I wonder, often, what we would see if we had one graph for no. of women in such positions, and the growth of totalitarian bureaucratic rule on another graph.
My instincts tell me the latter would act as a function of the former.
I wish I could offer advice to the farmer, but alas.
As a parallel to the behaviour of the women responsible - technically speaking at least - here in Sweden we have a little scandal going. A young Youtuber called "Lulle" had the audacity to ask the head librarian of a municipal library about the trans-homo-sex-books in the children's books-area of the municipal library, while recording. She ran and locked herself in her office and called security, who escorted Lulle off the premises.
Note that no law or regulation was broken in any way, and that she doesn't have the authority to order security guards to do anything - all she may do is summon them.
This Lulle was then the target of a state media interview which aired heavily edited. Lulle however put up the entire interview on his Youtube channel. Causing journalists and such to label him a "right wing extremist" et c.
The guy in question is 16.
A sixteen-year old asking legal questions (the very notion of "illegal questions" make my skin crawl) of a public employee about a public matter, is beyond the pale for Our Democracy, and is by state media talked about as a violation of freedom of speech.
It is as my Danish Oma said: "Hitler is laughing in Hell - he won!" She could see, in 1990, what the EU was becoming, hence her words.
I fear the good farmer Oddvar has believed the powers-that-be to be honest, which means he may have been well-intentional on his part (the powers-that-be aren't), but this is what happens if and when one trusts 'the gov't' with something as important as one's livelihood.
Oddvar believed the powers-that-be, and now his family farm will soon be history. It's a very bad sign, for they (we) are the canaries in the coalmine.
The digitally enforced gulag ('15 minute city') comes next.
Absolutely. Men in charge at the time accepted the feminist lie of equality, and lowered the bars all over to try and make the 50/50 ideal real, instead of having the same bars as the respective task makes necessary, but applications blinded and open to all.
Feel free to study the issue though, if you're interested in it. It has merit, you see, the idea that lowered standards for reasons of ideology leads to worse outcomes. It is a repeating pattern throughout modern history, in any culture or nation.
And speaking as retired teacher of among other things, rhetoric - saying "it's self evident" and then bowing out? That tells anyone you engage with, and anyone reading, that you cannot handle adult conversation and are unable to argue for own point or stance on an issue, and (worse):
I'm unsure about the insidiousness of one or the other group.
Yes, men are more likely to be individualistic relative to women (on average), which means that women's quotas may have 'something' to do there, but it's not (by far) the only such factor.
I wonder, often, what we would see if we had one graph for no. of women in such positions, and the growth of totalitarian bureaucratic rule on another graph.
My instincts tell me the latter would act as a function of the former.
I wish I could offer advice to the farmer, but alas.
As a parallel to the behaviour of the women responsible - technically speaking at least - here in Sweden we have a little scandal going. A young Youtuber called "Lulle" had the audacity to ask the head librarian of a municipal library about the trans-homo-sex-books in the children's books-area of the municipal library, while recording. She ran and locked herself in her office and called security, who escorted Lulle off the premises.
Note that no law or regulation was broken in any way, and that she doesn't have the authority to order security guards to do anything - all she may do is summon them.
This Lulle was then the target of a state media interview which aired heavily edited. Lulle however put up the entire interview on his Youtube channel. Causing journalists and such to label him a "right wing extremist" et c.
The guy in question is 16.
A sixteen-year old asking legal questions (the very notion of "illegal questions" make my skin crawl) of a public employee about a public matter, is beyond the pale for Our Democracy, and is by state media talked about as a violation of freedom of speech.
It is as my Danish Oma said: "Hitler is laughing in Hell - he won!" She could see, in 1990, what the EU was becoming, hence her words.
Men are responsible for their share of the debacle(s) as well. It's people and how they are which varies from era to era.
I fear the good farmer Oddvar has believed the powers-that-be to be honest, which means he may have been well-intentional on his part (the powers-that-be aren't), but this is what happens if and when one trusts 'the gov't' with something as important as one's livelihood.
Oddvar believed the powers-that-be, and now his family farm will soon be history. It's a very bad sign, for they (we) are the canaries in the coalmine.
The digitally enforced gulag ('15 minute city') comes next.
Absolutely. Men in charge at the time accepted the feminist lie of equality, and lowered the bars all over to try and make the 50/50 ideal real, instead of having the same bars as the respective task makes necessary, but applications blinded and open to all.
Get over yourself before I turn you into a trannie.
Prove me wrong then. Argue your point - this isn't Bluesky or reddit.
It's self evident and you don't have a cute little table set up with a banner.
Sorry. Not enough fun here. Moving on...
Feel free to study the issue though, if you're interested in it. It has merit, you see, the idea that lowered standards for reasons of ideology leads to worse outcomes. It is a repeating pattern throughout modern history, in any culture or nation.
And speaking as retired teacher of among other things, rhetoric - saying "it's self evident" and then bowing out? That tells anyone you engage with, and anyone reading, that you cannot handle adult conversation and are unable to argue for own point or stance on an issue, and (worse):
Can't admit it.
I'm unsure about the insidiousness of one or the other group.
Yes, men are more likely to be individualistic relative to women (on average), which means that women's quotas may have 'something' to do there, but it's not (by far) the only such factor.