Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:Work-related injuries? Seriously?

So society's lack of concern for mens on the job safety isn't a direct reflection on how they value mens lives?

Is it just possible, maybe, that men are more likely to have accidents in work because men are more likely to be in sustained employment? Do you not think this will affect statistics?

Give me the stats.

Why? Do I need to prove something perfectly obvious? How about you look up the stats yourself, seeing as you love stats so much?

Considering stats are the basis of facts, yes I like stats.

Doing your work for you, the male employment rate is 65.8% and the womens 57.9%. Nowhere near large enough to explain away the workplace accident differential. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=13

If you are going to dispute that society does not value mens lives, how about you put some facts or figures behind it.

surfndestroy wrote:

malice wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:This is thetype article that I am sure Malice loves, http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... onger.html.

I think my favorite comment made on the article is "It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make men dying younger something that is sexist against women."

It doesn't sound like this commenter read the actual article.

Completely overlooking that we live in a society that does not value mens lives, that doesn't blink an eye that they die younger and then have an article that talks about the "hardships" on women as the have increasingly longer lifespans. Talking about womens privilege.

I would seriously like to understand where you get the idea that this society doesn't value men's lives...

no kidding- please explain it.

An easy example is over the course of history what sex has society sent into and died in war. "Breaking the numbers down by age and sex, male conflict mortality was found to be substantively larger than female conflict mortality for all age groups, with female mortality accounting for about a quarter of all such deaths (Murray et al 2001)." http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/F ... Gender.pdf

Or an everyday expression like "Women and children first".

It is sort of amazing that you've taken cultural norms that play(ed) such a major role in keeping women out of positions of power and authority and are using them as an argument for male oppression. I mean that's really quite remarkable.

stip wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

malice wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:This is thetype article that I am sure Malice loves, http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... onger.html.

I think my favorite comment made on the article is "It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make men dying younger something that is sexist against women."

It doesn't sound like this commenter read the actual article.

Completely overlooking that we live in a society that does not value mens lives, that doesn't blink an eye that they die younger and then have an article that talks about the "hardships" on women as the have increasingly longer lifespans. Talking about womens privilege.

I would seriously like to understand where you get the idea that this society doesn't value men's lives...

no kidding- please explain it.

An easy example is over the course of history what sex has society sent into and died in war. "Breaking the numbers down by age and sex, male conflict mortality was found to be substantively larger than female conflict mortality for all age groups, with female mortality accounting for about a quarter of all such deaths (Murray et al 2001)." http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/F ... Gender.pdf

Or an everyday expression like "Women and children first".

It is sort of amazing that you've taken cultural norms that play(ed) such a major role in keeping women out of positions of power and authority and are using them as an argument for male oppression. I mean that's really quite remarkable.

When your narrative does not fit the facts, your time is better spent looking into the validity of your narrative and rather than dismissing facts.

Women have been kept out of combat roles because women are helpless. They require protection. They need someone to watch over them. They cannot be required to make the cold blooded or calculating decisions that leadership requires. That protection narrative is also part of the 'woman and children first' bit. Women are weaker, purer, more vulnerable. Responsibility would make them dirty and impure, but it's just as well since they don't have the mental qualities necessary for leadership.

Being the last person off the sinking ship is the price men may have to pay for that dominance. I would think on balance the male sex has come out ahead. Especially the ones who are smart enough to stay away from boats.

Likewise, the price of positioning yourself as a protector means that you will occasionally be shot more often.

Breast cancer has nothing to do with a larger social bias and everything to do with how effective the breast cancer mafia is at marketing their product.

Men work in industries that are more likely to be physically dangerous because social and cultural norms enforced by men keep women out of them.

I can't believe I'm actually going to do this, because the premise of snd's argument is rather subjective as far as how he's choosing to interpret meaning out of fact. but for the hell of it, I started skimming through the research study he linked- within the Executive Summary, it states :

The research we have explored uses different datasets and investigates different conflicts and
time periods, so it is difficult to say whether more men or women die overall from conflict.
One general conclusion can however be drawn: men are more likely to die during conflicts, whereas
women die more often of indirect causes after the conflict is over. Data on violent deaths (mostly survey
data) confirm that men are more often victims of violence during wartime, whereas several
studies that also take into consideration the post conflict period report a high number of
female deaths after the conflict is officially over. It is still unclear what it is about these post
conflict situations that leads to all these female deaths and this is a research area that merits
more attention.

and right after that, within the Introduction:

Direct and indirect casualty data serve as key impact indicators of armed conflict (Lacina and Gleditsch 2005).
Furthermore, “cause-of-death data can provide invaluable insights as to what services need
to be bolstered, and are a key quality control measure for health-related programs…
[Otherwise], conducting a relief program without any evidence of the extent and causes of
mortality, or how these evolve over time, may be inefficient, not cost-effective and,
ultimately, ethically questionable” (Chechhi and Roberts 2005). An example of incorrect use
of data is that for over a decade the ratio of indirect to direct conflict deaths was quoted as
9:1, without any reported empirical basis for this figure (Murray et al. 2002; Levy and Sidel
1997).

In addition, such data would assist researchers in identifying characteristics of
conflicts to help explain why some conflicts are apparently more damaging to women than
others (Plümper and Neumayer 2006). This is important because drawing political attention
to the human cost of conflict, and the different consequences for men and women, may
influence policies affecting future conflict. To this end, more efforts are needed in collecting
and assembling data from conflict areas.

this is a 28 page report that I have no time or energy for, otherwise, I'm pretty sure I could walk through it and pick up all kinds of commentary that basically has no correlation to snd's statement that men are not valued in the society, or are completely irrelevant to his argument as this study is "to explore the availability of gender disaggregated conflict
mortality data and estimates."
which is a very different kind of study than he would suggest.

I suppose it does at least point out that any information can be taken, twisted, used, and otherwise wrongly interpreted or conveyed in anecdotal form in order to either back up or disprove an argument, but I'm pretty sure that paper has no relevance what so ever within the context of his argument.

pls try again, tho.

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:Work-related injuries? Seriously?

So society's lack of concern for mens on the job safety isn't a direct reflection on how they value mens lives?

Is it just possible, maybe, that men are more likely to have accidents in work because men are more likely to be in sustained employment? Do you not think this will affect statistics?

Give me the stats.

Why? Do I need to prove something perfectly obvious? How about you look up the stats yourself, seeing as you love stats so much?

Considering stats are the basis of facts, yes I like stats.

Doing your work for you, the male employment rate is 65.8% and the womens 57.9%. Nowhere near large enough to explain away the workplace accident differential. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=13

If you are going to dispute that society does not value mens lives, how about you put some facts or figures behind it.

If you think "stats are the basis of facts", you need your head read. "Facts" are derived from stats, but those are always biased and favourable towards whatever someone is trying to prove. Stats are pretty much infinitely manipulatable. I get my "facts" from reading widely, and talking to people.

Targeted cancer campaigns are media hype and plenty of women are pissed off at the 'pink washing' of the breast cancer campaigns. Because a) men get breast cancer and b) women die of other cancers. It would be nice if we could get a few celebs to talk about it from time to time.

Also, today is the first of Movember. A targeted media campaign where various celebs talk about testicular cancer and raise awareness through sponsored activities, usually the growing of facial hair. I've sponsored plenty of male friends in the past as the campaign has been going for a few years now.

http://uk.movember.com/

Haven't women always (generally) lived longer than men? And don't most female mammal species live longer than their male counterparts?

http://www.cmu.edu/CSR/case_studies/wom ... onger.html

Lots of factors, it seems, some of which are biological (interesting that estrogen can have positive impacts on cardiovascular health, and that the gap in mortality peaks at 15-24 because the surge of testosterone makes us men somewhat reckless).

Rob wrote:Haven't women always (generally) lived longer than men? And don't most female mammal species live longer than their male counterparts?

http://www.cmu.edu/CSR/case_studies/wom ... onger.html

Lots of factors, it seems, some of which are biological (interesting that estrogen can have positive impacts on cardiovascular health, and that the gap in mortality peaks at 15-24 because the surge of testosterone makes us men somewhat reckless).

perhaps snd should start doing estrogen therapy.

Experts suspect that gender differences in mortality patterns may be influenced at least in part by sex hormones, namely the male hormone testosterone and the female hormone estrogen. The conspicuous peak in the sex-mortality ratio at puberty, for example, coincides with increased testosterone production in men. Because the male hormone has been linked with aggression and competitiveness as well as libido, some researchers ascribe this spike in male mortality to "testosterone toxicity." Later in life, testosterone puts men at risk biologically as well as behaviorally. It increases blood levels of the bad cholesterol (known as LDL, for low-density lipoprotein) and decreases levels of the good one (HDL, for high-density lipoprotein), putting men at greater risk of heart disease and stroke.
Estrogen, on the other hand, has beneficial effects on cardiovascular health, lowering LDL cholesterol and increasing HDL cholesterol. A recent study at the University of Washington suggests that estrogen may exert these effects by regulating the activity of liver enzymes involved in cholesterol metabolism.
Estrogen is also an antioxidant--that is, it neutralizes certain naturally occurring, highly reactive chemicals, called oxygen radicals, that have been implicated in neural and vascular damage and aging. Emerging evidence suggests that treatment with estrogen after menopause reduces a woman's risk of dying from heart disease and stroke, as well as her risk of dying in general. Estrogen therapy has also been shown in some studies to delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

Privilege.

Sarah. wrote:Privilege.

that would make a good custom rank for you
(if you were looking for one that is)

malice wrote:

Sarah. wrote:Privilege.

that would make a good custom rank for you
(if you were looking for one that is)

Has privilege? Lacks privilege? Privileged?
So many possibilities!

Edit: how have I made 500 posts already?!

Sarah. wrote:

malice wrote:

Sarah. wrote:Privilege.

that would make a good custom rank for you
(if you were looking for one that is)

Has privilege? Lacks privilege? Privileged?
So many possibilities!

Edit: how have I made 500 posts already?!

habit?

Spoiler: show

my one Pearl Jam reference for the day

malice wrote:

Sarah. wrote:

malice wrote:

Sarah. wrote:Privilege.

that would make a good custom rank for you
(if you were looking for one that is)

Has privilege? Lacks privilege? Privileged?
So many possibilities!

Edit: how have I made 500 posts already?!

habit?

Spoiler: show

my one Pearl Jam reference for the day

Never thought she'd.

i just caught this thread sitting down to pee

--- wrote:i just caught this thread sitting down to pee

was it good for you?

malice wrote:

--- wrote:i just caught this thread sitting down to pee

was it good for you?

if nothing else i'm sure RM's mods janitors appreciate not having to clean up the feminism thread's splashback that's caked in, on, and around the N&D toilet

"I feel like I'm one of the biggest feminists in the world because I tell women not to be scared of anything." - Miley.


Discuss.

Please do so in the form of an open letter