Violence against elected officials is not compatible with democracy. To those cheering at this act of violence: you are as violent and authoritarian as the people you loathe. Shame on you.

The gap arises where men are able to take more hours, obtain more qualifications, develop more experience

Men are able to, or they are practically forced to? Because when I took paternity leave, I heard managers describe it as a “vacation”, which is a term I’ve never seen used to describe maternity leave. And when I left my job to take care of my second child, my co-workers described it as “career suicide”, which again I’ve never seen used to describe a woman’s decision to raise her child.

So I have to wonder: how many fathers out there would rather be raising their kids but don’t get a real chance to do so because they know their careers would suffer disproportionately to their female coworkers?

I would have the same opinion in both cases as well: I don’t want (former?) violent fundamentalists teaching my children, any more than I would like e.g. (former?) sex offenders.

In the absence of further information, do you think it is fair to be wary of them being involved in the education of children?

That sounds reasonable.

Have these particular jihadists reformed?

Were they doing a good job?

Would you have the same laissez faire attitude if instead of proven jihadists these were radical christian supremacists that just came back from a modern crusade war?

First they scan for CP, but the next time a corrupt authoritarian leader is elected, what will stop them from using that conveniently pervasive infrastructure to silence journalists, dissidents or political opponents?

But you know why is Sweden in the crosshairs of extremist Muslims? Because of an Extremist Dane/Swede Rasmus Paludan that has been harassing Swedish and Danish Muslims with impunity under “freedom of expression” rules

So a guy saying something “offensive” excuses a bunch of fanatics murdering innocents? How is that proportional? Are you equally lenient with white supremacists who murder innocents as well, or do you have a double standard depending on the color of the skin of the murderer?

The point of a pension fund is for the ongoing contributions of currently working folks to bring in enough new capital that people withdrawing don’t feel the effects of their contributions from 40 years ago having lost value against inflation.

No, that is not how long term investments work. Try reading about the subject and improve your own finances along the way. Investments typically grow faster than inflation, so the longer the original investment was made, the more money you have today.

I have described a system that would have prevented the problem in the first place while still providing the actuarial benefits of pooling resources.

I am not offering a solution for how to transition from the current system where the young pay for the old.

What I don’t like is the hyper-neoliberal approach where each person lives in an island and resources aren’t pooled at all, because it benefits the rich at the cost of the poor.

Why would you assume that the fund would be kept in cash? That’s not how pension funds work.

What if we created one pension fund each year? Every person born that year contributes into that fund during their working years and withdraw from it in retirement. It seems like a solution that is fair to everybody, avoiding inter-generational wealth transfers.

What do you mean by going straight to the mainland? Most of Spain is separated from Africa by the strait of Gibraltar, where waters are remarkably dangerous.

Some people attempt to reach Spain by land via Ceuta or Melilla, two Spanish towns that are geographically located in Africa across the strait. The border between these two towns and Morocco is rather heavily protected, though, precisely to discourage people from entering illegally.

The Canary Islands have been part of Spain for centuries. Thus, once you reach them you are inside Spain, the EU and the Schengen area.

Can somebody shed some light on which sort of immigration is causing an increased support to this party? Are we talking of legal economic immigrants from e.g. the EU, illegal immigrats from wherever, or war refugees? If it’s refugees, where from?

I’m just trying to understand what’s driving this change. I have family in the UK and a lot of the anti-EU sentiment around Brexit seemed to arise from the perceived effect of an influx of legal immigrants from the Eastern bloc of the EU.

Let’s assume equal rates of desire for taking time to be with family among men and women.

Instead of assuming anything, let’s poll and gather some evidence. How many men/women are employed/unemployed against their choice? What makes them take that difficult decision? What sorts of policies could help more people achieve what they want, rather than somebody else’s preconceived idea of what they should be doing?

So if the relationship is in trouble, housewifes have a much harder time leaving their husbands then women who work. That means the relationship is naturally unequal with the husbands being in the stronger position.

Is that true? In developed countries parents who are the primary caregivers of children do not only get 50% of the assets in a divorce, but they also obtain alimony and financial support for their children, all paid for by the other parent. Even when both parents are working, the majority of judges give child custody to the mother.

In addition to that, there are women’s shelters to cater specifically to women. Can you find even a single men-only shelter in your town, or a governmental agency that caters specifically to men in similar situations?

In other words, on average it is less difficult for a mother to divorce than for a father.

Sorry for your gender gap but it is very standard for numerous things: employment, academic success, life expectancy… What do you do for those?

Talk about it so that people are aware of the problem and do something about it.

Why are men taking a worse hit? Sounds like some kind of social injustice.

I obviously agree, since it affects me personally. But the prevalent narrative around the employment gap is centered about how it affects women, ignoring how it affects men as well, and I’m trying to offer a more complete view.

“You woman will take less of a career hit than I, so you should be the one to stay home and I’ll continue my career”

That speech is very problematic, but how prevalent is it? You could have imagined this alternative:

“I want to take care of the kids, and since it’s not a big deal you man will have to keep working even though you also want to raise your family”

It’s made up, but so is yours.

I question the assumption behind this map, which is the idea that men and women must have work at the same rate and anything else is an aberration that needs to be addressed. The issue is more subtle than that.

I’ll speak from the perspective of a father who quit his job to raise his small children, knowing that it is complete career suicide (I worked in tech).

In my view a problem occurs when somebody wants to work and is unable to, as well as when somebody wants to quit working and is also unable to do so. And while there are some general trends where for example women often quit (paid) work for a few years to raise their families, that is only a problem when they would rather not, but this simplistic map (and narrative) doesn’t shed any light on that.

Likewise, how many fathers out there would love to raise their small kids but don’t because they know they will be destroying their careers to a degree that their female peers will not? This map does capture this issue, but the simplistic narrative that women sacrifice their careers to raise their children does not, when in practice the damage to their career is much less than a man doing the same thing.

Want a useful map? Poll people to find out why they are working instead of quitting, rather than having preconceived simplistic assumptions about what “is right”.