> _“#Men suffer 91.4% of fatal injuries on the job, versus 8.6% for women. The most dangerous occupation in the United States is logging, where the fatal injury rate is 82.2 per 100,000 workers and where 96% of the people in the occupation are male. Underground mining […] is the 8th most dangerous, with 26.7 deaths per 100,000 workers and with 99% of the workers being male. Should we get more #women in those occupations to close that fatality #GenderGap?”_
Make work safer for everyone, definitely. I don't think there's even a debate there. Who argues for riskier jobs?
In the meantime, why not ask for parity in risky jobs, too? Being against parity there is equivalent to being in favour of 20× more men than women dying on the job. What could justify that preference?
Those are two completely different topics.
Besides, riskier jobs often come with a higher salary (that explains a fraction of the #GenderPayGap). Don't we want more women accessing higher-paying jobs?
@tripu I think the riskier jobs are usually muscle-requiring jobs. The risky jobs that was listed in the article favor strength. Men simply have more strength in their muscles than women on average.
Those two examples require physical strength. But many of the most dangerous and relatively well-paid occupations would suit weaker people equally well: electrician, diesel mechanic, aircraft mechanic, truck or bus driver, tractor or crane operator, zoo vet, traffic agent…
Besides, if we're OK with differences in outcome based on biological differences (men die more because they're stronger), many differences in outcome that are often considered discriminatory or unfair would be justified, too. Whatever interpretation we choose, let's be coherent.
@tripu Those other professions you listed, I agree they could use more females. Problem is that so far most cultures have a clear idea of which jobs are more for males and which for females. It annoys me too, and hopefully we can break that trend.
And re your second point: Those men were not forced to do those dangerous jobs, were they? They get tempted by the money, so it's up to them to gamble with their lives. If they succeed, they get paid nicely. Men don't 'die more because they're stronger', men might 'die more because they take more risks'.
But “most cultures have a clear idea of which jobs are more for males and which for females” for good reasons, right? There's a reason there are way more male loggers and male bouncers, and you seemed to admit that.
About “being forced”: freedom is a gradient. In principle, nobody “forces” someone to collect garbage, to clean other people's toilets, to spend months on end on an oil rig or on a fishing boat, to strip for money, to give up becoming a fighter plane pilot, or to give up becoming a nurse. And yet we know there are all kinds of societal expectations and pressure — we certainly mention those when it's about women, all the time.
If we accept “they get tempted by the money” as an explanation in this case, and are fine with that, then we should also accept “they get tempted by a job with little risk of injury”, “they get tempted by not having to work longer hours”, “they get tempted by a comfy job sitting indoors”, or “they get tempted by a job that has to do with children” in other cases. And yet most people don't even think of doing that. This is the ubiquitous dissonance in #gender issues.
> _“Men don’t ‘die more because they’re stronger’, men might ‘die more because they take more risks’.”_
Would you then agree that men start and lead more companies and earn more money because they take more risks?
@tripu No, because women can lead companies too. That generally needs brains, and both genders have brains which are comparable.
I won't answer your other replies because I am actually starting to think you're a misogynist. This isn't the first time I've noticed this tone. You seem to find a lot of things are 'unfair' against men but are completely skipping over the fact that all the shit pulled against women over the centuries is also unfair. What's going on is maybe overcompensation, whether it be good or bad. But playing victim as male isn't gaining my sympathy.
So far I think you're only seeking validation, which I'm not going to give. And as such I'm leaving this conversation.
> _“You seem to find a lot of things are ‘unfair’ against men but are completely skipping over the fact that all the shit pulled against women over the centuries is also unfair.”_
I focus on men's issues simply because I see multiple references to women's issues (which I acknowledge, btw) each and every day — on social media, on the news, on the speeches of politicians, on conversations with acquaintances. I honestly think there's an (unfair) imbalance in awareness and attention, and that's why I talk much more about men's issues.
My favourite thinkers about gender issues (people like Warren Farrell or Richard Reeves) are self-declared feminists (like me) and have demonstrated with their words and deeds that paying attention to men's issues doesn't mean neglecting women's issues.
I'd like to know why exactly you think I'm a misogynist, because I honestly think I am not. Can you point to a specific sentence or idea?
@tripu The other way around. Make work conditions safer for men. Not unsafer for women.