5 ms·

While I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, as an aside, the lack of men in nursing roles (and teaching, especially to younger children) is

While I don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument, as an aside, the lack of men in nursing roles (and teaching, especially to younger children) is seen as a problem and when you spend time in the nursing or teaching community it comes up a lot. Campaigns to attract more men into these professions have been running for a long time. While I'm here, speaking as a townie, I don't see any complexity in the fox hunting issue. If it's vermin that needs to be controlled, kill it. Fine. But to spend a day getting pleasure out of chasing it down with a pack of dogs? That's not the same question at all.

Majestic121 11y ago
"While I'm here, speaking as a townie, I don't see any complexity in the fox hunting issue." Well, that's the point the grandparent comment was making. The fact that there is multiple sides on this issue shows that it is not as black and white as you seem to see it. The people hunting foxes and badger are not devils made of pure evil, so there must be a reason why they are doing it. But the actual debate about hunting foxes does not matter here, the point is : the world is not as black and white as people see it.
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Oh gosh no, nobody is pure evil. Many people who take part in lynchings, for example, go home to show tenderness to their spouse and children. Not being pure evil doesn't make it ok.
jules 11y ago
Now I'm wondering whether you are a vegetarian, or whether you pay others to kill animals for a few minutes of eating pleasure.
- DougWebb 11y ago
  I'm not a vegetarian, and I gladly pay others to kill animals for me to eat. But I do not pay for the animals to be tortured in the process; I want them killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. Cats injure, torture, and play with their prey before killing it. Humans should not do that.
  - jules 11y ago
    Why would hunting be torture, but slaughtering not?
    - DougWebb 11y ago
      Fox hunting, where the fox is chased around by dogs for a long time before it is finally killed, is torture. Hunting with a rifle, where you sneak up on an animal and kill it before it even knows it's being hunted, is not. I'd say bow hunting is a grey area; if you have to track the bleeding animal down while it is slowly bleeding out, that's cruel. But if you're hunting for survival and a bow is all you have, or if you're training for that situation (and it's realistic that you might be in that situation) then it's ok.
      - jules 11y ago
        If you compare the worst case scenario for hunting (fox hunting) with the best case scenario for slaughter, but often the slaughter isn't fun either. Many animals are very distressed on their way to the slaughter. Even more importantly, the lives they had before that point were probably much worse than the lives of the wild foxes. Farming animals for meat also happens on a scale that is absolutely incomparable to fox hunting. More animals are slaughtered every day than the number of foxes that were hunted in the entire history of humankind. Secondly, you say that hunting is permissible if you're hunting for survival. Why doesn't the same apply for slaughter? You don't need to eat farmed animals for survival.
        PeterisP 11y ago
        I'm reading the parent post not as "you say that hunting is permissible if you're hunting for survival" but instead as a claim that this cruelty is justified if and only if you're hunting for survival. The same would apply for slaughter - if it would be a survival matter, then any methods would be permissible (i.e. some of the more cruel traditional approaches) but since it is not, it should be mandatory to use only the less painful approaches to slaughter.
        11y ago
vilda 11y ago
While it is seen as a problem, the point is that it's not taken seriously enough than the opposite imbalance. There are way worse examples: Male students are getting a whole one level worse marks than female students with the same knowledge [1] (Czech). Theoretically, each parent has an equal right to the custody of the child when they separate. In reality, with a whooping 85-90% the custody is resolved according to female preference [2]: "It is a very common scenario in divorce in England that the house is transferred into the wife's sole name, the children live with the wife and the husband pays maintenance for the children..." Males are 400-600% more likely to be attacked than females, while it is females safety that is discussed way more. The vector of home violence is woman against child and not man against woman as often believed: "The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers." Even worse, when child is killed: "And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers." [1] https://www.scio.cz/download/vektor/Vektor_prezentace.ppt https://www.scio.cz/download/vektor/Vektor_prezentace.ppt [2] http://www.terry.co.uk/men_div.html http://www.terry.co.uk/men_div.html [3] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf
- jacobolus 11y ago
  I don’t know enough about Czech grades to comment, and I generally agree with you about the common unfairness of custody disputes, but the rest of your claims seem a bit shaky. Your point #2 (along with other reasons for a child to more commonly live with a single mother, e.g. the father isn’t known, is in prison, or runs off) partly explains your points #4 and #5. From the document you cite, 27% of abuse victims were living with a single mother and another 5% were living with their mother and another adult, while only 3% were living with a single father. If you only look at children living with both parents, it looks like either parent could be the abuser with approximately equal likelihood. Looking at the source document, your claim #5 seems to be a complete misinterpretation of the data, but in any event, the largest cause of fatalities is “neglect”, and most fatalities were in children under the age of 3. More generally, I suspect a significant proportion of children spend substantially more time with their mothers than their fathers, e.g. because fathers are more likely to work, tend to work longer hours when both parents are working, and do much less housework and childcare. I suspect these disparities are even more prevalent if you restrict your examination to households where child abuse occurs. If you want to understand child abuse by parents, you should try to gather concrete data about the family structure and other context. Aggregate statistics about which parent is more often the aggressor can be misleading without considering those other factors (most relevantly here, who the primary caregiver is). Interpreting this document to imply that children are at much greater danger from women than men is disingenuous, or sloppy at best. Similarly for your point #3. What is the context for the “attacks” you are talking about? Gang violence? Bar fights? School bullying? Muggings in dark alleys late at night? You don’t cite a source, so it’s not clear quite what you’re referring to.
belorn 11y ago
Recently I read a report done by the national agency for higher education in Sweden, on order by the government, to study why there are so few male teachers. As part of the study, a poll was sent to each of the teaching districts in Sweden with question like "what strategies do the district have to increase the ratio of male student for the teaching profession." Out of 19, only 3 responded that they had any strategy at all to increase the ratio of male students, and out of the remaining 16, only 6 had some strategy regarding gender equality at all. One university simply replied by saying "in order to have a strategy, we first need to figure out why there is so few men who want to become teachers. More research needed.". If it comes up often in the teaching community, its not something which much money is being directed to, projected being run, and time being spent on. There is no political pressure to apply affirmative action, no ear marked funds in the budget, and no policy changes in order to change the dominated female culture that the teaching profession has (The report attribute the culture as a major cause for male teacher having significant higher exit rate both as student but also after they have worked a few years). As for campaigns "running for a long time", the report says the exact opposite. It explicitly say there hasn't been any significant effort to bring male student to female dominated professions, while the opposite has existed for about 50 years. It suggest that university programs should look at the past and current efforts to bring female students to STEM subject and use it as a guide in order to create programs for gender equality which also include male students. Personally, I think the recent decided policy by Norway is a good step in the right direction. A simple policy that dictate that minority students, that is when the gender ration is less than 20%-80%, will receive some benefits/incentives to counter gender discrimination. (The report is 2009:7 R, by the Swedish national agency for higher education)
- tremon 11y ago
  Personally, I think the recent decided policy by Norway is a good step in the right direction. A simple policy that dictate that minority students, that is when the gender ratio is less than 20%-80%, will receive some benefits/incentives to counter gender discrimination. I think this is great idea. It is simple to execute and does not attempt to prescribe an "optimal ratio". Of course, there's always room for debate, like whether it should only be applied to gender minorities, but that's simple enough to tweak.

Majestic121 11y ago

"While I'm here, speaking as a townie, I don't see any complexity in the fox hunting issue." Well, that's the point the grandparent comment was making. The fact that there is multiple sides on this issue shows that it is not as black and white as you seem to see it. The people hunting foxes and badger are not devils made of pure evil, so there must be a reason why they are doing it. But the actual debate about hunting foxes does not matter here, the point is : the world is not as black and white as people see it.

EliRivers 11y ago
Oh gosh no, nobody is pure evil. Many people who take part in lynchings, for example, go home to show tenderness to their spouse and children. Not being pure evil doesn't make it ok.

jules 11y ago

Now I'm wondering whether you are a vegetarian, or whether you pay others to kill animals for a few minutes of eating pleasure.

DougWebb 11y ago
I'm not a vegetarian, and I gladly pay others to kill animals for me to eat. But I do not pay for the animals to be tortured in the process; I want them killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. Cats injure, torture, and play with their prey before killing it. Humans should not do that.
- jules 11y ago
  Why would hunting be torture, but slaughtering not?
  - DougWebb 11y ago
    Fox hunting, where the fox is chased around by dogs for a long time before it is finally killed, is torture. Hunting with a rifle, where you sneak up on an animal and kill it before it even knows it's being hunted, is not. I'd say bow hunting is a grey area; if you have to track the bleeding animal down while it is slowly bleeding out, that's cruel. But if you're hunting for survival and a bow is all you have, or if you're training for that situation (and it's realistic that you might be in that situation) then it's ok.
    - jules 11y ago
      If you compare the worst case scenario for hunting (fox hunting) with the best case scenario for slaughter, but often the slaughter isn't fun either. Many animals are very distressed on their way to the slaughter. Even more importantly, the lives they had before that point were probably much worse than the lives of the wild foxes. Farming animals for meat also happens on a scale that is absolutely incomparable to fox hunting. More animals are slaughtered every day than the number of foxes that were hunted in the entire history of humankind. Secondly, you say that hunting is permissible if you're hunting for survival. Why doesn't the same apply for slaughter? You don't need to eat farmed animals for survival.
      - PeterisP 11y ago
        I'm reading the parent post not as "you say that hunting is permissible if you're hunting for survival" but instead as a claim that this cruelty is justified if and only if you're hunting for survival. The same would apply for slaughter - if it would be a survival matter, then any methods would be permissible (i.e. some of the more cruel traditional approaches) but since it is not, it should be mandatory to use only the less painful approaches to slaughter.
      - 11y ago

vilda 11y ago

While it is seen as a problem, the point is that it's not taken seriously enough than the opposite imbalance. There are way worse examples: Male students are getting a whole one level worse marks than female students with the same knowledge [1] (Czech). Theoretically, each parent has an equal right to the custody of the child when they separate. In reality, with a whooping 85-90% the custody is resolved according to female preference [2]: "It is a very common scenario in divorce in England that the house is transferred into the wife's sole name, the children live with the wife and the husband pays maintenance for the children..." Males are 400-600% more likely to be attacked than females, while it is females safety that is discussed way more. The vector of home violence is woman against child and not man against woman as often believed: "The DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers." Even worse, when child is killed: "And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers." [1] https://www.scio.cz/download/vektor/Vektor_prezentace.ppt https://www.scio.cz/download/vektor/Vektor_prezentace.ppt [2] http://www.terry.co.uk/men_div.html http://www.terry.co.uk/men_div.html [3] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf

jacobolus 11y ago
I don’t know enough about Czech grades to comment, and I generally agree with you about the common unfairness of custody disputes, but the rest of your claims seem a bit shaky. Your point #2 (along with other reasons for a child to more commonly live with a single mother, e.g. the father isn’t known, is in prison, or runs off) partly explains your points #4 and #5. From the document you cite, 27% of abuse victims were living with a single mother and another 5% were living with their mother and another adult, while only 3% were living with a single father. If you only look at children living with both parents, it looks like either parent could be the abuser with approximately equal likelihood. Looking at the source document, your claim #5 seems to be a complete misinterpretation of the data, but in any event, the largest cause of fatalities is “neglect”, and most fatalities were in children under the age of 3. More generally, I suspect a significant proportion of children spend substantially more time with their mothers than their fathers, e.g. because fathers are more likely to work, tend to work longer hours when both parents are working, and do much less housework and childcare. I suspect these disparities are even more prevalent if you restrict your examination to households where child abuse occurs. If you want to understand child abuse by parents, you should try to gather concrete data about the family structure and other context. Aggregate statistics about which parent is more often the aggressor can be misleading without considering those other factors (most relevantly here, who the primary caregiver is). Interpreting this document to imply that children are at much greater danger from women than men is disingenuous, or sloppy at best. Similarly for your point #3. What is the context for the “attacks” you are talking about? Gang violence? Bar fights? School bullying? Muggings in dark alleys late at night? You don’t cite a source, so it’s not clear quite what you’re referring to.

belorn 11y ago

Recently I read a report done by the national agency for higher education in Sweden, on order by the government, to study why there are so few male teachers. As part of the study, a poll was sent to each of the teaching districts in Sweden with question like "what strategies do the district have to increase the ratio of male student for the teaching profession." Out of 19, only 3 responded that they had any strategy at all to increase the ratio of male students, and out of the remaining 16, only 6 had some strategy regarding gender equality at all. One university simply replied by saying "in order to have a strategy, we first need to figure out why there is so few men who want to become teachers. More research needed.". If it comes up often in the teaching community, its not something which much money is being directed to, projected being run, and time being spent on. There is no political pressure to apply affirmative action, no ear marked funds in the budget, and no policy changes in order to change the dominated female culture that the teaching profession has (The report attribute the culture as a major cause for male teacher having significant higher exit rate both as student but also after they have worked a few years). As for campaigns "running for a long time", the report says the exact opposite. It explicitly say there hasn't been any significant effort to bring male student to female dominated professions, while the opposite has existed for about 50 years. It suggest that university programs should look at the past and current efforts to bring female students to STEM subject and use it as a guide in order to create programs for gender equality which also include male students. Personally, I think the recent decided policy by Norway is a good step in the right direction. A simple policy that dictate that minority students, that is when the gender ration is less than 20%-80%, will receive some benefits/incentives to counter gender discrimination. (The report is 2009:7 R, by the Swedish national agency for higher education)

tremon 11y ago
Personally, I think the recent decided policy by Norway is a good step in the right direction. A simple policy that dictate that minority students, that is when the gender ratio is less than 20%-80%, will receive some benefits/incentives to counter gender discrimination. I think this is great idea. It is simple to execute and does not attempt to prescribe an "optimal ratio". Of course, there's always room for debate, like whether it should only be applied to gender minorities, but that's simple enough to tweak.