@tripu how the fuck is work deaths a sex equality issue? what's your solution, make sure more women die at work so it's equal, yay, we're done? No, the solution is to make sure less people die in general and that has nothing to do with their sex. Yes if the cultural inequality is decreased you might expect that statistic to also become more even, but that is just a side effect to observe as a curiosity. Same goes for most of your other "men issues" that is literally just mortality, or things like homelessness, imprisonment or drug abuse for same exact logic, the solution to those problems is not in equality of sexes. That leaves you with parental fraud and family court, you may talk about those things in this context... obviously these are very important problems that affect majority of people throughout their lifetime... major major things yes, and not at all a side effects of different issues...

sidenote: objective devaluation of men's lives stem exactly from the same logic as objective valuation of women's, and yes it is patriarchy

@b6hydra

@namark

> but that is just a side effect to observe as a curiosity

The fact that you think it's merely a curiosity doesn't change that it's an inequality based on sex. I agree with you that we should strive for equity, not simple equality of outcomes, but again that doesn't suggest that the current inequality doesn't have a basis in sex.

I also don't understand why you think that because sex isn't the only issue at play that makes it irrelevant. Take homelessness. Historically, the concept of the deserving vs the undeserving poor has changed very little in the last 2000 years. Widows and "pure" women throughout that time have been thought of as the deserving poor, i.e. they deserve our sympathy and charity. It's said that they aren't at fault for their circumstances. Contrast that with men and "impure women" who, except for veterans, are largely lumped in with the undeserving poor. There is a ton of cultural, religious, and economic baggage wrapped into these concepts, and sex is part of that, it's not just a bizarre side effect.

I want to reiterate that I agree that we shouldn't simply be looking to make the numbers equal. Making sure more women die at work is an absurd proposal that nobody is suggesting. I'll go a step further and agree that if we only treat these issues as sex-based the solutions are likely to fail. They are deeply intertwined with many aspects of our society and I think will probably require significant and radical changes that the status quo simply won't tolerate. However, to say the majority of the issues @tripu brought up have nothing to do with sex is patently false.

@b6hydra are you aware context... like the concept of it? It' s curiosity in context of inequality sexes, not for me. It's not a cause or some sort of a central issue, it's what you get as a result of the established culture.

Now care to actually answer my question? What is your proposed solution to decreasing work related fatalities, homelessness and the likes and how is it in any way related to inequality of sexes? Whatever solution your propose if it makes any sense what so ever it would not have anything to do with one's sex, it's out freaking context, while the OP tries to present it as if it is problem in context of inequality of sexes. Yes a man's life is valued less than woman's, in some cases it's valued less than property (which btw some people see woman as), that is a result of patriarchal culture, not the cause of it. Men die performing dangerous task on their own free will (as much as such a thing is possible) while women are safe and sound as slaves in their households. One of these problems you can solve by convincing people to treat sexes equally, while the other you can't. It's a derailing, a straw-man, that @tripu is using to make you think that this some kind of a all men vs all woman battle royal of who got it worse, while also trying to pretend that he's arguing against such sentiments.

@tripu

@namark Am I aware of the concept of context? Is there any purpose to that question other than to be smug and insulting?

I'm talking about historical continuities as they relate to homelessness on the basis of not just sex, but religion and economics, as well as how they are represented in today's "established culture." If that's not context then no, I suppose I'm totally ignorant on the concept.

I won't be answering your question for several reasons. Primarily, I don't have a comprehensive plan to address all social woes such that they address not only sexism, but also poverty, devalueing of life, etc. Moreover, nobody does. However, if you think you have the answer I'm all ears. Second, I never said I agree completely with @tripu. In fact, if you read what I said previously you would know I don't believe the issues he identifies can be solved solely by focusing on inequality based in sex.

My main disagreement with you is that you say sex is out of context. It isn't. It might not be the whole picture, but it makes no sense to discount it entirely given the _context_ from which these issues evolved.

@b6hydra I questioned your conception of context in hopes that you would read the OP again and stop derailing. The context I'm talking about is specifically the OP not what you and I happen to think is important at any given point of time.

I'm not asking you to propose the solution, I'm asking you to realize that the solution indeed needs to comprehensively address all social woes and problems, achieve world peace, cure cancer and find god, which you did, so good progress. The fact that the inequality of sexes tips the statistic is at most a curiosity. Now imagine someone talking about actual sex inequality issues, that can actually be solved with equality to various degrees, and then a wild tripu appears and goes like "but what about world peace, cancer and god, shouldn't you be talking about that as well, right now?". Now what do you call that? I call that derailing, and that's pretty much the OP.

@tripu

@namark

“How the fuck is work deaths a sex equality issue?”

How is an extremely bad outcome (death, no less) affecting 1,165% more men than women (ie, men being >12× more at risk) not a sex equality issue?

Issues with a much, much smaller imbalance in favour of men (eg, the “pay gap”) are invariably considered a sex-related issue.

@namark

“What’s your solution, make sure more women die at work so it’s equal, yay, we’re done?”

I’ll ignore the captious question.

“No, the solution is to make sure less people die in general and that has nothing to do with their sex.”

That is very cute. How did I miss that simple solution? Nobody has to die!

Now let’s talk about the real world.

My point is that the same people who defend female quotas, public campaigns to increase the visibility of women, subsidies for feminist initiatives, tax exemptions when hiring women, more funding for research in female illnesses, special treatment for females in male-dominated fields, etc. — those same people should be asking employers to better protect their male workers specifically, campaigning to get insurance companies to give male workers better quotes or coverage, donating safety equipment for men in hazardous industries, pressuring to get laws passed to alleviate the physical toll in male-dominated manual labour sectors, etc.

I personally do not support the former, and thus I do not support the latter. But if someone is in favour of special measures for women, they should be in favour of special measures for men where that makes sense, too.

@namark

“Same goes for most of your other “men issues” that is literally just mortality, or things like homelessness, imprisonment or drug abuse for same exact logic, the solution to those problems is not in equality of sexes.”

“Just mortality”. You mean staying alive. As in, the very thing that all human beings hold most valuable, and the only common prerequisite for all the other good things we might value.

Also: homelessness, imprisonment and drug abuse are among the worst situations anyone can experience. They affect men overwhelmingly.

Again: what is your definition of “sex equality issue”? I’d like to read it in full.

@namark

“That leaves you with parental fraud and family court, you may talk about those things in this context… obviously these are very important problems that affect majority of people throughout their lifetime… major major things yes, and not at all a side effects of different issues…”

Parental fraud does not affect “majority of people” — it affects men only.

Again, how tilted against men has the balance of a specific issue to be for you to acknowledge that that issue is sex-related, and that it would make no sense in the context of a society where men actually “exerted absolute authority” and “used their power to their own advantage”?

@namark

“Objective devaluation of men’s lives stem exactly from the same logic as objective valuation of women’s, and yes it is patriarchy”

So we live in society that is “controlled by men”, and men decided to use that power to devalue their own lives (so that they die younger, live more often on the streets, are incarcerated more often, etc) and to value more the lives of women (so that they get more degrees, work shorter hours, are not sent to wars, etc).

I think I get it now.

@tripu wow, thanks for shredding the thread into million pieces on an instance that allows 2^16 characters, I’m sure it’s just cause you’re computer illiterate or using some crippled client or something, not at all to prevent anyone from following you non-arguments, oh no, that would be ridiculous.

How is an extremely bad outcome (death, no less) affecting 1,165% more men than women (ie, men being >12× more at risk) not a sex equality issue?

It’s not a sex inequality issue cause it can’t be solved by sex equality, unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution. How many times should I repeat this. Can you read?

I’ll ignore the captious question.

The question was not meant to be answered, but for you ponder on it and realize the above, but alas now I had spelled it out for you twice in this thread, as you are apparently averse to thinking.

My point is that the same people who defend female quotas…

I’m very glad that we have finally established that your point has nothing to do with what you have written in the OP. The argument of benefits for women is a completely different one. It goes something like this: “women have been royally fucked over by our societies for many generation both culturally and genetically and to get them out of the deep pit that we’ve left them in they need some help”. Now if you want to argue with that argue with that, I don’t care much about your opinion though. The OP had nothing about that, but I understand this is central point of your entire life’s narrative, so not surprising that you assumed that everyone must be aware of it, and view everything in that context.

“Just mortality”. You mean staying alive…

Yes please attack my words without context. Can you please read the sentence you have quoted till the end? Please, for once? The point is that sex equality, will not cure the deaths. I literally just have this one central point, but you keep ignoring it no matter how many times I repeat and rephrase it.

Parental fraud does not affect “majority of people” — it affects men only.

Is derailing the only thing you are capable of doing? Obviously I meant men in this context and the point is does not affect majority of men anywhere near as much as the other issues mentioned in the OP affect women, that is most of them, throughout their entire lives.

Again, how tilted against men has the balance of a specific issue to be for you to acknowledge that that issue is sex-related

I clearly acknowledged it’s sex inequality issue, the only one (or I guess two) in your list. Once again, can you read?

I think I get it now.

Yes men hate OTHER men, and love women. What planet are you from? As a man, try going out and publicly pick a fight with a local woman, you’ll, more often then not, be greeted by a local gang of men, who think they own the block, and who will pulverize you in place for gesturing with you hands towards her. As a women you will never be treated so harshly by the same men no matter what you do, because they are not maniacs or killers, their are actually “righteous”. Amongst men street fights is common way to settle a dispute, while hitting a woman is blasphemy.

I already spoon fed you the meaning of patriarchy in another thread so refer to that for more details, but the gist is, again, that men devalue lives of OTHER men, not their own lives. I understand how you got confused there, after all you seem convinced this is some kind of a grand conspiracy battle of two factions - all the men vs all the women in the whole wide the world.

@namark

“Thanks for shredding the thread into million pieces.”

I replied in five toots to avoid a single very long post, and to try to disentangle our discussion by splitting up sub-arguments for the sake of clarity.

“It’s not a sex inequality issue cause it can’t be solved by sex equality, unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution.”

Let me blow your mind: yes, I would consider “equal number of women dying” a better situation.

Like so:

In my country, last year, there were 751 work fatalities, of which 696 were men and 55 were women. That is so mostly because men are overrepresented in dangerous industries and hazardous jobs. If those same jobs were filled in roughly equal numbers by men and by women, we would end up with roughly the same number of total work deaths, but split more evenly between the two sexes. That would not be a worse net outcome (it’s the same unfortunate number of fatalities), but the gender imbalance itself would be gone. (And yes, obviously, every sane person would at the same time advocate for more safety equipment, better work conditions and security checks, etc. for everyone. But that’s a separate issue.)

There you go. I just proved to you that this mostly-male issue can “be solved by sex equality” (your words).

For the last time: will you admit that work deaths are “a sex inequality issue”?

(Also: you retorted dismissively “unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution” but, how could “equal number of {women/men} {outcome}” ever be a bad idea, if one considers him/herself an egalitarian, a feminist, a non-sexist? Try it: “equal number of women managing companies”; “equal number of men earning PhDs”; “equal number of women using drugs”; “equal number of men working at nurseries”… “Equal number of {women/men} {outcome}’” should be quite literally the motto of someone who is for equality of the sexes!)

“Yes men hate OTHER men.”

This one sentence summarises very nicely where you’re coming from.

Men hate other men? Speak for yourself!

/cc @b6hydra

@tripu So you did shred it intentionally avoiding my main singular point and trying to derail like a madman? Good to know. And now you are plucking a phrase out of context, intentionally misinterpreting it and tagging the one other participant of the thread… simply amazing.

I’m also glad that we finally established that you don’t see a difference between cause and effect, action and consequence, solution and outcome. The statistic becoming even is not solution to the work deaths problem or sex inequality, it’s an outcome you would expect when you solve the inequality in completely different ways, which would be mainly cultural shifts towards giving women more agency in society, and diminishing patriarchy.

@b6hydra