Utopia Talk / Politics / How to hire more women

Victim Member	Mon Nov 11 13:09:15 Sweden is really the most progressive nation in the world. http://academicrightswatch.com/?p=2915 Internal documents: Swedish technical university cancels positions if male applicant found most competent 2019-11-08 As a male candidate you are welcome to apply for a position as Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Engineering at Lund University. However, internal documents tell another story: the faculty only provides the necessary funding for the position if a woman is to receive it. If a male applicant is about to get the position, the appointment is canceled. Then the department can make a new attempt to get a woman by advertising a new position, and so on. One of the faculty’s researchers has reported the obviously discriminatory scheme to the Equality Ombudsman, who is now investigating the case. At the Faculty of Engineering at Lund University (LTH) it is seen as a concern that there are so few female professors. The proportion of female professors in 2006-2016 has increased from 11.8% to 15.5%, but the distribution over different areas is very varied, according to an internal policy document. Women who have become professors have mainly become so through promotion. This is far from the Swedish government’s goal that as many women as men should be recruited as professors by the year 2030, which is not a minor intervention in university autonomy. In the case of LTH, it could be argued that women generally are not particularly interested in many of its research areas. A measure of actual interest is the proportion of beginner students in the various programs. According to current governmental statistics, the proportion of female beginners in electronics, computer technology and automation is 15%, which reflects the proportion of female professors in those fields. In other higher education areas, the inverse relationship prevails. At Sweden’s largest departments in gender studies, the female students represent an overwhelming majority, and there is only one male professor—in all the departments combined. But LTH and Lund University, like all public authorities, have to abide by government policy. To oppose political authority with rational arguments based on empirical evidence is thus futile. Rather, something, however drastic, needs to be done. Against this background, LTH has come up with an intricate scheme for how to employ more women without discriminating against male applicants, which is a bit like squaring a circle. Has the faculty succeeded in the seemingly impossible? The idea is to “improve the recruitment base” of women for senior teaching appointments (Assistant and Full and Professors) by hiring four female Assistant Professors, a tenure track position, per year for four years, where the main funding comes centrally from LTH. But according to Swedish law, positions have to be publicly advertised—with the risk that they go to more competent men. How to get around this unfortunate legal obstacle? As a first step, the departments should actively look for women whom they wish to associate with their activities. When they have found suitable candidates, they write an application to the faculty describing the situation at the department and their favorite candidates. They can then apply for the opportunity to announce one or more Assistant Professorships with these candidates in mind. The faculty then ranks applications from the departments and decides with which proposals to proceed. Subsequently, the department, together with the recruitment committee, writes a targeted call that fits the favorite female candidate(s). The positions that have already been posted have started with the following declaration: At LTH we see that heterogeneous groups often contribute to a more creative environment – important when we together explore and create benefits for the world. We want to be an attractive employer for the underrepresented gender, and we work actively for equality at the Faculty. That is why we are making a long-term investment to inspire more women to apply to male-dominated research areas—and vice versa. Already this text should have a deterrent effect on overly competent male applicants. (Of course, the “vice versa” clause is not applicable in practice: there are no female-dominated research areas at LTH.) Anyway, when the application period has expired, a routine expert review of the applications is then made. If the result of the review is that a female is best suited for the position, she is hired. In this case, and only in this case, the faculty finances the position with 80% of the funding the first four years. For the last two years, the department finances the position itself, without the support of the faculty. However, if worse comes to worse and it turns out that a male applicant is considered the best fit for the position, despite all efforts to the contrary, then the faculty will not fund the position at all. This becomes clear in an internal document sent to the departments: If the recruitment process result is that an Assistant Professor of underrepresented gender cannot be hired, LTH funds will not be used. The department can then choose to go ahead with the proposed applicant and fund it with their own resources or interrupt the recruitment process. If a recruitment process is interrupted, another Assistant Professorship may be advertised, such as the one that came in 5th place when allocating funds, or alternatively five jobs may be announced the following year. In a situation in which most (11 of 19) LTH department are in financial difficulties, they are unlikely to fund costly positions on their own. So, in the unlikely event that a department fails to recruit a female applicant, it will most certainly cancel the appointment and make another attempt. A researcher at LTH who was appalled by the scheme decided to file a complaint to the Equality Ombudsman (DO). The purpose of the complaint, he writes, is to have DO investigating whether or not LTH’s hiring strategy unlawfully discriminates against male academics. Academic Rights Watch regards the hiring scheme as clearly discriminatory. According to the Swedish Constitution, hiring decision for public office should only be based on objective factual grounds, such as merit and skill (Chapter 12, section 5 of the Instrument of Government). As the complainant points out, there is nothing in the duties described in the positions that have been advertised so far that justifies a preference for a certain gender. The Swedish Discrimination Act further states that everyone should have equal opportunities and rights to public office regardless of gender. The opportunities here are obviously not equal: a woman who is considered most suitable gets the job, a man who is considered most suitable with practical certainty won’t. This is not the first time Swedish universities attempt to “promote equality” by discriminating against male applicants. A survey conducted a few years ago by an independent NGO found that most universities had introduced special “merit funding” for qualifying as a professor that only women could apply for. This, too, resulted in a complaint to the Equality Ombudsman, who took the case to the Swedish Labour Court. The Ombudsman won the case and the court decided that the reported university must compensate the victim. We hope for a similar development in the present case. For full documentation (in Swedish), the reader should consult our Swedish homepage: www.academicrightswatch.se.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Nov 11 16:41:46 Seb supports this :)
obaminated Member	Mon Nov 11 16:46:47 Long ago the swedish man was a fearsome warrior who conquered lands. The modern swedish man is laughably weak.
Rugian Member	Mon Nov 11 17:04:22 *cries in Gustavus Adolphus*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Nov 11 17:44:36 The Swedish equality law does have a clause that allows affirmative action based on sex, but it is actually quite difficult to implement. The praxis as established, who ever is getting preferential treatment can not have lower qualifications and merits. This may be a clever attempt to do that. I don't think the courts will find it all that clever though.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 26 06:48:21 Legalize prostitution...problem solved.
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 26 14:12:24 Habebe, I'm afraid you're behind the times on that one. Being the bastion of wokeness that it is, Sweden decriminalized the act of accepting money to have sex (because that unfairly targets women) in favor of criminalizing the act of paying money to have sex (because that unfairly targets men).
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 14:16:18 Not to mention laws about benefiting from the proceeds of prostitution, you know, pimp stuff (that also unfairly targets men).
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 26 14:17:58 Rugian, Yeah, that's kind of how it is in the US too.....there has been a war on men especially white straight men for a long time now. The proponents of the war argue that since white men have been in a position of power for a like 500 years that now it's fair to attack them and disenfranchise them.
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 26 14:26:02 Habebe, Indeed. The problem with modern Western leftism is that it has mutated from an ideology of elevating people to an even level to an orthodoxy of tearing down certain groups as revenge for past perceived injustices, whether real or not.
Paramount Member	Tue Nov 26 14:27:34 Yeah, prostitution is legal in Sweden. But buying sex is illegal. Long ago the swedish man was a fearsome warrior who could buy sex. But the modern swedish man is being henpecked (is that a word?) and persecuted by the woman.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 14:52:28 Real men can actually deal with a fine without feeling they are the victims of a feminist jihad. The real target is of course prostitution. Criminalizing the prostitute is counterproductive. It gives leverage to force continued prostitution. Fining customers is fine.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 14:53:23 Its also fine to fine the pimp. In case you missed that example of the legal system unfairly targetting men.
hood Member	Tue Nov 26 14:53:55 Criminalizing drug dealers is counterproductive. Arresting customers is fine.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 14:57:27 Criminalizing the drugs is counter productive. Restricted use drugs do have their occassional uses. The drug dealer in your analogy would be the pimp. Who should be fined. Customers should also be fined. You jail both, or is that incorrect?
hood Member	Tue Nov 26 15:01:26 I would be legalizing both prostitute and John. But the idea that one party to a criminal act should be immune from the penalties of said act is laughably retarded.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 26 15:03:16 The thing is... prostitution isn't wrong in and of itself. I really dont see a big difference between it and porn, either way you are having sex for money. If someone wants to sell such a service they should be allowed. If someone wants to have a sexual desire fulfilled and is willing to trade money for it that is nor wrong. The netherlands even pays fot handicap ppl to go to a brothel.
Paramount Member	Tue Nov 26 15:19:30 The only time when buying sex should be illegal is, in my opinion, when the girl is underage and when there is proof that a girl/woman is a victim of trafficking. I think buying sex should be legal if two adults consent to it.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 15:36:42 hood It is just counterproductive. Habebe There is a lot of coercion in the industry. Para "prostitution is inherently violent and abusive"
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 15:39:45 http://www...ainst-legalizing-prostitution/ With links to the nordic model.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 26 16:02:35 Jergul, And the coercion goes both ways. For that matter there is a lot of coercion in narcotics. More to the point does criminalizing it ( well some parts) Make it any better? Or worse.
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 26 16:12:39 How are we eliminating coercive pimps by punishing johns?
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 16:15:52 Habebe Criminalizing buyers contracts the size of the industry. Its a pragmatic way of regulating the industry by controlling the demand side. The sentencing limits reflect this (buyers are almost always just fined). =================== I might change my view on prostitution of someone managed to devise a way it could be done in full compliance with national workplace health and safety regulations. Maybe handjobs in full hazmat suits might be possible.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 26 16:57:36 Iirc, the Netherlands has a pretty good working model of legal prostitution. As does Nevada.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 17:22:52 Habebe The industry is growing in the Netherlands. There are 21 legal brothels with a staff of about 200. Most prostitution in Nevada remains illegal. Fining buyers (hitting the demand side of the equation) does work remarkably well in contracting the size of the industry. Which is good. Because prostitution is a gawd-awful job that cannot possibly pass national regulations on employment standards.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 17:23:33 In Nevada, there are 21...*
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 26 17:34:58 jergul, I'll remember the "making something illegal kills its demand" argument the next time we have a Prohibition argument on this forum. Thanks for that. The gender politics behind punishing johns but not prostitutes is unmistakable. Outlawing prostitution is a problem because it disproportionately affects women, and that's unacceptable. Outlawing paying for sex, on the other hand, disproportionately affects men, and that's completely fine. Your own link says as much, though of course not in those exact terms. It's not a new or novel argument. Modern Western leftism is pretty set in stone in advocating that women should not be held to the same standard as men when it comes to being accountable for their actions (see f. ex. the entire abortion debate).
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 26 17:37:52 Incidentally...on your moral revulsion to prostitution, its nice to see you engaging in yet another cause inspired by Protestantism. Institutional Western Christianity may be a dying breed, but the spirit of the Reformation will live on forever as long as soccer moms and teenage progressives continue to exist (feel free to lump yourself into whichever category applies to you more).
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 26 17:39:35 Population of NV w/o Vegas metro area (where it is not legal) is 807,000. So, one brothel for a population of 38,000. Even if you counted Vegas metro, one for every 144,000 people. Not an enormous population to serve when you consider the proportion of the virile male population willing to shell out several hundred/thousand dollars to be a John in a legal, clean environment.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 17:42:14 Ruggy Have we ever had a prohibition discussion? Criminalizing prostitutes is bad because it is counterproductive and tends to trap women in the industry. Fining buyers is good because it demonstrably leads to a contracting industry. Contraction is good because prostitution is a god awful job that cannot possibly meet national regulations on employment standards. Its not a hard line of argument to follow. But feel free to feel victimized.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 17:48:14 Forwyn You would probably find the brothels mainly cater to tourists from in and out of state.
Wrath of Orion Member	Tue Nov 26 18:31:59 I'm pretty certain that at this point the only thing Rugian is good at is playing the victim.
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 26 18:46:58 "tourists from in" Not very many, as established "and out of state." Which goes away when NV isn't the only state doing it. People only flock to Colorado for pot because they got in the game first.
obaminated Member	Tue Nov 26 20:58:29 Jergul, not many people visit Nevada to not go to Vegas, that's pretty much the only reason to visit that backwater state.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 26 22:36:31 Forwyn How did you establish there are few instate tourists that travel to brothels? Well above and beyond the illegal levels of prostitution indicating they do not generally travel too far. Obam That is of course true. 21 brothels with 200 sex workers cannot cater to very many people. But the idea that small communities establised them to cater to local customers is silly and untrue.
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 26 23:43:35 "How did you establish there are few instate tourists that travel to brothels?" One brothel for every 144,000 citizens, man, woman, and child. Assume roughly 1/4 of those are virile men, only 36000 per brothel. Now estimate a fraction of men who have both the appropriate personalities and the financial means to frequent these establishments say, once a month? I'd say 1%. 360 males at an establishment throughout the month from in-state. 1.26 males a day to service per day per employee. Not beyond the pale.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 27 00:03:38 Oh sorry, they get weekends off! 1.72 males per day. Alternatively, they only work weekends. 4.74 males on Friday, day of rest, 4.74 on Sunday. Enjoy your week off.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 27 00:11:34 "Legal brothels serve 400,000 clients a year" Divide by 200 gives 2000 a year per sex worker. Clark county has 10 times the arrests for prostitution as the national rate 236/100k/year to 23/100k/year and 6% of the overall arrests for prostitution in the USA.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 27 00:45:55 7.66 a day on a 261 day year. Should be doable, with a lunch. Seems out of state tourism isn't to be taken lightly.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 27 01:02:35 Thats like less than 1 complete stranger an hour, 261 days a year. You should give it a try. It sounds like a quality job.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 27 02:45:53 In what way is going to a prostitute different from getting a massage? A massage can feel better than sex. Makes no sense that it should be illegal to sell this service, people are carrying vestigial religious stupidity with them.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 27 03:22:22 Nimi I don't think anyone here thinks selling sex should be illegal. You are generally a fan of automating god awful jobs into extinction. Just import a perfectly decent robot from the US or China if you think it might feel a need.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 27 19:45:39 I would also like to argue agaimst the notion that a prostitute is a "god awful" job. It offers flexibility in scheduling, serious potential for good money and its start up investment is low ( no degrees needed) More importantly, who are we to tell these women what they can and cant Legalizing it and regulating imho is the way to go.
TJ Member	Wed Nov 27 20:16:14 A woman is either in charge of her own body or she isn't. Difficult to have it both ways. The laws often take a while to coincide with logic.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 00:23:49 Habebe God awful in sense that it cannot possibly meet regulations on employment standards. But feel free to legalize it if you like and have all kinds of self-employed contractors doing sex work. TJ Women are in charge of their bodies here. Its not a crime to be a sex worker. It is a crime to be a sex buyer.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 00:24:59 "Hi dad! I am a prostitute" *Every poster in this thread but me feels proud of their child*
Habebe Member	Thu Nov 28 05:19:49 Women can't have control of their bodies... And yes I do have a daughter now.I camt believe how long ive been on these forums ( off and on) its been like 20 years... And we'll no I wouldn't be thrilled if she was a.prostitute....but there is plenty of other things im ok with other ppl doing that id not prefer for her.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 05:35:20 Not thrilled because sex work is objectively a godawful job? A good rule of thumb is that if your children are doing something that makes it relatively certain you should be putting aside money to help them pay for therapy later, then its probably not a good idea to think it ok that they or anyone else do that thing.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Nov 28 06:26:00 Jergul You seem to support punishing the buyer of a massage (customer) as per my example. Subjectively you think X work is aweful. And there are lots of things I wouldn’t my child to work with, doesn’t mean the act of selling or buying that service or making that good should be illegal. Like being a fisherman or a truckdriver. Even if you automate those jobs, which is good for other reasons, someone owns and operates these ventures, i.e nothing is illegal, the service is being provided by other means.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Nov 28 06:38:26 >>A good rule of thumb is that if your children are doing something that makes it relatively certain you should be putting aside money to help them pay for therapy later, then its probably not a good idea to think it ok that they or anyone else do that thing.<< Daddy jergul to homosexual child. Daddy jergul to non-binary child. Etc. For some (vestigial religiously stupid) reason the strategy here is bot to remove the social stigma that would drive your child to need therapy and make society a more accepting place. You need to deal with your inner abrahamic demons jergul. Say it, Abrahamic demon I rebuke thee!
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 06:40:38 Nimi Objectively, I think that sex work cannot be done without violating national workplace standard regulations. The objective part is inherent in my refering to regulations. Lots of goods and services are illegal in Norway. I support most if not all of the examples I can think of off-hand.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 06:44:02 Being something is different from doing something. Acceptance begins at home Nimi. You could upgrade your house if your wife became a sex worker.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 06:55:16 Someone was just sentenced to 4 months in jail and 100 000 kr fine for hiring a carpenter off the books. The person sentenced was having work done at his cabin.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Nov 28 09:24:39 National regulation and your support for it is irrelevant here as they are also largely contain vestigial religious stupidity (homosexuality comes to mind here again), I care about outcome and reasoning to justify positions. I am not aware that countries such as Denmark, Germany or Holland, have such horrible workplace standards. "Muh law says" arguments are relevant when the topic of discussion is what the law actually means/says, here they are tedious. You have so far failed to justify anything or explain how one form of physical pleasure and release is morally different from another. Being gay is ok, you can't help how god made you, but engaging in gay sex is a sin. Where have we heard this before?
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 10:11:13 Nimi Being a sex worker is not a sin, nor it illegal. The problem with diverging from employment regulations is generally resolved by hiring workers illegally, or by treating them as independent contractors not subject to employment standards. In both cases, sex work would not meet national regulations on employment standards, but simply bypass them, so exist in a grey to black zone. Illegalizing the purchase of sexual services is a proportionate way of limiting the size of a sector that cannot meet workplace standards. I have decided that prostate stimulation using a suitable device may very well be possible within the framework of national employment regulations. I would be upset if anyone was fined for paying for that particular service if the context was otherwise in keeping with employment law.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Nov 28 10:40:08 >>Being a sex worker is not a sin, nor it illegal<< You can keep pretending you are autistic of course and not understand the reference to social stigma. Sure. I think many Europeans countries with different regulatory framework (ranging from de-criminalized to legalized) around prostitution have really good national regulations regarding worker rights and workplace safety and health. This is objectively true given the various index and measurements on the relevant metrics. So, I don't care, this is an objective fact about my subjective state of mind. So ,you think anal stimulation is for men is OK, but not for women? That is discrimination, so it would never work in Norway. The only way forward is to allow all kinds of physical stimulation services, penile, vaginal and anal.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 10:58:14 Nimi I think anything that can be done by automation is fine. What is incidentally your favored position with beastiality?
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 11:03:27 That would be a question to all you open minded folk. Zoophilia, is it ok for as long as the animal suffers no harm?
TJ Member	Thu Nov 28 11:53:47 I don't appreciate others telling me how I should or should not spend my money. Pride is a downfall, but unconditional love should exist as long as you have children. Disappoint can be over come. It is time for me to spend the rest of the day with my families in a feast of thanks giving.
hood Member	Thu Nov 28 15:22:55 "What is incidentally your favored position with beastiality?" Incidentally, this is comparing apples to atom bombs. But to indulge your undeniable retardation, if an animal can give definitive consent, while demonstrating what it is consenting to, have fun. There's like 2-3 gorillas on the planet that might have this ability.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 16:30:06 Hood Does your demand for animal consent include all aspects of animal husbandry? Because, they are like animals. We don't ask their consent, nor is it needed, before doing all kinds of horrible things to them. Do you hold women to that consent standard that you think is appropriate for animals? What difference btw? Did you not want to be free to have services available to you? Does it matter if you pay in cash, or in apples?
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 16:52:45 Its like you support government telling you what you can and cannot do with your cow.
hood Member	Thu Nov 28 17:03:44 What does animal husbandry have to do with sex? Aside, of course, being a distraction from the actual topic and just another example of the ever moving goal posts one must keep up with when discussing anything with you.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 23:03:52 The direct connection would be zoophilia, which is a thing. Legal in many countries and criminalized only recently many places where it is illegal. You started your contribution in this thread with "Criminalizing drug dealers is counterproductive" Which definitely has nothing to do with sex.
hood Member	Thu Nov 28 23:32:54 Yes, it was an analogy to point out the faulty logic in only punishing one partner in a criminal act instead of all involved. Unless it was somehow one-sidedly legal to fuck animals, your analogy was entirely unrelated.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 23:37:41 As I pointed out, your analogy was flawed. My analogy goes to those who think they should be able to buy whatever sexual services they like. Is that entirely true? Do they think beastiality (having sex with animals) should be legal?
jergul large member	Thu Nov 28 23:42:51 On your last point. The beastiality laws are always onesided. It is only a crime for humans.
Habebe Member	Fri Nov 29 00:17:25 I feel like jergul is being gamged up on....however...wtf!? Jergul, Beastiality laws are not really one sided. Animals can not give consent generally*. So I think that os the clincher. If an animal raped someone it would probably be put down. I don't think it compares well to the argument over prostitution because....* Everyone here that is ok with legal prostitution is ok with it explicitly between two consenting partners.* It should be a given that CPs must be able I give informed consent.In other words someone who is a minor, mentally unfit to give consent etc. Wouldnt count. There was a great freakonomics podcast about quitting where thw first.person interviewed was of a proffesional woman who gave up a lucrative IT job making good pay quit to become a prostitute....who makes much more money and is able to to have much more leisure time. Now obviously that's not every situation, but I figured a listen to it would be apt for this thread.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 00:38:02 Habebe Of course consent is not applicable to animals (though outlier organization think this should change). Note the difference between "unable to give consent" and consent not being applicable. Animals are property in the same way that a dildo is. It would be closer to the truth to suggest that most people find zoophilia distasteful for cultural reasons as they happily chomp down on a BLT (we do not require the consent of bacon, lettuce, or tomato - and I am pretty sure consent would never be given if the animals and vegetables had a choice). The sex industry is huge globally, so I have no doubt at all that it works ok for some of the women involved. I am not in favour of criminalizing sex work. I think illegalizing sex purchases is a proportionate way of limiting the size of the sector.
Habebe Member	Fri Nov 29 00:48:13 I'll agree it may* cut down on it. I just don't agree that this is a desired outcome.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 00:59:06 Ultimately, I just view it as a workplace standards issue. If a job cannot meet national regulations, then it should be phased out. I was trying to find comparable jobs. Sex work seems to rank somewhere between deep sea fishing and combat service in terms of both short term and long term risks. All operate outside of normal workplace standards and I do think all three industries should be limited in size.
hood Member	Fri Nov 29 01:01:44 "I feel like jergul is being gamged up on" Don't. jergul is clinically retarded and makes outlandishly stupid arguments because he fancies himself a savant.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 29 03:50:26 Jergul just can not stop himself from going down the exact same pathway as religious nutbags have done for ages regarding homosexuality, but here on prostitution. He now does the false equivalency of comparing a consensual act between two grown ups with beastiality. I think we are done bud, we have come full circle.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 04:00:00 Nimi Its a workplace safety issue like I have said many, many times now. The job carries a high risk of long or short term harm and is at odds with national workplace safety regulations. Criminalizing the demand side is an entirely proportionate measure that demonstratably decreases the size of the industry. Your stance on beastiality is of course culturally and religiously based. You seemed to think there was something wrong with disliking things for cultural and religious reasons.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 04:13:19 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/695670
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 29 04:44:07 And I have said many many times that I don't care, plenty of civilized Europeans countries with great work place regulation and standards do not apply the Swedish/Norwegian law. There is no consistency on animal rights, the rights of the animal depends on the purpose. There are things you can do to a dog in a lab that you would jailed for if you did to a pet. Animal rights are thus not universal while human rights, at least within our countries and EU, are. Hence the false equivalency, or as hood put, Apples to atom bombs comparison. I don't morally have an issue with animal fucking as long you can prove consent. Culturally I am conditioned to be disgusted by it. I don't think it should be illegal and those animals would reasonably fall in the "pet rights" category.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 29 04:48:46 Disliking and making things illegal and punishable are different things. You seem to have trouble understanding this and projecting. There are tons of things I dislike and am disgusted by, but which I think should be legal, because I do not have a morally sound and reasonable reason. I thought I made this clear.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 05:09:38 Nimi I already get that you do not care. It is sort of inherent in your position. Prostitution does not meet workplace standards in many countries were it is legal either. Standards are bypassed by classifying sex workers as independent contractors at best. Legalization does not mean workplace harmonization with national regulations in other words. Lack of consistency in animal treatment simply demonstrates there is a lack of consistency in animal treatment. Animals do not have legal rights because they are property. Consent is also not applicable, or applicable to the same extent that you might require consent of your dildo to put it a different way. Tacking on an impossible criteria is just an ad-hoc justification of criminalizing something you despise for cultural and religious reasons. If you want to apply animal rights and consent as a general principle, then why not start at the gates of your local abatoir? I think you are just going to have to accept my most reasonable of positions: "Its a workplace safety issue like I have said many, many times now. The job carries a high risk of long or short term harm and is at odds with national workplace safety regulations. Criminalizing the demand side is an entirely proportionate measure that demonstratably decreases the size of the industry."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Nov 29 10:35:31 I don’t care, as in I don’t care what imaginary problems you have made up in your head to make this about work place regulation. Had I cared I would have asked what the workplace standard issue is and why you think that, but I didn’t. I have good reasons to question your ability to understand regulation, but perhaps more important I can not indulge a jergulological discussion. Which any such venture down the Norwegian regulatory rabbit hole would be full of. Besides the answer is simple, Germany, Holland, Belgium et al. Stellar record on all relevant metrics, on par with Sweden and Norway. When you don’t reason yourself in, the only way forward is to keep digging down. Lack of consistency is a result of our dominion over animals, they are food, they are pets, they are tools, they are labrats. They are what we need them to be. Humans are valued higher than animals. I am completely ok with that.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 10:50:22 Yes, you don't care. I am being charitable in assuming that is because you don't really understand the issues relating to prostitution. So ill-informed, not evil. For some of the issues: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/695670 Again, "Prostitution does not meet workplace standards in many countries were it is legal either. Standards are bypassed by classifying sex workers as independent contractors at best." Animals are property just like, say, your dildo. A completely reasonable position: "Its a workplace safety issue like I have said many, many times now. "The job carries a high risk of long or short term harm and is at odds with national workplace safety regulations. Criminalizing the demand side is an entirely proportionate measure that demonstratably decreases the size of the industry."
obaminated Member	Fri Nov 29 11:15:40 I don't know why you guys bother with the idiot. You are literally talking to an idiot. You will never change his mind on anything. Its a total waste of time. He isn't smart enough to learn.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 11:17:58 ^triggered.
obaminated Member	Fri Nov 29 11:23:00 No, idiot, telling others to not waste their time on arguing with you isnt an example of being triggered. When someone says ignore this idiot because you are just wasting their time, that is an example of how little they think of your mental capacity. Which BTW is agreed by both sides of the aisle. But you are too stupid to realize any of that, because you are an idiot.
jergul large member	Fri Nov 29 11:24:20 ^Extremely triggered.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 30 05:08:56 You keep posting a "study" by a feminist anti-pornography, anti-prostitution activist. This is completely redundant, I already knew where this was coming, it is inherent in your Christian culture which the Swedes imposed on your people. And as I have explained for you previously the socialist side of your culture has a lot of synergy with Christianity. So much of the stupidity which you can not explain, and instead attempt to justify post hoc (muh workplace regulation), is a continuation of that Abrahamic morality.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 30 05:30:55 Workplace regulations as a continuation of Abrahamic morality. Interesting. Or not so much. "Jesus the socialist" theories have been around since the 1900ds. I think you will just have to accept that I hold a perfectly reasonable position: "Its a workplace safety issue like I have said many, many times now. "The job carries a high risk of long or short term harm and is at odds with national workplace safety regulations. Criminalizing the demand side is an entirely proportionate measure that demonstratably decreases the size of the industry." Countries are slowly regulating their way to that mediating method.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 30 06:02:16 Not workplace regulation, your moral outlook on prostitution. Post hoc reasoning, is not well reasoned, no. Imaginary problems based on activist studies, are in reality immovable obstacles, notwithstanding "I might change my view on prostitution of someone managed to devise a way it could be done in full compliance". Which is ironic because under current Swedish regulation (at least) this workplace is unregulated, so there is no way to comply with the regulation. Your specific shade of activism on the issue goes against the advice of WHO, UNAIDS, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women etc. they all advocate decriminalization. You are the leftwing version of a global warming denier.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 30 06:23:27 They advocate decriminalizing sex work, not sex purchases. It is not at all ironic. The sex work industry cannot possibly meet national workplace health and safety regulations. My moral outlook is that that jobs that are likely to cause short- or long term harm should be limited as much as possible. Because people get hurt you see. This is not a hard stance to understand.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 30 06:29:04 You could just say you get where I am coming from instead of going all jihad you know. I get where you are coming from. You don't understand the harm sex work causes, nor the coercive elements that are inherent to sex work. Which is fair enough in the sense that your ignorance does not really make you evil.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 30 09:21:03 It is quite clear from reading their policy documents that they do not support criminalizing client or third party. Then you should support taking action to make the job more safe and remove stigma not drive it under ground and into workplace regulatory limbo where the sex workers essentially have no such right. But this isn’t about workplace safety, it should be easy to google comparative figures from say Germany and see where sex work ranks. Do tell why you have not done this and instead posted an feminist grievance study? I said fairly early I get where this is coming from, but you wanted to play this game where this isn’t ideologically motivated and that it is a well reasoned position. Had you been honest I would have left it at that. No one has yet to find a pancea for religious convictions You don’t get where I am coming from at all, infact you don’t seem to be able to parse much of what I have said. I do not accept your assertation about work place safety at all, I have been clear about this, told you I do not care what imaginary problems you have constructed. In response you linked to a feminist greivance study, clearly showing your position isn’t at all ideologically motivated, but well reasoned. < sarcasm
jergul large member	Sat Nov 30 10:19:01 I certainly support action making the job more safe and diminish the stigma current and former sex workers face from society. Sweden has had 1 murder in 19 years Germany has had 91 murders 2002-2018 Spain has had 48 murders 2010-2018 Prostitution is legal in Spain and Germany. Buying sex is illegal in Sweden. You trivialize how dangerous sex work is. I blame it on ignorance, because you cannot possibly be that evil. http://nor...itution-is-inherently-violent/
jergul large member	Sat Nov 30 10:23:12 Nimi Imagine working as a sex worker. You are penetrated 35 times a week by various customers who miraculously are non-violent, though violence is a concern (you are after all working in a relatively exposed position). Surely you should be able to see that the chances of suffering mental or physical in the short or long term is far beyond anything we can accept from a workplace?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 30 11:13:18 I’m not gonna hold my breath for a reliable source or something resembling rigor or robustness. My position is aligned with all the health and human rights organizations I mentioned. The end.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 30 11:48:46 The sources are fine Nimi. It is common knowledge that prostitution is extremely dangerous (commonly cited studies show 40 fold increases in murder rates compared to the general population). WHO position "Countries should work toward decriminalization of sex work and elimination of the unjust application of non-criminal laws and regulations against sex workers." I agree! UNAIDS "In 110 countries where data are available, the HIV prevalence is on average twelve times higher among sex workers than for the general population (15–49 years), with prevalence at least 50-fold higher in four countries" Wow, any safe workplace would not allow exposure to HIV virus (a condom with 99% rate would still give an exposure a month to any sex worker with 35 customers a week). "The legal status of sex work is a critical factor defining the extent and patterns of human rights violations, including violence against sex workers. Where sex work is criminalized, violence against sex workers is often not reported or monitored, and legal protection is seldom offered to victims of such violence (14).Addressing and reducing violence against sex workers has the potential to reduce HIV transmission" I agree totally! Amnesty It is true that Amnesty included a blanket statement wanting to legalize all aspects. But here are the specific complaints for Norway (one of the countries it studied in depth): "Amnesty International heard how some sex workers who have reported violence to the police in Norway have been evicted from their homes or deported as a result of engaging with the police. Under Norway’s laws, sex workers are at risk of forced evictions as their landlords can be prosecuted for renting property to them if they sell sex there. A representative of a Norwegian sex workers’ rights organization explained: “If landlords don’t evict, the police will launch a criminal case against them...The police are encouraging landlords to take the law into their own hands and enforce it themselves.” People who do sex work are also unable to work together for safety, or hire third party support like security, as this would likely qualify as ‘promotion of prostitution’ under the law." I strongly agree that "promotion of prostitution" needs to be fixed. Global alliance on trafficing women "On the contrary, GAATW’s years of experience working on trafficking in persons, all over the world, has led us to the opposite conclusion. GAATW-IS advocates for the decriminalisation of sex work, for labour rights for sex workers, and the conceptual de-linking of sex work and trafficking in persons (for example here). We have documented the harmful effects of anti-trafficking measures on specific groups of people, such as the sex workers who are affected by raids on brothels carried out ostensibly to find people who have been trafficked, a finding echoed in the Sex Work and the Law report. Such a bias in approach also often overlooks other forms of labour trafficking." I agree! ======================= You really should try to imagine how harmful being penetrated by 35 strangers a week might be. I think part of your problem if failure of imagination. You may be limiting yourself to thinking of one act of transactional sex not being particularly harmful, while ignoring the harm that comes mass repetition.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 30 13:21:20 I am shocked that data from 110 countries with varying human rights, GDP and HDI where prostition is illegal is most of them shows that this illegal act has health risks. I will file this under noise. Perhaps you will find a study that compares with some level of rigor the situation between countries that have similar HDI and GDP? You seem intelligent enough that this is what you should have read for the start. "On the other hand, criminalisation of the sex industry or aspects of it, such as clients and third parties, increases the stigmatisation and marginalisation of sex workers and reduces their opportunities to claim their rights. Although there is no conclusive evidence that criminalisation reduces human trafficking and exploitation, this is often taken as a policy measure to address human trafficking. GAATW has documented extensively the harmful impacts of anti-trafficking initiatives on the rights of (migrant) sex workers around the world and the limitations of simplistic ‘end demand’ approaches to human trafficking." I am glad we finally agree, once we get past your quote mining. The fact that your emotions cloud your reasoning is understandable, it does not make you stupid. No one could be this daft. Being passive aggressive is fun :P
jergul large member	Sat Nov 30 13:42:08 Nimi Targetting demand demonstratably decreases the size of an industry that is undesirable due to the extreme health risks it poses. The inherent health risks to sex work goes under common knowledge. If you to challenge the sources I have found then do it with your own sources that attempt to demonstrate sex work is not dangerous. And do try to overcome your failure of imagination. It is inherently harmful to have 35 sexual partners a week. You do not need much imagination to see that.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 30 17:11:08 Here is a question to the rest of you: Imagine a close female relative (wife, sister, mother, daughter) became a sex worker. How many strangers a week would she have to fuck before concerns for her health outweighed moral issues, senses of betrayal etc? Feel free to round up to the closest dozen.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 30 17:25:14 How many big macs does a close relative have to eat per week before you get concerned about their health and lifestyle choices? How many kgs do they have to gain before you would advocate for criminalizing McDonalds? Hey everyone let’s nerf the world so the Jerguls of the world don’t bump their heads.
hood Member	Sat Nov 30 18:09:05 jergul thinks he doesn't have a close female relative who fucks many practically-strangers on a regular basis. How naive.
jergul large member	Sun Dec 01 00:39:50 Nimi Are their any jobs in the world that demand that workers eat large numbers of Big Macs each week? Do I think such demands should be legal and be in compliance with national workplace regulations? The answer to both questions is a firm no. Hood That seems unlikely. We have regulations in place that severely curtail the size of sex work industry. Sex work is the only imaginable context were a woman would average more than say 0.1 new sexual partners a week.
	show deleted posts