How do Polish men feel about gender equality?

I have given a second thought to Enga's questions.

Enga, it's not the matter of you being female boss at all. The matter is the cultural clash.

The Polish are adaptive, flexible, ingenious. They also hate all bans and prohibition as well as unnecessary injunction. This is the nation saying "Nie na nas Polaków zakazy!" meaning "Nothing is forbidden to us, Poles".

You tell your team use appropriate tools. I can easily imagine what they are saying behind your back:
-- The boss told us to use such-and-such tool...
-- Give it a f*ng sh*t, does she want us finish before the Winter or what?

As long as they are a qualified team, they perfectly know their tools are right for the work to be done and changing the tools would only mean hassle to them. They know nobody would come and ask questions on the tools used, and if such inspector would even come, the boss is responsible to cover the workers.

This is how we do it in Poland.

A word on flexibility, adaptiveness, ingenuity:
I often fly to Norway on business by Norwegian.no. On one of the flights, I bought me a sandwich and asked the Norwegian flight attendant if she could pass me some salt. She said: "No salt, sorry".

Next time it was the Polish crew. When I asked for salt, the stewardess frowned for a fraction of a second and then... she passed a Bloody Mary set to me! So simple it was, goddam...

also not very tolerant of women living alone, or women raising children by themselves, women choosing not to marry, women choosing to marry but not to have children, women making more money than men, or women speaking their mind in general... I mean, all of this, that's just crazy talk...

the perfect woman, in GK's mind:
#1 - she is breathing AND actually willing to go out with him,
#2 - whenever not required to be the nurturer his stupid God made her to be, she should just spend time in quiet admiration of his egg-size balls...

Although, since nobody is ever likely to satisfy #1, no need to worry about #2.

I'd say that the feminist pushed things much too far even for their own benefit, and that is what is the real social construct. No human laws can decide whether a man is stronger or faster than a woman. This is decided by our biology. Again, it is 2011 and things changed not only in regards to smoking but also in the area of psychology. With the better technologies and with more knowledge the gender differences are found using scientific methods.

The social guidance you mention is not necessarily the reason for the gender differences, but rather for their reinforcement. I'm sure these differences may be mellowed down with a doze of social engineering, but again, the results of that social engineering as seen today in industrialized countries are spectacularly poor.

I won't go into defending the research done by others so I'll just link to some of it:
indiana.edu/~cogdev/labwork/toychoice.pdf
(pay special attention to the discussion of CAH levels, which cannot be changed by socialization. A fascinating article.)

Since this is a Polish forum, we may as well take a look at research results by Polish scientists, of less than a year ago.

If you're not into hard core science, as the one described in detail in the first article, take a look at this lighter version/summary of what scientists are finding out today, not in 1950's, and what fails to go unnoticed by keen observers. In that one, notice the use of the word "postfeminism" (some consider it a largely failed idea, but that's another topic).


Of course gang related activities start (usually, but not always) with the physical rather than intellectual. So far, and I'm not exactly young anymore, I haven't noticed any intellectual superiority of one gender over he other, but I did notice differences in the willingness to use force in an attempt to achieve a goal. And the fact that girls lose to boys in physical strength is just another point in case - we are different. I can think of a lot of gangs lead by skinny, physically unfit guys, but I would be hard pressed to find similar groups lead by healthy and physically fit women. OK, perhaps not a gangster in the classical sense but Ulrike Meinhof of Rote Armee Fraktion in 1970's comes to mind. She was one of the co-founders of the group, the other founders were men. Just trying to reach out to you, but that's it. Can't think of many more examples. For males.... pretty much any country abounds in examples, with the US being a particularly rich source.

Whether aggression is acceptable more in males than in females may be just a social representation of biochemistry in our brains. The biochemistry is then extended and reinforced by social views, rather then created by them so we may be trying to tamper with nature. Again, read the research above.

Now, I did notice you decided to stay away from answering my question abut the fairness of the proposed "deal" in regards to retirement. Whether you agree with the general idea of not having to work past certain age is irrelevant to the discussion since retirement sometimes is compulsory, other times it is not (depends on country , company etc) and the laws are mostly equal for both genders (with some regional exceptions). I have a few more words o write on that but it's kinda getting late and I still have to do some paid work. I'll revisit this threat more or less tomorrow.

Me neither. We are on equal footing here. If only societies paid more attention to reason rather than "tradition..."

I don't think we're going to solve the nature vs nurture dilemma here, and I can live with the fact that it's most likely both, to a varying degree, depending on the issue. I read the article, and it is pretty interesting.

In case of children playing with toys, there isn't much difference in the value attributed to playing with dolls versus playing with buses or logs. However, later on children are channeled into following behavior patterns that are linked with future value or usefulness: when people see a loud kid telling other children what to do and organizing a group play, if it's a girl, people call her bossy-pants and consider it undesirable; if it's a boy, he's a "born leader." The trouble is that later on those social preferences may weigh on how self-confident, or how successful some people are, compared to others.

Going back to the pay gap question, however, I'm very much concerned that inequality like that is explained away by some people by the "natural order of thing," that this is just how it has to be, given the essential differences between sexes, and that the status quo can be traced back to biology or science, etc., the way that slavery and holocaust were attempted to be argumented based on the "scientific" proof of the innate inequality of races (although I'm far from saying that the pay gap is like slavery or the holocaust...) or, worse yet, by any religious teachings (and there is plenty of countries where religion "forbids" men to treat women equally). This is why, in a civilized society, we have laws that are meant to equalize its members' chances of success regardless of biology, physical strength, or similar factors.

The bottom line is, if I had a daughter, I would like for her to have equal chances of pursuing a career in any field she might choose, to those of her male peers.

I'm not really sure how mandatory gender differences in retirement would solve anything. It only works if the body which mandates the retirement (whether the government or the corporation) provides the means for the retireree to live on. Some countries do, some countries don't. I'd love to retire at 45... I might not be able to. But if I don't have the money to retire at 70, for whatever unfortunate reason, I don't want the government telling me I can't work any more. Besides, if men and women were paid equitably before and after retirement, what difference would it make who retires earlier?

if you retire at 70 and still have not enough money to live on then you have to ask if the governments now and before are up to their task or they were cheating on you in extraordinarily multiple ways and you did nothing to stop them even if you understood that they were not fair

Genders are different & they are different with good reason. If both people in a relationship are dominant you just fight & destroy. If two people in a relationship are submissive then you get nothing done & just submit & go no where.

This is why Gender differences are good & should be acknowledged.

I don't see anything wrong with a Family not hiring a man for a Nanny, Maid or Babysitting job due to their gender. I don't see anything wrong with Construction, Police & Miltary not accepted Women.

Feminism has only destroyed the Western Family.

Luckily Poland has not been as plagued by Feminism. Which is why Poland has a much lower divorce rate. Of course Catholic values are a large part of that.

Yes it has.

Not as bad as the West though.

Can you explain why they shouldn't accept women?


you know which country has the lowest divorce rate in the world? Libya! Followed by Georgia, Mongolia, and Armenia...

It only shows that Poland is still a country, where woman are stuck in the marriages because they can't make it on their own. Nothing really to brag about. I can bet you the divorce rate in the 50ties in the US was much lower as well.

The number of divorces has nothing to do with catholic values.


I would disagree with that. When you look at the girls toys, you will see ovens, babies, strollers, cooking pots, dolls (someone to take care of), vacuum cleaners, etc. When you look at the toys for the boys, you will see some super heroes, cars, space ships, etc. Most of the boys will never drive a race car or chase some evil bastard, however, the toys are designed to keep them in their dreamland, whereas the girls' toys are just a mini version of the reality awaiting them in the future and sort of prepare them for running the household.

What about all the gender neutral toys such as building blocks, puzzles, art sets, board games? You haven't mentioned them at all. Can it be that you are as biased as you claim toy producers are?

BTW, I used to be a little girl and I can still remember how I totally LOVED playing with dolls. If you tried to interest me in cars or other boy stuff, I would just yawn. ;-)

yes! see, guys? women are way ahead of you in understanding things!

good point about the toys, didn't think about it.


the government programs in the US were never intended to provide retirement income, only to supplement it, and I don't think it's the government's job to support retired people, either. The American idea of government responsibilities is much different than what you have in Europe.

You prove how ignorant you are and how easily you dismiss reality. That's what I meant by people being brainwashed. It is not a "small sliver"! When you add up all the construction workers; oil rig workers, professional fishermen, welders, crane operators, long-haul truckers hazmat workers, cops, miners, etc, etc, (many other dangerous professions) than you will find that tens of million of men work these dangerous jobs. One has to be mentally blind or intentionally jaded not to know this. Virtually every thing you use; buildings, autos, bridges, etc were put up by men. It's all around you. Yet you 'feel' that millions of men who work these jobs are a "small sliver" of society? I'll await your explanation of this. Amazing!


You must be living in 1955. Women today are not only given opportunities to work in any field they want to but sometimes standards are even lowered so that they can fill the 'quotas' that EEOC demands. Women are also given promotions over more qualified men in many instances and I, myself regret that I've had to do this! People like you constantly cry "victim status" and it's sickening.


1/Dangerous professions pay more and few women seek them.
2/Men work more overtime.
3/Women take more time off from work for family reasons and for 'sickness'.
No gender discrimination; just facts.


Even as children, it is noticeable that girls gravitate to dolls, etc. while boys go for toy trucks, soldiers, etc. Many feminists have a problem with this because human nature opposes their bogus theories of "social constructs".


Yes indeed, and the result are coming in; especially in single parent households.


When I gave my little son a doll he tore the head off and used it as a baseball.


Case closed!

A quick set of calculations about the pay equity in action:

Assumptions:
1. Wage disparity - 17% so:
- man's wages = $100,000/year
- woman's wages = $83,000/year
econogirl.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/dissecting-the-gender-pay-gap
2. Life expectancy for males: 75.6
3. Life expectancy for females: 80.8 (let's make it 5 years differential)
4. A male and a female both work for 40 years and then retire at the age of 65
5. Tax payments (averages taken from here: nowandfutures.com/taxes.html) 57.7%, even though they are less for our hypothetical woman
6. Inflation rate is taken as zero since that affects both equally but makes the math simpler.
7. Retirement entitlement for both is identical, let's use 50% of the wages.
8. Both hold comparable positions and are employed by comparable employers.

The math:

A man will make $4,000,000. W woman will make $3,320,000.
The man will pay $2,308,000, the woman will pay $1,915,640, which makes for $392,360 difference over 40 years which translates into $9,809 difference per year. The take home amounts for men and women are $1,692,000 and $1,404,360 respectively - a $287,640 difference over 40 years, i.e. $7,191 per year.

A man lives 10 more years after retiring so he uses $500,000 from the taxes he paid. A woman lives 15 more years so she uses $622,500, which is $122,500 more in the money she receives during her retirement, even though she paid $392,360 less in taxes that are used to keep her going in the last 15 years of her life.

That also means that man's and woman's respective keep-in-my-pocket amounts over their lifetimes (including retirement period) are $2,192,000 and $2,026,860, i.e. $165,000, or 7.5% difference. This is $3,300 per year (considering man's 40 years of work + 10 years of life in retirement)

The overall retirement amounts show that a man will use 21.6% of what he paid into the system vs. 32.5% for the woman. There is an additional disparity equalizer based on the national scale. Since men to women ration in the US is 0.97 to 1.00 it follows that men pay even more into the system than above calculations indicate, even though they don't get to enjoy extra 5 years of life. Calculations of that would be a little too complex as they'd need to consider much more data so I'll forgo that.

Of course each of the 5 additional years of life has a value, but I won't attempt to translate it into dollars but the question just begs to be asked: would you agree to receive $3000 per year extra and then, being healthy, agree to be euthanized at the age of 75.6 years to keep up (or down) with man's average expectancy?

I'd say for the stinking $3,300 per year, men don't really get such a great deal if, in the US prices, people spend hundreds of thousands to extend their lives by a year or two.

And when we look back into biology, a 60 year old man is still capable of perpetuating the species, while a woman at the age of 60 has been biologically redundant (a burden really) for the last 10 to 15 years on average). Now, how fair is that to men, huh?

;)

youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Nice job Z_Darius;

I wanted to add one more thing. Who spends more on the opposite gender? Who is still pressured to pay for dates? Where is the emphasis on gifts for Valentines Day? ...or any other holiday? Who usually drives the car (gas=$)etc. and, here is the big one.............women in households are involved in 75% of all spending decisions. Also, lets not forget this; check any household closet and who owns more clothes, shoes, not to mention cosmetics, etc.

Somehow, those who embarrass themselves by claiming a discriminatory yet fictitious "wage-gap" ignore the above realities where men spend more on women than vice-versa. How could they in ignorance or intention forget that?

what about cougars? let's don't discriminate, ok.... haha...

and what is it supposed to prove - especially Georgia, Mongolia and Armenia?

I am a woman, but absolutely 100% THIS.

They put this theory into practice in some kindergardens in USA by giving boys dolls to play with.I guess the experiments were not inspiring in fact a boy who plays with dolls or dresses in female clothes is likely to become a sissy afterwards as common knowledge shows.


Boys can never understand how a doll can be interesting.I mean what is the goal how do you score points,who is your enemy,how you beat him,there is no reason with dolls.Cars,weapons,balls make perfect sense we used to see girls as useless who could not run,chase,play ball and just sat all day with dolls or were discussing.

That's how it works :-)
I never felt the need to score points or identify the enemy ;-)

Boys (to little girls) are just a bunch of mud-spattered, loud, hyperactive monkeys who get in the way and will always ruin any attempts at playing house together ;-)

oh, I get it, Zimmy, you work in construction and you have a female boss... well, live with it. some women will make more money than you.

pay gap exists even when measured in similar positions. I'm going to try to get it across it to you one last time: women get paid less for the same work. Female financial professionals, on average, make less than male finance professionals. Female insurance agents earn less than male insurance agents. Even female nurses and teachers earn less than male nurses and teachers. How does your death gap explain that?

So we are different (although only the uninquisitive mind like Zimmy's wouldn't wonder WHY we're different) - but the point is, so what that girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks? How is it a good argument to present to someone who's getting paid less money for their work only because they are female?


Marynka just explained it above...

I get it - you come from a different society, what you consider your own, individual beliefs, Magdalena, are really social conventions that you grew up in. Open-minded people constantly seek to verify their assumptions against new information. Perhaps if you get more insight into how other societies work, you'd see the Polish way is not the only way of seeing things. And the "I'm not going to make myself look like a victim" argument is pretty funny - sure, let's not stand up for what's right, because what will others think?!

I'm not arguing for quota (and neither is the EEOC, if you cared to check), or free money, or any kind of wealth redistribution - I'm arguing for equal chances and for being paid the same for the same work.

Pretty clever argument with the retirement, and I appreciate the work that went into presenting the point (and I'm glad there are intelligent guys here who can present their point of view logically). But you know what the catch is? After your hypothetical woman has been underpaid for 40 years (which, according to your numbers, amounts to $287,640 over the span of her career), she gets the "huge" windfall in extra retirement money of $122,500. Now, which would you rather have? $287K or $122K?

I do believe you have confused me with someone else.

Thank you for the kind words, and let's move on:

I know what the catch is and I asked you about it. The catch is that a man lives 5 years less for the difference of $165,000 over 50 years. I'd pay that much (or $3300/year) if that bought me extra 5 years. The amount is nowadays less than the average yearly cost of gas to fill the tank of your car. Just imagine, take a subway instead of a car and get 5 more years of life. OK, 4 years, because subway tickets are not free.

In fact many people, men and women, spend much more for the extra time they hope to get, but there are no guarantees they will:

1. Intestine Transplant: $1,121,800
2. Heart Transplant: $787,700
3. Bone Marrow Transplant: $676,800
4. Lung Transplant: $657,800 double ($450,400 for single)
5. Liver Transplant: $523,400
6. Open Heart Surgery: $324,000
7. Pancreas Transplant: $275,500
8. Kidney Transplant: $259,000

Life expectancy is many is 5 to 10 years (if successful) and all the above prices exceed the $165K by far.

It's always a pleasure to meet a woman who uses logic and is objective when it comes to these issues. So many women today rarely

even want to see or hear the total perspective and merely scream "discrimination" or claim "victimhood". Feminists made that socially acceptable. When reasons are brought up explaining a fuller picture these same women, usually feminists, are the first to stick their heads in the sand and begin name-calling, just like children.

Feminists claim they fight for "equality" but in reality they fear it. Instead they playing PICK-AND-CHOOSE FEMINISM. They demand to be managers and supervisors but don't want to be refuse collectors or oil rig workers. They are totally hypocritical and cannot see anything beyond themselves. The jobs that kill men are ignored or dismissed by feminists even as they use all the products that these men sometimes die to give them.

...and as you aptly noted, men spend much more money on women than women spend on men. To feminists, this is "equality".

didn't you just agree with Zimmy that the pay gap is somehow "fictitious" because women, as heads of households, get to spend the money that men bring home and that men pay for their dates? (which is just such an asinine thing to say)


Sure, I'd pay that much to keep my husband around for 5 more years when we get old since, according to our statistical life expectancy, I'm doomed to outlive him...

What I'm having trouble with is, you're surely not arguing that men should be paid more because their life expectancy is shorter?


LOL!!! find me the guy who'd rather collect garbage than be in management...

since the beginning, it's you, who plays a victim here, dear...


it is equality... for washing your gacie and skarpety, bringing piwo and cook cholerne obiadki...
;)

Well, a 60 years old men could donate a fair amount of sperm into a sperm bank and he will be redundant as well. Because a role of a 60 years old father is really reduced to donating sperm. The burden of raising a child is still on the mother.


And it's not like men spend all this money on women, so that they feel better about not making as much. Mend spend it to get laid.

1) I have been working all my life and have never seen this pay gap you speak of
2) I am as open-minded as they come, maybe that's why I agree with Zimmy
3) It would be a good idea, in future, to match your quotes with the person you wish to address

I think he meant it as a joke... From an economic perspective, however, the institution of a grandma is quite beneficial... I wonder if studies have been done on how much grand-mothering translates into in terms of GDP :)! Maybe the fact that women live longer should be calculated into the life-time output, because if kids are left with grandma, the mother can go back to work...


perhaps you need to get out more? read more? acknowledge information that doesn't conform to your viewpoint?


I thought people could recognize what they wrote. Silly me.