted they weren't "careful". Your failure to explain it or at least to own up to it is here for all to see and read.


Well, I've been called "awesome" many times but usually it's in the bedroom. But yes, when women (and some manginas) talk about the "wage-gap" they do so in sound bites and with little knowledge of all the facts which get in the way of their skewed agenda. Indeed, our society has been so brainwashed that even pointing out facts and figures bounces off these people who are immune to truth.


So you'll fight for gender equality and demand that women occupy 50% of all the "death-gap" jobs? You'll also point this out to your fellow feminists who ignore this rather important aspect, right?


Exactly, that's another reason women make less money than men.


Aha, couldn't help yourself eh? But I won't come down to your level. After all, even the most feminist brain washed here can't deny

the 3 fundamental reasons I've pointed out as to why women earn less.

I'll recommend the book: "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell. Even Karen DeCrow, past president of the National Organization for Women writes the foreword in it.

Edit: Oh, one more thing; lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/08/domestic_duties.aspx

Just out of curiosity, Sok. Do you spend your week-ends dressed up as Napoleon and shouting obscenities at your neighbors whilst kicking them down the stairs just because they dared to be in your way..?

It's like puring two glasses with water, one will allways be less filled then the other. It would be allmost impossible to have it EXACTLY equal. I just say, you want money? Work harder, it's that simple

all three of them discriminatory... how can you not see that?

please, no more "death gap" stuff, as I said before, a small sliver of the whole spectrum of what people do (i.e. jobs in hazardous conditions) does not explain the whole phenomenon. I'm not advocating for 50/50 quota. I'm saying women should be allowed to pick their profession and not be faced with stereotypes. You know, some thought they were doing women a favor by not letting them enter those fields at all, as if women weren't capable of making that choice for themselves...

In case you missed my point - women don't earn more money not because they're less capable or don't need or don't want money or because they can't work as hard, but because they're not given an equal chance to do so.


My level?! Sucks-on-d*ck advocates outright violence against women, but when I say that he should be moved to off-topic, it's objectionable?

I think you touched on the most important part of the issue. Men and women are not equal bb definition - we are different by "design", whether it is an Intelligent Design, or a quite an unintelligent one. The fact is that the social developments became out of sync with the biology and psychology of both genders. Don't worry, men are becoming more feminized (Japan is prime example) but that doesn't necessarily mean that women are becoming more masculine, or that either would be good.

The fact that women get pregnant is definitely putting them in a biologically disadvantaged situation, so various societies came up with various equalizing schemes - such as maternity leaves, and even paternity leaves if a woman decides her career is more beneficial to the family. But one important issue is not even being looked at, let alone being addressed - men, on average, die at younger age than women by 10 years. If a woman had, say 4 or 5 kids in sequence, with a 2 year period of maternity leave for each then I'd say the time of those 8 to 10 years, that would hold a woman back from pursuing a career, would be a fair deal. After all, what mother wouldn't rather spend time with her kids rather than with other miners down a coal mine shaft?

A person who lives 10 years longer has obviously a longer time to climb that elusive career ladder. That's unfair to men. The 4 to 5 children per woman in developed societies (those in which the burden of pregnancy is alleviated by laws) is far from reality though. One or two kids, if any at all, is more likely. So here is my proposal to further equalize the gender gap:

A man, due to his shorter life, would retire at the age of 55, while a woman would do so 10 years later, at the age of 65. If a woman bears children then she should retire sooner, two years sooner for each child she gives birth to. What's your take?

Now let's take psychology. It is more natural for men to pursue certain careers/professions simply because of the psychological predisposition. There surely are women who would be equal in their vicious ways to their male equivalents (for instance Hillary Clinton) but the general trend is such that women are more likely to (metaphorically speaking ) sniff flowers than men do. On the other hand, men are more likely to have an easier time to spend a month in the same underpants (unwashed) than a woman in situations such as... oh... I dunno ... extended combat operation?

If this is not convincing then look at a glaring example of criminal gangs. There is certainly no discrimination in this area of human activity as it is illegal for both genders to pursue the career. And yet, with all the freedom of defacto choice women enjoy, extremely few choose to be drug dealers, hit(wo)men or assassins. Doesn't that tell us a lot about psychological differences? And that's only one example and, I'm sure, just a tip of the iceberg.

I have no problem with gender equality when it comes to pay and rights, but even women like you need to come down, touch the solid ground, and realize that we are creations of nature and there is only so much we can cheat nature out of without consequences. One of those is already obvious though - some societies are dying out because careers take over and the interest of the species is put on the back burner. More and more often, that burner never sees the light of a flame.

First of all, I don't think anyone, including governments, should mandate a retirement age for anyone. Two, in many countries (Poland, if I'm not mistaken) women are forced/encouraged to retire sooner than men.

Psychology has a lot to do with social conditioning - if you teach a part of the society that it's not ok to be assertive or ask directly for what you want, you're going to have that part of the society behaving in a less direct, aggressive way. Women can be as vicious as men, as soon as they realize it's ok. The combat example is not very strong, either, because there are armies where women are at the front lines just like men, and underwear has nothing to do with it (and there are pills that eliminate the underwear issue). Criminal activity might have something to do with physical strength, but I still think it's because girls are brought up in a manner that de-emphasizes standing up for yourself, even by families at the margins of the society (at the same time, the "standing-up" would usually involve physical fights, too).

It's all social conditioning. Did you know that before WWII male babies were dressed in pink, and female in blue, because blue was considered the "dainty" choice between the two colors? And why would someone need the "dainty" color to be assigned to girls, when male and female babies are virtually indistinguishable when it comes to appearance, behavior or social interaction?

Women in the 50s were told they're BETTER OFF staying at home and taking care of the kids, because they're not cut out for the tough world out there, and that their largest accomplishment was going to be how "well" they marry. Well, apparently, time has shown a lot of us are not the withering violet type, after all.

And that retirement age difference (wherever it is implemented) puts men in further disadvantage. However, I don't look at the retirement age as something that is a burden, but rather a blessing. Do you honestly think that your sample woman who just spent 40 years digging coal about a mile under the ground would just love to continue this till she turns 85?

I think you have a general tendency to look for a very straight line of argumentation, and avoid any questions and doubts that may arise on your way along that idealized line that supports your view/agenda. But few things, especially in extremely complex contexts such as human lives, are as simple as that. Even the question of whether retirement should be mandatory or not begs for some questions.

In today day and age the youth complains about the shortage of work. The youngsters are certainly no match to people who have held positions for a number of years and acquired a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience specific to the position, and irregardless of the gender. I know quite a few cases where people have retired (not forced into retirement though) and then, after just a few short months are rehired back as consultants to man the same positions. So now we have this person who made $100K before retirement, and now the same person, doing exactly the same job, is making $175K (former salary + the retirement money), while other still have to wait for promotion and thus cannot vacate positions that might be offered to the younger generation. Is that ideal? Or is it suicide of a society? Do you have any concept how much that costs the society to support both the unemployed (the kid) and the retired (the geezer) at the same time?


I admitted that women can be vicious, even more so than men. If one example was not enough for you, I would like to encourage you to do some research on women guards in concentration camps.

However, social conditioning has only a limited impact on our psychology. I won't get deeper into that, but if you are eager to do further research on the matter why don't you check out some homosexual forums and try to convince the participants that their sexual preferences can be changed at will, given the right social context. The tell us and cite the 10 vulgarisms that were thrown at you in the course of that discussion.


I am not sufficiently americanized to look for a pill every time there is a situation to be dealt with. I'm giving you generic examples showing how the genders are different by nature and you are suggesting generic drugs should be the solution.


Killing and stealing has now become "standing up for oneself"?
I was counting on a somewhat civilized debate with arguments that make sens, but instead I am reading nonsense. That is disappointing, considering your other valuable posts elsewhere. Still, I would not say your approach is typical of a woman, or a man for that matter.


Colors changed and the current selection is not as much social as it is commercial and was meant to standardize some choices and to underline the differfences that were there by nobody's choice but by nature.

Even though it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable, I don't see crowds women looking for steel toe boots they want to buy for themselves. Similarly, I am completely disinterested in the latest dress and perfume trends. I do admit I bough small quantities of nail polish remover because it is acetone and dissolves shellac like nothing else on the market.

I participate in two woodworking forums and there are women there too. Perhaps 10, out of about 10,000 members. I never felt tempted to check my wife's perfume forum, even though she tells me there are a few men on it. I saw a woman in a woodworking hardware store once. She was the cashier, not a shopper.


In the 50's we were told a lot of things. Did you know that in those days more doctors smoke Camel cigarettes more than any other brand? Or that one of the main propaganda official working for the US government decided to break up the gender divide and encouraged women to smoke?

Thankfully, it's 2011 (and yes, I am a smoker)

I don't mind people smoking but the point I was making about the 50s is what people considered to be the "natural" psychology of women was, in fact, just a social construct. And yes, we grow up to acquire taste in different things, but it's only because we encourage members of the society to behave in a certain way. There are societies where men wear more makeup/face paint or where women are tasked with "construction." Heels were initially invented for guys, too... Left without social guidance, boys and girls wouldn't probably differ much (in addition to being closer to animals than humans and unable to learn a language, which is probably why nobody tried an experimental way to prove it...)

Perhaps the reason why there are not many women on your woodworking forum is BECAUSE there are not many women there? There isn't much social reward for a girl do do woodworking (unlike, e.g., cooking, although both sexes are likely equally good at both activities).

Being a homosexual cannot be "unlearned," I agree - at some level, you are who you are - but the mannerisms that the more flamboyant gay men exhibit are purely social both in form and in significance, except they usually are associated with the opposite sex.


No, but in a distorted view, like the one that criminals have, your status is pegged on a hierarchy, and you have to prove yourself to be "tough" to belong to the "inner circle." The first step is to confront your peers to establish that pecking order, and the confrontation is likely to be purely physical rather than intellectual. When it comes to pure physical strength, girls tend to lose, and aggression is still more acceptable among boys than among girls, even on the fringes. So, again, there is a social conditioning part to it.

Add to it the respect of Polish men towards women, probably based on the cult of Mother Pole and I'm not joking now.

maybe it has to do with your attitude towards them? Polish people are more conservative then norwegians, they are more catholic so therefore they are not very tolerant of gays, lesbians etc. They believe women are not below them, but that women should be the nurturers God made them to be, and not nazi-like dictators. Polish traditions teaches men to respect women and treat them like they are important and center their life around their wife.