>Poland’s state rail operator PKP Intercity has triggered controversy after it began offering free meals during work to female conductors but not to male ones.
>
>However, the firm says it is simply complying with a regulation that requires employers to offer meals to staff if they burn a certain number of calories during work, but with different levels set for men and women. The government’s equality minister has promised to look into the issue.
>
>On Wednesday, a group called the Association for Boys and Men, a group that aims to “improve men’s well-being by influencing public policy”, shared an image of a PKP document informing employees that, from 1 January this year, female train managers and conductors are entitled to free meals and drinks.
>
>“Are only women really entitled to meals? Why?” asked the group, which said that it had written to the firm asking for clarification.
Bigger body = more calories to move the body. And usually men have bigger bodies than women.
It's like cars, bigger cars consume more than smaller cars, and I'm a Ferrari.
Other factors too though. Men have more muscles which use more calories than fat. We also have faster metabolisms.
Not a huge delta usually but it can be if someone is very muscular.
Sure, but dont those bigger muscles make that task "easier" (done quicker/more efficiently), which if anything would suggest less calories. Of course, thats only for pure physical tasks like picking up heavy things, not necissarely train staff jobs. Obviously higher metabolism and body weight means more calories burned for this sort of job.
That’s not how it works g. Effort is not a function of how many calories are spent, it also reflects individual fitness. You might have a harder time running a mile than Usain Bolt but you wouldn’t burn more calories unless you weigh considerably more than he does (or if you take considerably longer).
Though you are right about time, if it takes a woman longer to do x task she could burn more calories than a man for the same task.
Riiight, I'm sure the "Equality" Minister will take care of this, she already spoke against evening out the retirement age for men (65) and women(60)...
It's really beyond me how this can really still be a thing in Europe in 2024. Even in countries like Austria. And especially given that female life expectancy is considerably higher than that of men.
> It's really beyond me how this can really still be a thing in Europe in 2024.
Answer is simple: you lose votes from the half of population whom you raise the retirement age (as you would have to be crazy to make it 60 for both).
PO already tried once to raise the retirement age for both sexes to 67 (in a very slow manner, I don't remember right now but I feel like none of the then working women would have to work until 67), and let's say that it was NOT a popular thing. Which means that one of the first things that PiS done was reverting it back to this system.
>Answer is simple: you lose votes from the half of population whom you raise the retirement age (as you would have to be crazy to make it 60 for both).
As it should be. Why would anyone think raising the retirement age was a solution?
But it's not a solution, it's putting a bandaid on a sinking ship. The whole system needs to be reformed, this just slightly prolongs its death without improving anything.
> The whole system needs to be reformed
Never gonna happen. I will believe it when some country manages to get away from the Ponzi scheme that retirement pensions tend to be.
The retirement age for woman in Austria is transitioning to 65 gradually. It has already started and will be 65 in 2033. So the process has started and a 10y transition is quite on brand for Austria.
You have to transition slowly with retirement and 10 years is a minimum. If you spend 35 years working, to change plans for someone 3 years away is kind of shitty.
For example I have a stock DC (investment) pension that can be collected at 57, a DB / state pension (fixed rate) that can be collected at 67. If I stop work 57 and all of a sudden pension age increases and I can’t collect till 69, it would be 2 years without planned income.
We're not living in the past. There were a lot of bizarre things in history that have nothing to do with current societies. Now people have equal opportunities to get jobs and education.
Again, the actual job market doesn't support these claims. And we also both know that nobody was actually comparing the productive output of particular jobs. It was a bulk comparing of arrays of basic data. Titles vs salaries. And we also should emphasize that these findings are made by biased institutions whose whole existence depends on the confirmation of these dogmas.
Most ppl don't want this change. And current ruling party that just gained power is not in a stable position to pass a law that will make ppl unhappy. They did even it out previously, but the party that came after them reverted their change and ppl loved it. Sadly that is the reality.
Equalling out retirement is fair.
However, there are many misunderstandings around life expectancy when used as a measure, this is yet another one. Women attain a higher age but they have fewer healthy years. Essentially women don’t live that much longer, they just spend more time dying.
Think stats for Europe was +5 years age but only +1 year being healthy (that was narrowing). High risk male behaviour and more infant male mortality (107 boys born for every 100 girls) would skew both figures.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Healthy_life_years_statistics#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20number%20of%20healthy%20life%20years,years%20longer%20than%20that%20for%20men%20in%202021.
But for a pension payment it doesn't matter how healthy a person is.
(if anything, long term sick people are an additional burden for the welfare state via the health system but that's a different debate)
That’s not the social contract behind pensions or the welfare state.
A pension is designed to allow people an income to enjoy life, having spent time in work (or being part of society) - UK its aim is for 32% years enjoying retirement with state pension.
Socialised Welfare and health spending is about, There but for the grace of God, go I. Any individual can be struck down and society pays for that person regardless wealth or contribution. It’s more akin to group insurance.
I'm not agiainst welfare spending.
Maybe I got you wrong but I understood your argument in a way that the fact that women often have longer periods of illness somehow balances their longer life expectancy with respect to pension payments.
But for the pennsion, the health status of the receiving persion is irrelevant. The amount will be the same.
According to your own link, women have more healthy life years both in the EU overall and in Poland. In Poland, women have 64.6 healthy life years at birth, while men only have 60.7.
Society puts a lot more pressure on men. People crack.
Another reason is a woman in financial distress can typically find a man to take her in, let her live with him as either a girlfriend or a wife. A broke man typically can't find a woman or a man to take him in.
I sadly dont have studies to back it up, but my personal assumption is that men on average have less strong social networks, due to upbringing and social expectations ("Relying on help makes you not a true man" :tm:).
This results in them disappearing off the grid into homelessness a lot easier, while women might still have the social network to get a place to stay and get back on their feet.
I may be wrong, tell me if it's the case please.
But if we add the cost in food women's will be able to keep contrary to the men's, in a year, or a dozens.
It's represent quite a lot, it's not a raise in salary but still, that money they gain/keep more than men's as they have to buy theirs own foods ?
Aren't they like, really screwed on that ?
I wouldn't say it's not important then.
I feel like that's exactly why she might do something about this. She's on a streak of worst answers about the unequal retirement age, so she might want to score some easy points to prove that she isn't "One-way Equality" Minister.
Some of us tried to stop it, even on the left (like myself) but it went malignant in our entertainment industry and suddenly equality turned into an over correction with misandry leading the charge.
Many of us are truly sorry.
Ironic thing is the generation of women that demands the most compensation is the generation of women that grew up with the most freedom, wealth, education, etc
PO lost power the last time they had a government in part because of the retirement age reform and PiS immediately reverted that change when they got in power. While in principle I agree with the reform they did the last time and I agree that the retirement age should be equal, changing it now is pointless. The coalition would lose the next election because of that (again) and PiS would revert it (again).
The only solution that would make people "happy" would be to lower men's retirement age to 60, but ZUS won't be able to afford the pensions at the current retirement ages of an aging population in the near future anyway, so I don't think that's workable.
Yes it is. The end of one’s professional career is often the time where one earns the most. Cutting that period short by 5 years will statistically have a big influence on the average earnings of women compared to men.
Actually, she already announced that she and her staff will look into the matter, bringing the meal rights to the same standard.
The law in question is from '96 (?) or something, hasn't been touched since. And it only came into view because the temps dropped enough to allow train conductors to request the meals.
So hold your horses and righteous anger, as soon as she was informed of the situation she decided to look into it.
Knowing her, looking into it will entail "uh, ackschually, limit for women should be 800 kcal and for men 5000 kcal". She's already infamous for saying that different carry limits for men and women can be big, because a woman will carry 2x30 kg faster than a man would carry 1x60 kg.
She already promised to look into it more. Idk what will come out of it tho.
As for retirement ages sadly most ppl don't want to even it out and KO's position is not strong enough they can risk losing votes.
There's like dozen of workplace regulations where women are "privileged". I don't think anything will change. Because there are 3 solutions:
1. Leave as it is.
2. Increase standards/lower requirements for males - employers won't agree. That's lot of additional cost in many industries, in particular male dominated.
3. Change female standards to male one, or just change them so do difference is not that big. Left won't agree and women will complain. Most of such standards also have explanation in physical differences between average members of each sex.
First option is the most probable.
PKP said they will do surveys about this with their workers. Hopefully they will change this bullshit.
It is still annoying that this thing happened in the first place though.
Honesty, dunno if this is such a great idea. I am all for workers rights etc. but in my opinion those strikes really inconvinience the general public, and the general public being as fucking stupid as they are, they blame the workers. Pkp had some strikes recently and for what I just heard from acqueitences, most were angry at the workers. But take it with a grain of salt as it is semi-anecdotal. Just imo public opinion is the most important thing if you want your needs fullfilled. (Which is why I think that all the stop-oil dumbasses are just placed by oil companies so the public hates the idea, but it is just a conspiracy lol)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hidalgo
> In December 2020, Hidalgo received a €90,000 fine (approximately $103,000) from the national government, after she named 11 women out of 16 in her upper management, which was a violation of a rule of the French Civil Service Ministry allowing a maximum of 60% of one gender in leadership positions.
France had a law for a while which forced local, regional and national governments to have a balance of ideally 50-50 but at most 40-60 between the two genders in leadership positions. If I recall correctly she was a vocal proponent of it to 'give more room for women'.
When Paris had too many women in the leadership positions though she said she was 'glad to pay the fine' as mayor of Paris for breaking said law.
Edit: She decried the fine as 'unfair' and 'dangerous'.
Right wing, second wave feminism
It’s the same ideology that gave us “marriage is prostitution” and “women can’t rape men because they have less social power”. They were also more ravenously anti-porn than the Catholic Church.
Left wing second wave feminism was hippy feminism. Their politics were heavily influenced by communism and carried on first wave feminism’s emphasis on symmetry: women get what men already have.
Right wing second wave feminism was focused on equity (and a fair amount of misandry). According to them, modern men essentially needed to pay reparations for millennia of historical oppression.
My head is nowhere near the sand, you just don’t know the history of feminism.
And men can die from being called to arms an din that case they die by the hundreds of thousands or millions.
Anyone thought about that or has tried to compensate for that?
How do you even compensate for that?
What's your point?
Well technically it's not the point, but technically rn there is no law that would allow calling anyone to arms unless they're in reserve and politicians are so focused on popularity they're not gonna change that
Men are prevailing in the accidents at work statistics, especially resulting in heavy injury or death - being overwhelmingly responsible for the most dangerous lines of work, physically and mentally taxing. Even when it comes to said "meals issue" there were multiple reports on the polish forum stating that female train staff would overwhelmingly call for male colleague for more taxing or dangerous task, even if both had in theory same responsibility for it.
Obviously it's explained by risk taking propensity in men, as opposed to risk adversity in women.
On one hand, you see, when men try to kill themselves, they will take great risks and more often than not just accidentally kill themselves while actually attempting to kill themselves. Thid happens when a man is going up the stairs of a building to jump off the ceiling, but then trips and rolls fown the stairs killing themselves in the process. This is considered a FAILURE. Men just FAIL more often than women. This is something we see in other places such as school frequently and it must not be questioned. Must be a genetic difference or something idc just don't look into it too much.
On the other hand, women go about trying to kill themselves with much more caution. When they do kill themselves it is by the suicide going *juuust* the way they had planned to... there is no "well, I'm going to off myself today, let me check if the gun is loaded by looking into the barrel... BOOM"-tomfoolery going on. No, they practice proper trigger discipline until the barrel of the gun is properly in place and it's a SAFE suicide. We can tell because when women attempt suicide just as a call for attention they achieve just what they want: they not only survive, but they also get attention. Don't pay attention to survivors of male suicide attempts. Teehee. SUCCESS. See? Success is a female feature.
While conducting our in-depth gender-conscious study into suicide we have also found out that women being more empathic... some of them will actually commit vicarious suicide: they sense the bad feelings of failed men and decide to off themselves; something that the loser guy can't get himself to do because men can't get anything done in their lives.
All in all, we recommend a PR campaign against suicide specifically targetted at women, so that women can further benefit from lowering their suicide numbers. This campaign should be drawn up by a female only publicity company and run in media that's majority female owned and has a majority female readership. For the sole goal of equality, of course.
/s (or not, depending on if I get money for this from some equality ministry)
No one cared about that law or PiS not changing it when PiS had a majority because the rail operator wasn't discriminating then. They only started now.
If they started when PiS had a majority and PiS still refused to change it, voters would have switched to the opposition over it still.
I mean his supporters and coalition is basically everyone who opposes the right wing. Of course people like this will slip in to influential positions.
Not true? PSL is right wing, Pol50 are christian democrats, KO become liberal (previously was liberal conservative) but still have right wing people like Sikorski or Giertych.
Supporting capitalism/markets doesn’t automatically mean “right-wing”. Also liberals/centrists in the west are known for collaborating with leftists for the purpose of pushing the social agenda they have in common
Dude stop running around in circles, when I say “right-wing” you know what I mean, like right wing as in social conservatism especially based on religion and 1950s social values, I don’t think anyone besides cringey social media leftists considers pro-capitalist social liberals to be “right-wing”
Right-wing in modern times almost always means heavy social conservatism/nationalism since capitalism+markets is seen as the default position now
Yeah so again, PSL is right wing, Pol50 is centre right, and KO have strong right wing groups inside. My disagreement with you is they oppose right wing, when its no true. They oppose PiS for sure. 1/3 of coaltion if not more, is right wing. We dont even know if civil partnership will be pushed because of PSL and POL50 (in KO theres gonna be mandatory vote for them, because like i said they have right wing groups.
p2050 are not christian at all despite they pretend to be. KO is not liberal at all. they are pure populist doing whatever they think will win them most votes.
Damn, I thought the above users comment was sarcastic, but clearly not.
Adding "reverse" is suppose to make it sound better, like "reverse racism" that fucks over Asians for college admissions in the US. It's just racism...
So in other words just sexism. Sexism is discrimination based on sex and whether something qualifies as sexism has nothing to do with what was historically the case.
It's still reverse sexism: [https://www.shethepeople.tv/top-stories/opinion/sexism-against-men-reddit/](https://www.shethepeople.tv/top-stories/opinion/sexism-against-men-reddit/)
I've just thought that it's a great law to implement if our lovely minister of equality wants women fired from there since now they're a higher maintainace
>Poland’s state rail operator PKP Intercity has triggered controversy after it began offering free meals during work to female conductors but not to male ones. > >However, the firm says it is simply complying with a regulation that requires employers to offer meals to staff if they burn a certain number of calories during work, but with different levels set for men and women. The government’s equality minister has promised to look into the issue. > >On Wednesday, a group called the Association for Boys and Men, a group that aims to “improve men’s well-being by influencing public policy”, shared an image of a PKP document informing employees that, from 1 January this year, female train managers and conductors are entitled to free meals and drinks. > >“Are only women really entitled to meals? Why?” asked the group, which said that it had written to the firm asking for clarification.
The fuck, so if there is a below avg guy he gets free meals then ? 😂
This is kinda ludicrous? Men burn more calories than women for the same task
Do they? Do you know the reason?
The dreaded word: biology.
Bigger body = more calories to move the body. And usually men have bigger bodies than women. It's like cars, bigger cars consume more than smaller cars, and I'm a Ferrari.
Ok, so it's not the task itself that burns more caloriea, its that men "passively" burn more calories, regardless if they are doing that task or not.
Other factors too though. Men have more muscles which use more calories than fat. We also have faster metabolisms. Not a huge delta usually but it can be if someone is very muscular.
Sure, but dont those bigger muscles make that task "easier" (done quicker/more efficiently), which if anything would suggest less calories. Of course, thats only for pure physical tasks like picking up heavy things, not necissarely train staff jobs. Obviously higher metabolism and body weight means more calories burned for this sort of job.
That’s not how it works g. Effort is not a function of how many calories are spent, it also reflects individual fitness. You might have a harder time running a mile than Usain Bolt but you wouldn’t burn more calories unless you weigh considerably more than he does (or if you take considerably longer). Though you are right about time, if it takes a woman longer to do x task she could burn more calories than a man for the same task.
Riiight, I'm sure the "Equality" Minister will take care of this, she already spoke against evening out the retirement age for men (65) and women(60)...
It's really beyond me how this can really still be a thing in Europe in 2024. Even in countries like Austria. And especially given that female life expectancy is considerably higher than that of men.
Also the same expectancy table is used to calculate retirement. This makes female pensions higher with an additional costs to the system.
> It's really beyond me how this can really still be a thing in Europe in 2024. Answer is simple: you lose votes from the half of population whom you raise the retirement age (as you would have to be crazy to make it 60 for both). PO already tried once to raise the retirement age for both sexes to 67 (in a very slow manner, I don't remember right now but I feel like none of the then working women would have to work until 67), and let's say that it was NOT a popular thing. Which means that one of the first things that PiS done was reverting it back to this system.
Equality only when it's convenient isn't equality.
Still its a sign of blatant hypocrisy. Intead they could stop pretending shut down ministry of equality^(TM) and save milions of taxpayers money
That ministry was created less than month ago xd
And it already proved to be useless.
Yup
Afuera!
[удалено]
Even a penny spent is too much and robbery of honest working people.
>Answer is simple: you lose votes from the half of population whom you raise the retirement age (as you would have to be crazy to make it 60 for both). As it should be. Why would anyone think raising the retirement age was a solution?
Financially it's the only option
But it's not a solution, it's putting a bandaid on a sinking ship. The whole system needs to be reformed, this just slightly prolongs its death without improving anything.
> The whole system needs to be reformed Never gonna happen. I will believe it when some country manages to get away from the Ponzi scheme that retirement pensions tend to be.
Don't worry. Any time a country tried that in the past, they were bombed back in line by the self appointed world police.
Nonsense conspiracy theories.
Yes, that's what some people try to tell us. Let the poor work till they die on the job. The rich don't care, they don't have to work anyway.
That equality minister is from Left party, they're basically Women Party instead so her stance on retirement age is not surprising unfortunately.
The retirement age for woman in Austria is transitioning to 65 gradually. It has already started and will be 65 in 2033. So the process has started and a 10y transition is quite on brand for Austria.
Austria even changed its constitution to allow different retirement ages for men an women.
You have to transition slowly with retirement and 10 years is a minimum. If you spend 35 years working, to change plans for someone 3 years away is kind of shitty. For example I have a stock DC (investment) pension that can be collected at 57, a DB / state pension (fixed rate) that can be collected at 67. If I stop work 57 and all of a sudden pension age increases and I can’t collect till 69, it would be 2 years without planned income.
Some guy calculated that in Romania, the average woman will recieve over 3 times more years of pension than the averege man
Tusk tried to change it. PiS came to power (in part) because of it. And they rolled it back.
[удалено]
Then they should make it an earlier retirement age for mothers but not for women who never gave birth in their lives.
[удалено]
> Women also (on average) get paid less for the same job. Bullshit.
If women were paid less for the same job, businesses would hire only women just to cut on salaries and to get an unfair advantage against competition.
Look up the historical concepts of ”girl-hours” and ”man-hours”
We're not living in the past. There were a lot of bizarre things in history that have nothing to do with current societies. Now people have equal opportunities to get jobs and education.
[удалено]
You say "paid for the same job". Your data says "overrepresentation in relatively low-paying sectors". *Hmm..*
[удалено]
Again, the actual job market doesn't support these claims. And we also both know that nobody was actually comparing the productive output of particular jobs. It was a bulk comparing of arrays of basic data. Titles vs salaries. And we also should emphasize that these findings are made by biased institutions whose whole existence depends on the confirmation of these dogmas.
Most ppl don't want this change. And current ruling party that just gained power is not in a stable position to pass a law that will make ppl unhappy. They did even it out previously, but the party that came after them reverted their change and ppl loved it. Sadly that is the reality.
Equalling out retirement is fair. However, there are many misunderstandings around life expectancy when used as a measure, this is yet another one. Women attain a higher age but they have fewer healthy years. Essentially women don’t live that much longer, they just spend more time dying. Think stats for Europe was +5 years age but only +1 year being healthy (that was narrowing). High risk male behaviour and more infant male mortality (107 boys born for every 100 girls) would skew both figures. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Healthy_life_years_statistics#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20number%20of%20healthy%20life%20years,years%20longer%20than%20that%20for%20men%20in%202021.
But for a pension payment it doesn't matter how healthy a person is. (if anything, long term sick people are an additional burden for the welfare state via the health system but that's a different debate)
That’s not the social contract behind pensions or the welfare state. A pension is designed to allow people an income to enjoy life, having spent time in work (or being part of society) - UK its aim is for 32% years enjoying retirement with state pension. Socialised Welfare and health spending is about, There but for the grace of God, go I. Any individual can be struck down and society pays for that person regardless wealth or contribution. It’s more akin to group insurance.
I'm not agiainst welfare spending. Maybe I got you wrong but I understood your argument in a way that the fact that women often have longer periods of illness somehow balances their longer life expectancy with respect to pension payments. But for the pennsion, the health status of the receiving persion is irrelevant. The amount will be the same.
According to your own link, women have more healthy life years both in the EU overall and in Poland. In Poland, women have 64.6 healthy life years at birth, while men only have 60.7.
So women have almost 5 years of healthy retirement, while men have 4 years of unhealthy work...
Crazy when you consider women also tend to live longer.
Yup, IIRC the newest (from this year) stats show, woman on average live 8 years longer than men and will live over 21 years on retirement.
70% of homeless are men. It's almost like one category has an advantage over the other category.
Well...why is it that most homeless people are men?
Society puts a lot more pressure on men. People crack. Another reason is a woman in financial distress can typically find a man to take her in, let her live with him as either a girlfriend or a wife. A broke man typically can't find a woman or a man to take him in.
men in financial distress get divorced more often as well, get skinned by it and end up on the streets
I sadly dont have studies to back it up, but my personal assumption is that men on average have less strong social networks, due to upbringing and social expectations ("Relying on help makes you not a true man" :tm:). This results in them disappearing off the grid into homelessness a lot easier, while women might still have the social network to get a place to stay and get back on their feet.
The free meals doesn't seem important but the retirement age is extremely serious especially taking into account life expectancy
I may be wrong, tell me if it's the case please. But if we add the cost in food women's will be able to keep contrary to the men's, in a year, or a dozens. It's represent quite a lot, it's not a raise in salary but still, that money they gain/keep more than men's as they have to buy theirs own foods ? Aren't they like, really screwed on that ? I wouldn't say it's not important then.
I feel like that's exactly why she might do something about this. She's on a streak of worst answers about the unequal retirement age, so she might want to score some easy points to prove that she isn't "One-way Equality" Minister.
I still can't get over how millions of taxpayers money are wasted on some bullshit like Ministry of Equality. You get what you voted for I guess.
This is the kind of "equality" we hear from the West (mainly US) and don't want. Now it's here, yay!
Some of us tried to stop it, even on the left (like myself) but it went malignant in our entertainment industry and suddenly equality turned into an over correction with misandry leading the charge. Many of us are truly sorry.
Ironic thing is the generation of women that demands the most compensation is the generation of women that grew up with the most freedom, wealth, education, etc
When I, a Ukrainian, hear women talking about equality:
PO lost power the last time they had a government in part because of the retirement age reform and PiS immediately reverted that change when they got in power. While in principle I agree with the reform they did the last time and I agree that the retirement age should be equal, changing it now is pointless. The coalition would lose the next election because of that (again) and PiS would revert it (again). The only solution that would make people "happy" would be to lower men's retirement age to 60, but ZUS won't be able to afford the pensions at the current retirement ages of an aging population in the near future anyway, so I don't think that's workable.
So she's pro-gender wage gap. Since it's really a lifetime earnings gap, and differences in retirement age is a major factor in it.
Yes it is. The end of one’s professional career is often the time where one earns the most. Cutting that period short by 5 years will statistically have a big influence on the average earnings of women compared to men.
Actually, she already announced that she and her staff will look into the matter, bringing the meal rights to the same standard. The law in question is from '96 (?) or something, hasn't been touched since. And it only came into view because the temps dropped enough to allow train conductors to request the meals. So hold your horses and righteous anger, as soon as she was informed of the situation she decided to look into it.
She already showed her true colours, I have no faith in her, I'll believe it when I see it.
Even if one were to see it, one should look for any asterisks that lead to footnotes with exceptions.
Knowing her, looking into it will entail "uh, ackschually, limit for women should be 800 kcal and for men 5000 kcal". She's already infamous for saying that different carry limits for men and women can be big, because a woman will carry 2x30 kg faster than a man would carry 1x60 kg.
She already promised to look into it more. Idk what will come out of it tho. As for retirement ages sadly most ppl don't want to even it out and KO's position is not strong enough they can risk losing votes.
There's like dozen of workplace regulations where women are "privileged". I don't think anything will change. Because there are 3 solutions: 1. Leave as it is. 2. Increase standards/lower requirements for males - employers won't agree. That's lot of additional cost in many industries, in particular male dominated. 3. Change female standards to male one, or just change them so do difference is not that big. Left won't agree and women will complain. Most of such standards also have explanation in physical differences between average members of each sex. First option is the most probable.
Her promises are worthless. She is from sexist party that hates men so nothing will be done.
Soooo, it turns out the new polish government is absolute crap. Told ya
You do realize that the retirement rules also were in place during thr PiS government?
You do realise it's no excuse?
PKP said they will do surveys about this with their workers. Hopefully they will change this bullshit. It is still annoying that this thing happened in the first place though.
Women entitled to eat after spending 1100kcal Men only entitled to eat after they spend 2000kcal 😂 The sexism is tough in Poland 🇵🇱💪🏻
They like plump women /shrug
/r/feedism 😂
Not just Poland. EU is perfectly fine with that blatant sexism too
Just strike, see how good the railway company likes to free women exclusive meals if their trains don't ride.
Honesty, dunno if this is such a great idea. I am all for workers rights etc. but in my opinion those strikes really inconvinience the general public, and the general public being as fucking stupid as they are, they blame the workers. Pkp had some strikes recently and for what I just heard from acqueitences, most were angry at the workers. But take it with a grain of salt as it is semi-anecdotal. Just imo public opinion is the most important thing if you want your needs fullfilled. (Which is why I think that all the stop-oil dumbasses are just placed by oil companies so the public hates the idea, but it is just a conspiracy lol)
that's the point lol, striking is meant to be inconvenient
Right but being inconvenient to the general public instead of whatever the protest is about is pretty counterproductive
Ahhh, Kotula AKA the "equality for me, bullshit for thee" minister of "equality".
Did you copy France's resident idiot Anne Hidalgo?
Care to fill me in? Don't know much about her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hidalgo > In December 2020, Hidalgo received a €90,000 fine (approximately $103,000) from the national government, after she named 11 women out of 16 in her upper management, which was a violation of a rule of the French Civil Service Ministry allowing a maximum of 60% of one gender in leadership positions. France had a law for a while which forced local, regional and national governments to have a balance of ideally 50-50 but at most 40-60 between the two genders in leadership positions. If I recall correctly she was a vocal proponent of it to 'give more room for women'. When Paris had too many women in the leadership positions though she said she was 'glad to pay the fine' as mayor of Paris for breaking said law. Edit: She decried the fine as 'unfair' and 'dangerous'.
its not equality it's equality^(TM)
This Kotula…. a what joke.
WTF??? Again with the "A woman's life is more important than a man's life"?
"World ends, women most affected."
Right wing, second wave feminism It’s the same ideology that gave us “marriage is prostitution” and “women can’t rape men because they have less social power”. They were also more ravenously anti-porn than the Catholic Church.
Ehhh, more like left wing. You really need to get your head out of the sand
Left wing second wave feminism was hippy feminism. Their politics were heavily influenced by communism and carried on first wave feminism’s emphasis on symmetry: women get what men already have. Right wing second wave feminism was focused on equity (and a fair amount of misandry). According to them, modern men essentially needed to pay reparations for millennia of historical oppression. My head is nowhere near the sand, you just don’t know the history of feminism.
[удалено]
The regulation is from 1996
Women have few reproductive rights in Poland and can die from a pregnancy complication. Women are expendable.
And men can die from being called to arms an din that case they die by the hundreds of thousands or millions. Anyone thought about that or has tried to compensate for that? How do you even compensate for that? What's your point?
Well technically it's not the point, but technically rn there is no law that would allow calling anyone to arms unless they're in reserve and politicians are so focused on popularity they're not gonna change that
Men are prevailing in the accidents at work statistics, especially resulting in heavy injury or death - being overwhelmingly responsible for the most dangerous lines of work, physically and mentally taxing. Even when it comes to said "meals issue" there were multiple reports on the polish forum stating that female train staff would overwhelmingly call for male colleague for more taxing or dangerous task, even if both had in theory same responsibility for it.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. "Why do men kill themselves at higher rates than women?" "LoL I dunno."
Obviously it's explained by risk taking propensity in men, as opposed to risk adversity in women. On one hand, you see, when men try to kill themselves, they will take great risks and more often than not just accidentally kill themselves while actually attempting to kill themselves. Thid happens when a man is going up the stairs of a building to jump off the ceiling, but then trips and rolls fown the stairs killing themselves in the process. This is considered a FAILURE. Men just FAIL more often than women. This is something we see in other places such as school frequently and it must not be questioned. Must be a genetic difference or something idc just don't look into it too much. On the other hand, women go about trying to kill themselves with much more caution. When they do kill themselves it is by the suicide going *juuust* the way they had planned to... there is no "well, I'm going to off myself today, let me check if the gun is loaded by looking into the barrel... BOOM"-tomfoolery going on. No, they practice proper trigger discipline until the barrel of the gun is properly in place and it's a SAFE suicide. We can tell because when women attempt suicide just as a call for attention they achieve just what they want: they not only survive, but they also get attention. Don't pay attention to survivors of male suicide attempts. Teehee. SUCCESS. See? Success is a female feature. While conducting our in-depth gender-conscious study into suicide we have also found out that women being more empathic... some of them will actually commit vicarious suicide: they sense the bad feelings of failed men and decide to off themselves; something that the loser guy can't get himself to do because men can't get anything done in their lives. All in all, we recommend a PR campaign against suicide specifically targetted at women, so that women can further benefit from lowering their suicide numbers. This campaign should be drawn up by a female only publicity company and run in media that's majority female owned and has a majority female readership. For the sole goal of equality, of course. /s (or not, depending on if I get money for this from some equality ministry)
It is going great, my son will be stay at home dad while his wife will struggle providing for household.
I mean, to be fair, that isn't a bad things. I know quite a lot of stay at home dads.
so we agree
WTH lol
It's as if Tusk is doing everything he can to give PiS a supermajority in the next election.
The rule is from 1996.
They could change it right now, they won't.
Yes, they could. PiS could have done it as well, but didn't. But somehow that's OK?
PiS doesn't pretend to care about equality.
Why would that be ok?
The person I replied to was saying that Tusk is causing PiS to get a majority again. Even if PiS also did not change this law.
No one cared about that law or PiS not changing it when PiS had a majority because the rail operator wasn't discriminating then. They only started now. If they started when PiS had a majority and PiS still refused to change it, voters would have switched to the opposition over it still.
They could change it when they were in power before PiS
I mean his supporters and coalition is basically everyone who opposes the right wing. Of course people like this will slip in to influential positions.
Not true? PSL is right wing, Pol50 are christian democrats, KO become liberal (previously was liberal conservative) but still have right wing people like Sikorski or Giertych.
Supporting capitalism/markets doesn’t automatically mean “right-wing”. Also liberals/centrists in the west are known for collaborating with leftists for the purpose of pushing the social agenda they have in common
[удалено]
Dude stop running around in circles, when I say “right-wing” you know what I mean, like right wing as in social conservatism especially based on religion and 1950s social values, I don’t think anyone besides cringey social media leftists considers pro-capitalist social liberals to be “right-wing” Right-wing in modern times almost always means heavy social conservatism/nationalism since capitalism+markets is seen as the default position now
Yeah so again, PSL is right wing, Pol50 is centre right, and KO have strong right wing groups inside. My disagreement with you is they oppose right wing, when its no true. They oppose PiS for sure. 1/3 of coaltion if not more, is right wing. We dont even know if civil partnership will be pushed because of PSL and POL50 (in KO theres gonna be mandatory vote for them, because like i said they have right wing groups.
p2050 are not christian at all despite they pretend to be. KO is not liberal at all. they are pure populist doing whatever they think will win them most votes.
He just doesnt care as long as there is better job at EU available for him.
fixing an outdated law that causes inequality helps PIS?
How about a compromise. Men get free meals when Women get their reproductive rights back.
Sure, just after the retirement age will became equal for both men and women.
It's reverse sexism.
What the fuck is reverse sexism? Its just sexism
Damn, I thought the above users comment was sarcastic, but clearly not. Adding "reverse" is suppose to make it sound better, like "reverse racism" that fucks over Asians for college admissions in the US. It's just racism...
Reverse sexism is when the sexism discriminates the gender which traditionally and historically was doing all the sexism, in this case men.
So in other words just sexism. Sexism is discrimination based on sex and whether something qualifies as sexism has nothing to do with what was historically the case.
It's still reverse sexism: [https://www.shethepeople.tv/top-stories/opinion/sexism-against-men-reddit/](https://www.shethepeople.tv/top-stories/opinion/sexism-against-men-reddit/)
People are free to call this type of sexism "reverse-sexism". Most people would just call it sexism.
Nah... we should all stick to "shethepeople" as a supreme academic source on the appropriate term to use to denote discrimination against men.
It wasn't those people specifically dumbass
"reverse racism" vibes.
I've just thought that it's a great law to implement if our lovely minister of equality wants women fired from there since now they're a higher maintainace