The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that, in 2015, men dominated the 20 most dangerous occupations in the United States. Logging is the most dangerous job in the U.S., followed by fishing. Mining is the 20th most dangerous profession. More men than women occupied these jobs by anywhere from 85.4 to 99.9 percent.
Still, very few feminists, or anyone really, make a stink about the gender gap in casualties on the job. Perhaps because men earn so much doing it? Or they don't deserve recognition because the patriarchy discovered logging and it's getting what it deserved? Whatever the reason, it's rarely mentioned, certainly not by feminists. I didn't see "safety at work" anywhere in the #HumanRightsDay memes or tweets - but I did see calls for healthcare, contraception, and awareness of global warming as human rights.
Jordan Peterson, America's favorite Canadian psychologist and gender rabble-rouser, wrote about this recently on his blog. He said studies, and his anecdotal research (he's traveled to Scandinavia several times this last year), show that all this work to make men and women more equal has actually had the opposite effect. "Societies become more gender-equal in their social and political policies, men and women become more different in certain aspects, rather than more similar," he wrote. However, when it comes to work and safety at work, men really do fill roles that are not only dangerous, but essential for a functioning, safe society.
More interestingly, Peterson argues that men choose these hazardous occupational roles because of their innate wiring, not in spite of it. In other words, women, and some men, can wreak havoc all they want about how men and women are equal, but real life proves differently.
There are other sex differences, as well, but they aren't as large, excepting that of the aforementioned interest: men are comparatively more interested in things and women in people. This is the largest psychological difference between men and women yet identified. And these differences drive occupational choice, particularly at the extremes.
In a study Pew Research Center did in 2017, but published in the summer of 2018, and which I can't believe didn't go viral, they asked 4,573 Americans what they valued in each gender and described those values with 1,500 different words. The results were fascinating in that they were unsurprising. In other words, even during this third - or fourth? - wave of feminism, women still used words like "strong," "provider," and "honest" to identify positive traits in men. Men still used words like "beautiful," "kind," and "compassionate" to describe positive traits in women. Americans in general used words like "powerful" in a positive way to describe men, but when it describes women, it's seen as negative. Beautiful as an adjective was nearly almost always used to describe women; provider was almost always used to describe men.
It's clear how innate wiring in men and women, along with society's view of the differences between men and women, despite feminism's efforts, combine to encourage or support the fact that men occupy the top 20 most hazardous jobs at a rate of nearly 100 percent. This also may help people realize why some of those occupations are quite lucrative. Yet this irony (a lack of safety for men perhaps, but a bounty of free birth control for women) doesn't seem to matter to feminists.
Let me clarify: Men don't want it to matter either - they certainly don't want women clamoring for their safety on the job. But statistics show gender differences and choices caused by those differences influence the market as well as any kind of pay gap.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner 's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
Feminism, which is a kind of derivative of socialism, (and both being attributable to 'government propaganda and mind control') has permanently disfigured and probably destroyed for all time, the relationship between women and men.
There is very little hope left to salvage anything. There is very little to build upon. People are now total automatons obeying directives and regulations and formulating statistics and measurements and serving these things. Life is pretty much a past tense, a former experience, no longer with us today.
On our farm, which is to say, a decaying relic of a former time, when life did exist; I have always done the bulk of the really dangerous work and my wife has always done more of the routine and mundane. That is because I am a man and she is a woman. I can exert and she can sustain.
I have very little interest in housework or cooking. My wife is a wonderful cook and though she doesn't like cleaning, she does it.
I can do dangerous things and usually, at least so far, survive with only occasional wounds of various sorts.
On a farm such as ours, a dairy bull is among the greatest dangers. Other dangers include working with very large, cumbersome machines and their upkeep. Some of these machines have very fast moving parts and these parts are subject to wear, which makes them unpredictable or at least less predictable.
I sometimes oblige my wife with a modest effort in the house. At other times, I simply tell her: 'Do you want to go out and deal with that bull or operate that chainsaw or that old tractor with lousy brakes?'
She doesn't really want to any of those things and I don't blame her.
Soon, we will both be dead.
None of the automatons will miss us and neither will we miss them.
ned,
OUT