[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You're claiming it's iminent. And I've said several times I don't agree with quotas you idiot - I am merely pointing out that a quota is no evidence at all of a matriarchal order (impending or otherwise). There are quotas for black people in certain fields, but no quotas for white people. This does not mean that we're heading towards a black dominated society. BUT QUOTAS ARE SHIT ANYWAY.

If you have statistical evidence that the discriminating is on decline, further booting it up with insanely large quotas like 40% (which is a huge amount, isn't it), can definately not be qualified "equality".

And your "60% of ministers" stuff is rather misleading since as far as I can tell, you're talking about out of what, 20? And how many times has this happened in the last 80 years? Gee, how can you survive with that female jackboot stomping down on your face?

Gee, how the patriarchal, male-dominated society has 53% of their judges male! God, how can you bear that Dante, it's 3% more than women, assuming there are no androgynes or similars. Wow. The chauvinism is really beating the shit out of them here! Especially given the statistical decline of the gap during recent 20 years. I'm sure the fact that there are 3% more male judges than female judges is the reason why the US used to define Finland as a state supporting terrorism. (Admitted, maybe they realized 3% isn't that much and realized it's ackward to make one terrorists because of that).

79% of University heads were male. (for 2002/03)
80% of what they term "chief editors" are male
62% of parliamentarians are males
53% of judges were male (for 2000, the last years stats were available)
73% of senior civil servants were male

Finland isn't a huge country. There aren't that many universities - twenty will probably do. Also, the house of parliament isn't so large either - there's 200. Also, it's elected by the people, majority of which are female. What comes to judges, 53% is pretty much half, isn't it? I'm not sure what defines senior civil servant either, but I guess that depends too. If you're talking about heads of departments, the Financial Inspection I guess has more women than men on those posts, to begin with. The 73% is a declining figure.

Jesus, you sound like a pathetic redneck complaining about affirmative action taking his job because those black folks are getting too uppity.

You're still missing the point. I'm not complaining about action being taken to work for equality and equal rights despite gender. I'm critisizing the methods used to reach it, and I'm critisizing (as with what the current Minister of Health And Social is) the debate for being single-minded.

I'm not sure how the debate is in the Uk, but you sound just like another pathetic, narrow-minded idiot who thinks that the only way to reach equality is to discriminate the dominant gender, instead of actually working on the roots of the problems - which arise from education and raising kids.

Who said that? Whining is generally a waste of time. Get off your arse and challenge the system, rather than giving bullshit excuses like "if a man did x the feminists would freak" - it sounds spineless and pathetic.

Of course, but that's what being done at the moment - the single-sided equality debate is being publically challenged (and yes, the politician who initiated it has already had very negative columns written about by certain female columnists of widespread a widespread magazine).

I had a boss who's brother got 2 years for statutory rape. I don't know how old he was, but when he met the girl she was driving a van, and said she was 21 and I'm guessing looked and acted such...she was actually 13, and the age of consent in my state is 18.

These are the kind of things where the system works in a rather biased way, and these are exactly the sort of things that aren't involved in the debate about equality, social discrimination by gender, and prejudice towards gender. As by the topic of the thread, a rape sentense was too lenient, wasn't it? This is again yet empirical evidence of "X feminists freaking". It's difficult to say about the details of this case, as there's little data available, except for Dr Michelle is probably female. A more evident case was with the German tourist boy and the UK girl who was 13 and claimed being in legal age. It's a word-against-word scenario, and for the good luck of the 17-y-o boy, it's all happening in Turkey.

However, I say if you're dumb enough to let your dick do your thinking and have sex with a girl you don't know especially if they look under 25 or so, you're running the risk of statutory rape because she may not actually be as old as she acts or says she is. So, I say if they get caught on it, then they deserve to get whatever sentence they're given because they were stupid enough to be misled by someone under the age of consent.

Now imagine if they install a law which makes sex with a drunken woman rape. You'll be running around with an alcometer and concent forms if you plan on having casual sex with someone who might have had a few drinks!